31a. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 Volume 1 — Anaheim City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 2 of 5)

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St .Clementine St.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

Haster St.Haster St.

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
2:1 SKY EXPOSURE PLANE
(10’ HEIGHT CONTOURS)
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Southeast District (former Future Expansion District) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-22 0’ 1200’600’300’ 1800’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 600’
'LVQH\ODQG5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Haster St.Haster St.
$0
30
30
·· ·· ··
Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St .Clementine St.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

Haster St.Haster St.

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA
2:1 SKY EXPOSURE PLANE
(10’ HEIGHT CONTOURS)

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Theme Park West Overlay (Paradise Pier Hotel) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-23 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.
$0 3030
Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.
··
··
··
··
··
··

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Theme Park West Overlay (Paradise Pier Hotel) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-24 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.
$0 3030
·· ·· ··
Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Theme Park West Overlay (Paradise Pier Hotel) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-25 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.
$0 3030
··
··
··
··
··
··
Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Theme Park West Overlay (Paradise Pier Hotel) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-26 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.
$0 3030
·· ·· ··
Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

Disneyland Dr.Disneyland Dr.

Walnut St.Walnut St.

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-21 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot)
Existing and proposed conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot) for the Winter Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-27 and 5.1-28, respectively. Existing and proposed conditions for the Theme Park District for the Summer Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-29 and 5.1-30, respectively. For the proposed conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay, the maximum allowed massing envelopes under the proposed conditions would be similar to or less than existing conditions for some intervals and would extend further into surrounding areas for other intervals, for both the Winter Solstice and Summer Solstice. To minimize increases in shade and shadow from the Existing Conditions to the Proposed Conditions, a 2:1 sky exposure plane was incorporated along Harbor Boulevard and at the northern internal property line adjacent to Harbor Boulevard up to 170-feet in height. However, the increase in shade and shadow would extend minimally further to the southeast into the existing residential uses but would be reduced east of Haster Street at the existing residential uses. As shown for the Winter Solstice proposed conditions, the shade and shadow conditions for the 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. intervals would be similar to or less than the existing conditions, while the 4:00 p.m. interval would extend less into the existing residential, hotel, and commercial uses to the north and east but minimally further to the southeast. As shown for the Summer Solstice proposed conditions, the shade and shadow conditions for the 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 4 p.m. intervals would be similar to or less than the existing conditions.

Parking Overlay (MCML)
Existing and proposed conditions for the Parking Overlay (MCML) for the Winter Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-31 and 5.1-32, respectively. Existing and proposed conditions for the Theme Park District for the Summer Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-33 and 5.1-34, respectively. For the Parking Overlay (MCML), no changes are proposed to the existing conditions and therefore the shade and shadow conditions would remain the same under the proposed conditions.

Parking Overlay (HCML)
Existing and proposed conditions for the Parking Overlay (HCML) for the Winter Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-35 and 5.1-36, respectively. Existing and proposed conditions for the Theme Park District for the Summer Solstice are shown in Exhibits 5.1-37 and 5.1-38, respectively. For the Parking Overlay (HCML), no changes are proposed to the existing conditions and therefore the shade and shadow conditions would remain the same under the proposed conditions.

As noted above, the maximum allowed massing envelopes developed within the model represent a worst-case scenario in which setbacks, height, and sky exposure plane are portrayed as maximum volumes, rather than as specific structures, in order to allow for the analysis of potential shade and shadow implications for the Project. It is expected that as project specific structures are developed in the future during implementation of the Project under the proposed conditions, future shade and shadow conditions would be more intermittent and less continuous than as portrayed in Exhibits 5.1-3 through 5.1-38. However, based on the analysis presented in the Shade and Shadow Study, the Project has the potential to significantly impact adjacent land uses, including residential uses to a greater degree under various future conditions, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM AES-18 would require preparation of a shade and shadow analysis for future structures demonstrating that the future proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-27 0’ 1200’600’300’ 1800’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 600’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION $0 3030
··
··
··
··
··
··
Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Orangewood Ave.Orangewood Ave.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-28 0’ 1200’600’300’ 1800’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 600’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. $0 3030
··
Thematic Thematic
Element Element
8S7R·8S7R·
··
Thematic Thematic
Element Element
8S7R·8S7R·
··
Thematic Thematic
Element Element
8S7R·8S7R·
Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Orangewood Ave.Orangewood Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine S t.Clementine St.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA
2:1 SKY EXPOSURE PLANE
(10’ HEIGHT CONTOURS)

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-29 0’ 1200’600’300’ 1800’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 600’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION $0 3030
Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.
··
··
··
··
··
··
Orangewood Ave.Orangewood Ave.

Orangewood Ave.Orangewood Ave.

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine S t.Clementine St.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Theme Park East Overlay (Toy Story Parking Lot) for the Summer Solstice 0’ 1200’600’300’ 1800’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 600’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

Katella Ave.Katella Ave.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementin e St.Clementine St.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

Orangewood Ave.Orangewood Ave.

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA
2:1 SKY EXPOSURE PLANE
(10’ HEIGHT CONTOURS)

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Exhibit 5.1-30
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Parking Overlay (MCML) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-31 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine S t.Clementine St.

Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
$0
3030
··

·
·
··

·
·

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Parking Overlay (MCML) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-32 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. $0 3030
Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clement ine S t.Clementine St.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.

Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.

Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Parking Overlay (MCML) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-33 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementi ne St.Clementine St.

Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
$0
30
30
··

·
·
··

·
·

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Parking Overlay (MCML) for the for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-34 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Disney WayDisney Way
Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementine St.Clementine St.

Clementi ne St.Clementine St.

Manchester Ave.Manchester Ave.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
$0
30
30
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing Conditions for the Parking Overlay (HCML) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-35 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION $0
30
30
Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
··
··
··
··
··
··

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Parking Overlay (HCML) for the Winter Solstice Exhibit 5.1-36 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. $0
30
30
Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Existing for the Parking Overlay (HCML) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-37 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5 1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.
$0
30
30
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
··
··
··
··
··
··

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
Source: RRM Design Group, 2023
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Proposed Conditions for the Parking Overlay (HCML) for the Summer Solstice Exhibit 5.1-38 0’ 1000’500’250’ 1500’
JUNE 2023
SCALE 1” = 500’
$QDKHLP5HVRUW6SHFLÀF3ODQ

SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY
NOTE: REFER TO TABLE 5.1-1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

Ball Rd.Ball Rd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.

Harbor Blvd.Harbor Blvd.
$0
30
30
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
I-5I-5
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG
1R&KDQJHV1R&KDQJHV
3URSRVHG3URSRVHG

SHADE AND SHADOW

STUDY AREA

EXTENT OF

SHADE/SHADOW
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-22 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. With implementation of MM AES-18, this potential impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation for operations.

Due to the change in the threshold of significance, the Project would result in reduced impacts when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which identified significant and unavoidable visual impacts to adjacent property owners. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340 related to degradation of existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Threshold 5.1d Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? New Impact from EIR No. 311; New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation.

EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 did not specifically analyze impacts related to light or glare.

The Project Site is located within a fully developed area that is subject to nighttime lighting from existing development and transportation uses in the area. In addition to existing development associated with The Disneyland Resort, the surrounding area includes the Anaheim Convention Center, hotel/motel uses, retail areas, restaur ants, and office buildings, residentials uses, and streets and freeways. All uses contribute to the night lighting on the Project Site and in the surrounding area. Existing sources of light include street lights, vehicle headlights, building and security lights, and parking lot lights. Implementation of the Project would allow for flexibility in the future development of the Project Site, allowing previously approved hotel, theme park, and parking uses to be developed throughout the Project Site, thereby potentially introducing additional sources of light and glare to new areas. However, the Project would comply with all guidelines and requirements as set forth in the DRSP, the ARSP, and Chapters 18.114 and

18.116 of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, future development would comply with required setbacks from property lines and install layered landscaping intended to provide physical and visual separation and reduction in direct light intrusion into adjacent off-site uses. Further, lighting along the Project Site perimeters would be subject to design specifications limiting height and light sources, and focusing exterior building illumination on the pedestrian level. For these reasons, with implementation of MM AES-2, MM AES-3 and MM AES-19, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed light and glare.

5.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to EIR No. 311, the Disneyland Resort Project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to visual impacts to residents adjacent to parking structures. According to SEIR No. 340, continued implementation of the ARSP would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is comprised of the viewshed that includes the Project Site, the surrounding area, and, due to the lack of substantial topography and presence of intervening structures, the immediate surrounding areas. This cumulative analysis is based on the assumption of full General Plan buildout over the next 30 years, as well as buildout of adjacent DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-23 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
jurisdictions in accordance with their general plans. The City of Anaheim, the Project Site, and adjacent areas have experienced considerable change and growth, resulting in conversion of previously under-developed areas to visitor-serving uses with associated aesthetic changes. As development pursuant to the DRSP and ARSP continues to occur, the surrounding area would also be subject to redevelopment. As with the Project, visual changes associated with future cumulative development would be subject to the applicable design guidelines as set forth in the applicable specific plan or the Anaheim Municipal Code and, to the extent feasible, impacts would be mitigated to reduce significant visual impacts. The Project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics with implementation of identified mitigation measures MM AES-1 through MM AES-19 and MM LU-3.

The Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. When considered with other cumulative projects, the Project would result in a reduced cumulative impact related to aesthetics when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.1.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented mitigation measures (MM), Project Design Features (PDF), and standard requirements (SR) to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, respectively. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

Mitigation Measures
MM AES-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas for the subject buildings will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-2)
MM AES-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, private streets within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as determined by the Public Utilities Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-5)
MM AES-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for each parking facility along Walnut Street; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the lighting system for the parking facilities along Walnut Street, Ball Road, Haster Street and along interior property lines abutting residential neighborhoods . The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this requirement has been met. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-4)
MM AES-4 Prior to final building and zoning inspection or whenever established; and, on an ongoing basis, for the Disneyland Resort, the applicant property DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-24 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
owner/developer shall participate in a landscape assessment and maintenance district, if one is established for the Anaheim Resort. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-5) MM AES-5 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Barrier Plan showing the location and types of barriers to be in place during grading and construction. Said plan shall provide for all construction areas to be screened from view in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and shall include provision for the type and height of the barriers to be placed along all construction perimeters prior to the commencement of demolition, Site preparation or grading, whichever occurs first. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-2)
MM AES-6 Prior to approval of final site plan or issuance of each building permit whichever occurs first, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates design guidelines as well as zoning and development standards, many of which have been designed to reduce the potential visual impacts of the project and to present a visually integrated resort area, including:
 The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan provides for heavily landscaped streetscapes and gives the guidelines for trees and shrubs, light fixtures, benches, monuments, and signs located within the landscaped area.  The East and West Parking Areas and the hotel parking facilities will have landscaped setbacks from the public right-of-way and are restricted in height.  Rights-of-way will be landscaped to add to the aesthetics of the area.  The landscape treatments will vary to create distinct places visually.  The West Parking Area and hotel parkin g facilities will be terraced back from Walnut Street with landscaping treatments above 40 feet. In addition, canopy trees will be planted in a center median on Walnut Street, and the parkway along the street will be landscaped.
 A coordinated color theme for major street features will be incorporated into the design.
 The service areas and back-of-house areas will be screened from public view.  All rooftop equipment on buildings will be screened as per the Specific Plan.  A layered landscape treatment in the setback realm will provide screening of a 9-14 feet in height sound wall adjacent to the Southwest Parking Area. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.12-1)
MM AES-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-2)
MM AES-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. A note indicating that DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-25 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
these improvements shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-12)
MM AES-9 Prior to Final Site Plan approval issuance of each building permit for theme park uses within the Theme Park District, the Southeast District, and the ARSP Theme Park Overlays , plans shall show that the rear elevations of buildings visible from off-site areas sha ll be architecturally accented to portray a finished look compliance with the 360-Degree Architectural Treatment Criteria set forth in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-13)
MM AES-10 Prior to Final Site Plan approval issuance of each building permit , plans shall show that no shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel/motel or vacation ownership resort front setback area. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-14) MM AES-11 Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-3) MM AES-12 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-6) MM AES-13 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with the Final Site Plan building permit. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-7)
MM AES-14 Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Real m landscaping and irrigation systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within an area in which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the property owner/developer, in compliance with City standards. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-8) MM AES-15 Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-9)
MM AES-16 Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-10) MM AES-17 Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate previous payment, the property owner/developer shall pay a fee for street tree purposes shall be paid or cause to be paid to the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-11)
MM AES-18 Prior to final site plan approval issuance of each building permit , the property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses to the maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-26 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-1)
MM AES-19 Prior to final site plan approval issuance of each building permit , the location and configuration of all lighting fixtures including ground-mounted lighting fixtures utilized to accent buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian areas shall be shown on all plans submitted for building permits final site plans. All proposed surface parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet adjacent to any residential properties. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to direct lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from adjacent residential property lines.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-4)
MM LU-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking facilities associated with the Hotel and Parking, the property owner/developer shall submit plans detailing the setbacks for the parking structures and landscaping plans which minimize compatibility impacts of the parking facilities on surrounding areas, consistent with Section 5.8 of the The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311, MM 3.2-2)
The following mitigation measure is completed:
 EIR No. 311 MM 3.12-3 was completed by 2001, with City approval of landscape plans and the installation of landscaping in each of the DRSP Setback Realm areas.

5.1.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.1c Would the project in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact Summary:

Construction: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation for construction. Due to the change in the threshold of significance, the Project would result in reduced impacts when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which identified significant and unavoidable construction-related visual impacts to adjacent property owners. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which did not classify effects related to construction-related visual impacts.

Operations: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation for operations. Due to the change in the threshold of significance, the Project would result in reduced impacts when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which identified significant and unavoidable visual impacts to adjacent property owners. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340 related to degradation of existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-27 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
Threshold 5.1d Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed light and glare.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. When considered with other cumulative projects, the Project would result in a reduced cumulative impact related to aesthetics when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.1.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2020 (July). General Plan for the City of Anaheim, Figure G-1 (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94). Anaheim, CA: the City.
https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9521/F-Green-Element?bidld= Anaheim, City of. 2010a (April 27, current through) City of Anaheim Municipal Code (Section

18.18, Scenic Corridor [SC] Overlay Zone). Cincinnati, OH: American Legal Publishing Corporation for the City. http://www.amlegal .com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/ title18zoning/chapter1818sceniccorridorscoverlayzone?f=templates$fn=altmainnf.htm$3. 0#JD_Chapter18.18.
———. 2010b (April 27, current through) City of Anaheim Municipal Code (Section 18.40.030, Structural Height Limitations). Cincinnati, OH: American Legal Publishing Corporation for the City. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gatew ay.dll/California/anaheim/title18zoning/ chapter1840generaldevelopmentstandards?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_ Chapter18.40.
———. 2004 (May). General Plan for the City of Anaheim (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94).

Anaheim, CA: the City. https://anaheim.net/712/General-Plan ———. 1994a (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum.

Anaheim, CA: the City. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master- Environmental -Impact-Report-Number-313-?bidld=
———. 1994b (September). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Anaheim, CA: the City. https://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011 (September 7, updated). California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa
RRM Design Group (RRM). 2023 (August). Shade and Shadow Study. San Juan Capistrano, CA:

RRM. (Appendix C).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.1-28 Section 5.1 – Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-1 Section 5.2 – Air Quality

5.2 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses the existing air quality setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to air quality.

5.2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 concluded that, even with implementation of MMs 3.4-1 through MM 3.4-6, MM 3.8-4 through MM 3.8-6, and adherence to PDFs 3.4-2 through 3.4-8, PDF 3.23-15 and PDF 3.14-2, increases in emissions resulting from construction -related activities related to implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for construction of the future Expansion District and simultaneous operation of the future WESTCOT center. Stationary sources and utilities would not contribute to adverse impacts on a project basis after offsetting pursuant to SCAQMD regulations; however, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable for stationary sources and utilities. In addition, local air quality impacts would not result in a significant adverse local impact on a project or cumulative basis. However, the increase in emissions associated with the project, even with mitigation, would contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact as noted previ ously related to the simultaneous construction of the future Expansion District and simultaneous operation of the future WESTCOT center. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these impacts.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measures (MM) and project design features (P DF) regarding air quality to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of The Disneyland Resort.

MM 3.4-1 The applicant shall implement all project design features or their environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning & Building Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process.

MM 3.4-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all permitted new and modified stationary sources.

Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved on 7/1/98 to change the timing of the measure.)
MM 3.4-3 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions:
a. To the extent practicable, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours.
b. Use clean fuel for attraction rides and other uses, as practicable.

MM 3.4-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the second theme park, the applicant shall submit a site and operations plan for this facility showing the location and

1 Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 311, which t he City approved in 1996, modified MMP No. 0067.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-2 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
configuration of the on-site cast financial and dining services in conformance with the Specific Plan.

MM 3.4-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of all buildings in compliance with AQMD regulations. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications.

MM 3.4-6 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the future expansion district, excluding the south parking area; and, ongoing during project operation, the following will be achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of the out- of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG VMT reduction targets have been met through other means.

MM 3.8-4 Ongoing during construction, the following measures will be followed by the property owner/developer to reduce air quality impacts:
a. Normal wetting procedures or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code.
b. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export material at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of material exported from the project site occur.
c. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.
d. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall either be covered prior to entering public streets or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. This California Vehicle Code section stipulates that the load, where it contacts the sides, front and back of the cargo container area, remain six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and that the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.
e. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
f. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
g. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during second stage smog alerts. h. The project will comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-3 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
i. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
j. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. k. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. l. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved on 1/19/99. California Vehicle Code Section 23114 states that: “Vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials shall not be required to cover their loads if the load, where it contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, remains six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and if the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.” The South Coast Air Quality Management District, in its Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, states that adherence to the above-referenced Code Section is equivalent to covering haul vehicles as a means of controlling fugitive dust. The environmental equivalent text for this mitigation measures reflects these requirements.) MM 3.8-5 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), other than for the Disneyland Administration Building or the relocation of the SCE transmission lines, the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The applicant shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.
(Note: Environmental equivalent approved prior to 3/98 which changed the timing for the submittal of the Import/Export Plan to a more appropriate point in the process.)
MM 3.8-6 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate. b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent emissions.
c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-4 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
PDF 3.3-15 Transportation Demand Management Program Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the Second Theme Park; and, on-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, by 2001.

At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely which programs and activities would be most successful for the Disneyland Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, applicant will review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing the effectiveness of these items, The Walt Disney Company will select specific programs for implementation.

Objectives of the TDM program are:

 Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.  Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
 Provide a menu of commute alternatives for the Disneyland Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
 Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for both the Disneyland Resort cast and guests
.

Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast and guest trips are described below
.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-5 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
 Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to the Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.

 Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial incentives will be provided.

 Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to the Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel to work by means other than the automobile.

 Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of th is program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.

 Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency, medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal transportation in the event of special circumstances.
 Guaranteed Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.  Housing Coordinator and Referral Program and Local Hiring Efforts.

Continue to provide referral service to facilitate employees in finding housing and actively recruit prospective employees residing within 30-minute commute shed.
 Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.  Work Schedule
- Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus lessening peak hour congestion. - Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review the possibility of developing a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be generated daily by the Disneyland Resort Cast.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-6 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
- Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs a variety of cast in different positions, cast members include clerical, office support, and administrative members. The Disneyland Resort may explore the possibility of a "telecommuting" program that would link some of these cast members to The Disneyland Resort via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). This would help to eliminate certain trips that would otherwise be generated by a cast member who would otherwise physically need to be at the Disneyland Resort.
 Work Environment/Facility Management
- Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. - Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead to greater reductions in VMT by project employees.
- Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient parking management for cast and guests.
- Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided.
- Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
 Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:

- Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $60 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus pools).

- Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Cast members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers.

- Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction.

Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction programs.

- Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in non- peak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-7 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
 Guests
Even though visitors are estimated to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and from The Disneyland Resort. The applicant is currently developing a list of potential programs and is working with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing materials for the Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not needed.

PDF 3.4-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; and ongoing during project operation, the project has been designed to reduce dependence on the private automobile, which will reduce and avoid many of the traffic-related emissions associated with the existing Disneyland theme park, as well as those normally associated with hotels and day-use only special event activities. Guests will be encouraged to park their cars and leave them for the duration of their visits, thus eliminating the trips to restaurants and sightseeing, or entertainment attractions normally associated with vacation stays. Marketing efforts in Southern California will promote the Disneyland Resort as a mini-vacation site for Southland residents.

PDF 3.4-3 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, a wide range of entertainment, lodging, retail and restaurant attractions will be located within the project area and will be linked by an electrically powered monorail system, pedestrian ways/guest transportation system to transport visitors from parking facilities to the Disneyland Resort, and/or pedestrian bridges, walkways and promenades. Convenient walkway access within the Hotel District and adjacent uses, such as the City of Anaheim Convention Center, will also facilitate pedestrian trips by non-project guests who will remain within the project area rather than use automobiles to travel to restaurants and entertainment outside of the area.

PDF 3.4-4 In accordance with transportation and circulation mitigation measures, the Disneyland Resort traffic will be accommodated, and existing traffic conditions and circulation patterns will be improved through implementation of the identified transportation and parking features, including parking facilities, monorail and pedestrian way/guest transportation systems and convenient access to parking facilities from the freeway.

PDF 3.4-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the east and west public parking structures; ongoing during project operation, all public day-use parking facilities, not including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West public parking structures will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist speed parking procedures:

1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic flows on each facility level.

5.2-8 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Disneyland theme park parking lot will be adapted to use within the parking structures and will be designed to safely park 60 cars per minute. (Refer to Section 7.0, Zoning and Development Standards, in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.)

3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a standard garage, which tends to slow drivers.

PDF 3.4-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit, project design w ill incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy savings will also contribute to reduced emissions:

1. Improved thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.

2. Efficient heating and other appliances.

3. Incorporation of appropriate passive solar design.

4. Proper sealing of buildings.
(Note: Environmental Equivalent prior to 3/98 which deleted notation for drought resistant landscaping as the requirement is addressed in MM 3.10.6-2 and monitoring this aspect of the feature would result in a redundant effort).

PDF 3.4-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, there will be a special drop-off area on Harbor Boulevard north of Freedman Way, or internal or adjacent to the East Public Parking Structure, or other accessible location, for shuttle buses to help encourage use of buses by area visitors.

PDF 3.4-8 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; ongoing during project operation, the applicant will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand Manageme nt (TDM) program for all project employees.

PDF 3.14-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking procedures set forth in Section 7.0, Zoning and Development Standards, of the Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling engines.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 is a supplemental EIR that reevaluated environmental changes in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994. SEIR No. 340 concluded that, with implementation of MM 5.2-1 through MM 5.2-7 and SR 5.2-1 and SR 5.2-2, mass emissions resulting from construction-related activities would be less than significant. These mitigation measures require proof of compliance with SCAQMD regulations; submission of demolition and import/export plans; implementation of measures to reduce emissions and construction- and operation-related air quality impacts; and preparation of a human health risk assessment.

However, because of uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of emissions for possible projects, SEIR No. 340 concluded that cumulative emissions from construction would be significant and unavoidable. It also concluded that local concentrations of particulate matter with a diameter of ten microns or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) would exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance thresholds for short-term periods when DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-9 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
excavation would occur near sensitive receptors, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.

Emissions of criteria pollutants resulting from operation of the full buildout of the ARSP Project would exceed the SCAQMD applicable thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5. Even with implementation of MM 5.14.4, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.1-9, MM 5.14-20, MM 5.14-21, and MM 5.14-23, operations would result in direct and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts.

Because implementation of the ARSP Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, SEIR No. 340 concluded that the ARSP Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.

SEIR No. 340 concluded construction and operati on of the ARSP Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant toxic air contaminants (TACs), would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO local concentrations, and would not create objectionable odors. These impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirements SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures (MM) and compliance with the following standard requirements (SR) regarding air quality to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the ARSP.

MM 5.2-1 Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other equipment, as practicable.

MM 5.2-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD regulations. The information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall submit an architectural coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate; b. Use solvent based coatings, where they are necessary.

MM 5.2-3 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-10 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable.
b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved.
c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles. d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the Project site occur.
e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.
f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets.
g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas. h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
j. Reduce Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts. l. Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.
m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-11 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
MM 5.2-4 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on Project site.

MM 5.2-5 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department.

1. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.

2. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.

3. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.

4. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.

5. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center

6. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.

MM 5.2-7 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a human health risk assessment (H RA) for any proposed sensitive land uses (according to SCAQMD standards at that time) to be located within 500 feet of the near edge of the I-5 freeway unless it is demonstrated that the health risks have been determined to be acceptable according to the standards of the SCAQMD at the time of building permit application.

SR 5.2-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence of compliance to the Planning Director or Planning Services Manager that all construction activities shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403) requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-12 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications.

SR 5.2-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide notes on the contractor specifications indicating that all architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

MM 5.14-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.

MM 5.14-5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department a plan to coordinate rideshare services for construction em ployees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for review and approval and shall implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible.

MM 5.14-8 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
a. Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. b. Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project- generated trips.
c. Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.

MM 5.14-9 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons transportation options, to include, but not be limited to, the list below. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. a. On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as the food, retail, and other services.
b. Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.
c. Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-13 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs.
d. Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region.
e. Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for guests. f. Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. g. Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
h. Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.
i. Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts.
j. Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees. k. Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). l. Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single- occupant auto to travel to work.
m. Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles. n. Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.
o. Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work.
p. Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. q. Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-14 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
MM 5.14-20 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

MM 5.14-21 Prior to the first final building and zoning Inspection every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN.

The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants.

MM 5.14-23 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include the installation of bicycle parking spaces at each facility. Bicycle spaces for employees shall be easily accessible, secure, enclosed spaces. Bicycle spaces for visito rs and customers shall be visible from the primary entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from moving and parked vehicles.

5.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following discussion details the existing conditions at the time the City published the NOP for Subsequent EIR No. 352; however, consistent with CEQA’s subsequent review standards, the previously approved projects serve as the baseline for the CEQA analysis, and Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes on the previously approved projects with the effects of the previously analyzed and approved projects, as detailed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

A. Existing Conditions
Climate and Meteorology
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the urbanized portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is arid, with virtually no rainfall and abundant sunshine during the summer months. It has light winds and poor vertical mixing compared to the other large urban areas in the United States.

The combination of poor dispersion and abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical reactions that form pollutants (such as O
3), provide conditions especially favorable to the
formation of smog. The SoCAB is bound to the north and east by mountains with maximum elevations exceeding 10,000 feet. The unfavorable combination of meteorology, topography, and emissions from the nation’s second largest urban area results in the SoCAB having some of the worst air quality in the United States.

Sensitive Air Quality Receptors
Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, children, the elderly, persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise.

The SCAQMD defines structures that house these persons or places where they gather (i.e., residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, hotels, and athletic fields) as “sensitive receptors” (SCAQMD 1993).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-15 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Existing sensitive receptors within or adjacent to the Project Site, as shown on Exhibit 5.2-1, Sensitive Land Uses, include residential areas, schools, parks, and hotels. In addition to existing sensitive receptors, future sensitive use areas constructed in the area (including pools, outdoor gathering areas and playgrounds) would be considered sensitive receptors for subsequent construction for long-term emissions.

Ambient Air Quality
The SCAQMD measures criteria air pollutant concentrations at several monitoring stations in Orange County. The closest station to the Project Site is the Anaheim Monitoring Station, located at 1630 Pampas Lane in Anaheim, approximately 0.6 mile west of the westernmost boundary of The Anaheim Resort. The Anaheim Monitoring Station is also identified as Source Receptor Area (SRA) 17, Central Orange County. Equipment at the station measures O 3, CO, NO2, PM10, and
PM2.5 levels. As this monitoring station does not monitor SO 2, data was supplemented from the Costa Mesa Station for this pollutant. Data from 2019 to 2021 from these stations are summarized in Table 5.2-1, Air Quality Levels Measures at the Anaheim Monitoring Stations. The data show violations of the federal and State O
3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

Harbor Blvd
City of Anaheim
City of Orange
City of Garden Grove
Ross
Park
Ross
Park
Walnut
Grove
Park
Colony
Park
Little
Pine
Park
Cottonwood
Park
Coral
Tree
Park
Magnolia
Park
Aloe
Greens
City of Anaheim
City of Garden
Grove
City of Orange
Walnut St
Ball Rd
South
Cambridge St
Harbor
Blvd
Katella Ave
Willow
Park
Lake
School
Park
Palm Lane
Park
Little
Peoples Park
Westhaven
Park
Boysen
Park
Pioneer
Park
Poinciana
Park
Stoddard
Park
Twin
Lakes
Park
Ponderosa Park
²
Sensitive Land Uses Exhibit 5.2-1
1,500 0 1,500750
Feet
Project Area
Project Area - 1/4-mile Buffer
U
ses
Residential
Hotels
Parks
Schools
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
(Rev: 9-06-2023 JVR) R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Graphics\EIR\ex_SensitiveLandUses.pdf Aerial Source: City of Anaheim Open Data, 2021
Prince of
Peace
Lutheran
School
Orange
Grove
Elementary
School
Paul Revere
Elementary
School
Ponderosa
Elementary
School
Stoddard
Elementary
School
Parkview
Elementary
School
Ball Jr
High
School
Mark
T
wain
School
Palm Lane
Elementary
School
Olive Street
Elementary
School
Benjamin
Franklin
Elementary
School
Ross
Elementary
School
Montessori
Education
Center
Loara
High
School
Walton
Intermediate
School
Calvary
Chapel
School
Earl
W
arren
Elementary
School
Genevieve
M. Crosby
Elementary
School
Fairmont
Historic
Anaheim
Campus
Lampson
Elementary
School
Louis Lake
Intermediate
School
Dr, C C
V
iolette
Elementary
School
Orangewood Ave
Disney Way
Disneyland Dr
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-16 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-1

AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE

ANAHEIM MONITORING STATIONS

Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard Year Max. Levela
State
Standard
Days Exceededb
National
Standard
Days Exceededb, c
O3
(1 hour) 0.09 ppm None
2019 0.096 1 0
2020 0.142 1 0
2021 .089 0 0
O3
(8 hour) 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
2019 0.082 1 1
2020 0.098 1 1
2021 .068 0 0
PM10
(24 hour) 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m 3
2019 127.6 12.0 0
2020 74.8 24.4 0
2021 63.6 5.7 0
PM10 (AAM) 20 µg/m 3 None
2019 24.6 N/A N/A
2020 30.8 N/A N/A
2021 23.4 N/A N/A
NO2
(1 hour) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
2019 0.059 0 0
2020 0.070 0 0
2021 0.067 0 0
NO2
(AAM) 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
2019 0.013 – –
2020 0.013 – –
2021 0.012 – –
CO
(8 hour) 20 ppm 35 ppm
2019 2.4 0 0
2020 2.3 0 0
2021 N/A NA NA
CO
(8 hour) 9 ppm 9 ppm
2019 1.3 0 0
2020 1.7 0 0
2021 N/A NA NA
PM2.5
(24 Hour) None 35 µg/m 3
2019 37.1 NA 4
2020 64.8 NA 12
2021 54.4 NA 10
PM2.5
(AAM) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m 3
2019 9.4 NA NA
2020 12.4 NA NA
2021 11.6 NA NA
NA: Not Available
Source: CARB 2022.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Carcinogenic risks (i.e., cancer risks) are es timated as the incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a probability (e.g., 10 in 1 million). A risk level of 1 in 1 million implies a likelihood that up to 1 person out of 1 million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific concentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in addition to those cancer cases that would normally occur in an unexposed population of one million people (USEPA 2009). The Hazard Index (HI) expresses the potential for chemicals to result in non-cancer-related health impacts.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-17 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
HIs are expressed using decimal notation (e.g., 0.001). A calculated HI exposure less than 1.0 will likely not result in adverse non-cancer-related health effects over a lifetime of exposure.

However, an HI greater than 1.0 does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur (USEPA 2009). Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1401(d)(1), the risks associated with potential exposure to emissions from a source equipped with the best available control technology for toxics (T-BACT) and from all emissions sources included within a “project” are acceptable if the incremental cancer risk (1) is less than 10 in 1 million and (2) is less than 1 in 1 million for sources not equipped with T-BACT.

The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V) is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the SoCAB. According to the MATES V Study, the carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the Basin has improved from the past. While toxic air pollutants decreased by more than 54 percent from 2012 to 2018, the cancer risk for residents of the SoCAB was 455 in one million in the year 2018 (SCAQMD 2021). The results of this Study indicate that diesel exhaust is the primary contributor to air toxics risk within the SoCAB.

Attainment Status
Based on monitored air pollutant concentrations, the USEPA and CARB designate an area’s status in attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively, for selected criteria pollutants. These attainment designations for the SoCAB are shown in Table 5.2-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. As shown, the SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM10 (State), PM2.5 (State and federal), and O
3 (State and federal).

TABLE 5.2-2

ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS

IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
O3 (1 hour) Nonattainment No Standards
O3 (8 hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead No Standard Attainment/Nonattainment *
All others Attainment/Unclassified No Standards
O3: ozone; PM10: particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO: carbon monoxide; NO2: nitrogen dioxide; SO2: sulfur dioxide. * The Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is designat ed nonattainment for lead; the remainder of the SoCAB is designated attainment.

Source: SCAQMD 2017; USEPA 2022.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-18 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
B. Regulatory Framework
Air Pollutants
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality regulations were first promulgated with the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970. Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of seven “criteria air pollutants”, which are a group of common air pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the general public. Federal and State governments regulate criteria air pollutants by using ambient standards based on criteria regarding the health and/or environmental effects of each pollutant. The criteria pollutants are defined as nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), ozone (O 3),
particulate matter (including both respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less [PM10] and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less [PM2.5]), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and lead. A description of each criteria air pollutant, including source types and health effects, is provided below.

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen gas, normally relatively inert (nonreactive), comprises about 80 percent of the air. At high temperatures (e.g., in a combustion process) and under certain other conditions, nitrogen can combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitrogen oxides (NOx). Nitric oxide (NO), NO
2, and nitrous oxide (N2O) are important constituents of NOx.

NO is converted to NO2 in the atmosphere. Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOx in urban areas.

NO2 is a red-brown pungent gas and is toxic to various animals and to humans because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, lungs, mucus membranes, and skin. In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, lowering resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations of NO 2 can suffer lung irritation and,
potentially, lung damage. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO 2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

While the NAAQS only address NO
2, NO and NO2 are both precursors in the formation of O3 and PM2.5, as discussed below. Because of this, and the fact that NO emissions largely convert to NO2, NOx emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts.

Ozone
O3 is a secondary pollutant, meaning that it is not directly emitted. It is a gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (also referred to as reactive organic gases) and NOx undergo photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of VOC emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle and other internal combustion engine exhaust. NOx forms as a result of the combustion process, most notably due to the operation of motor vehicles. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O 3 to form; 2 as a result, ozone is known as a summertime air pollutant. Ground-level O 3 is the primary constituent of smog.

Because O 3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O 3 and its precursors are

2 Ground-level O 3 is not to be confused with atmospheric O 3 or the “ozone layer”, which occurs very high in the atmosphere and shields the planet from some ultraviolet rays.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-19 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
transported by wind and high O3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants.

People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when O3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground- level O3 exposure to a variety of problems, including:
 lung irritation that can cause inflammation much like a sunburn;  wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breath, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities;
 permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure to O 3 pollution; and  aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.

Ground-level O3 can have detrimental effects on plants and ecosystems. These effects include:
 interfering with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, making them more susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other pollutants, competition, and harsh weather;  damaging the leaves of trees and other plants; and
 reducing crop yields and forest growth, potentially impacting species diversity in ecosystems.

Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particles of a wide range of size and composition. Of particular concern are those particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Particulate matter size refers to the aerodynamic diameter of the particle. Smaller particles are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than large particles.

PM10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or from the resuspension of dust, most typically through construction activities and vehicular travel. PM10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily transported over large distances.

PM2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between various gaseous pollutants, including NO
x, sulfur oxides (SO x), and VOCs. PM2.5 can remain
suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.

The principal health effects of airborne particulate matter are on the respiratory system.

Short-term exposure to high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits; a decline in respiratory function is also associated with short-term exposure to high PM10 levels. Long-term exposure to high PM2.5 levels is associated with premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease.

According to the USEPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing PM10 and PM2.5. People with influenza, chronic respir atory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also consider ed sensitive because many breathe through their mouths.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-20 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Particulate matter tends to occur primarily in the form of fugitive dust. This dust appears to be generated by both local sources and by region-wide dust during moderate- to high-wind episodes.

These regional episodes tend to be multidistrict and sometimes interstate in scope. The principal sources of dust in urban areas are from grading, construction, disturbed areas of soil, and dust entrained by vehicles on roadways.

Carbon Monoxide
CO is a colorless and odorless gas which, in the urban environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease, and impair central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short distances. Relatively high CO concentrations are typically found near crowded intersections; along heavily used roadways carrying slow-moving traffic; and at or near ground level. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, concentrations of CO are limited to locations within a relatively short distance (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of heavily traveled roadways. Overall, CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973. CO levels in the SoCAB are in compliance with the State and federal one-hour and eight-hour standards.

Sulfur Dioxide
SOx is a class of compounds of which SO 2 and sulfur trioxide (SO 3) are of greatest importance.

Ninety-five percent of pollution-related SOx emissions are in the form of SO 2. SOx emissions are typically examined when assessing potential air quality impacts of SO 2. The primary contributor of SOx emissions is fossil fuel combustion for gener ating electric power. Industrial processes, such as nonferrous metal smelting, also contribute to SO x emissions. SOx is also formed during combustion of motor fuels; however, most of the sulfur has been removed from fuels, greatly reducing SOx emissions from vehicles.

SO2 combines easily with water vapor, forming aerosols of sulfurous acid (H 2SO3), a colorless, mildly corrosive liquid. This liquid may then combine with oxygen in the air, forming the even more irritating and corrosive sulfuric acid (H
2SO4). Peak levels of SO 2 in the air can cause temporary breathing difficulty for people with asthma who are active outdoors. Longer-term exposures to high levels of SO
2 gas and particles cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing heart disease. SO2 reacts with other chemicals in the air to form tiny sulfate particles that are measured as PM2.5.

Lead
Lead is a stable compound, which persists and accumulates both in the environment and in animals. In humans, it affects the body’s blood-forming (or hematopoletic), nervous, and renal systems. In addition, lead has been shown to affect the normal functions of the reproductive, endocrine, hepatic, cardiovascular, immunological and gastrointestinal systems, although there is significant individual variability in response to lead exposure. Since 1975, lead emissions have been in decline due, in part, to the introduction of catalyst-equipped vehicles and the decline in the production of leaded gasoline. In general, an analysis of lead is limited to projects that emit significant quantities of the pollutant (i.e., lead smelters) and are not applied to transportation sources of emissions.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-21 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including motor vehicles, gasoline stations, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities.

TACs are different than the “criteria” pollutants previously discussed in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects, and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants composed of gaseous and solid material.

The solid emissions in diesel exhaust are known as diesel particulate matter (diesel PM). In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms). Those most vulnerable are children (whose lungs are still developing) and the elderly (who may have other serious health problems). Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. Diesel engines also contribute to California’s PM2.5 air quality problems.

Carcinogenic risks (i.e., cancer risks) are es timated as the incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over his/her lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a probability (e.g., 10 in 1 million). A risk level of 1 in 1 million implies a likelihood that up to 1 person out of 1 million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific concentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in addition to those cancer cases that would normally occur in an unexposed population of 1 million people. The Hazard Index (HI) expresses the potential for chemicals to result in non-cancer-related health impacts. HIs are expressed using decimal notation (e.g., 0.001). A calculated HI exposure of less than 1.0 will likely not result in adverse non-cancer-related health effects over a lif etime of exposure. Although a value of 1.0 is a commonly accepted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance threshold, an HI greater than 1.0 does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur.

The Project Site is located in the SoCAB. The SoCAB comprises all of Orange County and parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties. Air quality in the SoCAB is regulated by the USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. Each of these agencies develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with applicable legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not be superseded, both State and local regulations may be more stringent. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is an im portant partner to the SCAQMD and produces estimates of anticipated future growth and vehicular travel in the basin that are used for air quality planning. The federal, State, regional, and local regulations for criteria air pollutants and TACs are discussed below.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-22 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is responsible for implementing the CAA, which was first enacted in 1955 3 and amended numerous times thereafter. The CAA established federal air quality standards known as the NAAQS. These standards identify levels of air quality for criteria pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe (with an adequate margin of safety) to protect the public’s health and welfare. The USEPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are shown in Table 5.2-3, California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive auth ority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The USEPA requires each State with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP must integrate federal, State, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution and thereby attain or maintain federal standards by using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the SIP-identified time frame.

3 The Air Pollution Control Act, the predecessor to the Clean Air Act, was enacted in 1955.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-23 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-3

CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primarya Secondaryb
O3
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m 3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m 3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – –
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m 3
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3) –
NO2
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m 3) Same as Primary 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m 3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m 3) –
SO2
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3) – –
3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m 3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m 3) –
Lead
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m 3 – –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Rolling 3-month Avg. – 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m 3)
Vinyl
Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m 3)
O3: ozone, ppm: parts per million, µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter, –: No Standard; PM10: respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean, PM2.5: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, CO: carbon monoxide, mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter, NO2: nitrogen dioxide, SO2: sulfur dioxide, km:
kilometer.
a National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality nece ssary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
b National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessa ry to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

Note: More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).

Source: CARB 2016.

State
California Air Resources Board
CARB, as part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for coordinating and administering both the federal and State air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB establishes the CAAQS, as shown in Table 5.2-3, which are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility-reducing particulates, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-24 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
In addition, CARB conducts research, compiles emissions inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. CARB requires the air districts in regions that do not attain the CAAQS to prepare plans for attaining the standards. These plans are then integrated into the State SIP. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an AQMP to achieve compliance with CAAQS. The AQMP for the SoCAB is discussed below.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1, 2023. The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. Since using natural gas produces criteria pollutant emissions, a reduction in natural gas consumption results in a related reduction in air quality emissions. 4 Additional discussion of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards is included in Sections 5.4, Energy and 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in newly constructed homes and businesses:
 Encouraging electric heat pump technology for space and water heating, which consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions than gas-powered units.  Establishing electric-ready requirements for single-family homes to position owners to use cleaner electric heating, cooking and electric vehicle (EV) charging options whenever they choose to adopt those technologies.
 Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards to make clean energy available onsite and complement the state’s progress toward a 100 percent clean electricity grid.
 Strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen Code, contains mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The Code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The regulation of energy efficiency for residential and non-residential structures is established by the CEC and its California Energy Code.

California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), also known as the “CALGreen Code,” contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and non-residential buildings (including buildings for retail uses, office uses, public schools, and

4 Because electricity is not generat ed on the Project Site, the emissions as sociated with electricity generation are not included in the emissions calculations.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-25 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2022). Development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The CALGreen Code was established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The City has adopted the CALGreen Code in AMC Section 15.03.010 Adoption of Building Standards Codes.

The CALGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy-efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others.

Implementation of the CALGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative-fuel vehicles which, in turn, reduces pollutant emissions.

Additional discussion of the CALGreen Code is included in Sections 5.4, Energy, and 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
In the SoCAB, the SCAQMD is the agency responsible for protecting public health and welfare through the administration of federal and State air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included in the SCAQMD’s tasks are the monitoring of air pollution, the preparation of the AQMP for the SoCAB, and the promulgation of rules and regulations.

SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and the State-designated transportation planning agency for six counties: Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Imperial, and Orange.

The SCAQMD and SCAG are jointly responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SoCAB. SCAG’s Regional Mobility Plan and Growth Management Plan form the basis for the land use and transportation control portion of the AQMP.

Air Quality Management Plan
The current regional plan applicable to the Project is the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. The SCAQMD is responsible for ensuring that the SoCAB meets the NAAQS and CAAQS by reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. To accomplish this goal, the SCAQMD prepares AQMPs in conjunction with the SCAG, County transportation commissions, and local governments; develops rules and regulat ions; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

The 2022 AQMP was adopted on December 2, 2022, by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The 2022 AQMP evaluates integrated strategies and measures to meet the following NAAQS (SCAQMD 2022):
 8-hour O
3 target of 80 parts per billion (ppb) by 2024, 75 ppb by 2032, 70 ppb by 2038;  Annual PM2.5 (12 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m 3]) by 2025;  1-hour O 3 (120 ppb) by 2023; and
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-26 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
 24-hour PM2.5 (35 µg/m 3) by 2023.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The Project would be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust and criteria pollutant emissions. The following rules are most relevant to the Project.

SCAQMD Rule 201 requires a “Permit to Construct” prior to the installation of any equipment “the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants . . .” and Regulation II provides the requirements for the application for a Permit to Construct. Rule 203 similarly requires a Permit to Operate. Rule 219, Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II, identifies “equipment, processes, or operations that emit small amounts of contaminants that shall not require written permits . . .”.

SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust requires actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive particulate matter emissions. These actions include applying water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; managing haul road dust by applying water; covering all haul vehicles before transporting materials; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); and sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways used by construction vehicles. In addition, Rule 403 requires that vegetative ground cover be established on disturbance areas that are inactive within 30 days after active operations have ceased. Alternatively, an application of dust suppressants can be applied in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stable surface.

Rule 403 also requires grading and excavation activities to cease when winds exceed 25 mph.

SCAQMD Rule 445 has been adopted to reduce the emissions of particulate matter from wood-burning devices and prohibits the installation of such devices in any new development.

SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the proposed Project, it does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction and ongoing maintenance.

SCAQMD Rule 1401 under Regulation XIV requires new source review of any new, relocated, or modified permit units that emit TACs. The rule establishes allowable risks for permit units requiring permits pursuant to Rules 201 and 203 discussed above.

SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.

Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG serves as the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-27 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
federally designated MPO for the Southern California region. On June 5, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect Socal). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from trans portation sources in order to improve public health, to meet the NAAQS as set forth by the CAA.

Local
City of Anaheim
There are no City of Anaheim regulations applicable to the Project’s potential impacts on air quality. However, the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element, adopted in 2004, contains goals that focus on the reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle emissions (Anaheim 2004a). The Green Element comprehensively addresses topics concerning conservation, open space, parks and recreation, trails, and public landscaping. Applicable goals and policies from the Green Element that are related to the reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle emissions and that are applicable to the Project are provided in Table 5.10-1 in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.

5.2.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Construction Mass Daily Emissions
The Project’s construction and operations phase emissions were calculated by using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) vers ion 2022.1.1.0 (CAPCOA 2022). CalEEMod is a computer program accepted by the SCAQMD that can be used to estimate criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with land development projects in California. CalEEMod has separate databases for specific counties and air districts. The Orange County database was used for the Project. The model calculates emissions of CO, SO
2, PM10, PM2.5, and the O3 precursors VOC
and NO x. For this analysis, the results are expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and are compared with the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds described in Section 5.2.3 below to determine potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts for Project-related construction and operations phase emissions.

Specific inputs to CalEEMod include land uses and acreages. Construction input data include but are not limited to: (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of each construction activity (e.g., grading, building, and paving); (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used during each Project activity; (3) areas to be graded for development; (4) volumes of materials to be imported to and exported from the Project Site; (5) areas to be paved; and (6) areas to be painted. The input data and assumptions are discussed in Section 5.2.4 below and are shown in notes on the CalEEMod data in Appendix C-1. The CalEEMod model has the capability to calculate reductions in construction emissions from the effects of dus t control, off-road diesel-engine classifications, low-emission paints, and other selected measures. The phasing of construction for the approved development is currently unknown. As such, it cannot be determined what combination of land uses would occur for construction during any given period.

To provide a conservative analysis of potential air quality impacts, a worst-case approach of assuming simultaneous construction of all pr eviously approved 8,301 hotel rooms (DRSP and ARSP) was modeled over a two-year period. Thi s methodology yields a worst-case assessment of emissions for the following reasons: a) while the actual development of hotel rooms would DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-28 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
occur based on anticipated demand over several decades and only one hotel is expected to be constructed at a time, this methodology assumes that all 8,301 hotel rooms would be built concurrently over a two-year timeframe; b) development of several 500-room hotels would result in higher emissions than the development of one 8,301-room hotel due to computer model assumptions regarding equipment quantities. Construction emissions were determined by first identifying emissions for each criteria pollutant during construction of a single 500-room hotel, and then applying a multiplier of 16.602 (8,301 hotel rooms divided by 500) to conservatively represent construction emissions for the simultaneous construction of 8,301 hotel rooms; and c) the development of hotel rooms was modeled, to represent a worst case day, rather than theme park or parking uses, as the construction of 8,301 hotel rooms yielded higher construction emissions for ROGs, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2. 5. While emissions for CO were nominally higher for full buildout of theme park construction and total CO2e emissions were higher for Parking Facilities, they were less than 1% higher. As such, the estimate of construction activities and subsequent emissions is presented to provide an incredibly conservative estimate of potential air quality impacts even though this development scenario would not be expected to occur.

Operational Mass Daily Emissions
Operational inputs to CalEEMod include: (1) the specific year for project operations, (2) vehicle trip generation rates, and (3) project criteria for energy use. Output operational emissions data are separated into energy use, area sources, and mobile sources. The area sources are landscape maintenance equipment 5, consumer products, and architectural coatings used for routine maintenance. Consumer products (e.g., household cleaners, air fresheners, automotive products, and personal care products) emit VOCs. Mobile sources are the vehicles used by employees, residents, visitors, and vendors at the Project Site. CalEEMod also includes data to calculate emissions reductions based on project- specific characteristics and results from the implementation of mitigation measures.

The Project includes the operation of theme park, a unique land use, which is not included in CalEEMod’s default land use categories. Therefore, to model Project emissions associated with theme park land uses, CalEEMod’s “User Defined Recreational” land use category was selected.

Any fields not automatically populated with data provided by CalEEMod were populated with data provided by the City and The Walt Disney Company, which are included in Appendix C-2. These fields included energy, water, and solid waste generation. Moreover, consistent with the Project’s VMT Analysis, all trips associated with theme park land uses were included within CalEEMod under “Parking” land uses.

Health Risk Assessment
Health risks represent the increase in cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs from construction equipment emissions generated from the Project. The methodology assumes that a person is exposed continuously to a source of TAC emissions over a 30-year exposure period for residential uses. Cancer risk is expressed as the probability of one person developing cancer out of one million persons due to exposure to TAC emissions for a 30-year exposure duration. Since hotel uses have transitory occupancy on the order of days and weeks for the same individuals,

5 Emissions for landscape maintenance equipment ar e detailed in the CalEEMod output file included as Appendix C-1 of this document; “AB 1346” is included as a footnote to these calculations, AB 1346 states that, by July 1, 2022, consistent with federal law, CARB shall adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, as defined by CARB. Such regulations must apply to engines produced on or after January 1, 2024, or as s oon as CARB determines is feasible, whichever is later. This legislation would extend to commercial use of landscaping equipment; therefore, considering the Project’s distant buildout year of 2045, the effect of this legislation was taken into account in modeling emissions associated with Project landscaping maintenance.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-29 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
they are not considered as sensitive receptors for carcinogenic risks. A receptor calculated to have a cancer risk of one in one million means that this receptor has a probability of one in one million of developing cancer from the continuous exposure to diesel particulate matter. In addition to potential cancer risks, TACs can result in short-term and long-term non-cancer impacts. The OEHHA also specifies a significance threshold for chronic (long-term) non-cancer impacts, which is represented by a hazard index. The hazard index is based on whether TACs would exceed the Reference Exposure Level, which is the level at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated. No short-term acute risks have been identified by the CARB for diesel exhaust exposure. The assumptions applied in calculating cancer risk from the various TACs are based on the methodology published by the SCAQMD and the OEHHA. The HARP2 model developed by the Air Resources Board (ARB) was used to calculate the health risk exposure at the Project Site based on ground-level concentrations of particulate matter developed with the USEPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air pollut ant dispersion modeling. The Health Risk Assessment is included in Appendix C-3.

Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Sources Construction of the Project would result in the exposure of sensitive land uses near the Project Site to air pollutant concentrations. Potential short-term local impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from onsite emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were examined based on detailed air pollutant dispersion modeling using the AERMOD. AERMOD was developed as a tool to provide estimates of air pollutant concentration s from various types of emission sources. The amount of construction that would occur on any given day and location relative to the Project is currently unknown at this stage of the planning process. To provide an incredibly conservative analysis of potential exposure of construction-related air pollutant emissions to offsite uses, a number of worst-case assumptions were included. These include (1) simultaneous construction of approximately sixteen 500-room hotel developments, which represents the remaining 8,301 hotel rooms previously approved for the Disney Properties within a 2-year construction timeframe, (2) a conservative density input of approximately 277 rooms/acre, consistent with the density of the Disneyland Hotel which has the highest density of all existing hotels at the Project Site, (3) demolition and site preparation phases would be required for all hotel developments, (4) and the highest peak-day emissions would occur at the same time across the approximately 16 500-room hotel developments. It is not anticipated nor planned that all entitled hotel rooms would be developed concurrently over a two-year period; rather analysis of the concurrent development of these hotel rooms provides an incredibly conservative analysis of potential emissions levels.

CO Hotspots
Project related Carbon Monoxide hotspots were evaluated in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The analysis of potential CO hotspots for the Project involves a discussion of the findings of the CO hotspot analyses for the previous EIRs, ambient measurement data of CO concentrations relative to the ambient air quality standards, emissions rates associated with current automobile legislation and electric vehicle adoption, and vehicle trips attributable to the Project.

B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.

Threshold 5.2a Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 5.2b Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-30 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Threshold 5.2c Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Threshold 5.2d Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. These significance thresholds are updated as needed to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SoCAB.

Table 5.2-4, South Coast Air Quality Management District Criteria Pollutant Significant Emissions Thresholds, presents the current SCAQMD significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality.

For criteria pollutants, determination of specific health effects from a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 would be extremely difficult or impossible due to modeling limitations (SCAQMD 2015). The effects of criteria air pollutants are evaluated against the NAAQS or CAAQS which have been developed to provide air pollution standards that are protective of public health. Exceedance of these air quality standards does not describe the prevalence or magnitude of health effects, but rather assesses the potential for a project-related health effect to occur. Project level assessments of air pollutant concentrations cannot provide an estimate of specific health effects such as asthma, bronchitis, or other specific respiratory ailments due to a broad variety of uncertainties which include modeling limitations. One example provided by the SCAQMD was related to health impacts from emi ssions related to the ozone (smog) formation.

Reactive organic gases (ROGs) and NO
x are pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone, otherwise known as ozone precursors. It would be too speculative to determine how an individual project could affect the formation of ozone, and how it could affect the health for a specific receptor: ozone does not fully form within the pr oximity of a project site, and the formation of ozone is affected by solar irradiance, meteorological conditions, presence of ozone precursors from other sources, and other factors. As such, modeling of ozone concentrations is conducted on the “macro” scale of an air basin for all poll utant sources within the basin, and not for an individual project. Consequently, the use of NAAQS and CAAQS focuses on a project-level analysis of the four criteria pollutants of gr eatest concern (CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) and provides a level at which it is considered harmful to public health but does not provide direct causation to specific health impacts.

These regional emission thresholds cannot be used to correlate whether a specific health impact would occur to an individual receptor. These significance thresholds were developed to assist Lead Agencies with a consistent threshold that could be used to determine whether a project’s emissions could significantly contribute to the total emissions occurring within an air basin. The totality of the air basin’s emissions would determine whether it would be in attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-31 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-4

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT CRITERIA POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANT

EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS

Pollutant Construction Operation
VOC 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organi c compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SOx: sulfur oxides.

Source: SCAQMD 2019

C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements are applicable to the Project. As appropriate, the standard requirement (SR) number and section from SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses. Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

SR AQ-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence of compliance to the Planning Director or Planning Services Manager that all construction activities shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403) requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.2-1)
SR AQ-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of all buildings in compliance with SCAQMD regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1113. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall also submit an architectural coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate; DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-32 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
b. Use solvent based coatings, where they are necessary. (EIR No. 311, MM

3.4-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-2, SR 5.2-2)
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.2a Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; Reduced Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation EIR No. 311 found that The Disneyland Resort Project was consistent with the 1991 AQMP due to reductions in VMT, implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies, negligible effect on housing demand, and air pollutant emissions that are consistent with the increases addressed in the 1991 AQMP. SEIR No. 340 also addressed consistency of the ARSP Project with the updated 2007 AQMP and determined that the ARSP Project would conflict with the 2007 AQMP; thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Pursuant to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would (SCAQMD 1993):
 Create an increase in the frequency or severity of air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; delay attainment of air quality standards; or  Exceed the assumptions of the AQMP.

For the first criterion, the main purpose of an AQMP, which is regularly updated by the SCAQMD, is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards.

For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not (1) exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality significance thresholds or (2) conflict with or exceed the assumptions used for preparing growth forecasts in the AQMP. A project with daily emission rates below the SCAQMD’s established air quality significance thresholds (shown in Table 5.2-4) would have a less than significant effect on regional air quality. As shown in response to Threshold

5.2(b) below, pollutant emissions from the Project would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, the Project meets the first criterion. Moreover, with implementation of MM AQ-3 , MM AQ-4, MM AQ-9, and MM AQ-11 and PDF AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4, Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and result in a slight decrease in air pollutant emissions occurring in the operations phase due to a reducti on in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the proposed placement of parking proximate to Interstate 5 (I-5) and use of pedestrian walkways and trams to transport guests to their destinations within the Project Site.

With respect to the second criterion, the Project was assessed as to whether it would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s current air quality planning document is the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort among the SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and the USEPA. The 2022 AQMP includes an analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures.

The purpose of the 2022 AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive program to promote reductions in criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic risk and improve efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; updated emission inventory methods for various source categories; and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts (SCAQMD 2022). The 2022 AQMP includes strategies and measures nece ssary to meet the NAAQS. The 2022 AQMP is based on projections of energy usage and vehicle trips from land uses within the SoCAB. The DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-33 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Project would allow Disney to move previously approved theme park, hotel, parking and other uses to other Disney Properties in the Project Site; no new uses or additional development is proposed beyond development anticipated in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project also would incorporate the latest adopted energy efficiency standards adopted by the State of California. Lastly, with implementation of MM AQ-3 , MM AQ-4, MM AQ-9, and MM AQ-11 and PDF AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4, the Project would result in a slight decrease in VMT and emissions associated with placement of proposed parking near the I-5 and the use of pedestrian walkways and trams to move people throughout the Project Site. As such, the Project would not exceed the assumptions of the 2022 AQMP.

The Project would not increase the frequency or severity of air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; delay attainment of air quality standards or exceed the assumptions of the 2022 AQMP; therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP and would therefore result in a less than significant impact with mitigation.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.2b: 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? To determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts, emissions associated with construction and operation activities for the remaining approved theme park and other development square footage and hotel rooms of The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project for the Disney ARSP Properties have been calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.17. The difference in emissions associated with the previously approved projects and the current Project represent the total net emissions associated with the Project. However, because no new uses are proposed, there would be no difference in emissions quantities, and the total net emissions would be zero or less (improved from the previously analyzed condition), as detailed below.

Construction
Regional Construction Emissions
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Significant and Unavoidable.

According to EIR No. 311, regional construction emissions associated with The Disneyland Resort Project would exceed thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. According to SEIR No. 340, VOC and NOx emissions would exc eed the maximum daily threshold; however, implementation of mitigation would reduce construction emissions to below thresholds of significance. However, as it could not be demonstrated at the Specific Plan level that the cumulative constr uction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds, SEIR No. 340 found the cumulative impact was significant and unavoidable.

Air pollutant emissions would occur from construction equipment exhaust; fugitive dust from demolition and site grading; exhaust from trucks hauling demolition debris, soil, and materials and from vehicles trips by construction workers; and VOCs from painting and asphalt paving operations.

Project construction rules such as SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust ( SR AQ-1), which requires DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-34 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
watering of active grading areas, have been incorporated into the Project and are included in the emissions calculations.

Regional Emissions Thresholds – Maximum Daily Regional Emissions As discussed above in Section 5.2.3, Methodology, Project construction activities are those associated with the construction of the remaining 8,301 hotel rooms previously approved for the Project Site. The Project would reallocate existing development approvals throughout the Project Site; no new uses or additional development is proposed beyond that analyzed in EIR No 311 and SEIR No. 340. A worst-case approach of assuming simultaneous construction of all 8,301 hotel rooms was modeled. Though the simultaneous development of all hotel rooms would not occur, the modeling provides a incredibly conservative analysis of potential construction impacts and less intensive actual development scenarios would have less impacts than analyzed.

Table 5.2-5, Construction Emissions Modeling Inputs, below identifies inputs used to model construction emissions for the both the Project (DisneylandForward) and No Project (development of the remaining approved development square footage and hotel rooms of The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project for the Disney ARSP Properties without the transfer of those uses to other Disney Properties proposed by the DisneylandForward Project) scenarios to determine maximum daily emissions, aside from appropriate default values populated by CalEEMod:

TABLE 5.2-5

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODELING INPUTS

Input No Project Unmitigated Project Mitigated Project
Construction Duration 2 years 2 years 2 years
Development 8,301 Hotel rooms 8,301 Hotel rooms 8,301 Hotel rooms Off Road Equipment Average Engine Tiers Average Engine Tiers Tier 4 Engine Tiers ( MM AQ-13)

As indicated in Table 5.2-5, Construction Emissions Modeling Inputs, above, mitigated Project emissions account for the implementation of MM AQ-13, which requires use of Tier 4 offroad construction engines, to minimize emissions during the development of the Project.

Table 5.2-6, Proposed DisneylandForward Unmitigated Average Daily Regional Construction Emissions, presents the estimated unmitigated average daily emissions during construction of the Project and compares the estimated unmitigated average emissions with the SCAQMD’s daily regional emission thresholds. Table 5.2-7, Proposed DisneylandForward Mitigated Average Daily Regional Construction Emissions, presents the estimated mitigated average daily emissions during construction of the Project and compares the estimated mitigated emissions with the SCAQMD’s daily regional emission thresholds. Project construction emissions were calculated by quantifying the difference in emissions that would occur with implementation of the Project and without implementation of the Project.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-35 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-6

PROPOSED DISNEYLANDFORWARD

UNMITIGATED AVERAGE DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
No Project 158 402 353 1 79 28
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes No No No No
Project Unmitigated 158 402 353 1 79 28
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes No No No No
Net Average Daily Emissions -
Unmitigated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs./day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NO x: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SO x: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District Source: SCAQMD 2017 (thresholds); see Attachment A for CalEEMod model outputs.

TABLE 5.2-7

PROPOSED DISNEYLANDFORWARD

MITIGATED AVERAGE DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
No Project 158 402 353 1 79 28
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes No No No No
Project – Mitigated 153 336 365 1 72 21
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? Yes Yes No No No No
Net Average Daily Emissions -
Mitigated -16 -66 12 0 -7 -7
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs./day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NO x: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District Source: SCAQMD 2017 (thresholds); see Attachment A for CalEEMod model outputs.

As shown in Table 5.2-7, Proposed DisneylandForward Mitigated Average Daily Regional Construction Emissions, while the net average daily emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant, consistent with the previously certified EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, maximum development associated with the Project would continue to exceed established thresholds for VOC and NOx for Daily Regional Construction Emissions (refer to row “Project – Mitigated”) and would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project would be subject to SR AQ-1 requiring compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 related to dust and air pollution emissions nuisances. Additionally, implementation of SR AQ-2 would require the property owner/developer to submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of all buildings in compliance with SCAQMD regulations, including DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-36 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
SCAQMD Rule 1113. This would ensure that daily net VOC emissions would not exceed 75 lbs/day. While this would reduce construction emissions for VOCs, development of The Disneyland Resort, including the DisneylandForward Project, would continue to exceed established thresholds for NO
x and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, mitigation measures adopted under EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 would continue to be applicable to the Project and are identifi ed below in Section 5.2.5, Mitigation Program (MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-11, MM ENE-1, and MM TRA-8, and MM TRA-9). These measures would result in a reduction of emissions under both the Project and No Project condition. Relevant mitigation measures implemented with the Di sneylandForward Project to reduce impacts associated with other environmental topics have been identified within Section 5.2.5, Mitigation Program, below; implementation of these measures would continue to reduce air quality emissions of the underlying projects analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 as amended by the DisneylandForward Project, and have therefore been identified below.

Moreover, while MM AQ-13 was incorporated into the mitigated Project scenario, many of the other mitigation measures identified within the Mitigation Program are qualitative and quantification of these mitigation measures would be speculative. Relevant mitigation measures have been identified in Section 5.2.5, Mitigation Program, below.

The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding regional construction emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Localized Construction Phase Emissions
New Impact from EIR No. 311; Reduced Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation.

EIR No. 311 did not analyze localized construction phase emissions. SEIR No. 340 found that maximum daily NO
x and CO emissions would be below the Localized Significance Thresholds (LST), however maximum daily estimated PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the thresholds and indicate a potential for local particulate matter concentrations in excess of the 24-hour standards at nearby receptors. The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during grading activities, particularly when excavating for below-grade facilities and hauling material off site. SEIR No. 340 concluded this impact regarding localized construction phase emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 was significant and unavoidable.

The construction of the Project would result in air pollutant concentrations local to the Project Site.

Short-term local impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site emissions of NO 2, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 were examined based on detailed air pollutant dispersion modeling using the USEPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). AERMOD was developed as a tool to provide estimates of air pollutant concentrations from various types of emission sources. The amount of construction that would occur on any given day and location relative to the Project is currently unknown at this stage of the planning process. To provide an incredibly conservative analysis of potential exposure of construction-related air pollutant emissions to offsite uses, the following worst-case assumptions were included: (1) simultaneous construction of approximately sixteen 500-room hotel developments, which includes all remaining 8,301 entitled hotel rooms within a 2-year construction timeframe; (2) a conservative density input of approximately 277 rooms/acre, consistent with the density of the Disneyland Hotel which has the highest density of all existing hotels at the Project Site; (3) demolition and site preparation phases would be required for all hotel developments; and (4) the highest peak-day emissions would occur at the same time across the approximately 16 hotel developments.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-37 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
As such, a worst-case scenario was analyzed that involves the simultaneous development of the remaining hotel entitlement of 8,301 hotel rooms over the course of two years. Existing hotels at the Project Site have between approximately 5 00-1,000 rooms. Consequently, the dispersion analysis assumes the simultaneous development of approximately 16 hotels within a two-year period. It is not anticipated nor planned that all the entitled hotel rooms would be developed concurrently over a two-year period; rather analysis of the concurrent development of these hotel rooms provides a conservative estimated level of potential emissions.

Since the AERMOD model takes into account where construction activities are going to occur, Project-specific AERMOD inputs included placement of construction related emissions on 30-acres which is the highest density of hotel rooms per acre (277 room/acre) at the existing Project Site. The following example is being provided to illustrate the effect of assuming a high density development. The Grand Californian Hotel has a ratio of 76 rooms per acre, which is approximately 75% less dense than what was assumed in the air pollutant dispersion modeling.

If the Project’s AERMOD modeling of buildout of 8,301 hotel rooms was conducted at the same room-to-acre density as the Grand Californian Hotel, emissions would be spread-out over a much larger area and would disperse to lower concentrations before reaching offsite sensitive uses.

An assumption was made that each of the approximately 16 hotel developments would involve demolition and site preparation. Since not all of the prospective sites for future hotels would have existing structures, building demolition may not be necessary for all future hotel developments.

Site preparation usually involves the clearing of vegetation in preparation of the grading phase.

Since the Project Site is developed, there would be minimal amounts of vegetation; however, this phase was included to conservatively account for any future vegetation removal associated with landscaping. Inclusion of the demolition and site preparation phases for all the remaining hotel development provides for another conservative assumption that affects the estimate of potential emissions.

Emission rates for construction activities were also quantified for a 500-room hotel development but then multiplied by 16.6 to reach the 8,301 rooms entitlement. This analysis takes the conservative approach of assuming that construction of approximately 16 hotels would occur concurrently which substantially elevates the potential level of emissions.

Emissions from construction equipment were calculated based on offroad engines complying with Tier 4 offroad engine standards under a mitigated condition and without Tier 4 offroad engines under an unmitigated condition and assessed based on the nearest sensitive receptor locations to the analyzed construction areas. As discussed previously, the sensitive receptors include residential areas, parks, schools, and hotels and as shown on Exhibit 5.2-1, Air Quality Levels Measured at the Anaheim Monitoring Stations, these uses occur adjacent to future anticipated construction areas, particularly the Southeast District and Theme Park East Overlay. The analysis also accounts for dominant wind patterns, or atmospheric processes that disperse a pollutant emitted by a source (in this case, construction equipment and disturbed soils). As shown in Table

5.2-8, Project Related Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would not exceed significance thresholds for CO, NO 2, PM10 or PM2.5 at the nearest
sensitive receptor locations. The primary source of particulate emissions is associated with dust and not vehicle exhaust. Dust-intensive construction phases include demolition, excavation, and grading. These phases tend to be relatively short in comparison to the total construction phase of individual projects. While the construction of sixteen 500-room hotels would not exceed LSTs on an average construction day which is an accepted methodology for modeling LSTs, to ensure that peak days for multiple concurrent construction projects do not exceed established LSTs, MM AQ-14 shall be implemented. With MM AQ-14 if two or more dust-generating construction projects, which collectively would disturb 15 ac res or more and which would have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled to occur concurrently, a Localized Significance DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-38 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Threshold analysis would be prepared. If the LST analysis determines that the established Localized Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, then modifications to construction equipment profiles, modifications to construction schedules, or additional pollution reduction measures would be implemented. With implementation of MM AQ-14, localized impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-39 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-8

PROJECT RELATED LOCALIZED DAILY

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY)

Regulated Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Federal
Standards
(µ/m3)
State
Standards
(µ/m3)
Background
Concentration
(µ/m3)
Localized
Significance
Threshold
(µ/m3)
Unmitigated
Concentration at
Nearest Sensitive
Receptor
(micrograms/m3)
Mitigated
Concentration at
Nearest Sensitive
Receptor
(micrograms/m3)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour 40,096 22,912 2, 749 20,163 121 137 No 8-Hour 10,310 10,310 1925 8,386 85 96 No
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 100 56 NA 56 33 24 No
1-Hour NA 338 132 206 97 82 No
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
AAM NA 12 NA 20 5 3 No
24-Hour 150 50 NA 10.4 3.8 3.0 No
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
AAM 15 12 NA 12 3 1 No
24-Hour 35 NA NA 10.4 1.1 0.7 No
Source: AERMOD
Notes:

Federal and State Standards for Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Dioxide converted from parts per million to micrograms per cubic meter to allow for comparison of the same unit (micrograms per cubic meter).

NO2 background concentration based on highest ambient air quality concentration shown in Table 5.2-1. µ/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-40 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
The assessment of localized air quality impacts was developed to provide a conservative estimate of the level of Project-generated air pollutants that have the potential to exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS, which could consequently result in adverse health impacts. Exceedance of these air quality standards does not describe the prevalence or magnitude of health effects, but rather assesses the potential for a Project-related health effect to occur.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding localized significance thresholds with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, as that EIR did not analyze localized significance thresholds. This impact would not be new and would be reduced with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Operational Emissions
New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Significant and Unavoidable.

According to EIR No. 311, operations would result in significant impacts related to ROG, NOx and CO emissions and the impacts would be significant and unavoidable. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in significant impacts related to VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions; while implementation of mitigation would reduce emissions levels, concentrations would continue to exceed thresholds of significance. SEIR No. 340 found that long-term operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would be significant and unavoidable.

Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, and mobile source emissions at full buildout of the Project. Area and energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod assumptions for the specific land uses and size. Area sources include landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings used for routine maintenance. Energy emissions are from natural gas and electricity consumption. The calculation of operations phase emissions is based on the remaining development approvals for the Project Site with an assumed conservative buildout year of 2045. These operational emissions are conservative since the proposed land uses may not actually be built out until a date later than 2045. Land use details are included in the CalEEMod data included in Appendix C-1.

Mobile source emissions for both the Project and No Project Scenarios are based on trip rates and trip lengths from the CEQA Transportation Analysis, included as Appendix J-1. As discussed in further detail in Section 5.14, Transportation, the Project would result in a reduction of annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Emissions for the Project’s net daily operational emissions were derived by estimating the net VMT and land uses at full buildout of the Project in 2045 to provide a conservative analysis.

Natural gas and electricity usage as well as solid waste generation rates for both the Project and No Project scenarios were based on data provided by Disney and proportionally increased based on the square footage of the remaining approved development areas; this information is included in Appendix C-1, CalEEMod model data sheets. Any information on energy consumption that was not provided by Disney was based on default energy consumption values found within the CalEEMod model. These usage rates were used as data inputs in the CalEEMod model. Solid waste information on reported diversion/recycling rates was also included within the emissions modeling.

The information provided in Table 5.2-9, Operational Emissions Modeling Inputs, below, identifies the inputs that were used to model operational emissions for both the Project and No Project Scenarios.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-41 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
TABLE 5.2-9

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODELING INPUTS

Input No Project Project
Year 2045 2045
Land Uses Theme Park: 3,657,115 sf
Hotel: 8,301 rooms
Parking: 23,194 Stalls

Theme Park: 3,657,115 sf
Hotel: 8,301 rooms
Parking: 23,194 Stalls

Traffic Trip Generation Factors: The trip
generation rates used in CalEEMod,
identified below, are based on trip
generation rates identified in the
traffic studies, Appendices J-1 and
J-2
 5.032 trips/1000sf of
hotel/day
 1.578 trips/theme park
parking stall/day
VMT: VMT used in CalEEMod,
identified below, is based on VMT
calculated in the Project’s Traffic
Studies, Appendices J-1 and J-2.
 11.4 miles/trip
Trip Generation Factors: The trip
generation rates used in CalEEMod,
identified below, are based on trip
generation rates identified in the
traffic studies, Appendices J-1 and
J-2.
 5.032 trips/1000sf of
hotel/day
 1.578 trips/theme park
parking stall/day
VMT: VMT used in CalEEMod,
identified below, is based on VMT
calculated in the Project’s Traffic
Studies, Appendices J-1 and J-2.
 11.39 miles/trip
Electricitya Theme Park: 210,984,078
kWh/year**
Hotel: 78,463,176 kWh/year*
Parking: 114,399,859 kWh/year**
Theme Park: 210,984,078
kWh/year**
Hotel: 76,621,928 kWh/year*
Parking: 114,399,859 kWh/year**
Water Theme Park: 710,623,769
gallons/year**
Hotel: 210,569,558 gallons/year*
Parking: 0 gallons/year*

Theme Park: 710,623,769
gallons/year**
Hotel: 210,569,558 gallons/year*
Parking: 0 gallons/year*

Solid Waste 54,050 tons/year (representative of
solid waste generation for all land
uses)
54,050 tons/year (representative of
solid waste generation for all land
uses)

* CalEEMod Default
** Based on data provided by Disney
a Default hotel energy consumption befor e the incorporation of E-1 “Exceedance of Title 24 by 10%” for both No Project and Project is 81,313,210 kWh/yr.

Operational emissions were calculated as described in Section 5.2.3, Methodology, and are shown in Table 5.2-11, Net Daily Operational Emissions. Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model. The calculations are shown for 2045, as a conservative buildout year. The CalEEMod model can account for emissions reductions, applied as CAPCOA measures, related to the efficient use of energy, water, solid waste as well as reduced single-occupant vehicle trips.

Because both No Project and Project scenarios include previously approved mitigation measures, additional CAPCOA measures were not applied with two exceptions to present a conservative analysis of operational emissions.

MM TRA-8 was incorporated into the model through the inclusion of CAPCOA measures T-3, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-32, T-34, T-35, and T-39, as detailed in Table 5.2-10, CAPCOA DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-42 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Measures, below. These measures were incorporated for both Project and No Project scenarios because the VMT calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future Disney TDM Program. Similarly, MM ENE-1 was incorporated into the modeling for the entirety of the Project scenario and for the ARSP portions of the No Project scenarios, with the incorporation of CAPCOA measure E-1, as detailed in Table 5.2-10, because the energy calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future requirements of MM ENE-1.

TABLE 5.2-10

CAPCOA MEASURES

Mitigation
Measure No Project Project
Traffic
(MM TRA-8)
TDM Program: To account for the existing
Disneyland TDM Program, the following
CAPCOA reduction measures were
incorporated into modeling for both the Project
and No Project scenarios, consistent with
Table 5 of the CEQA Traffic report, included as
Appendix J-1 of this Draft Subsequent EIR.a
• T-3 Provide Transit Oriented
Development
• T-6 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction b
o T-7 Implement Commute
Trip Reduction Marketing
o T-8 Provide Rideshare
Program
o T-9 Implement Subsidized
or Discounted Transit
Program
o T-10 Provide End-of-Trip
Bicycle Facilities
• T-11 Provide Employer Sponsored
Vanpool
• T-32 Orient Project Toward Transit,
Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility
• T-34 Provide Bike Parking
• T-35 Provide Traffic Calming
Measures
• T-39 Implement Preferential Parking
Permit Program
TDM Program: To account for the existing
Disneyland TDM Program, the following
CAPCOA reduction measures were
incorporated into modeling for both the Project
and No Project scenarios, consistent with Table
5 of the CEQA Traffic report, included as
Appendix J-1 of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
a
• T-3 Provide Transit Oriented
Development
• T-6 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction b
o T-7 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Marketing
o T-8 Provide Rideshare
Program
o T-9 Implement Subsidized or
Discounted Transit Program
o T-10 Provide End-of-Trip
Bicycle Facilities
• T-11 Provide Employer Sponsored
Vanpool
• T-32 Orient Project Toward Transit,
Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility
• T-34 Provide Bike Parking
• T-35 Provide Traffic Calming
Measures
• T-39 Implement Preferential Parking
Permit Program
Electricity
(MM ENE-1)
E-1 ARSP Buildings Exceed 2019 Title 24
Building Envelope Energy Efficiency
Standards
E-1 ARSP and DRSP Build ings Exceed 2019
Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency
Standards
a CalEEMod automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures as ‘mitigation’ and therefore, its output reflects the incorporation of these reduc tion measures in the results for ‘mitigat ed emissions’; because the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures is reflective of the existing Disneyland TDM program, they should be reflected in the unmitigated net daily operational emissions for both the Project and No Pr oject scenarios. As such, while the unmitigated maximum net daily operational emissions for both the Proj ect and No Project scenarios are accurately displayed in Table 5.2-11 below, if referencing Appendix C-1 for unmitigated emissions, please refer to the emissions labeled as ‘mitigated’. b This measure represents the cumulative maximum range of effectiveness of a combination of measures including T-7 through T-11. The individual ranges of effectiveness for those measures represent individual maximums, but when combined together they were found not to exceed the range of effectiveness of T-6 (26%).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-43 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
All other previously approved MMs noted in Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Program, were not incorporated into the model, as they are already represented in the energy, waste, and water inputs for both the No Project and Project scenarios. These include MM AQ-1, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-6, MM AQ-8, MM AQ-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-13, and MM AQ-14, PDF AQ-4, MM ENE-1 through MM ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-7, PDF POP-1, MM TRA-9, MM TRA-15, MM TRA-16, and MM TRA-19, and MM UTIL 1, MM UTIL-14, MM UTIL- 17, MM UTIL-18, MM UTIL-20, and MM UTIL-21 and SR ENE-1 through SR ENE-3. As noted in Table 5.2-10, CalEEMod automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures as ‘mitigation’, and therefore, outputs reflect the incorporation of these reduction measures in the results for ‘mitigated emissions’. However, as the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures is reflective of the existing Disneyland TDM program ( MM TRA-8) and existing requirements set forth by MM ENE-1 , these measures should be reflected in the unmitigated net daily operational emissions for both the Project and No Project scenarios.

TABLE 5.2-11

NET DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)*
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
No Project (2045)
Area sources 231
Energy sources 2 45 38 <1 3 3
Mobile sources 123 87 1,278 4 464 119
No Project Total 332 132 1,316 4 467 122
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Project (2045)
Area sources 206
Energy sources 2 45 37 <1 3 3
Mobile sources 123 87 1,276 4 463 118
Project Total 332 131 1,314 4 466 122
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Total Net Emissions
(Project minus No
Project)
0 -1 -2 0 -1 0
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs./day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SO x: sulfur oxides; PM10:
respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District* Some totals do not add due to rounding.

Note: CalEEMod model data sheets are included in Attachment C-1.

As shown in Table 5.2-11, Net Average Daily Operational Emissions, the Project’s net operational emissions would be below the established thresholds under the Project condition due to the reduction in VMT and associated emissions. However, as shown in Table 5.2-11 and consistent with the previously certified EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, maximum development associated with The Disneyland Resort would continue to exceed established thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO,
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-44 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
PM10, and PM2.5 for daily operational emissions (refer to row “Project Total”) and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. While the incremental changes associated with the DisneylandForward Project would not result in significant air quality impacts when considered independently of the underlying Disneyland Resort Project, when considered with the overall Disneyland Resort Project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. This impact would be new for PM10 and PM 2.5 when compared to the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.2c: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation. According EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort Project would not result in exceedances of CO standards related to CO Hotspots and impacts related to toxic risk would be less than significant with mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, construction- and operation-related emissions of TACs would be less than significant with mitigation. Additionally, there would be no potential for a CO hotspot or exposure of persons to CO in excess of SCAQMD criteria for CO ambient air quality.

Construction Emissions Off-site Receptors
The analysis of localized air pollutant concentrations (under the discussion of Threshold 5.2b) for the Project shows that exposure of off-site receptors to localized construction emissions would be less than significant with mitigation MM AQ-14 under the modeled worst-case scenario for the simultaneous construction of all approved hotel rooms within a two-year period.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Project-related CO hotspots were evaluated in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. EIR No. 311 analyzed both 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations in the year 2010 and found the concentrations would be below the State and federal CO ambient air quality standards which are protective of human health, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. SEIR No. 340 also analyzed the potential for CO hotspot formation at local intersections in the year 2030 and likewise found that traffic volumes and the level of congestion at local intersections would not result in CO hotspots that exceed the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS).

CO ambient air quality standards are currently in a state of attainment and have not been exceeded for over a decade. As previously shown in Table 5.2-1, Air Quality Levels Measured at the Anaheim Monitoring Stations, the highest m easured CO concentration at the monitoring station is 2.4 ppm for the 1-hour concentration, which is substantially below the AAQS of 20 ppm.

The highest 8-hour measured concentration is 1.7 ppm, which is also substantially below the AAQS of 9 ppm. With increasing fuel efficiency associated with the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards and the increased use of electric vehicles, emissions related to vehicle trips from Project and non-Project related vehicles would likewise result in emissions that would be less than those occurring today and less than those previously analyzed under EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project also would not increase vehicle trips beyond what was analyzed under EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. As discussed in Section 5.14, Transportation, the Project also would result in a reduction in annual VMT due to the placement of parking closer to the I-5 thereby reducing traffic along local roadways. Because the Prior EIRs found that CO concentrations from the previously analyzed projects would result in less than significant impacts, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-45 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
emissions associated with roadway vehicles would continue to decrease due to CAFE standards and the adoption of electric vehicles, measured CO concentrations are a small fraction of the AAQS, and the Project would not increase trips or VMT, the Project would likewise not result in CO hotspots and would result in a less than significant impact.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
The Project’s construction activities would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for demolition, site preparation (e.g., excavation and grading), paving, building construction, and other miscellaneous activities. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual (MEI) are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period. Construction related exhaust emissions for development of the total Project entitlements were assessed over the recommended 30-year exposure period. To provide a conservative analysis it was assumed that all gasoline and di esel construction phase exhaust emissions are only diesel. The Project would reallocate existing development approvals for the Project Site; no new uses or additional development is proposed beyond what was analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. This reallocation would change the distribution of construction-related emissions.

To provide an estimate of potential exposure to TACs, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared to determine whether local sensitive receptors would be exposed to excessive acute, chronic and carcinogenic (cancer) risk fr om construction activities, and is included as Appendix C-3 of this Draft Subsequent SEIR. The HRA evaluated air pollutant emissions associated with diesel exhaust from construction activities occurring throughout the DRSP and ARSP development areas. A conservative analysis was undertaken assuming that reductions for exhaust will not occur and the same rates of exhaust emissions would occur over the entire 20- 30-year construction period. The CARB has enacted emissions reductions for offroad vehicles over the decades which lead to substantial reductions in air pollutant emissions.

The results of the HRA indicate that the Project would result in construction emissions that result in a cancer risk of 4 in a million and a chronic hazard index of less than 1.0 at the Maximum Exposed Impacted Residential Receiver (MEIR), which are below the 10 in a million cancer risk threshold and the chronic hazard index of 1.0 adopted by the SCAQMD. While there are nearby hotels whose occupants may be exposed to TACs, the transitory occupancy of hotels would not result in the same occupants exposed for a 30-year period. As such, hotels are not considered a sensitive receptor in regard to long-term carcinogenic risk which is assessed over a period of years. The MEIR is the most impacted individual residential receiver by the Project’s construction emissions. Other analyzed receptors would experience less pollutant exposure and health risks.

As such, health risk impacts from construction of the Project would be under SCAQMD air quality thresholds for both cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds. Sensitive receptors near the Project Site would not be exposed to project-related vehicular exhaust that would result in excessive cancer and noncancer risk. In conclusion, the health risk impact associated with the Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-46 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Operations
Projects that may be long-term sources of TACs are generally those with commercial or industrial stationary sources of TAC emissions, such as manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, or those that attract multiple sources of diesel engine-driven equipment (e.g., distribution centers, truck stops, railroad yards, or bus stations). EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 evaluated the potential for toxic emissions and found that there would be less than significant impacts related to TAC emissions. The Project would not involve air pollutant emission sources beyond those analyzed in the previous EIRs and would not result in development that is located closer to sensitive receptors. As discussed previously, the development of hotel, parking facilities and theme park attractions would not involve substantial sources of non-mobile emissions. These uses also would not involve substantial TAC emissions. As discussed previously, CARB has published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which provides recommendations on siting sensitive land uses away from specific sources of air pollution. The Project would not involve development of these polluting land uses and emission sources. The proposed land uses would not emit substantial levels of air pollution from onsite operations due to the nature of the activities and consequently would not result in substantial offsite air pollutant exposure. The Project would also be subject to AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act) which requires stationary sources of emissions to report the types and quantities of air pollutants. In addition, the Project is also governed under SCAQMD Rule 1041 which requires risk assessments for certain permits for TACs that may affect human health. Because the Project would involve reallocation of existing development approvals, no new or additional TAC emission sources would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, and because the Project is required to comply with applicable TAC emission limits and controls established by the SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to TACs.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 2d: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? New Impact from EIR No. 311/No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant. EIR No. 311 did not analyze this threshold; SEIR No. 340 determined that the ARSP would result in less than significant impact regarding odors.

Sources of odors that are typically of concern include landfills, wastewater treatment plants, composting, agriculture, chemical plants, and dairies. The Project would not involve the development of any of these uses. Construction equipment and activities associated with implementation of the Project could generate odors from diesel exhaust and roofing, painting, and paving operations. As these odors are typical with construction, they would not be unfamiliar and would not be considered a public nuisance. The odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the construction odor impacts would be short-term, would not likely be objectionable, and would be less than significant.

During long-term operations, some odors associated with commercial uses, such as restaurant cooking exhaust, may be perceived. The odors would be no different than in the existing areas of development at the Project Site. These odors would not be considered objectionable by a substantial number of people and not considered a public nuisance. Potential odors may occur from trash enclosures and solid waste processing. Disney has solid waste management and diversion/recycling plans detailed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, that would DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-47 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
prevent or minimize substantive odors that would affect visitors, hotel guests, cast members, or off-site uses. SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisances also prohibits the generation of odors or other emissions that would result in a public nuisance. Disney ongoing solid waste management activities would prevent the generation of odor s from becoming a public nuisance. The impact would be less than significant.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact. This impact would be new when compared to the impact analyses in EIR No. 311, which did not address odors. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to construction and operational air quality and a less than significant cumulative impact related to local CO emissions. According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of standard requirements and proposed mitigation measures would reduce construction emissions and operational vehicle emissions, but emissions would potentially still exceed thresholds; therefore, cumulative construction and operati onal emissions impacts w ould be significant and unavoidable.

Air quality is generally a regional issue, determined by geography and meteorology. The region of interest for the Project is the SoCAB. The USEPA and CARB use the monitored air pollutant concentrations in the SoCAB as the basis for attainment designations. Application of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds provides an analysis of the Project’s individual impact on regional nonattainment pollutants. The analysis concluded that construction and operations- related impacts would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

With respect to determining the significance of the Project’s contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds established for an individual project, it is considered to be cumulatively considerable and consequently would result in a significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual develop ment project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment.

Because the Project would result in a significant construction and operations air quality impact as detailed in the analysis of Threshold 5.2b, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. This finding would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

With respect to local concentrations of CO, the analysis of Threshold 5.2b is also a cumulative analysis because it considers traffic from existing and all future sources as well as traffic from the Project. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-48 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
EIR No. 311 did not evaluate cumulative impacts related to TACs; SEIR No. 340 determined that TAC impacts would be less than significant, but did not specifically address cumulative TAC impacts. The Project’s contribution to both regional and local TAC concentrations would be less than the thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact for air quality.

The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to air pollutant concentrations during construction and operations. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

The Project would result a less than significant cumulative impact regarding CO Hotspots and TACs. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed cumulative impacts related to TACs.

The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact regarding odors. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address cumulative impacts related to odors. This impact would not be new or more substantially severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.2.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented mitigation measures (MM), project design features (PDF), and standard requirements (SR) to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, respectively. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

MM AQ-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all permitted any new and or modified stationary sources. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-5)
MM AQ-2 Ongoing during operation of The Disneyland Resort, the applicant property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions:
a. To the extent practicable, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours.
b. Use clean fuel for attraction rides and other uses, as practicable. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-1)
MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit associated with a cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of for theme park the second theme park development in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, whichever occurs first, the applicant property owner/developer shall submit a site and operations plan for this facility showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-49 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, the property owner/developer shall provide cast financial and dining services within the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay and the Theme Park District to accommodate cast members.

Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall continue to provide cast financial and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.

Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the second theme park, the applicant shall provide cast financial and dining services within the Theme Park District and Hotel District to accommodate cast members. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-4) MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the future expansion district development, excluding the south parking area; and, oOngoing during project operation, the following will be achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of the out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG VMT reduction targets have been met through other means. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-6)
MM AQ-5 Ongoing during construction, the following measures will be followed by the property owner/developer to reduce air quality impacts:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable.
b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved.
c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles. d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export material at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of material exported from the project site occur.
e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.
f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall either be covered prior to entering public streets or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. This California Vehicle Code section stipulates that the load, where it contacts the sides, front and back of the cargo container area, remain six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and that the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-50 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas. h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
j. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during second stage smog alerts. l. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.
m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable. o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. q. Should demolition, grading, or, excavation activities of two or more projects within any portion of the Project site occur concurrently, air quality monitoring shall be conducted each day that demolition and grading/excavation activities occur concurrently; monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and ensure that PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations shall not exceed the established regulatory limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-3)
MM AQ-6 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), other than for the Disneyland Administration Building or the relocation of the SCE transmission lines, the property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The applicant property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-5; SEIR No. 340, MM

5.2-4)
MM AQ-7 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-51 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent emissions.
c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-6) MM AQ-8 Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the east and west public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District ; ongoing during project operation, all public day-use parking facilities, not including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist speed parking procedures:

1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic flows on each facility level.

2. Speed ramps which will take cars directly to the level that has available spaces, thus eliminating circulation movement and time involved with hunting for a space. The speed parking striping and procedures currently used at the Disneyland theme park parking lot will be adapted to use within the parking structures and will be designed to safely park 60 cars per minute. (Refer to Section 7.0, Zoning and Development Standards, in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.)

3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a standard garage, which tends to slow drivers. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-5)
MM AQ-9 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; o Ongoing during project operation, the applicant property owner/developer will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all project employees. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-8) MM AQ-10 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy savings will also contribute to reduced measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper sealing of buildings.
d. Use drought-resistant water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-52 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking procedures set forth in Section 7.0, Zoning and Development Standards, of the The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)
MM AQ-12 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a human health risk assessment (H RA) for any proposed sensitive land uses (according to SCAQMD standards at that time) to be located within 500 feet of the near edge of the I-5 freeway unless it is demonstrated that the health risks have been determined to be acceptable according to the standards of the SCAQMD at the time of building permit application. (SEIR No. 340 MM 5.2-7) MM AQ-13 During construction activities, for all offroad engines that are diesel and above 50 brake horsepower, the contractor shall use engines that comply with USEPA Tier 4 offroad engine standards.

MM AQ-14 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if two or more dust-generating construction projects, which collectively will disturb 15 acres or more and which have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled to occur concurrently, a Localized Significance Threshold analysis shall be prepared. If the LST analysis determines that the established Localized Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, then modifications to construction equipment profiles, modifications to construction schedules, or additional pollution reduction measures shall be implemented.

PDF AQ-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; and o Ongoing during project operation, the project has been designed to reduce dependence on the private automobile, which will reduce and avoid many of the traffic-related emissions associated with the existing Disneyland theme park and Disney California Adventure Park , as well as those normally associated with hotels and day-use only special event activities and those associated with development of theme park uses in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay. Guests will be encouraged to park their cars and leave them for the duration of their visits, thus eliminating the trips to restaurants and sightseeing, or entertainment attractions normally associated with vacation stays. Marketing efforts in Southern California will promote the Disneyland Resort as a mini-vacation site for Southland residents. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-2)
PDF AQ-2 Ongoing during project operations, Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, a wide range of entertainment, lodging, retail and restaurant attractions will be located within the project area and will be linked by an electrically powered monorail system, pedestrian ways/guest transportation system to transport visitors from parking facilities to The Disneyland Resort, and/or pedestrian bridges, walkways and promenades. Convenient walkway access within the Theme Park District, the Southeast District and the Theme Park East Overlay Hotel District and adjacent uses, such as the City of Anaheim DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-53 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
Convention Center, will also facilitate pedes trian trips by non-project guests who will remain within the project area rather than use automobiles to travel to restaurants and entertainment outside of the area. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-3) PDF AQ-3 In accordance with transportation and circulation mitigation measures, The Disneyland Resort traffic will be accommodated, and existing traffic conditions and circulation patterns will be improved through implementation of the identified transportation and parking features, including parking facilities, monorail and pedestrian way/guest transportation systems and convenient access to parking facilities from the freeway. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-4)
PDF AQ-4 The Disneyland Resort Project will include Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, there will be a special drop-off area on Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way Freedman Way, or internal or adjacent to the East Parking Area Parking Structure and/or adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay , or other accessible location, for shuttle buses to help encourage use of buses by area visitors. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-7)
MM ENE-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-2 and MM 3.10.10-1; SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-1 and MM 5.17-3)
MM TRA-7 To be shown on street improvement plans; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the second theme park for Phase II; and if pursued, to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the east public East Parking Area or adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay parking structure(s) or other accessible location in Phase IIIIV,
Theme Park Drop-Off Area . To provide access to the attractions in the Specific Plan area to people staying outside of The Disneyland Resort area, a bus and shuttle drop-off area will be located adjacent to Harbor Boulevard north of Freedman Disney Way in Phase II as shown on Exhibit 4.4.2a of the Specific Plan; or, in Phase IIIIV, the facility may be located adjacent or internal to the East Public Parking StructureParking Area or the adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay Parking Structure(s), or other accessible location in the Theme Park or Hotel Districts. The types of vehicles served at this facility may include public and private passenger shuttles and buses. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-20) MM TRA-8 Transportation Demand Management Program
Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the Second Theme Park; and, oOn-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of t he South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, by 2001.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-54 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely which programs and activities would be most successful for t The Disneyland Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, applicant property owner/developer will review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing the effectiveness of these items, The Walt Disney Company Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. will select specific programs for implementation.

Objectives of the TDM program are:
 Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests .  Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target .
 Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
 Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.

Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast and guest trips are described below.

 Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel to work by means other than the automobile.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-55 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
 Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.

 Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency, medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal transportation in the event of special circumstances.
 Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home Program . The program may provide cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.  Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective employees within 20 miles.
 Housing Coordinator and Referral Program and Local Hiring Efforts .

 Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review the possibility of developing a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be generated daily by The Disneyland Resort Cast.  Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members in a wide a variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at home.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-56 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
 Work Environment/Facility Management
 Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.  Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast members and other project employees in the Anaheim Resort.
 Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient parking management for cast and guests.
 Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided.
 Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
 Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
 Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $60 $300 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit passes.

 Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers. Cast members may also receive a cash incentive for reporting a bike or walk commute.

 Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
 Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction programs.

 Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in non- peak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
 Guests
- Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and from The Disneyland Resort. The applicant property owner/developer is currently developing a list of potential programs and is working with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-57 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
the provision of convenient linkages to other modes of transportation.

Marketing materials for The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto- free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not needed.
- Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from moving or parked vehicles.
 Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the general construction contractors regarding the coordination of rideshare services for construction employees provided by the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-9, and MM 5.14-23) MM TRA-9 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort, including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network in conjunction with the on- going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)

5.2.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.2a Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.2b Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact Summary:

Construction. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding regional construction emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-58 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
The Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding localized significance thresholds with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, as that EIR did not analyze localized significance thresholds. This impact would not be new and would be reduced with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Operations. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. This impact would be new for PM10 and PM 2.5 when compared to the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.2c Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.2d Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact. This impact would be new when compared to the impact analyses in EIR No. 311, which did not address odors. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to air pollutant concentrations during construction and operations. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-59 Section 5.2 – Air Quality

5.2.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of 2004 (May). City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element. Anaheim, CA. (Anaheim). https://anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
———. 2012 Final Environmental Impact Report 340 Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort.
———. 1996 The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 311 with Addendum and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 0067. Anaheim, CA:

Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1017/Disneyland-Resort.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022 California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM Version 2022.1.1.0, Developed by Trinity Consultants in Collaboration with SCAQMD and other California Air Districts. Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA. ———. 2010 (August). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

Sacramento, CA: CAPCOA. http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016a (May 4). Ambient Air Quality Standards .

Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022 (August 31, accessed date). California Green Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24, Part 11). http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022 (December). 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management- plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2019 (April). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds . Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf
———. 2021 (August 2021). MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast AQMD Final Report August 2021. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v ———. 2015. Application of the South Coast Air Q uality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae.

Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south- coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf
———. 2009 (October 21). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix D2.

Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.2-60 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
———. 2008 (July, as revised). Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology . Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
———. 2007 (June). Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html.
———. 1993 (as amended). CEQA Air Quality Handbook . Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. www. aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality- handbook-(1993)
Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. (June). SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect Socal). Los Angeles, CA. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-connect- socal2020#:~:text=On%20September%203%2C%202020%2C%20SCAG%E2%80%99s %20Regional%20Council%20unanimously,to%20the%20Connect%20SoCal%20Progra m%20Environmental%20Impact%20Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) . 2021 (as of 03/12/2021). Status of SIP Requirements for Designated Areas, California Areas by Pollutant. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/ca_areabypoll.html ———. 2018 (Updated August 17, 2018) USEPA Technology Transfer Network National Air Toxics Assessment Glossary of Key Terms. Washington D.C.: USEPA. https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/nata-glossary- terms_.html
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-1 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources

5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the existing biological setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to biological resources.

5.3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 concluded the Disneyland Resort Project would not cause significant environmental effects in the following areas: (1) natural or fabricated features in the project area that are rare or unique; (2) prominent or specimen trees (as defined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section

18.84.038, Tree Preservation) or any rare, threatened, or endangered plants in the project area; and (3) habitat, food source, nesting place, source of water, migratory path, or other resource for any rare, threatened, or endangered wildlife or fish species. The City determined no further environmental review of these issues was required because none of these resources existed in the project area or would be affected by the implementation of EIR No. 311.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 did not require mitigation measures for biological resources.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 is a Supplemental EIR that reevaluated environmental changes that had occurred in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 (City of Anaheim 1994 and 2012). SEIR No. 340 concluded the ARSP area is within an urbanized area of the City and does not function as a migratory corridor or a native wildlife nursery site; therefore, no impacts would occur related to these topics from full build-out of the ARSP. However, SEIR No. 340 concluded that vegetation removal activities associated with construction activities in the ARSP would have the potential to impact nesting birds and raptors, which would result in a significant impact. The City determined implementation of MM 5.3-1 and MM 5.3-2, set forth below, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures
SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures regarding biological resources to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of the ARSP Project to less than significant levels.

MM 5.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, a survey for active raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. Should an active nest be identified, restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist. These restrictions may include a 300- to 500-foot buffer zone designated around a nest to allow construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest. Once the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed within the buffer zone.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-2 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
MM 5.3-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed.

If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present, then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the Biologist.

5.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following discussion details the existing conditions at the time the City published the NOP for Subsequent EIR No. 352; however, consistent with CEQA’s subsequent review standards, the previously approved projects serve as the baseline for the CEQA analysis, and Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes on the previously approved projects with the effects of the previously analyzed and approved projects, as detailed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

A. Existing Conditions
Existing land uses within the DRSP consist of Disneyland, Downtown Disney, Disney California Adventure Park, Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel & Spa, Disneyland Hotel, Disney administration offices, back-of-house uses, and parking lots/structures owned or controlled by Disney as well as hotels, motels, retail centers, rental car offices, and convenience stores owned by third parties.

Existing land uses within the Disney ARSP Properties consist of surface parking lots, an office building, and the Pixar Pals Hotel, formerly the Paradise Pier Hotel and associated parking structure. The areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP are surrounded by a variety of land uses including hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, single-family residential, multi-family residential, and recreational land uses. The Project Site is gen erally developed and does not contain natural vegetation communities; however, ornamental trees and other vegetation occur throughout the Project Site.

B. Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) protects plants and animals that the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has listed as “endangered” or “threatened”. A federally listed species is protected from unauthorized “take”, which is defined in the FESA as acts to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 United States Code [USC] Sections 1532[19] and 1538[a]). In this definition, “harm” includes “any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or wildlife” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 50, Section 17.3). Unless performed for scientific or conservation purposes with the permission of the USFWS, take of listed species is only permissible if the USFWS issues an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). When issuing an ITP, all federal agencies, including the USFWS, must ensure that their activities are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species” (16 USC Section 1536[a]). Enforcement of the FESA is administered by the USFWS.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-3 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
The FESA also provides for designation of Critical Habitat, which is defined as specific areas within the geographical range occupied by a species where physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species” are found and “which may require special management considerations or protection” (16 USC Section 1538[5][A]). Critical Habitat also may include areas outside the current geographical area occupied by the species that are nonetheless essential for the conservation of the species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions, unless permitted, “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of the Convention for the protection of migratory birds or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC Section 703).

The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit (50 CFR, Part 21). Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) also may be considered a take. This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests.

In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors).

Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles), Cathartidae (New World vultures), Falconidae (falcons and caracaras), Pandionidae (ospreys), Strigidae (typical owls), and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment protect all species and subspecies of the families listed above.

The MBTA protects over 800 species, including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many relatively common species. Bird species protected under the provisions of the MBTA are identified by the List of Migratory Birds (50 CFR Part 10.13), as updated by the 1983 American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist and published supplements by the USFWS.

Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1972
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC Section 1251, et seq.) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the designated regulatory agency responsible for administering the 404 permit program and for making jurisdictional determinations. This permitting authority applies to all waters of the United States where the material has the effect of (1) replacing any portion of waters of the United States with dry land or (2) changing the bottom elevation of any portion of waters of the United States. These fill materials would include sand, rock, clay, construction debris, wood chips, and materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in waters of the United States. Dredge and fill activities are typically associated with development projects; water resource-related projects; infrastructure development; and wetland conversion to farming, forestry, or urban development.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, an activity requiring a USACE Section 404 permit must obtain a State water quality certification (or waiver thereof) to ensure that the activity will not violate established State water quality standards. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in conjunction with the nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), is responsible for administering the Section 401 Water Quality Certification program.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-4 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
Under Section 401 of the federal CWA, an activity involving discharge into a water body must obtain a federal permit and a State water quality certification to ensure that the activity will not violate established water quality standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal regulatory agency responsible for implementing the CWA. However, it is the SWRCB, in conjunction with the nine RWQCBs, which has been delegated the responsibility of administering the water quality certification (Section 401) program.

State
California Endangered Species Act
In addition to federal laws, the State of California implements the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) which is enforced by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar.

State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the CESA.

Activities that may result in the take of individuals (defined in CESA as acts to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursu e, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by the CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of take under CESA.

Nonetheless, the CDFW has interpreted take to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.

If a species is also federally listed, CDFW can issue a consistency finding in accordance with Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code if the USFWS has issued an incidental take authorization, which also satisfies CESA’s requirements.

California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions of the CESA. Under CEQA, endangered species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while rare species are defined as those with such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.

Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non- listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW assigns California Rare Plant Ranks to species categorized as List 1A, 1B, or 2 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants, which are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunctive populations of more common plants, or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 or 4; however, for the purposes of this Subsequent EIR, plant species listed with either 3 or 4 are not evaluated due to their lack of legal protection.

California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW administers the California Fish and Game Code. Particular sections of the Code are applicable to natural resource management.

California Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900 - 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in the State of California. Known as the California Native Plant Protection Act, it requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-5 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use that would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. As discussed below, the Project Site does not provide suitable habitat to support rare or endangered plant species.

Birds of Prey and Migratory Birds
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any bird’s nest or any bird’s eggs. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) and their nests and eggs are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds. A consultation with CDFW would be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a survey area.

Fully Protected Birds
Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code provides a list of fully protected bird species that may not be taken or possessed at any time, except as provided in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081.7 or 2835 . The CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species, except for necessary scientific research; authorization to live capture and relocate species may be granted for the protection of livestock. Examples of species that are fully protected by the State include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

Fully Protected Mammals
Section 4700 of the California Fish and Game Code lists fully protected mammals, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species.

As discussed below, no fully protected mammals are expected to occur in the Project Site.

Lakes, Streams, and Associated Habitats
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake which supports fish or wildlife. A notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity” that may substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake.” In addition, CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats and wetlands associated with watercourses. As defined by the California Fish and Game Code, "wetlands" means lands, which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and which include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, fens, and vernal pools (Fish and Game Code Section 2785).

Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of a stream or lake, whichever is wider. The CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources. The CDFW reviews proposed actions, and if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. As discussed below, there are no protected lakes or streams in the Project Site or surrounding area.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-6 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are the principal State agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. The Boards regulate activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the federal CWA as well as the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) (Water Code Section 13260), which is the State’s primary water law. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs may require permits (known as “Waste Discharge Requirements” or WDRs) for the fill or alteration of the “waters of the State”. The term “waters of the State” is defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code , Section 13050[e]). The State and Regional Boards have interpreted their authority to require WDRs to extend to any proposal to fill or alteration of “waters of the State”, even if those same waters are not under USACE jurisdiction.

Pursuant to this authority, the State and Regional Boards may require the submission of a “report of waste discharge” under Section 13260, which is treated as an application for WDRs.

Local
City of Anaheim General Plan
The 2004 City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan) and a discussion of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies related to biological resources is discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use, of this Draft EIR.

City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element
The City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element comprehensively addresses topics concerning conservation of vital natural resources such as plant and animal species and areas of significant habitat. As stated in the Green Element, the DRSP and the ARSP areas are not located within the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), which occupies lands over five miles to the east of the DRSP, generally south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway and east of the Orange (SR-55) Freeway (City of Anaheim 2004). Applicable goals and policies from the Green Element that are related to biological resources and that are applicable to the Project are provided in Table

5.10-2 in Section 5.10, Land Use, with a Project consistency analysis.

5.3.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Psomas Senior Biologist Steve Norton conducted a literature review to identify special status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Site. This search included a review of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Locational Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2022) and the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022a). The database searches were completed in 2022 to obtain the most recent occurrence data.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-7 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criterion is derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.

Threshold 5.3d 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?
Biological resource thresholds a (candidate, sensitive, or special status species), b (riparian habitat or sensitive natural community), c (wetlands), e (local policies or ordinances), and f (Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other plan) were evaluated in Section 3.4 of the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts related to these thresholds.

As such, these thresholds are not discussed in this Subsequent EIR.

C. Standard Requirements
No standard requirements for this resource topic apply to the Project.

D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.3d 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?
New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 found The Disneyland Resort Project would have no impact related to biological resources. SEIR No. 340 concluded that vegetation removal activities associated with construction activiti es in the ARSP would have the potential to impact nesting birds and raptors, which would result in a significant impact. The City determined implementation of MM 5.3-1 and MM 5.3-2, set forth below, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Wildlife movement corridors facilitate movement of species between large patches of natural habitat. The Project Site and its surrounding area are located in an urbanized setting and they do not connect any stands of natural habitat. There are no significant biological resources within the Project Site. However, consistent with the findings in SEIR No. 340, there are trees and other vegetation on the Project Site that would be removed as part of the Project. This vegetation as well as structures on the Project Site may be used for nesting by native and migratory birds, which are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. With implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, below, potential impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not classify effects on nesting birds and raptors, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-8 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources

5.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Biological resources were not evaluated as part of EIR No. 311 and according to the Initial Study, no significant impacts were identified. Accord ing to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP was determined to not result in a cumulatively significant impact to biological resources.

The Project would occur within developed portions of the DRSP and ARSP areas. Specifically, the Project Site encompasses The Disneyland Resort, including the existing Theme Park, Hotel, Parking and Future Expansion Districts, and the following sites in the ARSP Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1): 1515 S. Manchester Avenue (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member
1 Lot); 1585 S. Manchester Avenue (currently a vacant office building and the Manchester Cast Member Lot); 1530 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member Lot); 1900 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Toy Story Parking Lot); 333 W. Ball Road (currently used as the Harbor Cast Member Lot); and 1717 S.

Disneyland Drive (Pixar Pals Hotel, formerly the Paradise Pier Hotel).

As discussed under Threshold 5.3-1, the Project Site contains no suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife species and no native vegetation types or communities occur. Additionally, the greater vicinity is an urban, developed environment. The Project as well as other cumulative projects in the area would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations relating to biological resources such a nesting birds that have potential to occur in the developed areas. Further, the Project and other cumulative projects would be subject to existing and future enforcement by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 , the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not analyze impacts on nesting birds, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.3.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented mitigation measures (MM), Project Design Features (PDF), and standard requirements (SR) to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, respectively. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

As shown below, nesting bird season dates have been extended from those in SEIR No. 340 to align with general recommendations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for developed areas.

MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal and building demolition activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and January 31February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that

1 Cast Member is a term used by Disney for an employee of the Disneyland Resort DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-9 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
no active nests would be disturbed. If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present, then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the Biologist the property owner/developer shall implement MM BIO-2. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.3- 2)
MM BIO-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, and if Project demolition and/or vegetation clearing must occur during the bird nesting season (February 1–July 31), a pre- construction nesting bird survey for active raptor nests of structures to be demolished and/or vegetation to be removed shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than three days prior to such work occurring and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. If the Biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be updated following any work stoppage of two weeks or longer.

Should If an active nest of a bird species protected under California Fish and Game Code or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is identified within or immediately adjacent to the construction area, and the Biologist determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, be identified,restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate no-impact buffer zone (at a minimum of 25 feet) around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. All nests and associated buffers shall be mapped on the construction plans. The active nest shall be protected until nesting activity has ended . These The following restrictions to clearing and/or construction activities shall be required until nest(s) are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 25–100 feet for nesting birds and may include a 300- to 500-foot buffer zone designated around a nest to allow construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest feet for nesting raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist; and (2) access shall be restricted within the buffer of any active nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants.

Once the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest, there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt, or the nest has failed the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed within the buffer zone. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.3-1)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-10 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources

5.3.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.3d 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?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not classify effects on nesting birds and raptors, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not analyze impacts on nesting birds, but not new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

5.3.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2022 (last accessed September 14, 2022). Anaheim Municipal Code. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-51668. ———. 2012 (last accessed January 4, 2022). Final Environmental Impact Report 340 Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort. ———. 2004 (May). General Plan for the City of Anaheim (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94).

Anaheim, CA: the City. http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan ———. 1996 (last accessed September 14, 2022). The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 311 with Addendum and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 0067. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1017/Disneyland-Resort. ———. 1994 (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum .

Anaheim, City of: Anaheim, CA. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master- Environmental -Impact-Report-Number-313-?bidld=
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a (January 4). California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
———. 2022b (January 4, date accessed). Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Sacramento, CA:

CDFW. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022 (accessed date, January 4). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9-01 1.0). Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-11 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a (January 4, date accessed). Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS ), Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Washington, DC: USFWS. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html.
———. 2022b (January 4, date accessed). National Wetlands Inventory mapper. Washington, DC: USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.3-12 Section 5.3 – Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-1 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the existing cultural setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts on cultural resources.

5.4.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311, certified by the City in 1993, concluded that no impacts to cultural, historic, or archaeological resources were expected to occur from development of The Disneyland Resort Project. However, EIR No. 311 included mitigation in case of an unforeseen discovery of archaeological materials. The City found implementation of MM 3.13-1, below, would mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measure regarding archaeological resources to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of The Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant.

MM 3.13-1 Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 is a Supplemental EIR, certified by the City in 2012, that reevaluated environmental changes in and around the ARSP area since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994. According to SEIR No. 340, no designated historical resources existed within the ARSP area; however, the City found implementation of MM 5.4-3, below , would mitigate any impacts to unknown but preserved historical resources to less than significant. Further, no archaeological resources are anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area; however, the City found implementation of MM 5.4-1, below, would mitigate the potential impacts on archaeological resources to less than

1 Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 311, which t he City approved in 1996, modified MMP No. 0067.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-2 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded there is no evidence of Native American human remains in the ARSP area and that adherence to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that a significant impact would not occur.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirement SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures and standard requirement regarding cultural resources to reduce potential impacts associated with the ARSP Project to less than significant.

MM 5.4-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.

MM 5.4-3 Prior to approval of a final site plan for properties that contain a structure over 45 years old, property owners/developers shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division, documentation to verify the presence/absence of historic resources. On properties where resources are identified, such documentation shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist.

SR 5.4-1 Before and during construction, if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin, and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 has occurred.

SR 5.4-2 Prior to approval of any amendment to the ARSP or the City of Anaheim General Plan, the project property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City Planning Department to undergo a solicitation of Native American consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-3 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

5.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following discussion details the existing conditions at the time the City published the NOP for Subsequent EIR No. 352; however, consistent with CEQA’s subsequent review standards, the previously approved projects serve as the baseline for the CEQA analysis, and Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes on the previously approved projects with the effects of the previously analyzed and approved projects, as detailed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

A. Existing Conditions
Prehistoric Setting
Several chronologies are generally used to describe the sequence of the prehistoric periods of Southern California. William Wallace developed the first comprehensive California chronologies and defines four periods for the southern coastal region.

Wallace’s synthesis is largely “descriptive and classificatory, emphasizing the content of archaeological cultures and the relationships among them” (Moratto 1984:159). Wallace relies upon the concept of “cultural horizons”, which are generally defined by the temporal and spatial distribution of a set of normative cultural traits, such as the distribution of a group of commonly associated artifact types. As a result, his model does not allow for much cultural variation within the same time period, nor does it provide precise chronological dates for each temporal division.

Nonetheless, although now more than 50 years old, the general schema of the Wallace chronology has provided a general framework for Southern California prehistory that remains valid today.

Horizon I: Early Man or Paleo-Indian Period (11,000 BCE 2 to 7,500 BCE). While Wallace
(1955) initially termed this period the Early Man Horizon (I), this early stage of human occupation is commonly referred to as the Paleo-Indian Period today. The precise start of this period is still a topic of considerable debate. At inland archaeological sites, the surviving material culture of this period is primarily lithic, consisting of large, extremely well made stone projectile points and tools such as scrapers and choppers. Encampments were probably temporary, located near major kills or important resource areas.

Horizon II: Milling Stone Assemblages (7,500 BCE to 1,000 BCE). Encompassing a broad expanse of time, the Milling Stone Period was named for the abundant milling stone tools associated with sites of this period. These tools, the mano and metate, were used to process small, hard seeds from plants associated with shrub-scrub vegetation communities. An annual round of seasonal migrations was likely practi ced, with movements coinciding with ripening vegetal resources and the periods of maximal availability of various animal resources. Al ong the coast, shell midden sites are common site types. Some formal burials, occasionally with associated grave goods, are also evident. This period of time is roughly equivalent to Warren’s (1968) Encinitas Tradition. Warren suggests that, as milling stones are common and projectile points are comparatively rare during this period of time, hunting was less important than the gathering of vegetal resources.

More recent studies suggest that a diversity of subsistence activities (including hunting of various game animals) was practiced during this period. At present, little is known about cultural change during this time period in Southern California. While this lack of noticeable change gives the

2 BCE is defined as “Before Common Era” and generally refe rs to that time period commonly referred to as “Before Christ” (B.C.).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-4 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
appearance of cultural stasis, almost certainly many regional and temporal cultural shifts did occur.

Horizon III: Intermediate Cultures (1,000 BCE to 750 CE3). The Intermediate Period is identified by a mixed strategy of plant exploitation, terrestrial hunting, and maritime subsistence strategies.

Chipped stone tools, such as projectile points, generally decrease in size, but increase in number.

Abundant bone and shell remains have been recovered from sites dating to these time periods.

In coastal areas, the introduction of the circular shell fishhook and the growing abundance of fish remains in sites over the course of the period suggest a substantial increase in fishing activity during the Intermediate Horizon. It is also during this time period that mortar and pestle use intensified dramatically. The mano and metate continued to be in use on a reduced scale, but the greatly intensified use of the mortar and pestle signaled a shift away from a subsistence strategy based on seed resources to that of the acorn. It is probably during this time period that the acorn became the food staple of the majority of the indigenous tribes in Southern California. This subsistence strategy continued until European contact. Material culture became more diverse and elaborate and included steatite containers, perforated stones, bone tools, ornamental items, and asphalt adhesive.

Horizon IV: Late Prehistoric Cultures (750 CE to 1769 CE). During the Late Prehistoric Period, exploitation of many food resources, particularly marine resources among coastal groups, continued to intensify. The material culture in the Late Prehistoric Horizon increased in complexity in terms of the abundance and diversity of artifacts being produced. The recovery and identification of a number of small projectile points during this period likely suggests a greater utilization of the bow and arrow, which was likely introduced near the end of the Intermediate Period. Shell beads, ornaments, and other elements of material culture continue to be ornate, varied, and widely distributed; the latter evidence suggests elaborate trade networks. Warren’s scheme divides the late prehistoric period into several regional traditions. Western Riverside County, Orange County, and the Los Angeles Basin area are considered part of the “Shoshonean” tradition, which may be related to a possible incursion of Takic speakers into these areas during this period. The Late Prehistoric Period includes the first few centuries of early European contact (1542–1769 CE); it is also known as the Protohistoric Period as there was a low level of interaction between native Californians and Europeans prior to Portolá’s overland expedition in 1769.

In the few centuries prior to European contact, the archaeological record reveals substantial increases in the indigenous population. Some village sites may have contained as many as 1,500 individuals. Apparently, many of these village sites were occupied throughout the year rather than seasonally. This shift in settlement strategy was likely influenced by improved food procurement and storage technology, which enabled population growth and may have helped stimulate changes in sociopolitical organization.

Evidence is growing that prehistoric cultural change has been much more variable through time and across culture areas than previously thought. Cultural traits such as maritime economies, seafaring, complex trade networks, and year-round occupation of villages appear to have developed much earlier than previously thought. Culture change during the Late Prehistoric Period, in particular, may have been driven more by environmental and resource pressures than optimal adaptation to the environment.

3 CE is defined as “Common Era” and generally refe rs to that time period commonly referred to as “ann ō Dominī” (A.D.).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-5 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Ethnographic Background
Gabrielino/Tongva
At the time of European contact, this part of Orange County including Anaheim was the home of the Gabrielino, or Tongva. The Gabrielino and their descendants are those people who became associated with Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, which was established in south-central Los Angeles County on September 8, 1771, in what has ever since been called the San Gabriel Valley.

Today, these people are sometimes referred to as the Tongva, although the term apparently originally (i.e., before the arrival of Euro-Americans) referred to the inhabitants of the San Gabriel Valley only. In either case, the inhabitants of Santa Catalina Island and San Clemente Island are often included as being parts of this tribe, as are the Fernandeño, who inhabited most of the San Fernando Valley. Note that Chester King distinguishes between the Eastern Gabrielino, who lived south of the San Gabriel Mountains, mainly in the San Gabriel Valley, and the Western Gabrielino, who lived along the western coast of Los Angeles County, from Malibu to Palos Verdes, and the San Fernando Valley.

The ancestral Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles Basin probably before 500 BCE as part of the so-called Shoshonean (Takic speaking) Wedge from the Great Basin region and gradually displaced the indigenous peoples who were probably Hokan speakers. Large, permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. Eventually, Gabrielino territory encompassed the watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Rio Hondo, and Santa Ana Rivers which include the greater Los Angeles Basin, to perhaps as far south as Aliso Creek, as well as portions of the San Fernando, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino Valleys. Gabrielino territory also included the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina. Recent studies suggest the population may have numbered as many as 10,000 individuals at their peak in the Precontact Period.

The subsistence economy of the Gabrielino was one of hunting and gathering. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the natives were able to exploit resources in the mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, and coasts. As was the case for most native Californians, acorns were the staple food (by the Intermediate Horizon), supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruit of a wide variety of flora (i.e., cactus, yucca, sage, and agave). Fresh and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, insects, and large and small mammals were also eaten.

A wide variety of tools and implements were employed by the Gabrielino to gather, collect, and process food resources. The most important hunting tool was the bow and arrow. Traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks, and slings were also employed. Fish were an important resource and nets, traps, spears, harpoons, hooks, and poisons were utilized to catch them. Ocean-going plank canoes and tule balsa canoes were used for fishing and for travel by those groups residing near the Pacific Ocean.

The processing of food resources was accomplished in a variety of ways: nuts were cracked with hammer stone and anvil; acorns were ground with mortar and pestle; and seeds and berries were ground with mano and metate. Yucca, an important resource in many areas, was eaten by the natives and exploited for its fibers.

Strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks were also employed. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-6 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Gabrielino houses were circular domed structures of willow poles thatched with tule. They were actually quite large and could, in some cases, hold 50 individuals. Other structures served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, and ceremonial enclosures (Bean and Smith 1978).

Kroeber (1925:621) considered the Gabrielino:
…to have been the most advanced group south of Tehachapi, except perhaps the Chumash. They certainly were the wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans of the State, and dominated these civilizationally wherever contacts occurred.

Anaheim
In 1852, Reid reported that the community of Hotuuknga was located on “Santa Ana [Yorbes]”, referring to the 79,000-acre Mexican land grant of Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana owned by the Yorba family. This information was confirmed by Kroeber. An entry in the San Gabriel mission registers states “Jutucunga en el rio Santa Ana [on the Santa Ana River].” Writing sometime before 1933, Harrington reported on Hotuuknga as follows:
the site of the former Bernardo Yorba adobe house, on the north bank of Wanawna, the Santa Ana River, a little downstream of Santa Ana Canyon [sic], ¼-mile upstream of the Yorba church, across the river from Peralta. The old adobe house was visited by me [Harrington] with Acu [a Juaneño consultant, Jose de la Gracia Cruz] . . . It was torn down about 1926 . . . The Yorba church is on the south side of the main north-bank road, between [the] road and [the] Santa Fe railway.

The Yorba house site is on the north side of this road.

When the Portolá Expedition forded the Santa Ana River on July 28, 1769, Father Crespi described it as “a river which has a bed of running water about 10 varas wide 4 and half vara5 deep
. . . Its course is from northeast to southwest. The bed of the river is overgrown with sycamores, alders, willows, and other trees . . .” He reported the following existed on the right bank of the river:
…a populous village of Indians, who received us with great friendliness. Fifty-two of them came to the camp, and their chief told us by signs which we understood very well that we must come to live with them; that they would make houses for us, and provide us with food, such as antelope, hares, and seeds. They urged us to do this, telling us that all the land we saw, and there was certainly a great deal of it, was theirs, and that they would divide it with us.

These Indians were seen by Father Crespi again the following day at the fiesta near Brea Canyon.

Although Father Crespi did not report a name for this community, it appears to have been situated near the location of the Hotuuknga.

Jose Zalvidea reported to Harrington that Hotuuknga “… means night for at the beginning of the world, they went no more in the night” (McCawley 1996: 59–60).

Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period (1821-1848), which closed with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican–American

4 A Spanish vara was about 33 inches, so the River was about 27 feet wide. 5 About 16 inches
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-7 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
War. Extensive land grants were made in the interior region during the Mexican Period. During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary Southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods, and were known as “California bank notes”. A steadily growing California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities (South Environmental 2023).

Modern History
The American Period (1848-present) begins when California became a U.S. territory in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, and then became a state in 1850. Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle, was the currency and staple of the rancho system and continued to dominate the Southern California economy through the Gold Rush and into the 1850s. However, a series of natural disasters beginning in 1862 ultimately brought an end to the rancho system. Floods followed by prolonged drought decimated the cattle industry and resulted in the deaths of thousands of animals, bringing financial ruin to rancheros (South Environmental 2023).

The area now known as Anaheim began in the 1850s as subdivided vineyard lots. Two investors from San Francisco, John Fröhling and Charles K ohler, incorporated themselves as the Los Angeles Vineyard Society and sought out the assistance of Los Angeles County Surveyor, George Hansen, to find a site for a colony of new farmers. Settling on the ideal location of the former Rancho San Juan Cajon De Santa Ana, Hansen purchased 1,165 acres for $2 an acre from Juan Pacifico Ontiveros and began parceling off the land. Farmers who congregated in the area were provided by Hansen with a town lot to construct a residence and a ten-acre tract for farming. As the industry developed throughout the decade, an irrigation system was installed, and houses were constructed to provide housing for vintners migrating from other parts of California.

By the mid-1860s, the vineyards became well established and highly productive with over 400,000 vines, taking up a majority of the land (South Environmental 2023).

In the following decades, much of the vineyard land would be cleared and subdivided for residential neighborhoods. Businesses were beginning to form a concentrated downtown, transitioning the land from agricultural to commercial. Between 1884 and 1888, a disease known as Pierce’s Disease ravaged the land and destroyed 400,000 grapevines. However, the town recovered its agricultural industry within two years by replacing the vineyards with citrus groves and other produce (South Environmental 2023).

During the early 20th century, Anaheim continued to expand its residential neighborhoods due to a post-World War I need for housing. The citrus industry continued to thrive well into the 1940s, but by the end of the decade agricultural land was sold off for further residential development.

After World War II, significant developments of more residential tracts and recreational centers shaped the land. In 1954, Walt Disney purchased 160 acres of orange groves and walnut trees along South Harbor Boulevard to build Disneyland, the “Happiest Place on Earth.” “Anaheim’s business-friendly climate allowed unexpected rapid and unplanned growth [in west Anaheim] around the Disneyland Park area in the 1960s and 1970s…”. Disneyland’s popularity was used as a selling tool as real estate advertisements for land, touting the proximity of existing homes and new housing tracts to Disneyland (South Environmental 2023).

By the 1990s, the City grew to its present size of 50 square miles, and has continued to experience rapid commercial, retail, and recreational development (South Environmental 2023).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-8 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
B. Regulatory Framework
Historic Designations
Historical and cultural resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. The framework for the identification and, in certain instances, protection of cultural resources is established at the federal level, while the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources are often undertaken by state and local governments. As described below, the principal federal, State, and local laws governing and influencing the preservation of historical resources of national, State, regional, and local significance include:
 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards);
 CEQA;
 The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register);  The California Public Resources Code;
 The City of Anaheim General Plan;
 The City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan; and  The City of Anaheim Lists of Historically Significant Structures or Structures of Historical Interest.

Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of historic resources. The NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and provided procedures for the ACHP and federal agencies in promoting historic preservation.

Section 106 of the NHPA, which is codified as 36 CFR Part 800, requires that federal actions and the use of federal funds take into account their potential effects on historic properties or those listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register).

National Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” The National Register recognizes a broad range of historical and cultural resources that are significant at the national, state, and local levels and can include districts, buildings, structures, objects, prehistoric archaeological sites, historic-period archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and cultural landscapes. Within the National Register, approximately 2,500 (3 percent) of the more than 90,000 districts, buildings, structures, objects, and sites are recognized as National Historic Landmarks or National Historic Landmark Districts as possessing exceptional nat ional significance in American history and culture.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-9 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Whereas individual historic properties derive their significance from one or more of the criteria discussed in the subsequent section, a historic district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a variety of resources. With a historic district, the historic resource is the district itself. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. A district is defined as a geographic area of land containing a significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects united by historic events, architecture, aesthetic, character, and/or physical development. A district’s significance and historic integrity determine its boundaries.

A resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register is considered “historic property” under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Criteria
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be at least 50 years of age, unless it is of exceptional importance as defined in Title 36 CFR, Part 60, Section 60.4(g). In addition, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Four criteria for evaluation have been established to determine the significance of a resource:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Historic Districts
The National Park Service defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.” A district must be “a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented differ ences in patterns of historic development or associations.” Boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.

Within a historic district, a building, structure, or feature is considered a contributor if it was constructed during the period of significance, cont ributes to the property’s historic significance and character, and retains sufficient integrity to convey that significance. Non-contributors are those buildings that were constructed outside of the period of significance, do not contribute to the property’s historic significance and character, and/or do not retain sufficient integrity.

Period of Significance
According to the National Park Service, in addition to the above criteria, significance is defined by the area of history in which the property made important contributions and by the period of time when these contributions were made. This is referred to as the period of significance. The period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for listing. The period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-10 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction. The period of significance can be as brief as a single year; many, however, span many years and consist of beginning and closing dates. Identification and definition of the period of significance is based on “specific events directly related to the significance of the property,” for example, the date of construction, years of ownership, or length of operation as a particular entity.

Integrity
In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity, which is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. In general, the National Register has a higher integrity threshold than State or local registers.

The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that comprise integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These qualities are defined as follows:
 Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event took place.
 Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
 Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.  Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.  Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
 Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
 Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation
The Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Standards were codified in 1995 (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 68) to establish professional standards that apply to all proposed development grant-in-aid projects assisted through the National Historic Preservation Fund and to serve as general guidance for work on any other historic building. The SOI Standards apply to historic properties of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. The ten Standards for Rehabilitation are:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-11 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

State
Historical Resources Under CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA Section 21084.1, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 recognizes that historical resources include: (1) resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any objects, buildings, structures, sites, areas, places, records, or manuscripts which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-12 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” The California Register was enacted in 1992, and its regulations became official on January 1, 1998. The California Register is administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria. Certain resources are determined to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local, State, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or B. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; or
C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or D. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to conv ey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
 California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined eligible for the National Register;
 California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and,  Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
 Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a local jurisdiction register);
 Individual historical resources;
 Historic districts; and,
 Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-13 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
California Environmental Quality Act
Archaeological and Historical Resources
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, including historical resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources, requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted should be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to histor ical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. According to Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, historical resources are defined as “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California”. An archeological site may be considered an historical resource if it is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California (PRC § 5020.1(j)) or if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (14 CCR § 4850).

Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate hist orical resources against the CRHR criteria prior to before making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources.

Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project would cause substantial adverse change to a historical resource. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The State CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the re source’s significance. The CRHR is used in the consideration of historical resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The CRHR includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preser vation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.

Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be a “historical resource” if it:

1. Is listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1, Title 14 California C ode of Regulations [ CCR], Section 4850 et seq.).

2. Is included in a local register of historical resources or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC.

3. Is a building or structure determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-14 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC).

These sections also address the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. Procedures to be implemented are established for (1) the discovery of Native American skeletal remains during construction of a project; (2) the treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation; and (3) reburial.

Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code specifically provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the County Coroner determines the remains are likely Native American, the Coroner contacts the Native American Heritage Commission.

California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98)
Under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, when the Native American Heritage Commission receives notice from a County Coroner pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the Commission notifies those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants, with permission of the land owner, may inspect the site of the discovery and, within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, recommend means for treatment or disposit ion, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. Upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner must ensure the immediate vicinity is not damaged or disturbed by further development until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations.

Local
Mills Act
Under the Mills Act, California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq., a city or county may contract with the owner of any qualified historical property who agrees to rehabilitate, restore, and/or maintain his or her property according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. While state law enacted the Mills Act, the program is administered by local governments, which establish their own criteria and determine how many contracts to allow in their jurisdiction. The City of Anaheim has established a Mills Act Program to provide basic information on the Mills Act and how to apply for Mills Act designation for a property that they own.

Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan
The City of Anaheim adopted the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan in 1999. In 2010, the City Council approved and adopted the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. The Citywide Historic Preservation Plan supplements the 1999 plan and provides for the identification and protection of those historic resources, both individual properties and districts, that are dispersed throughout the City. The Plan assists the City and its residents in recognizing the importance of historic resources that are located throughout Anaheim, and provides a framework for the identification, and potentially the formal designation, of those resources.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-15 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
The City of Anaheim has three levels of recognition:

I. Historic Districts;
II. Historically Significant Structures; and
III. Structures of Historical Interest.

Historic Districts
Historic Districts are usually contiguous groups of buildings that are best evaluated together due to their common history and physical characteristics that contribute to the significance of the district. For a historic district to be considered for listing, a significant number of the properties within the proposed boundaries must be contributors to the significance of the district. The end of the period of significance must be close to fifty (50) years or more before the present.

A historic district is eligible for listing if it meets the following criteria:

1. It is associated with broad patterns of local, regional, or national history; and,

2. It cohesively illustrates the characteristics of a significant architectural style, property type, period, or method of construction; or it represents the work of architects, designers, engineers, or builders who are locally, regionally, or nationally significant.

Buildings located within a historic district must meet all of the following conditions to be considered contributors to the significance of the district:

1. Constructed within the period of significance documented for the district;

2. Associated with the significant historic themes identified for the district; and,

3. Retaining historic integrity from the period of significance.

It is possible that with the restoration of certain features (for example, the removal of stucco to uncover original wood siding) a non-contributor may become a contributor. Not every contributor within a historic district is eligible for the City’s Mills Act program, which has additional guidelines beyond the criteria for historic designation. Please refer to City Preservation Programs at the end of this section for further information.

Historically Significant Structures
Historically Significant Structures are individually eligible properties outside of the City’s historic districts. Some of Anaheim’s historic resources are located in areas that were impacted by later development; others were constructed in earlier periods of the City’s history in areas where few other structures of the same era were built or survive today. These resources are isolated from others of similar vintage (and therefore cannot be in cluded in historic districts), but they are a characteristic part of the historic built environment throughout the City and are often threatened by remodeling, demolition, or development.

A building, structure, or object that is over 50 years old and possesses sufficient historic integrity (please see Design Guidelines for definition) may be considered for listing as a Historically Significant Structure if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It strongly represents a significant event or broad patterns of local, regional, or national history;
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-16 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

2. It is associated with the life of a significant person in local, regional, or national history; and/or,

3. It is a very good example of a significant ar chitectural style, property type, period, or method of construction; or it represents the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder who is locally, regionally, or nationally significant; or it is a significant visual feature of the City.

Potential Historically Significant Structures may be required to complete a certain amount of exterior rehabilitation before they can be designated. The threshold for rehabilitation is similar to what is required for participation in the Mills Act program, i.e., substantial rehabilitation of the exterior that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see Design Guidelines). A rehabilitation plan may be developed in consultation with City staff.

Structures of Historical Interest
The City maintains a List of Structures of Historical Interest to track properties outside of existing districts that have been identified by City staff or the public. This list includes properties outside of established historic districts that have been identified by interested individuals or groups, by City staff, through windshield survey, or through any other process that identifies groups of buildings or individual buildings for further study based on their age, building type, style, etc. The list is a tool for identifying potential historic districts and Historically Significant Structures, but it may also encourage preservation as it identifies any properties that are resources for understanding the City’s historic built environment.

A building, structure, or object that is over 50 years old and possesses sufficient historic integrity (please see Design Guidelines) may be added to the list of Structures of Historical Interest with the approval of the Executive Director of the Community Development Department. The list consists of buildings that are a good example of an identifiable architectural style and buildings that are associated with the residential, institutional, industrial or commercial development of Anaheim or the region. At the department’s discretion, structures of less than 50 years old may be added as well if they are exceptionally interesting or significant and merit tracking. Updates to the list will be approved by the Executive Director of the Community Development Department.

Structures on this list may be eligible for certain City incentive programs to assist with their rehabilitation if they have the potential to become Historically Significant Structures. Please consult with City staff for further information. These structures are not eligible for the Mills Act unless they are later included in a historic district or attain Historically Significant Structure status.

City of Anaheim General Plan
Community Design Element
The Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan identifies historic preservation requirements for residential areas of the historic Anaheim Colony District (City of Anaheim 2004).

Given that the Project Site is not located within the Anaheim Colony District, none of these requirements apply to the Project.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-17 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

5.4.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Development History Report
In 2023, South Environmental prepared a report, included as Appendix E-1 of this Draft Subsequent EIR, that analyzed the development history of Disney ARSP Properties and two Disney Properties within the DRSP. This included a review of all building permits on file with the City of Anaheim and historic aerial photographs and topographic maps of the Project Site. All properties appear to have been originally developed as farmland during the late 19th century with development of the first buildings/structures occurring between the 1950s and 1970s. Six of these properties (1515 S. Manchester Avenue, 1530 S. Harbor Boulevard, 1900 S. Harbor Boulevard, 333 W. Ball Road, the Pumbaa Surface Parking Lot, and the Simba Surface Parking Lot located south of the Paradise Pier Hotel) consist of parking lots with no other buildings and structures and have no potential for historical significance. The Paradise Pier Hotel (1717 S. Disneyland Drive) is less than 45 years old, there is no evidence to suggest that it is eligible for listing in federal, state, or local registers, and it was not considered historically significant. Finally, the warehouse/office building at 1585 S. Manchester Avenue was not formally evaluated for historical significance, however, this building has been substantially altered and appears to have low potential for historical significance.

The earliest aerial imagery for the site of 1515 South Manchester Avenue (ARSP Parking Overlay) is from the late 1940s and early 1950s. The imagery shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. In the 1950s and 1960s, the entire property was developed with industrial uses, including manufacturing and warehouse buildings. Disney acquired this property in June 2014. In 2016, the buildings on the property were demolished. The property was then converted entirely into parking. By 2019, the property appears as it does in present day (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial imagery for the property at 1585 South Manchester Avenue (ARSP Parking Overlay) is from the late 1940s and early 1950s, which shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. By 1963, a warehouse-style building was constructed near the center of the property, with a parking lot surrounding it, and an additional small building in the southeast corner. Disney acquired this property in June 2014. By 2020, the parking lot on the property had been restriped and a bus shelter constructed. (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial image of the property at 1530 South Harbor Boulevard (ARSP Parking Overlay) is from the late 1940s and early 1950s and show s that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. Over the years, the property was developed with a motel/hotel, which was expanded over the years, and a commercial business on the southwest side of the property. In 2018, a permit application was filed to demolish the Carousel Inn & Suites.

The entire motel as well as the narrow commercial building located to the south were removed.

These structures were replaced with the existing parking lot by 2019. Exhibit 5.4-1, 1530 South Harbor Boulevard, Historic Photos, shows street view images of the Carousel Inn & Suites, before and after demolition (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial imagery for the property located at 1900 South Harbor Boulevard (ARSP Theme Park East Overlay) is from the late 1940s and early 1950s and shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. At this time, the property consisted of some small buildings, likely residences, and agricultural-related structures scattered throughout.

In 2001, two areas of the agricultural fields were converted to parking lots. By 2010, the central 1530 South Harbor Boulevard, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-1 DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Street view images of the Carousel Inn & Suites, after demolition Street view images of the Carousel Inn & Suites, before demolition

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-18 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
residence and agricultural buildings on the property were demolished, and more of the property was dedicated to parking lot use. All pre-2000 structures on the property have now been demolished and the entire property is now used for surface parking. Exhibit 5.4-2, 1900 South Harbor Boulevard, Historic Photos, shows aerial images of this location from 1953 and 2018 (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial imagery for the property located at 333 West Ball Road (ARSP Parking Overlay) from the late 1940s and early 1950s shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard, with what appears to be three small buildings, possibly residences, at the southwest corner. In 1977, a permit application was filed to construct the Anaheim RV Village, an RV park situated on the eastern portion of the property, removing the last orchard. Exhibit 5.4-3, 333 West Ball Road, Historic Photos, shows aerial images of this location from 1968 and 2007 (South Environmental 2023). In 2014, all structures on the property were demolished and a parking lot was constructed. By 2016, the property appears as it does today (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial imagery for the property located at 1717 South Disneyland Drive (Paradise Pier Hotel, ARSP Theme Park West Overlay) and the Simba Parking Lot (DRSP Theme Park District) is from the late 1940s and early 1950s and shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard, with what appears to be a residence and some additional, likely agricultural, buildings. By 1963, the land was cleared of its agricultural use and five buildings had been constructed. By the early 1970s, a motel in the southeast corner had been expanded to the west, and a gas station received new canopies. By 1980, the property was further subdivided with the entire northeast corner converted to a paved parking lot. More commercial buildings were constructed along Disneyland Drive, but a large portion of the property remained undeveloped in 1980 (South Environmental 2023). By 1987, the small commercial structure in the northeast corner was demolished and the Paradise Pier Hotel had been built in its place. By 1998, all development aside from the Paradise Pier Hotel had been demolished and much of the property had been repaved into a parking lot. Since that time, a cluster of temporary buildings and structures were located at the northwest corner of the property. Exhibit 5.4-4, 1717 South Disneyland Boulevard, Historic Photos, shows aerial images of this location from 1968 and 2007.

In 2012, only two of these buildings remained as permanent buildings and the property looked much as it does in present day (South Environmental 2023).

The earliest aerial imagery for the Pumbaa Surface Parking Lot (North Side of Disney Way Between South Harbor Boulevard and South Clementine Street) (DRSP Parking District East Parking Area) from the late 1940s and early 1950s shows that the property was originally used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. The orchard was cleared out by 1963 and by 1972, a large commercial building with a parking lot was constructed on the west side of the property. The rest of lot was used as an unpaved parking lot. In 1998, the entire commercial building was demolished and replaced with a paved surface parking lot. In 2000, the green spaces at the south edge of the property were removed and returned to dirt, however trees and groundcover were planted along South Clementine Street. By the early 2000s, the property looked much as it does in the present day, with the portion of the SCE property located near Harbor Boulevard developed as a miniature golf business (South Environmental 2023). Currently, there are no building structures on the property; the northern portion of the property contains a surface parking lot and the southern portion contains the SCE power lines.

Historic Resources Technical Report
A Historic Resources Technical Report for DisneylandForward was conducted by Historic Resources Group (HRG) in May 2023, and included as Appendix E-2 of this Draft Subsequent EIR. The report identifies whether there are historical resources as defined by CEQA located 1900 South Harbor Boulevard, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-2 DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Aerial image of this location from 2018
Aerial image of this location from 1953

333 West Ball Road, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-3
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Aerial image of this location from 2007
Aerial image of this location from 1968

1717 South Disneyland Boulevard, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-4 DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Aerial image of this location from 2007
Aerial image of this location from 1968

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-19 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
within the Project Site, and if so, if the Project would impact historical resources. The establishment of Disneyland in 1955 was a significant catalyst in the transformation of the area after World War II, and it continues to play a central role in the economic and physical development of Anaheim. Disneyland has not been comprehensively evaluated as a potential historical resource in previous studies. Disneyland represents a grouping of related buildings, structures, features, and sites; therefore, it is appropriately evaluated in the report as a potential historic district. The report includes an overview of the development history of Disneyland; a detailed review of the development history of the theme park and a compilation of changes over time; an identification of the appropriate contexts; and an evaluation of potential eligibility for historic designation at the federal, state, or local levels to determine whether it should be considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. Exhibit 5.4-5a, Disneyland Park, Historic Photos, shows an aerial image of Disneyland Park from 1962 and the Submarine Voyage and Monorail from 1959. Exhibit 5.4-5b, Disneyland Park, Historic Photos, shows an image of Main Street Train Depot and City Hall under construction in 1954 and an image of Tomorrowland from 1967. Exhibit 5.4-5c, Disneyland Park, Historic Photos, shows aerial images of Disneyland Hotel in 1956 and 1978 (HRG 2022). A site visit was conducted by HRG on June 25, 2021. The field methods and analysis are based on guidance from the National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation for evaluating potential historical resources.

In order to identify whether there are historical resources located outside the boundary of the Disneyland Theme Park but within the wider DRSP and ARSP areas, the following sources were consulted:
 EIR No. 311 prepared for The Disneyland Resort Project;  EIR No. 313 and SEIR No. 340 prepared for the ARSP Project;  City of Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan;
 City of Anaheim records for designated Histor ic Districts; Historically Significant Structures; and Structures of Historical Interest;
 California Historical Resources Inventory (the Built Environment Resources Directory);  Records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center; and  Survey of Disney ARSP properties conducted by South Environmental.

Citywide Historic Preservation Plan
The Citywide Historic Preservation Plan was adopted in 2010 and provides for the identification and protection of historic resources, both individ ual properties and districts, throughout the City.

That study did not include a citywide historic resources survey, but instead provides guidance for the evaluation and local designation of historically significant properties and districts. Incorporated within the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan is a historic context statement which establishes significant development patterns in the City a nd the relevant themes for evaluating potential historic significance. The context statement includes the theme “Tourism, Suburbanization, and Industrial Growth, 1950 to 1970,” which acknowledges the impact of the 1955 establishment of Disneyland on the growth and development of Anaheim during this period and the City’s “rise as a regional center for recreation, entertainment, sports, and conventions.” As of the last update in 2016, neither Disneyland nor any individual park features have been locally designated, and it is not included in the City of Anaheim List of Historic Structures and Structures of Historical Interest.

Disneyland Park, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-5a
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Submarine Voyage and Monorail from 1959
Aerial image of Disneyland Park from 1962

Disneyland Park, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-5b
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Tomorrowland from 1967
Main Street Train Depot and City Hall under construction in 1954

Disneyland Park, Historic Photos Exhibit 5.4-5c
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Aerial image of Disneyland Hotel in 1978
Aerial image of Disneyland Hotel in 1956

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-20 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
National Historic Preservation Act
In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement to exclude from Section 106 review certain undertakings involving the construction and modification of facilities, and to streamline and tailor the required review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for other such undertakings. Since the adoption of the Programmatic Agreement, three communications undertakings at the Disneyland Park and one in proximity to the Anaheim Convention Center have been evaluated for potential effects to historic resources. As discussed below, these evaluations resulted in the identification and designation of three individual features at Disneyland: the Main Street Railroad Depot; Pirates of the Caribbean; and the Hungry Bear Restaurant. In addition, the Anaheim Convention Center was identified as historic ally significant and subsequently listed in the California Register.

In 2005, the Main Street Railroad Depot (referred to in the report as the “Disneyland Railroad Depot”) was identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B, and C because it “appears eligible for association with significant events and persons as well as significance related to architecture and engineering within the amusement park property type.” The evaluation noted that the Depot is a “contributor to a potential National Register historic district.” Disneyland as a whole was found “eligible for National Register listing under Criteria A, B, C, and D [because it] retains its association with important historical events/pattern of events and personages and continues to possess unique and distinctive design/construction/engineering qualities. It also has the potential to yield important information since it was the principal source of unique design, construction, and engineering techniques not yet fully researched or acknowledged.” The evaluation further noted that “over the years, many rides have come and gone in the Park, but the overall design, concept, setting, feeling, and historical associations have remained constant and unaltered.” However, no additional information about a potential district (including boundary, period of significance, contributors/non-contributors), nor about the Main Street Railroad Depot, was included in the evaluation. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the evaluation of the Main Street Railroad Depot, and the building was assigned a status code of 2S2, which is defined as “Individual property determined eligible for National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the California Register.” There were no comments or formal concurrence from the SHPO on the identification of a potential historic district.

In 2019, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride was identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A as “part of the overall general development of the Disneyland Park in the first phase of renovation and expansion in the 1960s,” and under Criterion C as “a good example of the French Quarter New Orleans/Theme Park architectural style.” The SHPO concurred with the evaluation of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride building, and it was assigned a status code 2S2.

In 2019, the Hungry Bear Restaurant was identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for “its association with the second phase of renovation and expansion of Disneyland in the 1970s,” and under Criterion C as “a good example of Rustic/Theme Park style architecture.” The SHPO concurred with the evaluation of the Hungry Bear restaurant, and the building was assigned a status code 2S2.

The Anaheim Convention Center at 800 W. Katella Way was evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as part of Section 106 review in 2014, 2019, and 2020.

The 2014 evaluation found the Anaheim Convention Center ineligible for listing in the National DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-21 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Register.6 It is unclear whether this report was submitted to the SHPO; there is no status code listed in the BERD that corresponds with this evaluation and no concurrence letter on file.

In 2019, the building was re-evaluated by Crawford Historical Services, which found that the building was significant under National Register and California Register Criteria A/1 for its role in the “economic and tourism development of the City of Anaheim;” however, the evaluation found that the building did not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance. 7 In response,
the SHPO wrote that they could not concur that the property “meets National Register Criterion A because it no longer retains sufficient integrity.”
8 In 2020, the Anaheim Convention Center was re-evaluated by Crawford Historical Services. The evaluation found that the Anaheim Convention Center, constructed in 1967, was eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register under Criteria A/1 as “part of the broad patterns of the post-World War II changes that were taking place in Southern California, specifically in the City of Anaheim;” however, the evaluation again noted that the building did not retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance.
9 The evaluation did not specify which portion(s) of the building are historically significant; however, the evaluation references the 1967 Anaheim Convention Center, so it is presumed that later additions to the building were not found to contribute to its significance. On February 8, 2021, the SHPO wrote that they concurred with the findings that the property “meets National Register Criterion A as an example of the post-World War II growth and development of the City of Anaheim.”
10 Unlike prior correspondence from the
SHPO in 2019, the 2021 letter does not mention historic integrity. The concurrence letter from the SHPO represents a formal determination of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by consensus; properties that are formally determined eligible for the National Register are thereby officially listed in the California Register. Therefore, in 2021, the Anaheim Convention Center was assigned the status code 2S2, indicating designation in the California Register.

Despite the conflicting evaluations, the 2S2 status code assigned in 2021 is the presiding determination.

Built Environment Resources Directory
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) maintains the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), a database of previously evaluated resources throughout the state. The BERD contains information only for cultural resources that have been processed through OHP . This includes resources reviewed for eligibility for the National Register and the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs.

A search of the BERD, conducted on October 1, 2022, found that there are five properties within the ARSP area that were evaluated as part of Section 106 review by the FCC: the three Disneyland Theme Park features discussed above, and two additional properties listed in Table 5.4-1, below.

6 Wayne Bonner and Kathleen Crawford, "Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate LA02856G (Anaheim Convention Cent er) 800 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Orange County, California," prepared by Crawford Historic Services, 2014. 7 Kathleen Crawford, State of Califor nia Department of Parks and Recreation form, “T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate IEYH081A (Anaheim Convention Center),” prepared by Crawford Historic Services, March 20, 2019. 8 Julianne Polanco, State Histori c Preservation Officer, letter to Carrie Wills, EAS, April 18, 2019. 9 Kathleen Crawford, State of Califor nia Department of Parks and Recreation form, “T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate IE944974 (aka LA02856G) Anaheim Convention Center,” prepared by Crawford Historic Services, November 20, 2020.
10 Julianne Polanco, State Histori c Preservation Officer, letter to Carrie Wills, EAS, February 8, 2021.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-22 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-1

BUILDINGS AND FEATURES ON THE PROJECT SITE LISTED IN THE BERD Address Date Description
Recorder And
Year Status Code
Relationship To
Project Site
1313 S. Harbor
Blvd 1955 Disneyland Railroad
Depot FCC, 2005 2S2 (2005) Disneyland Theme
Park feature
1313 S. Harbor
Blvd 1966 New Orleans Square FCC, 2019 2S2 (2019) Disneyland Theme Park feature
1313 S. Harbor
Blvd 1972 Hungry Bear
Restaurant FCC, 2019 2S2 (2019) Disneyland Theme
Park feature
624 W.

Convention Way 1971 Clarion Hotel FCC, 2018 6Y (2018) ARSP Area 800 W. Katella
Avenue 1967 Anaheim Convention
Cente
r
FCC, 2021;
FCC, 2019
2S2 (2021); 6Y
(2019) ARSP Area
6Y: Determined ineligible for National Register by consensus through Section 106 Process – Not evaluated for California Register or Local Listing.

S2S: Individual property determined eligible for National Register by a consensus through Section 106 Process. Listed in the California Register.

Source: HRG 2022.

South Central Coastal Information Center Record Searches Historic Resources
A records search was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) housed at California State University, Fullerton on October 11, 2022. The records search included a review of all previously documented historic or architectural resources located within the DRSP and ARSP areas.

There are three buildings and one structure within the ARSP and DRSP areas that had been evaluated for potential historical significance. The three buildings were evaluated as ineligible for listing at the federal, state, and local levels; and the structure has been demolished. These resources are included in Table 5.4-2 below.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-23 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-2

SCCIC RECORDS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE PROJECT SITE
Primary
Number
Resource
Type Description
Recorder
And Year Status Code
Relationship To
Project Site
P-30-
176610
Historic
Building
1842 Mountain
View;
Craftsman-style
single-family
residence
Marsh, D.,
1987.

Recommended ineligible for
National Register, California
Register, or local listing (6Z)
ARSP Area
P-30-
177039
Historic
Structure
Cars Land
Sandpipe; used
for flood
irrigation
Glover, A.,
2010.

Not evaluated; demolished
during construction of Cars
Land
DRSP Area
P-30-
177545
Historic
Building
Anaheim
Convention
Center
Crawford,
K.A., 2014.

Recommended ineligible for
National Register, California
Register, or local listing (6Z)

ARSP Area
P-30-
177546
Historic
Building
Ramada Limited
Hotel
Crawford,
K.A., 2014.

Recommended ineligible for
National Register, California
Register, or local listing (6Z)
ARSP Area
None (via
email)
Historic
Building
Anaheim
Convention
Center
Crawford,
K.A., 2019.

Recommended eligible for
National Register and
California Register listing.

SHPO did not concur due to a
lack of integrity (6Z)
ARSP Area
None (via
email)
Historic
Building
Anaheim
Convention
Center
Crawford,
K.A., 2020.

Recommended eligible for
National Register and
California Register listing.

SHPO concurred. Listed on
National Register and
California Register (2S2)
11 ARSP Area
Source: HRG 2022.

Archaeological Resources
An archaeological records search was conducted by Psomas on July 2, 2021, for the Project at the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC is the designated branch of the CHRIS, one of ten Statewide repositories, whic h houses records of archaeological and historic resources in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. The review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) Anaheim 7.5-minute quadrangle to evaluate the Project Site for any sites recorded or cultural resources studies conducted on the Project Site and within a one-mile radius. Data sources consulted at the SCCIC include the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (AOE), and historic maps. The HPDF contains listings for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

11 Despite the conflicting evaluations, in 2021, the Anaheim Convention Center was listed in the California Register and assigned a status code of 2S2. The status code as assigned in 2021 is the presiding determination.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-24 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Previous Cultural Resources Studies Within One-Half Mile of the Project Site The SCCIC records search conducted by Psomas identified 50 prior cultural resources technical studies conducted within one-mile of the Project Site. Of the 50 studies identified within the search radius, one is located within the Project Site. This report consisted of an Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report for Disney’s California Adventure Expansion, Cars Land Project located in Anaheim, California. The prior studies are listed in Table 5.4-3, and the records search results summary from the SCCIC is presented in Appendix E-3.

TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE

Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-00280 1978 Carrico, Richard L. Westec
Services, Inc.

Archaeological Survey of the Sand
Dollar Development Property
Anaheim, California
No
OR-00814 1982 Romani, John F. Caltrans
Archaeological Survey Report for
the Route I-5 Santa Ana
Transportation Corridor, Route 405
in Orange County to Route 605 in
Los Angeles County Pm

21.30/44.38; 0.00/6.85
No
OR-00895 1988 Taylor, Thomas T.

Southern
California
Edison
Company
Archaeological Survey Report: Villa
Park-Lewis 230 Kv Transmission
Line Right-of-way
No
OR-00980 1987 Padon, Beth LSA Associates,
Inc.

Historic Property Survey Report 07-
ORA-5 Pm 34.0 to 42.1 Pm
No
OR-01638 1996 Corbin,
Christophe
r
City of Garden
Grove, Ca.

Harbor Corridor Entertainment
Center Development
No
OR-01898 1990 Anonymous Caltrans
Finding of Effect Widening of
Interstate 5 and Reconstruction of
Interchanges Between State
Routes 22/57 and 91 in the Cities
of Santa Ana, Orange, Anaheim,
Fullerton and Buena Park
No
OR-01949 1995
Padon, Beth,
McLean, Deborah,
and Strudwick,
Ivan
LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for
the City of Garden Grove
No
OR-01954 1996 Padon, Beth Petra
Resources, Inc.

Archaeological Archival Review
and Survey of the Co 5 and Co 6
Flood Control Channels, Anaheim,
Newport, and Seal Beach USGS

7.5' Quadrangles, Orange County,
California
No
OR-01977 1999 Duke, Curt LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for
Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility
Cm 281-09, County of Orange,
California
No
OR-02076 2000 Lapin, Philippe LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for
AT&T Wireless Services Facility
Number C751, County of Orange,
California
No
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-25 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-02095 1979 Breece, William H. Westec
Services, Inc.

Historical and Archaeological
Investigations of the Proposed
Anaheim Transportation Center
Sites
No
OR-02097 2000 Lapin, Philippe LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for
Pacific Bell Wireless Facility Cm
560-01, County of Orange
No
OR-02098 2000 Duke, Curt LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment for
Pacific Bell Wireless Facility Cm
560-02, County of Orange
No
OR-02188 1999 Demcak, Carol R.

Archaeological
Resource
Management
Corp.

Report of Archaeological
Assessment of Assessor's Parcels
234-171-01 and 234-171-03, City
of Anaheim
No
OR-02213 2000 Maxon, Patrick O. RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc.

Archaeological and Paleontological
Monitoring for the Hotel Circle
Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 0079, Anaheim, Ca
No
OR-02353 2001 McKenna,
Jeanette A. McKenna et al.

Review of Cultural Resource
Assessment/evaluation for Cingular
Wireless Site Sm-082-02, Orange
County, California
No
OR-02355 2001 Duke, Curt LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment:

Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sm
077-01, Orange County, California
No
OR-02506 1978 Webb, Lois M. and
Gene Huey
Caltrans District
7 Historic Property Survey, Haster
Street Overcrossing
No
OR-02514 2002 McKenna,
Jeanette A. McKenna et al. Historic Property Survey Report - Highway Project
No
OR-02561 2002 McKenna,
Jeanette A. McKenna et al.

Highway Project Located in the City
of Anaheim, Orange County, on
Ball Rd. Between Flore (West
Place) and Walnut St.

No
OR-02751 2002 Duke, Curt LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment at &
T Wireless Services Facility No.

D473a Orange County, California
No
OR-02754 2002 Duke, Curt LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment at &
T Wireless Services Facility No.
13064a-01
No
OR-02889 2005 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for
Nextel Communications Candidate
Ca8760a (Cris Ave.) 1621 Euclid
Street, Anaheim, Orange County,
California
No
OR-02898 2005
Staley, Meredith,
Fulton, Terry, and
McLean, Debbie
LSA Associates,
Inc.

Results of Archaeological
Resource Mitigation Monitoring for
Anaheim Corners Mixed-use
Development
No
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-26 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-02904 2002 Kyle, Carolyn E. Kyle Consulting
Cultural Resource Assessment for
Cingular Wireless Facility Sm189-
01, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-02905 2002 Kyle, Carolyn E. Kyle Consulting
Cultural Resource Assessment for
Cingular Wireless Facility Sm188-
02, City of Garden Grove, Orange
County, California
No
OR-02913 2005
Carmack,
Shannon and
Judith Marvin
LSA Associates,
Inc.

Verizon Wireless Falcon Saxons
Facility
No
OR-02916 2004 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resource Records Search
Results and Site Visit for Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
Candidate Og60xc669a
(Ponderosa Park), 2100 South
Haster Street, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-03330 2006
Schneeberger,
Sandra L. and
Drover,
Christopher E.

Golden State
Environmental,
Inc.

Phase I Archaeological Resource
Survey of TTM #16826, a ~5.16
Acre Site, Located at 2045 South
State College Boulevard, City of
Anaheim, County of Orange,
California, 92806 for the Gateway
Center Project APNs# 232-081-16
and 232-081-21
No
OR-03336 2006 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile Candidate La02893 (sc190
Prince of Peace), 1421 West Ball
Road, Anaheim, Orange County,
California
No
OR-03351 2005
Carmack,
Shannon and
Judith Marvin
LSA Associates,
Inc.

Cultural Resource Assessment
Verizon Wireless Falcon Saxons
Facility, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-03352 2007
Schneeberger,
Sandra L., Drover,
Christopher E.,
Roeder, Mark, and
Schulga, Corry L.

Golden State
Environmental,
Inc.

Results of the Cultural Resources
Monitoring Program for the
Platinum Triangle Gateway Center
Project APNs# 232-081-16 and
232-081-21
No
OR-03373 2006 Arrington, Cindy
and Nancy Sikes
SWCA
Environmental
Consultants,
Inc.

Cultural Resources Final Report of
Monitoring and Findings for the
Qwest Network Construction
Project State of California: Volumes
I and II
No
OR-03523 2009 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resource Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
USA Candidate LA33359A
(Ponderosa Park), 2100 South
Haster Street, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-27 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-03672 2007 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for
Royal Street Communications, LLC
Candidate LA2592A (Donut Star
Collo), 12052 East Chapman
Avenue, Garden Grove, Orange
County, California
No
OR-03693 2007 Bonner, Wayne H.

Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile Candidate LA02893H (MAG
Wheels),528 West Central Park
South, Anaheim, Orange County,
California
No OR-03776 2000 Padon, Beth Discovery
Works, Inc.

Historic Property Survey Report for
Harbor Boulevard Smart Street
Improvements, City of Garden
Grove, Orange County, California.

No
OR-03779 2009
Bonner, Wayne,
Said, Arabesque,
Bonner, Wayne,
and Said,
Arabesque
MBA
Cultural Resource Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
USA Candidate LA33822B
(Anaheim First Christian Church),
520 West South Street, Anaheim,
Orange County, California
No
OR-03782 2009
Bonner, Wayne,
Said, Arabesque,
and Crawford,
Kathleen
MBA
Cultural Resource Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
USA Candidate LA33821D
(Ramada Inn), 2141 South Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-03788 2008 Bonner, Wayne MBA
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile USA Candidate LA33823A
(Prince of Peace), 1421 West Ball
Road, Anaheim, Orange County,
California
No
OR-03936 2010 Glover, Amy and
Sherri Gust Cogstone
Archaeological and Paleontological
Resources Monitoring Compliance
Report for the Disney's California
Adventure Expansion, Cars Land
Project, City of Anaheim, California
Yes
OR-04116 2011 Fulton, Phil LSA Associates
Cultural Resource Assessment
Verizon Wireless Services Sallie
Facility, City of Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-04138 2011 Godat, Alexis EBI Consulting
BTS Native American United
Methodist / LA5500A, 800 South
Lemon Street, Anaheim, Orange
County, CA 92805
No
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-28 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-04173 2011 Bonner, Wayne
Michael
Brandman
Associates
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile USA Candidate LA33402-A
(Loara High School), 1765 West
Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-04208 2011 Wlodarski, Robert
Historical
Environmental
Archaeological
Research Team
Results of a Phase I Archaeological
Study for Proposed AT&T Wireless
Telecommunications Site OC0120
(Ponderosa Park) located at 2122
South Haster Street, Anaheim, CA
No
OR-04255 2012 Billat, Lorna EarthTouch All Aboard Storage 155 S Adams Street, Anaheim, Orange County
No
OR-04267 2011 Wlodarski, Robert HEART
Results of a Phase I Archaeological
Study for Proposed AT&T Wireless
Telecommunications Site OC0120
(Ponderosa Park) located at 2100
South Haster Street, Anaheim,
California
No
OR-04304 2010
Bonner, Diane
and Wlodarski,
Robert
Bonner, Diane
and Wlodarski,
Robert
Cultural Resources Record Search
and Archaeological Survey Results
for the proposed Clear Wireless
LLC Site CA-ORC1517A (Wells
Fargo Bank) located at 222 Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-04474 2013
Bonner, Wayne
and Crawford,
Kathleen
Bonner, Wayne
and Crawford,
Kathleen
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile West, LLC Candidate
LA33821D (Ramada Limited) 2141
Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
Orange County, California
No
OR-04474 2014
Bonner, Wayne H.
and Kathleen A.

Crawford
Bonner, Wayne
H. and Kathleen
A. Crawford
Direct APE Historic Architectural
Assessment for T-Mobile West,
LLC Candidate LA33821D
(Ramada Limited) 2141 Harbor
Boulevard, Anaheim, Orange
County, California
No
OR-04475 2013
Bonner, Wayne
and Crawford,
Kathleen
Bonner, Wayne
and Crawford,
Kathleen
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for T-
Mobile West, LLC Candidate
LA02856G (Anaheim Convention
Center) 800 Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, Orange County,
California
No
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-29 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
TABLE 5.4-3

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

WITHIN ONE-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Report
Number Year Author Affiliation Title
Within the
Project Site
OR-04475 2014
Bonner, Wayne H.
and Kathleen A.

Crawford
Bonner, Wayne
H. and Kathleen
A. Crawford
Direct APE Historic Architectural
Assessment for T-Mobile West,
LLC Candidate LA02856G
(Anaheim Convention Center) 800
West Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
Orange County, California
No
OR-04610 2017 Brandman, Jason
and So, Cecilia
Brandman,
Jason and So,
Cecilia
Cultural Resources Assessment,
Anaheim Boulevard Hotel
Development, City of Anaheim,
Orange County, California
No
Source: SCCIC 2021.

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCCIC records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the one-mile search radius. As noted in Table 5.4-3, Report OR-03936, an Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report for Dis ney’s California Adventure Expansion, Cars Land Project located in Anaheim, California was conducted within the Project Site; however, no resources were recorded.

Native American Heritage Commission
As detailed in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, Psomas submitted a request to the NAHC to review the Sacred Lands File (SLF) database regarding the possibility of Native American cultural resources and/or sacred places in the Project Site and surrounding areas that are not documented on other databases. The SLF search did not identify any known resources or sacred lands within the Project Site. However, the NAHC recommended that the lead agency (City) contact tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area.

Additionally, because the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, it is subject to the statutory requirements of SB 18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines (California Government Code Section 65352.3), which require the offer of government-to-government consultation with interested local Native American tribes identified by the NAHC. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on cultural resources. These resour ces may be sacred lands, traditional cultural places and resources, and archaeological sites.

Native American coordination efforts were conducted for this Project in 2021 through 2023. The tribal consultation results are discussed in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources.

B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.

Threshold 5.4a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-30 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Threshold 5.4b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. of the CEQA Guidelines?
Cultural resource threshold c (disturbance of human remains) was evaluated in Section 3.5 of the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to this threshold, and, accordingly, this threshold is not discussed in this Draft Subsequent EIR.

C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements are applicable to the Project. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

SR CUL-1 Before and during construction, if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin, and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 has occurred. (SEIR No 340, SR 5.4-1)
SR TCR-1 Prior to approval of any amendment to the ARSP or the City of Anaheim General Plan, the project property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City Planning Department to undergo a solicitation of Native American consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3). (SEIR No 340 SR 5.4-2)
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.4a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? New Impact from EIR No. 311; New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Significant and Unavoidable. EIR No. 311 concluded that no impacts to historical resources were expected to occur from development of The Disneyland Resort Project. SEIR No. 340 determined that no designated historical resources existed within the ARSP area; however, as discussed above, mitigation was identified to preclude any impacts to unknown historical resources. Given the new historic resource designations in and around the Project Site since approval of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, this Draft Subsequent EIR conducts a new analysis of historic resources.

Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), listed in a local register of historical resources, or identified as historically significant by the l ead agency. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR

60.4) and include those listed below:
i. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-31 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
iii. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
iv. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The Potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District
According to the Historic Resources Technical Report prepared for this Project, which is attached as Appendix E-2 of this Subsequent EIR, the establishment of Disneyland in 1955 was a significant catalyst in the transformation of Anaheim after World War II, and Disneyland continues to play a principal role in the City’s economic and physical development. At the time of the adoption of the DRSP in 1993, Disneyland had been established less than 40 years. EIR No. 311 determined Disney would continue the operation of Disneyland and would not jeopardize its historic status, and, as a result, determined there would be no impact to historic resources and no mitigation measures were required. As of 2022, Disneyland has been established and operating for 67 years. The Historic Resources Technical Report analyzed whether Disneyland should be treated as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. Based on research of the development history of the area; a review of the relevant contexts associated with the establishment of Disneyland in Anaheim in 1955; and an evaluation of the existing conditions, the Historic Resources Technical Report identified a potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, shown on Exhibit 5.4-6, Potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, that appears eligible for listing in the National Register for its establishment as the earliest and most influential theme park in the United States; for its association with Walt Disney and his original vision for the park; and for its design characteristics. As discussed in the Historical Resources Technical Report, which is attached as Appendix E-2, based on its significant contributions to commercial and recreational development in the United States after World War II, the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District appears eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A, the CRHR under Criterion 1, and for designation as a City Historic District under Criterion 1. Disneyland represents a unique and influential example of them park property type as envisioned and established by Walt Disney. The potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District appears eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C, the CRHR under Criterion 3, and for designation as a City Historic District under Criterion 3. Therefore, for purposes of environmental review of the Project, the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

The Pope House
The Pope House, an existing single-family residence that was relocated to the theme park in 1955 to serve as the home of Owen and Dolly Pope, has been identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report as potentially individually eligible for local designation as the first building at the theme park. In 2016, it was relocated to the northwest corner of the back-of-house area next to Ball Road and is no longer within the boundary of the potential historic district. The Pope House is a remnant example of the original development of Disneyland, and due to Disneyland’s unique significance to the growth and development of Anaheim after World War II, the Pope House strongly represents a significant event in local history and appears to meet the eligibility standards for listing as a Historically Significant Structure under Local Criterion 1. Therefore, for purposes of environmental review of the Project, the Pope House is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

Exhibit 5.4-6
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Disneyland Theme Park Historic District

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-32 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Disneyland Railroad Depot Further, since approval of The Disneyland Resort Project, the Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Main Street Railroad Depot (referred to as the Disneyland Railroad Depot in the evaluation), all located within Disneyland, were formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register as part of review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and therefore are listed in the California Register by consensus.

In 2019, the Hungry Bear Restaurant was identified as eligible for listing the NRHP under Criterion A for “its associated with the second phase of renovation and expansion of Disneyland in the 1970s” and under Criterion C as “a good example of Rustic/Theme Park style architecture”. In 2019, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride was identified as eligible for listing the NRHP under Criterion A as “part of the overall general development of the Disneyland Park in the first phase of renovation and expansion on the 1960s”, and under Criterion C as “a good example of the French Quarter New Orleans/Theme Park architectural style”. In 2005, the Disneyland Railroad Depot was identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, and C because it “appears eligible for association with significant events and persons as well as significance related to architecture and engineering within the amusement park property type”. The evaluation noted that the Depot is a “contributor to a potential National Register historic district.” For each of these three attractions, SHPO concurred with the evaluation and each was assigned a status code of 2S2, which is defined as “Individual property determined to be eligible for National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the California Register.” These three attractions are therefore historical resources as defined by CEQA.

The analysis in the previous EIRs indicated that there were no historical resources located within the DRSP or ARSP project areas. However, given the passage of time, there is the potential that there are historical resources located outside the boundary of Disneyland but within the wider DRSP and ARSP areas which had not been identified at the time of the previous studies. This includes the Disneyland Hotel, originally established in 1955 specifically to serve visitors to the park. However, the original hotel buildings were demolished in 1999; therefore, the Disneyland Hotel is not eligible for historic designation at the federal, state, or local levels and is not considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.

In order to determine whether there are other historical resources within the Project Site, including the DRSP and Disney ARSP Properties, that need to be considered as part of the environmental review of the Project, all previous studies of the area, including the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, the City’s Lists of Historically Significant Structures or Structures of Historical Interest, the California Historical Resources Inventory (now known as the Built Environment Resources Directory [BERD]), and a records search at the SCCIC, were consulted. The study confirmed that the Anaheim Convention Center was listed in the California Register by consensus, making it a historical resource as defined by CEQA. The study also confirmed there are no additional historic resources in the DRSP or ARSP.

The Project proposes updates to the DRSP and ARSP areas to guide development of The Disneyland Resort and the Disney ARSP properties. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed Disney would implement the Project in multiple phases over the next decades.

The Historic Resources Technical Report prepared by HRG determined that there would not be potential impacts resulting from the Project to the Anaheim Convention Center. The Project features within the DRSP and at the Disney ARSP Properties would not materially impair the Anaheim Convention Center such that it would no longer convey its historic significance. Further, Project features within the larger ARSP area or DRSP area outside of the boundary of Disneyland would not result in significant impacts to the potential historic district.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-33 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
There are no specific plans outlined by the Project that would result in substantial changes within the boundary of the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District and formal historic designation of this district is not proposed as part of this Project; however, because of the duration of the Project and the need to maintain the ability of Disney to modify Disneyland, the Project could result in significant adverse impacts to both the district overall, the three individually eligible features within the potential historic district boundary, and the potentially individually eligible Pope House, which could not be mitigated through mitigation measures. These potential future changes could include the removal of contributing features and attractions, changes to circulation patterns and the potential for new park ingress/egress, required updates for accessibility or to accommodate new technology, and changes necessitated by new Disney creative content.

Therefore, the Project could have a significant and unavoidable effect on historical resources under CEQA even with implementation of MM CUL-3 and MM CUL-4, which would document the history and existing features and spaces of the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, the individually eligible Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Disneyland Railroad Depot, and the individually eligible Pope House. For other work involving buildings 45 years or older in the ARSP, MM CUL-2 would reduce other impacts to potential historic resources to less than significant levels.

The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources.

This impact is new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.4b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 concluded no impacts to cultural, historic, or prehistoric resources were expected to occur from development of The Disneyland Resort Project; however, as discussed above, mitigation was identified which reduced potential impacts on unanticipated archaeological resources to less than significant levels. SEIR No. 340 found no archaeological resources were anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area; however, as discussed above, implementation of identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 reviewed impacts to archaeological resources and included mitigation to reduce such impacts, this Draft Subsequent EIR considers whether the Project would create any new or substantially more severe significant impacts.

South Environmental reviewed the development history of seven properties within the Project Site as part of its Development History Report. This included a review of all building permits on file with the City of Anaheim and historic aerial photographs and topographic maps of the Project Site. All seven properties appear to have been originally developed as farmland during the late 19 th century with development of the first buildings/structures occurring between the 1950s and 1970s. Similarly, as indicated in the HRG Historic Resources Technical Report, Disneyland and The Disneyland Resort have been disturbed over the last sixty years. The Project Site is predominately developed in its current condition, and the Disney Properties currently containing parking lots have been developed previously as noted in the South Environmental report. No known archaeological resources are within the Project Site. Additionally, no known archaeological resources are within one mile of the Project Site. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted by the NAHC was negative.

There is the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources during the Project’s grading and other ground-disturbing activities, which could result in a potentially significant impact.

Therefore, the Project would be required to implement MM CUL-1, below. With implementation DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-34 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
of MM CUL-1, impacts related to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, although not expected, the Project would comply with SR CUL-1 requiring compliance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding the treatment and disposition of human remains. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, in order to minimize potential direct impacts to tribal cultural resources, compliance with SR TCR-1 requiring Tribal Consultation, and implementation of MM TCR-1 requiring Native American monitoring during earth-moving and grading activities in native soil, would provide for appropriate protection of tribal cultural resources that may be discovered during construction. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

5.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort was not anticipated to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. According to SEIR No. 340, despite the site-specific nature of the resources, the mitigation identified for use in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered would reduce the significance level of potential cumulative impacts, and anticipated development within the ARSP area would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Additionally, build out of the ARSP would not contribute to a cumulative impact to historic resources, and a less than significant cumulative impact would occur with implementation of the proposed mitigation.

A cumulative impact is defined as “the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” In other words, cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects that are considerable when taken together, or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Development of related projects can affect historical resources if such projects adversely alter and/or demolish historical resources that may be interrelated, such as historical resources that are part of a historic district or historical resources that are significant within the same historic context, and the Project’s contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable.

A significant cumulative impact associated with a project and related projects would occur if the impact would render a historical resource no longer eligible for historic listing or designation.

Cumulative impacts have the potential to affect resources with the same level or type of designation or evaluation, resources that are significant within the same historic context, or contributing properties to the same historic district.

As indicated above, even with implementation of mitigation measures, MM CUL-2 through MM CUL-4, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources.

Given the potentially considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on historic resources.

There also is the potential for a cumulatively considerable impact to the Anaheim Convention Center as a result of individually minor but potentially collectively significant implementation of the Project over time. However, even if the maximum allowable new uses as identified by the Project were completed, the Anaheim Convention Center would continue to convey its historic significance. No aspect of the Project, individually or collectively, would result in alteration or DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-35 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
demolition of the Anaheim Convention Center or its important physical characteristics. New construction proposed by the Project would be located across Katella Avenue, a distance of over 100 feet from the historical resource and would be subject to the design review constraints adopted in the DRSP, which would ensure cohesive development within the area. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to the Anaheim Convention Center as a result of the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

The potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District would retain the features and design characteristics that convey its historic significance, and it would not be materially impaired as a result of potential changes outside of the historic district boundary. As previously discussed, the Project would not result in indirect impacts to the potential Disneyland Historic District as a result of new construction or other proposed changes in the DRSP or ARSP areas outside of the potential historic district boundary. Further, because there is no potential for indirect impacts due to the nature and significance of the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, changes proposed by the Project outside of the district boundary would not be cumulatively considerable.

In summary, given the potentially considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on historic resources with the Project’s potential modifications to the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, the three individually eligible historic resources, and the Pope House, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to historic resources.

Although the Project—in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects in the City and the local area—has the potential to yield archaeological resources, these potential project impacts would require individual evaluation and mitigation, MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1, as appropriate. Mitigation with other projects could reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. As with the Project, testing and data recovery is standard practice at the City and is routinely required of projects prior to and during grading activities.

Despite the site-specific nature of cultural resources, the mitigation identified for use in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered, standard mitigation measures and adherence to State requirements would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. As a result, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to archaeological resources or result in a significant cumulative loss in regional history or prehistory.

The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to historic resources, which would be new w hen compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation regarding archaeological resources, which would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

5.4.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented mitigation measures (MM), Project Design Features (PDF), and standard requirements (SR) to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, respectively. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-36 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for archaeological monitoring, as well as for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. Specific monitoring procedures will be established based on review of site specific conditions, including presence of native soils, anticipated construction activities, and nature of ground disturbance including depth of excavation. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted Planning and Building Department within ninety days . (EIR No. 311, MM

3.13-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-1)
MM CUL-2 For properties within the ARSP, p Prior to approval of building, grading or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, a final site plans for properties that contain a structure over 45 years old, property owners/developers shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division, documentation to verify the presence/absence of historic resources. On properties where resources are identified, such documentation in accordance with HABS standards shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-3)
MM CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division: If an individual development project within the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District proposes to substantially alter or demolish a contributing feature to the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District as identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report attached as Appendix E-2 to Subsequent EIR No. 352, that contributing feature shall be documented in the outline format as specified in the HABS History
Guidelines,12 and photographed according to the HABS Photography Guidelines,13. The documentation shall be prepared by a historian or architectural

12 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HABS History Guidelines, updated January 2020, https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/HABS/HABSHistoryGuidelines.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023). 13 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HABS Photography Guidelines, updated June 2015, https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-37 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Standards in the relevant discipline. Digital copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division for storage with Heritage Services, and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives.

MM CUL-4 Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division: If any of the individually designated or potentially eligible features or buildings within the theme park, as identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report attached as Appendix E-2 to Subsequent EIR No. 352, are proposed for substantial alteration or demolition, that feature or building shall be documented individually in the outline format as specified in the

HABS History Guidelines, and photographed according to the HABS Photography Guidelines. The documentation shall be prepared by a historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Standards in the relevant discipline. Digital copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division for storage with the Heritage Services Division, and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives.

MM TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the property owner/developer or contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the form of an executed Agreement to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that they have retained a qualified Native American tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring during construction- related ground disturbance activities and to recover and catalogue tribal resources as necessary. The tribal monitor shall be from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The agreement shall include (i) professional qualifications of Native American monitor; (ii) detailed scope of services to be provided including but not limited to pre-construction education, observation, evaluation, protection, salvage, notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information; (iv) communication protocols between Contractor and Monitor for scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v) acknowledgment that if the tribal monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated in the agreement, property owner/developer or contractor as designee may contract with another qualified tribal monitor acceptable to the City. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to City acceptance based on generally accepted professional qualifications and certifications, as applicable. The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to identify that third party tribal monitoring is required during excavation and grading activities in accordance with the City- approved Agreement. Contact information for approved tribal monitor shall be provided by the contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-38 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources

5.4.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.4a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources. This impact is new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.4b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to historic resources, which would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

5.4.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2010 (May). Citywide Historic Preservation Plan . Anaheim, CA: the City. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1485/Citywide-Historic-Preservation-Plan- ?bidld=
———. 2012 (last accessed January 4, 2022). Final Environmental Impact Report 340 Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort. ———.2010 (May). Citywide Historic Preservation Plan . Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1485/Citywide-Historic-Preservation- Plan-
?bidId=#:~:text=The%20Plan%20is%20intended%20to%20assist%20the%20City%20an d%20its,formal%20designation%2C%20of%20those%20resources. ———. 2004 (May). General Plan for the City of Anaheim (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94).

Anaheim, City of: Anaheim, CA. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master- Environmental -Impact-Report-Number-313-?bidld=
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-39 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
Historic Resources Group. 2023 (May). Historic Resources Technical Report, Disneyland Forward. Pasadena, CA: HRG. (Appendix E-2)
U.S. General Services Administration. 2022 (N ovember 10, access date) The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. GSA: https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/NHPA.pdf.

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). 2021 (July 2). Re: Records Search Results for the 3WDI000400 Project. Fullerton, CA: SCCIC. (Appendix E-3) South Environmental. 2023 (August). Development History Report for the DisneylandForward Project. City of Anaheim, California. Pasadena, CA: South Environmental. (Appendix E-1)

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.4-40 Section 5.4 – Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-1 Section 5.5 – Energy

5.5 ENERGY
This section discusses the existing setting regarding energy usage and the Project’s potential impacts related to energy usage.

5.5.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 did not directly address energy consumption-related impacts. EIR No. 311 analyzed electricity and natural gas demand in Sections 3.10.9, Electricity, and 3.10.10, Natural Gas Service, of EIR No. 311, respectively. EIR No. 311 also analyzed Energy in Section 3.14, Energy.

These sections discussed the energy demand and capacity but did not address the 2019 CEQA Checklist questions as they relate to efficient use of energy resources, as they were not in effect at the time. EIR No. 311 found that energy consumption with implementation of mitigation measures would result in vehicular fuel consumption impacts and other energy usage impacts at less than significant levels. Mitigation measures (MMs) and project design features (PDFs) related to energy include MMs 3.10.9-1 through 3.10.9-3 and PDF 3.10.9-2 for electricity, MMs 3.10.10-1 and 3.10.10-2 for natural gas, as well as MMs 3.14-1 and 3.14-2 and PDFs 3.14-1 and 3.14-2 for gasoline.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following MMs and
PDFs regarding energy to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of The Disneyland Resort.

MM 3.10.9-1 The applicant shall implement all project design features or their environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process.

MM 3.10.9-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that each of the project’s buildings will comply with the State Energy Conservation Standard for New Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Code of Regulations).

MM 3.10.9-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phases II and III, the applicant shall enter into the agreement with the City (dated March 18, 1997) to meet the increased electrical demands for opening day (June 30, 2001) of The Disneyland Resort.
(Note: Environmental equivalency approved on 4/28/98 to reference the approved agreement between the City and the Walt Disney World Company. The 3/18/97 City Council staff report indicated that MMP No. 0067 identified the need to construct a 69kV electric substation on Disney’s property as a mitigation measure to address the impact of the Project on the City’s electric system. Staff determined that service can be provided through the City’s 12kV system, thereby, eliminating the need for the substation. The City subsequently amended its Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations to allow the City to recover electric upgrade costs without the need for a service agreement which superseded the need for this equivalency.)

1 Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 311, which t he City approved in 1996, modified MMP No. 0067.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-2 Section 5.5 – Energy
PDF 3.10.9-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, In order to conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall implement numerous energy saving practices in compliance with Title 10, which may include the following:

 Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy.
 Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights.  Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide or high-pressure sodium for outdoor lighting and parking lots.

MM 3.10.10-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with the State Energy Conservation Standards for nonresidential building (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code).

MM 3.10.10-2 Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection, the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies.

MM 3.14-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed project to the extent feasible.

PDF 3.14-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, the project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend their length of stay; thus, incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are expected to be reduced. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved prior to 3/98 which eliminated the requirement for monitoring this feature on an ongoing basis during project operation in that the approval of the various project components will constitute satisfaction of the feature).

5.5-3 Section 5.5 – Energy
Zoning and Development Standards, of the Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling engines.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 is a supplemental EIR that reevaluated environmental changes in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994. SEIR No. 340 did not directly address energy consumption-related impacts, although it did provide analysis of electricity and natural gas demand and adequacy of existing infrastructure in Sections 5.2, Air Quality, 5.15, Water Supply and Infrastructure, 5.16, Sewer, 5.17, Electricity, 5.18, Stormwater, and 5.19.2, Natural Gas of SEIR No. 340. Also, the greenhouse gas emissions analysis provided in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of SEIR No. 340 provided an evaluation of energy efficiency requirements applicable to the ARSP Project. These sections discussed the energy demand and utility capacity but did not fully address the 2019 CEQA Checklist questions as they relate to efficient use of energy resources, as they were not in effect at the time.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures
SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures and standard requirements regarding energy to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of the ARSP.

MM 5.2-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.
d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.

MM 5.17-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Business and Community Programs Division, in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy efficient measures which may include the following:
a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution
c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-4 Section 5.5 – Energy
d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units)
g. Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces
h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps
i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps
j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient lighting for outdoor lighting
k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage.
l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified
m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high- pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots
n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air-conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.
p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as:
i. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems ii. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements iii. Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance.

MM 5.17-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be installed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.

Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.

MM 5.17-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent.

MM 5.17-4 Prior to approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Public Utilities Department to incorporate feasible renewable energy generation measures into the project. These measures may include but not DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-5 Section 5.5 – Energy
be limited to use of solar and small wind turbine sources on new and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.

SR 5.15-1 Prior to the issuance (SIC) of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2) landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency.

SR 5.17-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008 standards, which were applicable January 1, 2010, are approximately 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards.

SR 5.17-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (24 CCR 11).

5.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following discussion details the existing conditions at the time the City published the NOP for Subsequent EIR No. 352; however, consistent with CEQA’s subsequent review standards, the previously approved projects serve as the baseline for the CEQA analysis, and Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes on the previously approved projects with the effects of the previously analyzed and approved projects, as detailed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

A. Existing Conditions
Electric Power
The Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) Electrical Services Division provides electricity for The Anaheim Resort, including the Project Site. The APU’s distribution system consists of 89 miles of transmission lines, 1,148 miles of aboveground and underground distribution lines, 12 substations, and 2 main stations. APU’s electricity supply comes from a variety of renewable and conventional (non-renewable) sources located in the City and across the Western United States.

Notably, APU owns a 2.4-megawatt municipal solar photovoltaic system consisting of 7,908 panels, which produces 3.5 million kilowatt hours (kWh) annually.

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) curr ently provides natural gas service to an approximately 24,000 square mile area, including the City of Anaheim and the Project Site. The service is provided in accordance with SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. SCGC is actively implementing sustainable strategies to reduce reliance on high carbon fuels by delivering cleaner fuels such as renewable natural gas, clean hydrogen, and synthetics gas (syngas).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-6 Section 5.5 – Energy
B. Regulatory Framework
Federal
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) seeks to provide the nation with greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels; improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also seeks to improve the energy performance of the federal government. The EISA sets increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard; appliance energy efficiency standards; building energy efficiency standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture, and sequestration.

State
CEQA
California Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and Appendix F to the State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of potential energy impacts of proposed projects.

Appendix F states:

The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include:
(1) Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
(2) Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, and (3) Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires that “EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy”.

California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates utility companies and ensures the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure related to electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. CPUC General Order 112E, which is based on the Federal Department of Transportation Guidelines contained in Part 192 of the Code of Federal Regulations , specifies a variety of design, construction, inspection, and notification requirements. The CPUC conducts annual audits of pipeline operations to ensure compliance with these safety standards. In addition, SCGC has a safety program which has reduced the risk of gas distribution fires by improving welds on the larger diameter (24- to 30-inch) pipelines and by replacing old distribution pipes with flexible plastic pipes.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-7 Section 5.5 – Energy
Renewables Portfolio Standard
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and was amended in 2006 and 2011. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. The CPUC is required to provide quarterly progress reports regarding the State’s progress toward RPS goals.

SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 implements some of the goals of Executive Order (EO) B-30-15. Based on California Legislative Information 2015, the objectives of SB 350 are:

1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of California’s electricity from renewable sources; and

2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation.

The text of SB 350 sets a December 31, 2030 target for 50 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources. In 2022, APU produced 35.9% of electricity from renewable sources.

The RPS requires the public utilities within California to achieve 100 percent electricity generation from renewable energy sources by 2045.

California Energy Commission
In 1974, the California Energy Commission (CEC) was created to be the State’s principal energy planning organization and to meet the energy challenges facing the State in response to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with seven basic responsibilities when designing State energy policy:
 Advancing State Energy Policy;
 Achieving Energy Efficiency;
 Certifying Thermal Power Plants;
 Investing in Energy Innovation;
 Transforming Transportation;
 Developing Renewable Energy; and
 Preparing for Energy Emergencies.

State Alternative Fuels Plan
Assembly Bill (AB) 118 requires the CEC to prepare a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The State Alternative Fuels Plan was prepared by the CEC with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with other federal, State, and local agencies to reduce petroleum consumption, to increase use of alternative fuels (e.g., ethanol, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity, and hydrogen), to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to increase in-state production of biofuels. The State Alternative Fuels Plan recommends a strategy that combines private capital investment, financial incentives, and advanced technology that will increase the use of alternative fuels, result in significant improvements in the energy efficiency of vehicles, and reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled through changes in travel habits and land management policies.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-8 Section 5.5 – Energy
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (C alifornia Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 20, Parts 1600–1608) contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, wine chillers, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California. These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The CEC adopted the 2008 changes to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in order to (1) provide California with an adequate, reasonably-priced, and environmentally-sound supply of energy; and (2) respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. Title 24, Part 6 of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (known as the 2022 California Energy Code or “Title 24”) went into effect on January 1, 2023and improved upon the 2019 standards for new construction, additions, and alterations of residential and nonresidential buildings (CEC 2022).

California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The Project would be subject to the latest future energy standards as they are adopted and go into effect.

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Building Standard Commission’s (CBSC's) mission is to produce sensible and usable state building standards and administrative regulations that implement or enforce those standards. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), also known as the “CALGreen Code”, contains mandatory requirements for new residential and non- residential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools, and hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2022b). The 2022 CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023 (CBSC 2022c). The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The CALGreen Code has established regulations to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The CALGreen Code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The CALGreen Code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency (CBSC 2022a).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-9 Section 5.5 – Energy
Local
City of Anaheim
General Plan
The City of Anaheim’s General Plan provides the vision of the future and framework for development in the City. The General Plan is comprised of various elements or topical sections that cover different aspects of the City.

Green Element
The Green Element combines the previous City of Anaheim’s General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Recreation and Community Services Elements to provide a comprehensive approach to conserving and protecting natural and recreational resources and adding more green areas throughout the City. The goals, objectives, and policies contained within the Green Element address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources as well as the management and conservation of open space areas to create a more beautiful city. Applicable goals and policies from the Green Element that are related to energy and are applicable to the Project are provided in Table 5.10-1 of Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.

Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element contains goals and policies related to fire protection, law enforcement, schools, water, sewer, and storm drain systems as well as other utilities and services. This Element provides guidance for provision of new and expanded public facilities to support the continued growth of the City. Applicable goals and policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element that are related to energy and are applicable to the Project are provided in Table 5.10-1 of Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.

Municipal Code
The 2022 California Energy Code (CCR, Title 24, Pa rt 6), which includes the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was adopted, with specified amendments, as Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03.10.0106. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11) was adopted, with specified amendments, as Anaheim Municipal Code Section 15.03.10.0109.

Anaheim Public Utilities Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The APU’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP), approved in 2015, and updated in 2020, identifies renewable energy and energy conservation targets for APU for the years 2020, 2030 and 2045. The GHGRP identifies renewables portfolio targets for increasing the APU power supply generated from renewable sources up to 33 percent by year 2020, 60 percent by year 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. In 2020, 34,000 kilowatt (kW) of photovoltaic systems were installed in the City, 50,000 kW of photovoltaic systems are expected to be installed by 2030, and 75,000 kW of photovoltaic systems are expected to be installed by 2045. The GHGRP also establishes transportation-related goals for APU to convert its fleet vehicles to result in emissions reductions of 500 MTCO2e in 2020, 1,200 MTCO2e in 2030, and 32,000 MTCO2e in 2045.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-10 Section 5.5 – Energy

5.5.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
As discussed previously, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 analyzed the 2019 CEQA Checklist questions as they relate to efficient use of energy resources as they did not exist at the time the City approved the Prior EIRs. However, the Prior EIRs included an assessment of the ability of public utilities to serve the projects, as well as the application of sustainable project features which improve energy efficiency.

For this analysis, energy demand and consumption were quantified for both construction and operation to provide an understanding of the magnitude of the Project’s energy demand.

However, the analysis focuses on the Project’s efficiency through application of various regulatory requirements, project design features, and mitigat ion measures intended to increase efficiency and avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption.

Development of the Project would involve the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel from off- road construction equipment and on-road vehicle sources such as vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker trips. During operation, vehicles entering and exiting the Project Site would use transportation fuels. In addition, natural gas would be used for heating and other services, while electricity would be used to power buildings, attractions, and lighting on the Project Site and for conveyance of water to and from the Project Site.

Construction
Fuel use for diesel and gasoline are provided for the construction phase for off-road equipment, worker commutes, haul trips, and vendor trips. Fuel consumption was estimated based on anticipated construction durations, as well as equipment quantities and types. Construction energy consumption was estimated using a combination of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), the Off-Road Diesel Analysi s (OffRoad) inventory tool, and the Emission Factors (EMFAC) database. Construction equipment assumptions were based on data provided by Disney and CalEEMod for construction equipment activities, which are included in Appendix C, while fuel consumption was derived from OffRoad for off-road vehicles and EMFAC for on- road vehicles.

Operations
The operations phase would result in energy consum ption from vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as electrical consumption and natural gas combustion for heating needs.

Operational phase energy consumption was estimated using CalEEMod for vehicle trips, trip lengths, and vehicle types. Fuel consumption for each of these vehicle types was obtained from the EMFAC model. The CalEEMod model calculated electricity and natural gas consumption based on energy data specific to land uses.

B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.

Threshold 5.5a: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-11 Section 5.5 – Energy
Threshold 5.5b: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements are applicable to the Project.

SR ENE-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2) landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
SR ENE-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (24 CCR 11). (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-2)
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.5a Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? New Impact from EIR No. 311; New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As previously discussed, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy efficiency.

As detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, Disney has successfully implemented various initiatives that go beyond compliance with federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations. In particular, Disney has reduced fossil fuel consumption, focused on using cleaner, renewable energy sources, and engaged in water conservation efforts, all of which have contributed to annual reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted more responsible resource use. These initiatives have been implemented as part of the continued development of The Disneyland Resort and will continue to apply to development associated with the DisneylandForward Project. Additional key features would also continue to apply including use of high efficiency products related to electr ical equipment, systems, and vehicles. Energy consumption related to the Project would occur during the construction and operations phases, as described in more detail below.

Construction Energy Use
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for grading, hauling and building activities. Construction would also include the vehicles of construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project Site and on-road haul trucks for the export of materials from Project Site clearing and demolition and the export and import of soil for grading.

Off-road construction equipment use was calcul ated from the equipment data (vehicle types, hours per day, horsepower, load factor) provided in the CalEEMod construction output files included in Appendix C. The total horsepower hours for construction equipment used for development of an average hotel, theme park, and parking structure project (500 rooms and 5,000 DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-12 Section 5.5 – Energy
parking stalls on a 5-acre site) and scaled to the total entitled development and then multiplied by fuel usage rates to obtain the total fuel usage for off-road equipment.

Fuel consumption from construction worker, vendor, and delivery/haul trucks was calculated using the trip rates and distances provided in the Cal EEMod construction output files. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then calculated for each type of construction-related trip and divided by the fuel consumption factor from California Ai r Resources Board’s (CARB’s) EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2017 model. EMFAC provides the total annual VMT and fuel consumed for each vehicle type. Construction vendor and delivery/haul trucks were assumed to be heavy-duty diesel trucks.

Natural gas consumption during Project constr uction would be minimal or nonexistent since energy use from construction activities is overwhelmingly powered by gasoline and diesel fuels for offroad and onroad vehicles. Electricity may be used from electrical outlets or power poles during construction. The exact amount of electricity to be consumed during construction is unknown and not included within this estimate. As shown in Table 5.5-1, Energy Use During Construction, the Project would consume a total of 2,436,639 gallons of diesel fuel and 2,322,854 gallons of gasoline during construction. Anticipated fuel consumption during construction of the Project in comparison to construction of existing entitlements (No Project) would be essentially the same due to similar land use entitlements. As discussed previously, the Project would transfer previously approved square footage and hotel rooms to other Disney Properties within the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project would not create a new impact on energy consumption during construction.

TABLE 5.5-1

ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Source
Gasoline -
gallonsa
Diesel Fuel -
gallonsa
Project Energy Consumption
Construction Vehicles 287,133 372,185
Worker Trips 1,675,074 8,331
Vendor Trips 358,409 6,421
Haul Trucks 2,239 2,049,701
Total 2,322,854 2,436,639
No Project Energy Consumption
Construction Vehicles 287,133 372,185
Worker Trips 1,675,074 8,331
Vendor Trips 358,409 6,421
Haul Trucks 2,239 2,049,701
Total 2,322,854 2,436,639
Difference in Energy Consumption Between
Project and No Project 0 0
a Numbers are rounded.

Sources: Psomas 2023 based on data from CalEEMod, Offroad and EMFAC 2017.

Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Offroad diesel regulations also limit idling which reduces fuel consumption and offroad vehicles are also required to register with CARB. In addition, no Tier 2 offroad engines can be added to vehicle fleets in California. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than comparable equipment at construction sites in other parts of the State. Energy used in the construction of the Project would enable the development of DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-13 Section 5.5 – Energy
buildings that meet the latest energy efficiency standards, as detailed in California’s Title 24 building standards. Additionally, implementation of the Project would reallocate approved development square footage throughout the Project Site, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Subsequent EIR, and no new uses are proposed. As such, energy use for construction of the Project would not differ from the No Project condition since both would entail the same quantity of land use development. Therefore, the proposed construction activities associated with the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption and a less than significant impact would occur.

Operations Phase Energy Use
Energy consumption associated with the operations phase of the Project consists of electricity for lighting and electronic devices, natural gas for space heating and cooking needs, and transportation fuels used by employees and visitors; a more detailed discussion of electricity associated with the Project and Project Site is provided in Section 5.16, Utilities Service Systems, of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Electricity and natural gas consumption estimates were calculated by the CalEEMod model. Transportation-related energy consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel was calculated based on the quantity of vehicles, average travel distance, vehicle class and fuel efficiency of each vehicle class as provided by the EMFAC model. The energy calculations for electricity, natural gas, and transportation-related energy presented within this section are representative of operational activities for the entitlements remaining for the Disney Properties under The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, including: 3,760,413 sf of theme park, 8,301 hotel rooms, and 24,094 parking stalls. Energy consumption calculations are included in Appendix E.

MM TRA-8 was incorporated into the model through the inclusion of CAPCOA measures T-3, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-32, T-34, T-35, and T-39, as detailed in Table 5.7-5 in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. These measures were incorporated for both Project and No Project scenarios because the VMT calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future Disney TDM Program. Similarly, MM ENE-1 was incorporated into the modeling for the Project and No Project scenarios, with the incorporation of CAPCOA measure E-1, as detailed in Table 5.7-5 in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, because the energy calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future requirements of MM ENE-1. All other previously approved MMs were not incorporated into the model, as they are already represented in the energy, waste, and water inputs for both the No Project and Project scenarios. These include MMs ENE-1 through MM ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM AQ-10 and MM AQ-11, MM TRA-9, MM UTIL-16, and SR ENE-1 through SR ENE-2. CalEEMod automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures as ‘mitigation’, and therefore, outputs reflect the incorporation of these reduction measures in the results for ‘mitigated emissions’. However, as the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures is reflective of the existing Disneyland TDM program (MM TRA-8) and existing requirements set forth by MM ENE-1, these measures should be reflected in the unmitigated net daily operational emissions for both the Project and No Project scenarios. As there are no new mitigation measures and MM TRA-8 and MM ENE-1 represent previously approved mitigation from EIR No. 311 (MM TRA-8) and SEIR No. 340 (MM TRA-8 and MM ENE-1), no mitigated scenario is presented for Operational Energy.

Implementation of the Project would reallocate approved development square footage throughout the Project Site, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, and no new uses are proposed.

Calculations of transportation-related fuel consumption associated with Project-generated traffic would be approximately 757,406 gallons of diesel fuel per year and 6,321,685 gallons of gasoline per year, as shown in Table 5.5-2,
Transportation Energy, below. Fuel consumption calculations DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-14 Section 5.5 – Energy
under No Project conditions are estimated at 758,568 gallons of diesel fuel per year and6,331,389 gallons of gasoline per year. The Project would result in a slight reduction in fuel consumption compared to the No Project condition due to the reduction in VMT associated with locating parking infrastructure closer to the I-5 Freeway. The Project would also continue to use pedestrian corridors to connect hotel uses with theme park uses to promote pedestrian rather than automobile trips. As such, the Project would result in a reduction in transportation energy consumption and a decrease in reliance on fossil fuels.

TABLE 5.5-2

TRANSPORTATION ENERGY
(GALLONS/YEAR)

Source Gasoline Fuel Diesel Fuel
Project 6,321,685 757,406
No Project 6,331,389 758,568
Difference in Energy Consumption Between
Project and No Project -9,704 -1,162
Sources: CalEEMod, EMFAC 2017

The State of California consumed 11,292,603,004 gallons of gasoline in 2020 (EIA 2020). Project- anticipated gasoline consumption represents 0.08% of the consumption of the State.

The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR, Title 24, Part 6) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The current applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1, 2023. The 2022 California Green Buildi ng Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen Code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for hotel, retail, office, public schools, and hospitals) throughout California (CBSC 2022a). The Project’s individual development projects would be subject to the applicable energy standards in effect at the time of such development.

The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the following construction practices: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) environmental quality (CBSC 2022a).

The CALGreen Code was adopted to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.

The City’s Municipal Code adopts the mandatory provisions of the CALGreen Code by reference for all buildings and structures. The Project would promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen). As shown in Table 5.5-3, Energy from Utilities, the Project would result in natural gas usage of 165,508,413 kilo-British thermal unit (kBTU) per year for heating needs. Electricity consumed is estimated to be 402,005,865 kilowatts per year (kWh/yr). These energy estimates are based on an exceedance of 2019 Title 24 standards by 10%, as required by MM ENE-1, which was incorporated into the CalEEMod model through CAPCOA measure E-1. The Project would follow the 2022 Title 24 standards, which would result in less electricity and natural consumption than presented in Table 5.5-3, Energy from Utilities.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-15 Section 5.5 – Energy
In 2021, SoCalGas supplied 2,443 million cubic feet per day to its service area, which equates to approximately 2.4 billion kBTU per day. Project gas consumption would represent less than

0.00002% of SoCalGas’ daily supply.

As shown in Table 5.5-3, Energy from Utilities, energy used during the operations phase of the Project would be similar due to the same land use entitlements.

The Project would involve development of buildings that comply with the latest energy efficiency standards adopted by the State of California over the entire development period, implement practices that result in reductions in VMT and associated fuel use, and develop pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Additionally, the Project’s energy consumption, as detailed in Table 5.5-3, Energy from Utilities, below, was quantified under the assumption that 20% of all future parking stalls developed as part of the Project would contain EV charging, which is consistent with future ICC Building Code requirements. This quantification conservatively assumes that all EV chargers would be fully utilized throughout the day, even though it is highly likely that they would only be utilized intermittently throughout the day as charging would halt once guests’ vehicles are fully charged.

TABLE 5.5-3

ENERGY FROM UTILITIES

Source Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Electricity (kWh/yr)
Project 165,508,413 402,005,865
No Project 167,225,217 403,847,113
Difference in Energy Consumption Between
Project and No Project -1,716,804 -1,841,248
Sources: CalEEMod 2023.

There are no new net impacts associated with energy as a result of the Project; consequently, no new mitigation is required. However, mitigation measures that are already applicable to the Project under existing conditions (No Project), such as those identified within EIR No. 311 and SEIR No 340, are identified below and would continue to apply to the Project. These measures would result in a reduction of energy consumption under both the Project and No Project condition.

Further, in addition to regulatory requirements, the Project would implement a number of energy efficiency measures detailed in Section 5.5.5, Mitigation Program, including MMs ENE-1 through ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM UTIL-16, MM AQ-10 and MM AQ-11.

Ultimately, development of the Project would continue to provide world-class visitor-serving and recreational uses and continue to contribute to employment opportunities for local communities.

The Project would involve integration of theme park and hotel uses which would promote pedestrian travel, use of pedestrian bridges and bicycle infrastructure, and continued use of mass transit, including shuttles and buses, and would implement a variety of other key energy efficiency features detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description; as such, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumpti on of energy and a less than significant impact with mitigation would occur.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-16 Section 5.5 – Energy
Threshold 5.5-2 Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
New Impact from EIR No. 311; New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As previously discussed, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy efficiency.

The Project would be required to comply with the State of California’s Title 24 Building Standards.

As discussed previously, the latest building standards incorporate the California Energy Commission’s building energy efficiency stand ards which would reduce energy consumption compared to the existing Title 24 Building Standards. Additionally, the Project would comply with the following relevant goals within the General Plan’s Green Element and the Anaheim Public Utilities’ Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan:

Green Element
 Goal 8.1: Reduce locally generated emissions through improved traffic flows and construction management practices.
 Goal 9.1: Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.
 Goal 11:1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and transit-oriented development.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
 Reducing Emissions from the Power Supply
 Investing in Renewable Resources for the Future
 Reducing Emissions from the Transportation Sector
 Protecting Critical Water Supplies
 Energy Efficiency
As detailed in MM TRA-9, the Project would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips because the Project, as with The Anaheim Resort, is served by the Anaheim Resort Transportation system, which provides shuttle service access to a variety of Resort destinations and uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station. In addition to access to these transit options, Disney’s current TDM program, detailed in MM TRA-8, also requires continued provision of bicycle parking and amenities; an online ride-matching and carpool/vanpool program; guaranteed trip return in the event of a personal emergency, unplanned business-related activity, or inclement weather for cyclists or walkers; incentives for using alternative travel modes; flex schedule and telecommuting; electric vehicle parking and incentives; shuttle services; onsite electric utility carts, and promotions, marketing, and education of the programs and incentives. Because the Project would comply with the latest State of California energy efficiency standards, achieves a reduction in VMT and fuel usage due to placement of parking facilities closer to the I-5 freeway, provides infill development close to mass transit, and promotes pedestrian-oriented development to complementary commercial uses and proximity to theme parks, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or the City of Anaheim plan, GHGRP, or policy for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would lead to a decrease in overall per capita energy consumption and a reduction in the reliance on fossil fuel usage.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-17 Section 5.5 – Energy
Additionally, the Project would develop 20% of all future parking stalls as EV charging stalls, which supports the use of electric vehicles and the State of California’s Advanced Clean Cars II rule that phases out the sale of fossil fueled cars. EVs also have greater fuel efficiency as compared to gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles which promotes energy efficiency. In addition, electricity used by EVs will be supported by California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards which mandates that utilities transition to 60% renewable energy sources by 2030 and 100% renewable energy by the year 2045. The Project’s provision of EV charging infrastructure and energy efficiency measures supports the State of California overall effort to electrify the transportation sector, provide electricity from renewable energy and energy effi ciency. The Project also would comply with MM ENE-1, which would require energy efficiency of each building to exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings by at least 10 percent.

With implementation of MM ENE-1, MM TRA-8 and MM TRA-9 that related to Disney’s TDM Program and requiring participation in a clean fuel shuttle program, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously discussed, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy efficiency.

Electrical power and natural gas service would be provided by APU’s Electrical Services and SCG on demand, consistent with CPUC requirements. The federal and State governments have enacted legislation to improve energy efficiency in vehicles, equipment, and appliances; to reduce vehicle miles traveled; and to develop alternative fuels or energy sources. Utility companies are also increasing their renewable energy sources to meet the RPS mandates. California’s renewable energy commitments also support a recent increasing trend in the purchase of electric and hydrogen fueled vehicles.

On-site energy use would be reduced through compliance with Title 24 Building Standards (as adopted by the City in AMC Section 15.03.010, Adoption of Building Standards Codes and detailed in MM ENE-1 and MM UTIL-16) and other energy conservation programs and policies.

Other projects in the City would also comply with the same regulations. Further, the Project would implement sustainability strategies as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description.

Transportation energy use would decrease with implementation of the Project. Transportation fuels are anticipated to transition from gasoline and diesel to electricity with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20 which bans the sale of new gasoline fueled vehicles by the year 2035.

Zero Emission Vehicles represent 17.70 percent of light-duty automobiles registered in California in the first through third quarter of 2022 (California Energy Commission 2022). Electric vehicles (EV) are more efficient than gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles. “EVs convert over 77 percent of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 12–30 percent of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” (USDOE 2022). Continued electrification of transportation would result in a reduction in fossil fuel use (diesel and gasoline) and an integration of electricity generation progressively fueled by carbon neutral renewable sources. As such, it is anticipated that cumulative transportation energy usage occurring in the near future and at Project buildout would continue to be progressively more efficient and less reliant on fossil fuels.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-18 Section 5.5 – Energy
As older appliances, equipment, and vehicles are replaced with newer energy efficient ones, total energy use is expected to decrease over time. All future proposed projects would be subject to separate impact analyses and would be subject to mitigation to reduce potential impacts, as appropriate. Thus, energy use from the Project and cumulative projects would not represent a substantial demand for energy with mitigation and would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. In addition, because the Project would comply with the latest State of California energy efficiency standards through implementation of mitigation, would provide infill development close to mass transit, would provide local employment opportunities which would decrease VMT and transportation fuel use, and would promote pedestrian-oriented development to complementary commercial uses and proximity to theme parks, in compliance with MM ENE-1 through MM ENE-5, MM TRA-8, MM TRA-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-11 and MM UTIL-16, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or the City of Anaheim plan or policy for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.

5.5.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented MMs and PDFs to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Pr oject, respectively. Several of these MMs continue to apply to the DisneylandForward Project, although not all are required to address a significant impact. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.) Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

MM ENE-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-2 and MM 3.10.10-1; SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-1 and MM 5.17-3)
MM ENE-2 Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for Phases II and III, the applicant shall enter into the agreement with the City (dated March 18, 1997) to meet the increased electrical demands for opening day (June 30, 2001) of The Disneyland ResortAny new system improvements (e.g., substation, line connections), if required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the then current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-2)
MM ENE-3 Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection, the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.10-2) DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-19 Section 5.5 – Energy
MM ENE-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed project to the extent feasible. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.14-2)
MM ENE-5 Prior to approval issuance of a building permit Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Public Utilities Department to incorporate feasible renewable energy generation measures into the project.

These measures may include but not be limited to use of renewable biofuels, solar and small wind turbine sources on new and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-4) PDF ENE-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection the second theme park Ongoing during project development and operation , the project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend their length of stay; thus, incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are expected to be reduced. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-1) MM TRA-8 Transportation Demand Management Program
Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the Second Theme Park; and, oOn-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of t he South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, by 2001.

At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely which programs and activities would be most successful for t The Disneyland Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, applicant property owner/developer will review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing the effectiveness of these items, The Walt Disney Company Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. will select specific programs for implementation.

Objectives of the TDM program are:
 Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests .  Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target .
 Provide a menu of commute alternatives for t The Disneyland Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
 Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for both t The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-20 Section 5.5 – Energy
Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast and guest trips are described below.

 Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to tThe Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel to work by means other than the automobile.
 Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.

 Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency, medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal transportation in the event of special circumstances.
 Guaranteed Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-21 Section 5.5 – Energy
 Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective employees within 20 miles.
 Housing Coordinator and Referral Program and Local Hiring Efforts .

 Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review the possibility of developing a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be generated daily by tThe Disneyland Resort Cast.  Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members in a wide a variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at home.

Telecommuting will be encouraged on a limited basis as operational needs allow. cast in different positions, cast members include clerical, office support, and administrative members. The Disneyland Resort may explore the possibility of a "telecommuting" program that would link some of these cast members to The Disneyland Resort via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). This would help to eliminate certain trips that would otherwise be generated by a cast member who would otherwise physically need to be at the Disneyland Resort.
 Work Environment/Facility Management
 Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.  Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast members and other project employees in the Anaheim Resort.
 Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient parking management for cast and guests.
 Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-22 Section 5.5 – Energy
 Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
 Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
 Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $60 $300 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit passes.

Marketing materials for tThe Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto- free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not needed.
- Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from moving or parked vehicles.
 Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the general construction contractors regarding the coordination of rideshare services for construction employees provided by the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-9, and MM 5.14-23) DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-23 Section 5.5 – Energy
MM TRA-9 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort, including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer.

Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. (EIR No. 311, PDF

3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
MM UTIL-16 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, in order to conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall comply with the California Energy Code ( Title 10), which may include the following:
• Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts at the Anaheim Public Utilities Community and Sustainability Division for assistance with energy- conservation design features.
• Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems , connected if feasible to a computerized central energy management system, and meeting all control, scheduling and load efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Building Efficiency Standards).
• Use of electric high-efficiency (NEMA) motors intended to conserve energy. • While recognizing the unique lighting apparatus required for some theme park uses, uUse of motion sensing lightswitch devices and light-emitting diode (LED) energy-efficiency lighting fixtures for indoor and outdoor lighting when feasible, T8 lamps, metal hallide and/or high-pressure sodium (HID) lamps.
 Incorporation of electric vehicle chargers into parking structures . (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.9-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-1)
MM AQ-10 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy savings will also contribute to reduced measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper sealing of buildings.
d. Use drought-resistant water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-24 Section 5.5 – Energy
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center.
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking procedures set forth in Section 7.0, Zoning and Development Standards, of the The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)

5.5.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.5a: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.

Threshold 5.5b: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-25 Section 5.5 – Energy

5.5.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim Public Utilities. Renewable Energy Resources. 2022. https://www.anaheim.net/5090/Renewable-Energy-Resources California Air Resources Board. Emissions Factors EMFAC 2017. CARB Web database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022 (A ugust 31, access date). 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Frequently Asked Questions.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2016%20FAQ%20Building%20Standards_ada.pdf.
———. 2007. Alternative Fuels and Vehicle Technologies Funding Program legislation (AB 118, Statutes of 2007)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab118/documents/ab_118_bill_20071014_chaptered.pdf California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022a (August 31, accessed date). California Green Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24, Part 11). http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
———. CBSC 2022b (August 31, access date). Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA: CBSC. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/. ———. CBSC 2022c (August 31, access date). California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations).
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Legislative Information. 2015. SB-350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015.

Sacramento, CA: California Legislative Information.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2014. Renewable Portfolio Standard Quarterly Report. 3
rd Quarter.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/ Energy/Reports_and_White_Papers/2014Q3RPSReportFinal.pdf U.S. Energy In Administration. 2020. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.5-26 Section 5.5 – Energy
This page intentionally left blank

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-1 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section discusses the existing geologic and paleontological setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to geologic resources and hazards and paleontological resources.

5.6.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
Analysis of potential impacts related to earth resources in EIR No. 311, certified by the City in 1993, indicated implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project would expose people to seismic risks that are typical of Southern California. It was determined that potential impacts related to soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and expansive soils could occur. These risks and potential impacts were considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6-1 through MM 3.6-5 listed below. EIR No. 311 also addressed potential impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure, landslides, unstable geologic units or soil, and use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and found that no mitigation was required to reduce impacts. EIR No. 311 determined that there were no known paleontological resources within or near The Disneyland Resort; however, EIR No. 311 required implementation of mitigation measure MM 3.13-2, which is provided below, to ensure less than significant impacts related to paleontological resources.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measures (MM) regarding geology and soils and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of The Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant levels.

MM 3.6-1 Prior to the approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a thorough soils and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. The report shall comply with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.

MM 3.6-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit for review and approval detailed foundation design information for the subject buildings prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.

MM 3.6-3 Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer for review and approval which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing.

MM 3.6-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.

1 Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 311, which t he City approved in 1996, modified MMP No. 0067.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-2 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
MM 3.6-5 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall coordinate earthquake training with the Fire Department for hotel staff and cast members.

MM 3.6-6 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, for hotels, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan for review and approval. That plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved on 1/15/99 to change the timing of the measure from prior to issuance of each building permit to prior to final building and zoning inspections.)
MM 3.13-2 Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational research institution. c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340, certified by the City in 2012, is a supplemental EIR that reevaluated environmental changes in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994. SEIR No. 340 identified active and potentially active faults in the region that could result in seismic-related impacts to future development projects associated with the buildout of the ARSP Project. Seismic events along these faults have the potential to result in strong ground motion. SEIR No. 340 concluded that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the MM 5.5-1 through MM 5.5-6, below, conformance with the applicable requirements listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code, and conformance to the California Building Code (CBC).

As noted in SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area is located in a relatively flat area with minimal potential for erosion impacts due to the high amount of urban development and low amount of bare ground.

However, during demolition and construction activities when areas are exposed to erosion and loss of topsoil, adherence to local and State codes and requirements for erosion control and grading, compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and the subsequent development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-3 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Additionally, expansive soils are known to exist in the ARSP area; however, implementation of mitigation requiring adherence to measures requiring detailed foundation design and preparation of a report to analyze foundation excavations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

SEIR No. 340 found that grading and construction activities associated with build out of the ARSP Project could impact unanticipated paleontological resources, which would be considered significant. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.4-2.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirements SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures (MM) and standard requirement (SR) regarding geology and soils, including paleontology, to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of the ARSP Project to less than significant levels.

MM 5.4-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.

MM 5.5-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.

MM 5.5-2 Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing.

MM 5.5-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-4 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
MM 5.5-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and incorporate ongoing earthquake training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.

MM 5.5-5 Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division.

MM 5.5-6 Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation.

SR 5.5-1 All grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the California Building Code.

5.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following discussion details the existing conditions at the time the City published the NOP for Subsequent EIR No. 352; however, consistent with CEQA’s subsequent review standards, the previously approved projects serve as the baseline for the CEQA analysis, and Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes to the previously approved projects with the effects of the previously analyzed and approved projects, as detailed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

A. Existing Conditions
Regional Physiography, Topography and Geology
The City of Anaheim is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the southern tip of Baja California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of a northwest-southeast oriented complex of blocks separated by similar trending faults. The basement bedrock complex includes Jurassic-age metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous-age igneous rocks of the Southern California batholith.

The City of Anaheim extends from the southerly portion of the Los Angeles Basin easterly into the northern portions of the Santa Ana Mountains. The western portions of Anaheim, including the Project Site, are located in the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Central Block is characterized by thick layers of alluvium overlying predominantly sedimentary rock of the Quaternary through Cretaceous ages. The depths to crystalline basement rocks are known from petroleum well logs and geophysical data. The tota l thickness of the sedimentary section is roughly 13,000 feet near the southern end of the Los Angeles basin.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-5 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Existing Local Geological Setting
The distribution of geologic units at the surface within the City reflects the geography and can be divided into two general areas: west and east. The broad alluvial plain area in the western half of the City, including the Project Site, is generally mantled by Holocene-age (up to 11,000 years old) alluvial deposits, which become increasingly older with depth. East of the Project area, Pleistocene-age (11,000 to 2.6 million years old) terrace deposits are present on elevated terraces along the upper edges of the alluvial plains and the lower benches of the hillside areas.

Undifferentiated Holocene Alluvium is composed primarily of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The more recent alluvial deposits (less than 1,000 years old) are generally found along active stream and river courses (Anaheim 2004a). The majority of the flat, alluvial plain areas outside the active stream channels are underlain by alluvial deposits that are considered to have been deposited between 1,000 and 10,000 years ago. As shown on Exhibit 5.6-1, Paleontologic Map, the Project Site is underlain by Qvof, or very old alluvial-fan deposits that are considered to be high paleontological sensitivity and with a high likelihood to contain fossils and paleontological resources, according to the California Department of Conservation (2021).

Geologic Hazards
The following sections summarize potential geologic hazards in the Project area, including seismicity and faulting. The State regulates development within California to reduce or mitigate potential hazards from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. Development in seismically active areas is also governed by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Each of these acts serves to promote, preserve, and to safeguard against major structural failure or loss of life in earthquake or ground-shaking events (Anaheim 2004a).

The CBC regulates the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking.

Faulting and Seismicity
As with all of Southern California, the Project Site is located within a seismically active region.

The primary seismic parameters to be considered when discussing the potential for earthquake-related hazards are (1) the distance(s) to the causative fault(s), (2) earthquake magnitudes, and (3) expected ground accelerations.

There are no known active or potentially active faults traversing the Project Site, and the Project Site is not included within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS 2021).

Earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the region could affect future developments within the Project area. The San Andreas fault is the primary feature of the San Andreas fault system, and is capable of causing a large magnitude earthquake. Additionally, there are over one hundred smaller active faults in the region around the City that can cause damaging earthquakes (CEA 2023a).

Strong Ground Motion
Seismic activity along nearby or more distant fault zones is likely to cause ground shaking within the City limits. The City of Anaheim, including the Project Site, has an up to 20 percent probability of a magnitude (M) 6.7 or greater earthquake in the next 20 years along the numerous faults in Southern California. The highest potential for a large earthquake is along the San Andreas fault, located approximately 39 miles east of the City. Peralta Hills fault is the closest fault, located approximately 1.5 miles from the City, and has less than a 1 percent probability of generating a Paleontologic Map Exhibit 5.6-1
(Rev: 08/18/2023 JVR) R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Graphics\EIR\3rd_City_Review\ex_PaleontologicMap.pdf Qvof
Qof
Qya
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf Qyf
Qw
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf Qyf
Qyf
Qyf Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
QyfQyfQyfQyf
Qyf
Qyf
QyfQyf
Qyf Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf Qyf
Qyf
QyfQyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
Qyf
QyfQyf
Qyf QyfQyf
QyfQyfQyf
D:\Projects\3WDI\000400\MXD\EIR\3rd_City_Review\ex_GeologicalPaleo_20230407.mxd 4,000 0 4,0002,000
Feet²
Source: California Department of Conservation, 2012
Aerial Source: City of Anaheim Open Data, 2021
Project Site
Geologic Formations
High Sensitivity
Qof - Old alluvial-fan deposits
Qvof - Very old alluvial-fan deposits
Low Sensitivity
Qw - Very young wash deposits
Qyf - Young alluvial-fan deposits
Undetermined
!
!
!!!
!!
! !!
!
!! !
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
Qya - Young axial-channel deposits
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-6 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils

6.7M or greater earthquake. The Project Site is located in an area with a Shake Potential of between 0.75g2 and 1.05g, which means Anaheim could experience strong shaking throughout most of the community, including at the Project Site (City of Anaheim 2023a). Distances from Anaheim to active faults within a 100km distance are presented in Table 5.6-1 below.

TABLE 5.6-1

PRINCIPAL ACTIVE FAULTS

Fault
Approximate Distance to City Limits
(Miles)
Elsinore – Whittier 0.7
Elsinore – Glen Ivy 1.3
Chino-Central Avenue 2.0
Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 7.0
San Jose 13.0
Newport-Inglewood (offshore) 15.0
Palos Verdes 15.0
Cucamonga 19.0
Sierra Madre (central) 19.0
Raymond 21.0
Verdugo 22.0
Clamshell – Sawpit 23.0
Hollywood 23.5
San Jacinto – San Bernardino 25.0
San Jacinto – San Jacinto Valley 27.0
Santa Monica 28.5
San Andreas – Southern 31.0
Elsinore – Temecula 33.0
Malibu Coast 33.0
San Andreas – 1857 Rupture 33.0
Cleghorn 33.5
Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 35.0
San Gabriel 37.0
North Frontal Fault Zone (West) 38.0
Coronado Bank 39.0
Anacapa – Dume 40.5
San Jacinto – Anza 43.5
Santa Susana 44.0
Elsinore – Julian 40.0
Holister 50.0
Rose Canyon 53.0
Oak Ridge (onshore) 55.0
Simi – Santa Rosa 55.0
Helendate – South Lockhardt 57.8
San Cayentano 60.0
Source: City of Anaheim 2012.

2 g = gravitation force equivalent, or commonly g-force DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-7 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
In the recorded past, the City of Anaheim has not experienced a major destructive earthquake.

However, several major earthquakes have been recorded within approximately 100 kilometers of the Project area as shown in Table 5.6-2 below.

TABLE 5.6-2

MAJOR EARTHQUAKES

Date Location Maximum Magnitude (M)a
Approximate Epicentral
Distance (miles)
7/28/1769 Los Angeles Basin 6.0 10
11/22/1800 San Diego Basin 6.5 52
12/8/1812 Wrightwood 7.0 41
7/11/1855 Los Angeles Region 6.0 40
12/16/1858 San Bernardino Region 6.0 23
7/30/1894 Lytle Creek Region 6.0 37
4/21/1918 San Jacinto 6.9 43
7/23/1923 San Bernardino Region 6.0 56
3/11/1933 Long Beach 6.3 16
2/9/1971 San Fernando 6.5 51
10/1/1987 Whittier Narrows 5.8 20
1/17/1994 Northridge 6.7 45
11/9/2001 West Hollywood 4.2 50
7/29/2008 Chino Hills 5.4 25
3/17/2014 Westwood 4.4 54
3/28/2014 La Habra 5.1 12
9/18/2020 South El Monte 4.5 27
a Magnitudes listed are “summary magnit udes”. Prior to 1898, these are adjusted intensity magnitudes and after 1898, are surface wave magnitudes.

Source: City of Anaheim 2012, CEA 2023b.

B. Regulatory Framework
Due to the ever-evolving nature of building regulations and regulatory documents, property owners/developers are required to comply with all current applicable codes at the time of permit issuance.

Federal
International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is the national model building code providing standardized requirements for construction. The IBC establishes consistent construction guidelines for the nation, and has been adopted with amendments into the CBC. The IBC contains codes related to geology and soils, including Chapter 16 (structural design) and Chapter 18 (soils and foundations) (ICC 2021).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-8 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
State
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CBC; 24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, is promulgated under the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (Parts 1 through 12), and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen includes regulations for energy efficiency, water efficiency, and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and environmental quality. The code is applicable to commercial, residential, and public school buildings, with residential and nonresidential provisions provided in separate chapters. (CBSC 2022).

California Building Code
The national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by State agencies and local governing bodies. The CBC establishes general standards for the design and construction of buildings, including provisions related to seismic safety. The CBC provides standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures in its jurisdiction. Chapter 18 of the CBC, Soils and Foundations, specifies the level of soil investigation required by law in California. Requirements in Chapter 18 apply to building and foundations systems and consider reduction of potential seismic hazards.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) was adopted by the State of California in 1972 in order to mitigate surface fault rupture hazards along known active faults (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 2621, et seq.). The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to reduce the threat to life and property—specifically from surface fault rupture—by preventing the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS) has defined an “active” fault as one that has had surface displacement during the past 11,000 years (Holocene time). This law directs the State Geologist to establish Earthquake Fault Zones (known as “Special Studies Zones” prior to January 1, 1994) to regulate development in designated hazard areas. In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the State has delineated “Earthquake Fault Zones” along identified active faults throughout California. City and County jurisdictions must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that a proposed development project, which includes structures for human occupancy, is adequately set back (generally at least 50 feet) from an active fault prior to permitting. The Project Site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (CSG 2020).

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 and directs the California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) to identify and map areas subject to earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking (PRC Sections 2690–2699.6). Passed by the State legislature after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the SHMA is aimed at reducing the threat to public safety and minimizing potential loss of life and property in the event of a damaging earthquake event. Seismic Hazard Zone Maps are a product of the resultant Seismic Hazards Mapping Program and are produced to identify Zones of Required Investigation; most developments designed for human occupancy in these zones must conduct site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify the hazard and to develop appropriate mitigation measures prior to permitting by local jurisdictions.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-9 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
The SHMA establishes a statewide public safety standard for the mitigation of earthquake hazards, including providing guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects in designated zones of required investigations.

California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural and paleontological resources and prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological and paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all projects to consider potential impacts related to unique paleontological resources or geologic features.

Local
Anaheim Municipal Code
The City of Anaheim has adopted the 2019 CBC, as amended, and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, as amended, which are both codified at Title 15, Buildings and Housing, of the Anaheim Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2023b). The City reviews construction plans to ensure design compliance with applicable codes.

The Anaheim Municipal Code also includes Title 17, Land Development and Resources, which provides guidelines related to grading, excavation and fills.

City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element and Safety Element There are two specific areas in the City of Anaheim General Plan that address the issue of geology: the Green Element and the Safety Element. The Green Element comprehensively addresses topics concerning hillside grading, including minimization of grading, and completion of erosion and sediment control plans (Anaheim 2004a). The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with potential seismic and geologic hazards in an attempt to avoid or minimize exposure to these potential hazards. Applicable goals and policies from the Green Element and the Safety Element that are related to geology and soils and applicable to the Project are provided in Table 5.10-1 in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a Project consistency analysis.

5.6.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Paleontological Resources Records Search and Literature Review The analysis in this section is based on review of information available in the City of Anaheim General Plan (Anaheim 2004a), EIR No. 311, and SEIR No. 340, and A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two (Jefferson 1991, 2006).

A paleontological resources records search and literature review was also conducted by Dr.

Samuel A. McLeod at the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum on June 10, 2021. The records search letter can be found in Appendix F.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-10 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.

The Project would result in a significant impact related to geology and soils if it would:

Threshold 5.6a: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) 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. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
Threshold 5.6b: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Threshold 5.6d: Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Threshold 5.6f: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Geology and soils resource thresholds a(iii) (li quefaction), a(iv) (landslides), c (unstable soil or geologic unit), and e (septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system) were evaluated in Section 3.7 of the Initial Study prepared for this Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact related to these thresholds.

Therefore, these thresholds are not discussed in this Subsequent EIR.

C. Standard Requirements
SR GEO-1 All grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the California Building Code (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.5-1).

SR HWQ -1 Development projects that will result in soil disturbance of one (1) or more acres of land shall comply with the State’s Construction General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB by providing a copy of the NOI invoice and the assigned Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) No. for the project. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net sediment load increase in storm water discharges relative to preconstruction levels and shall prohibit during the construction period discharges of storm water or non- storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan. The BMPs shall address erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste management and materials pollution control during all phases of construction, including a sampling and analysis plan for sediment and non-visible storm water pollutants. The property owner/developer DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-11 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
shall be responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-1)
SR HWQ -2 Prior to issuance of the precise grading permit, the property owner/developer shall prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for review and approval by the Public Works, Development Services. The WQMP shall identify permanent site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The WQMP shall also describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control BMPs and the mechanism for funding the BMPs. The WQMP shall be recorded against the property to ensure long-term compliance. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-2)
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.6a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 concluded that the potential for damage from groundshaking is not unusually severe compared to general conditions in Southern California and would be less than significant with mitigation. Similarly, ground rupture from fault movement was not expected and buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project would be in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. SEIR No. 340 found that impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant and concluded that, while the ARSP area would be exposed to seismic ground shaking, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

The Project Site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region in the influence area of several fault systems. However, the Project Site does not occur within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS 2021). The Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 9.7 miles from the Project Site in t he coastal cities of Long Beach, Sunset Beach, and Huntington Beach. The Whittier Fault Zone occu rs approximately 8.9 miles north of the Project Site generally between the cities of Whittier and Yorba Linda. Construction on the Project Site has historically occurred in a manner consis tent with City and State codes. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to seismic-related hazards would be potentially significant. Future development associated with the Project would comply with SR GEO-1 requiring all grading operations to be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the CBC (City of Anaheim 2022). As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. Additionally, potential impacts associated with exposure to these hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the following mitigation measures: MM GEO-1 requiring the property owner/developer to submit for review and DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-12 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
approval a thorough soils and geological report for the area to be graded; MM PS-10 requiring the property owner/developer to coordinate emergency evacuation training with the Fire Department for hotel staff and cast members; and MMs GEO-2 through MM GEO-5 requiring adherence to measures requiring detailed foundation design, adherence to seismic standards, and preparation of a report to analyze foundation excavations.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.6b: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. According to EIR No. 311, the potential for erosion was not significant; however, potential short-term impacts to the storm drains from silt in the runoff from the site would be less than significant with mitigation. SEIR No. 340 concluded that impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil during demolition and/or construction activities would be less than significant with mitigation.

As described in more detail in response to Threshold 5.9a in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project has the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction and operations. Project construction would expose soils on the Project Site, which could result in increased soil erosion and the loss of topsoil if not implemented consistent with regulatory requirements. A pr imary source of erosion and topsoil loss is uncontrolled drainage during storms. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into “waters of the U.S.”. All construction activities must be conducted in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on July 17, 2012.

In compliance with the NPDES permit for the Disney Properties, erosion potential during construction of the Project would be manag ed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented on the Project Site as part of a SWPPP during construction activities in accordance with NPDES requirements. Compliance with SR HWQ-1 and SR HWQ-2, detailed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, requiring preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP and compliance with the NPDES, and implementation of MM GEO-6 related to erosion control standard practices would minimize construction impacts from continued development on the Project Site through implementation of BMPs.

Also, once built, the Project may result in a minor increase in impervious surface coverage on the Project Site, which could lead to erosion and loss of topsoil if stormwater is not conveyed and dissipated appropriately. The Disneyland Resort Master Water Quality Management Plan (Master WQMP) was prepared for The Disneyland Resort Project by LaRoc Environmental (2014) and included as Appendix H-1, covers the Disney Properties, and would be applicable to the Project.

The Master WQMP describes structural source control BMPs to achieve long-term water quality protection from potential degradation by the Project. With implementation of a SWPPP during construction as well as construction and maintenance of the BMPs specified in Master WQMP for The Disneyland Resort, impacts related to erosion would be less than significant with mitigation.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-13 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Threshold 5.6d: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 did not directly address the topic of expansive soils within The Disneyland Resort. As noted in SEIR No. 340, expansive soils are known to exist in the ARSP area; however, impacts were less than significant with mitigation.

Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. According to the EIR. No 330 prepared for the Anaheim General Plan Update, expansive soils in the City range from low to high in expansion potential; therefore, there is potential for expansive soils be encountered on the Project Site (Anaheim 2004b). To mitigate potential impacts, the Project would include the implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-6 requiring the property owner/developer to submit for review and approval geotechnical reports with recommendations.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address expansive soils. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.6f: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 found that potential impacts related to prehistoric resources would be less than significant with mitigation. SEIR No. 340 also concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

A paleontological records search was requested from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Department, and results were received on June 10, 2021. The results indicate there are no fossil localities that lie directly within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not impact known paleontological resources; however, there are Rancholabrean fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits (fossil-bearing unit Qyf) that occur in the Project Site, either at the surface or at depth. These resources include, but are not limited to bison ( Bison), camel ( Camelops hesternus ) , d i r e w o l f (Canis dirus ), dwarf pronghorn (Capromeryx), Horse ( Equus), mammath ( Mammuthus), and mastodon ( Mamut). Additional Rancholabrean paleontological resources from this area were identified (Jefferson 1991, 2006).

These include a range of Rancholabrean fossil localities similar to the specimens identified by the NHM, such as bison, camel, dire wolf, mammoth, and saber-toothed cat (Smilodon fatalis).

All data considered, the Project would not impact known paleontological resources; however, surface sediments at and surrounding the Project Si te consist of Alluvium (Pleistocene) to unanticipated formations (Pleistocene, silty sandstones; sandy silt shot through with caliche.

These sediments have high paleontological sensitivity due to their older age and fossils recorded from these units in other locations within the County). Deep excavation that involves disturbance of native soils could result in the disturbance and/or destruction of paleontological resources that may be present in deeper Pleistocene alluvial deposits that underlie the Project Site. Due to the potential to impact unanticipated fossil discoveries, potential impacts associated with construction would be significant. However, implementation of MM GEO-7 requiring the retention of a qualified paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading activities would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-14 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

5.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to EIR No. 311 geologic and seismic impacts associated with implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project in association with surrounding development were not considered cumulatively significant with implementation of mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP was determined to not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to geotechnical and soil resources.

Geology and soils impacts are generally site-specific and there is typically little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a project and development within a larger cumulative area (e.g., city-wide development). For example, development at the Project Site would not alter geologic events or soil features/characteristics (such as ground shaking, seismic intensity, or settlement) at other locations; therefore, the Project would not directly affect the level of intensity at which a seismic event or geologic hazard on an adjacent site is experienced. However, while development of the Project and future development in the City of Anaheim (City) may expose more persons to seismic hazards, compliance with all requirements and standards for seismic activity would reduce the potential impacts.

The Project and any other development projects would be required to comply with the applicable State and local agency grading manuals and ordinances. As with the Project, future development would also be required to have site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide recommendations for engineering design and construction to ensure the structural integrity of proposed development. These recommendations would be incorporated into project design. Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation would prevent cumulatively significant hazards associated with seismic conditions, unstable soils, lateral spreading, liquefaction, soil collapse, expansive soil, soil erosion, and other geologic issues. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative geology a nd soils impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact with implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-6 and compliance with applicable seismic design criteria in the CBC and the City’s grading regulations.

It is likely that most, if not all, of the cumulative projects would result in native ground disturbance that could encounter and affect paleontological resources. During each projects’ entitlement process, it is the responsibility of the CEQA Lead Agency reviewing each of the cumulative projects to identify potentially significant impacts, including potential paleontological resource impacts, and to require mitigation measures if needed, such as paleontological resources if appropriate; therefore, the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact with implementation of MM GEO-7.

The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-15 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils

5.6.5 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 presented mitigation measures (MM), Project Design Features (PDF), and standard requirements (SR) to reduce potential impacts associated with The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, respectively. As appropriate, the measure number and section from EIR No. 311 and/or SEIR No. 340 are listed in parentheses.

Modifications to the original measure are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.

MM GEO-1 Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval a thorough soils and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. The report shall comply with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-1)
MM GEO-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-1) MM GEO-3 Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-2) MM GEO-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-3)
MM GEO-5 Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-6)
MM GEO-6 Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-5)
MM GEO-7 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist meeting the Society of DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-16 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for paleontological monitoring, as well as for to temporarily halting or redirect ing work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts fossils are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer monitor shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvageshall administer appropriate actions based on SVP protocols3. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will shall be donated toreposited in an appropriate educational or research institution.

Preparation, storage and curation shall be funded by the property owner/developer.
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area discovery by a buffer of at least 50 feet.

Construction shall not resume until the monitor can survey the areapaleontological monitor has given the order to proceed in that location once a determination on the significance of the fossil discovery has been made.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.13-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-2)
MM PS-10 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel, the property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency evacuation response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on emergency evacuation earthquake safety procedures and incorporate ongoing emergency evacuationearthquake training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-5 and MM 3.6-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-4)

5.6.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.6a: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) 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. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking

3 Society of Vertebrate Pa leontology (SVP), Gui delines from the Et hics Education Committee for Collecting, Documenting and Curating Fo ssils (last updated 2021). https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-from-the-Ethics-Education-Committee.pdf (accessed August 18, 2023).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-17 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.6b: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.6d: Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address expansive soils. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.

Threshold 5.6f: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

5.6.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2023a (January 10). General Plan Safety Element. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/47834/Safety- Element_01102023
———.2023b (January 1). Anaheim Municipal Code. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-51668 ———. 2012. Final Environmental Impact Report 340 Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C . Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort.
———. 2004a (May). General Plan for the City of Anaheim (City Council Resolution No. 2004- 94). Anaheim, CA: the City. http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan ———. 2004b (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330 SCH #2003041105 Volume I . https://www.anaheim.net/932/EIR- No-330-Volume-I-FEIR
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-18 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
———. 1996 (last accessed September 14, 2022). The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 311 with Addendum and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 0067. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1017/Disneyland-Resort. ———. 1994 (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum .

Anaheim, City of: Anaheim, CA.
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master-Environmental-Impact- Report-Number-313-?bidId=
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022 (August 31, accessed date). California Green Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24, Part 11). http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2019a. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Sacramento, CA: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist- priolo#:~:text=The%20Alquist%2DPriolo%20Act%20only,inundation%20by%20tsunami %20or%20seiche.
———. 2012 (last accessed February 10, 2023). Special Report 217: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California (2012 Revision). Sacramento, CA:
https:// www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/sr217 California Department of General Services (DGS). 2021. Building Standards Commission, Codes.

Sacramento, CA: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes
California Earthquake Authority (CEA). 2023a. California Earthquake Risk Map & Faults By County. Sacramento, CA: www.earthquakeauthority.com/California-Earthquake- Risk/Faults-By-By-County
———.2023b. California Earthquake Risk Map & Faults By County. Sacramento, CA:
www.earthquakeauthority.com/California-Earthquake-Risk/California-Earthquake- History-Timeline
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2021 (June 10, date accessed). Regulatory Maps Geo Application, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation mapper. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/.

California State Geoportal (CSG). 2020. Fault Hazard Zones, CGS Seismic Hazards Program:

Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones. Sacramento, CA:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/maps/ee92a5f9f4ee4ec5aa731d3245ed9f53/explore?location=37. 113525%2C-119.787889%2C7.00
International Code Council. 2021. 2021 International Building Code (IBC). Washington, DC: ICC. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P1
Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Report 5:1-59 ———. 2006. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Report 5:1-156 LaRoc Environmental. 2014 (December). Disneyland Resort Master Water Quality Management Plan. Carlsbad, CA: LaRoc. (Appendix H-1)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-19 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
Natural History Museum Los Angeles County (LACM). 2021 (June 10). Re: Paleontological resources for project 3WDI000400 – E-mail correspondence . Los Angeles, CA: LACM. (Appendix F)
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. McLean, VA: SVP.

U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks Service. 2009. Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009. Washington, D.C.: NPS.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.6-20 Section 5.6 – Geology and Soils
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-1 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section discusses the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions setting and the Project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.

5.7.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required in 1993; however, EIR No. 311 analyzed The Disneyland Resort’s impacts related to traffic and energy- related emissions. To address traffic-related emissions, Traffic Demand Measures (TDM) and project design features (PDFs) were implemented to reduce emissions. Despite the new demand for energy projected for The Disneyland Resort Project at the time of its approval, EIR No. 311 concluded that implementation of MM 3.14-1, MM 3.14-2, PDF 3.14-1, and PDF 3.14-2 would reduce any energy usage impacts to a level considered less than significant.

EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measures (MM) and PDFs regarding GHG emissions to reduce potential impacts associated with full build-out of The Disneyland Resort.

MM 3.4-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the second theme park, the applicant shall submit a site and operations plan for this facility showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial and dining services in conformance with the Specific Plan.

1 Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 311, which t he City approved in 1996, modified MMP No. 0067.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-2 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG VMT reduction targets have been met through other means.

MM 3.7-3 The property owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.

Additionally:

a. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in accordance with Anaheim's Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance and Guidelines including:
 Project Information.
 Maximum Applied Water Use expressed as annual totals.  Soil management report or specifications.
 Landscape design plan.
 Irrigation design plan.
 Grading design plan.
b. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an irrigation engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the Specific Plan). The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies.
c. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require that the Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the landscape irrigation system include water-conserving features such as low-flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water- conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, if it should become available.
(Note: Environmental equivalents were approved for this measure as follows:

Prior to 8/97, environmental equivalent approved which clarifies the timing relative to the Setback Realm Areas and non-Setback Realm Areas and its inapplicability to the theme parks including the retail/entertainment component; deleted the reference to the intended purpose of the plan to integrate and phase the installation of streetscape landscaping with the proposed construction schedule in that the Specific Plan requires the approval of Final Site Plans for the Setback Realm Areas which will be submitted on a street-by-street basis rather than on an individual project component basis. It should be noted that this measure will apply to and be monitored with the ultimate landscaping only and not with any interim landscaping condition.

On 10/8/97, environmental equivalent approved to clarify the timing for the West Parking Facility as the SP-4 portion of the West Parking Area will first be DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-3 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
developed to accommodate surface parking in an interim condition only.

On 7/26/18, environmental equivalent approved to add new language as standard required information to be included as part of the Landscape Plans submittal. In addition, new language calls for consistency with Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) and Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA).

With the exception of the Planning Department, other departments were deleted from the “Responsible for Monitoring” Section of this Measure, as they are not required to review/monitor.)
MM 3.10.3-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspections for the Second Theme Park; and continuing on an ongoing basis during project operation, the existing solid waste recycling and waste minimization practices at the Disneyland theme park shall be expanded as feasible to serve the Disneyland Resort. Existing practices include:

 Usage of recycled paper products for stationery, letterhead, and packaging.  Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.  Collection of office paper for recycling.
 Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
 Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.

MM 3.10.3-2 For the second theme park, prior to opening day, except where solid waste recycling facilities are required for operation of facility prior to opening day (in which case solid waste recycling facilities will be provided prior to Final Building and Zoning Inspections); and for the remainder of The Disneyland Resort, prior to final zoning and building inspections, excluding the relocation of SCE transmission lines, the Disneyland Administration Building and demolition, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Director of Maintenance for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as implemented by the City of Anaheim, the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Plan, and the City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plan, administered by the Department of Maintenance. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved on 12/7/99 to change the timing for this mitigation measure as the majority of Disney’s California Adventure will not be open to the public nor occupied by employees of Disneyland prior to Opening Day, and therefore, will not be generating solid waste. With respect to the remainder of The Disneyland Resort, solid waste management facilities will be provided as part of the Certificate of Occupancy process, after which time facilities will be occupied, and therefore, generating solid waste.

Mitigation measure also references “Director of Maintenance”. This has been changed to Director of Public Works, inasmuch as City Maintenance functions are now overseen by the Public Works Department. Additionally, the Department of Maintenance reference in the mitigation measure has been changed to Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division).

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-4 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM 3.10.3-3 Prior to final zoning and building inspection; to be implemented during operation of the theme parks, a solid waste management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the applicant for the Disneyland Resort theme parks to ensure that the project plans comply with
AB 939, as administered by the City of Anaheim, and the County’s and City’s Integrated Waste Management Plans. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation shall include:

a. Detailing the locations and design of back-of-house recycling facilities. b. Complying with all Federal, State, and City regulations for hazardous material disposal.
c. Continuing participation in the City of Anaheim's voluntary "Recycle Anaheim" program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City.

In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the applicant shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs at the Disneyland Resort, including:
 Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins.
 Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially from retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and baling.  Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
 Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.

 Prohibition of curbside pick-up within the Disneyland Resort.

MM 3.10.6-2 With the exception of the West Parking Area, prior to issuance of each building permit (for non-Setback Realm Areas); prior to approval of final site plan (for Setback Realm Areas); to be implemented prior to final zoning and building inspections (for non-Setback Realm Areas) and prior to acceptance by the City Engineer (for Setback Realm Areas); and continuing on an ongoing basis during project operation; West Parking Area: Prior to approval of initial building permits for interim condition of a portion of the West Parking Area (for the final landscaping plans for the Walnut Street setback area and for the area adjacent to the Walnut Street soundwall in the private realm); and prior to approval of building permits for the ultimate condition of the West Parking Area (for the final landscape plans for West Street/Disneyland Drive setback landscape, Cerritos Avenue setback landscape, landscaping of entrance to hotels and landscaping interior to hotel and RD&E parking); among the water conservation measures to be shown on plans and implemented by the property owner/developer within the Specific Plan area include the following:

 Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system.  Use of waterway re-circulation systems.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-5 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals.
 Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains.
 Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available.  Continuation of the existing cooling tower recirculation system.  Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors.
 Low-flow shower heads in hotels.
 Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water- using appliances.
 Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest.  Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.
 Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.  Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the use of water for washdown of exterior areas.
(Note: Environmental equivalents were approved for this measure as follows:

Prior to 10/8/97, environmental equivalent approved to clarify the timing relative to the Setback Realm Areas and non-Setback Realm Areas. It should be noted that this measure will apply to and be monitored with the ultimate landscaping only and not with any interim landscaping condition.

On 10/8/97, environmental equivalent approved to change the timing for the West Parking Area as the SP-4 portion of the West Parking Area will first be developed to accommodate surface parking in an interim condition only.

On 7/26/18, environmental equivalent approved which, with the exception of the Planning Department, removed other departments from the “Responsible for Monitoring” Section of this measure as they are not required to review/monitor.

It also removed the following language: “(to the extent feasible within the Theme Park District)”.)
MM 3.10.9-1 The applicant shall implement all project design features or their environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process.

MM 3.10.9-3 Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit for Phases II and III, the applicant shall enter into the agreement with the City (dated March 18, 1997) to meet the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-6 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
increased electrical demands for opening day (June 30, 2001) of The Disneyland Resort.
(Note: Environmental equivalency approved on 4/28/98 to reference the approved agreement between the City and the Walt Disney World Company. The 3/18/97 City Council staff report indicated that MMP No. 0067 identified the need to construct a 69kV electric substation on Disney’s property as a mitigation measure to address the impact of the Project on the City’s electric system. Staff determined that service can be provided through the City’s 12kV system, thereby, eliminating the need for the substation. The City subsequently amended its Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations to allow the City to recover electric upgrade costs without the need for a service agreement which superseded the need for this equivalency.) MM 3.10.10-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which shall ensure that buildings are in conformance with the State Energy Conservation Standards for nonresidential building (Title 24, Part 6, Article 2, California Administrative Code).

MM 3.14-1 The applicant shall implement all project design features or their environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process
MM 3.14-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed project to the extent feasible.

PDF 3.3-15 Transportation Demand Management Program
Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; and, on-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South C oast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, by 2001.

1.5 AVR. In consultation with the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing the effectiveness of these items, The Walt Disney Company will select specific programs for implementation.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-7 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Objectives of the TDM program are:
 Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.  Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
 Provide a menu of commute alternatives for the Disneyland Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
 Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for both the Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
 Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast and guest trips are described below.

Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the following:
 Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other services may be provided to the cast.
 Ridesharing. A computer listing of all cast members may be developed for the purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast members who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare to the Disneyland Resort.
 Vanpooling. A computer listing of all cast members may be developed for the purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to the Disneyland Resort.  Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to the Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
 Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial incentives will be provided.  Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to the Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel to work by means other than the automobile.
 Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
 Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an automobile with access DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-8 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
to automobiles in case of emergency, medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal transportation in the event of special circumstances.
 Guaranteed Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.
 Housing Coordinator and Referral Program and Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to provide referral service to facilitate employees in finding housing and actively recruit prospective employees residing within 30-minute commute shed.  Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.

Work Schedule
 Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus lessening peak hour congestion.
 Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review the possibility of developing a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be generated daily by the Disneyland Resort Cast.
 Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs a variety of cast in different positions, cast members include clerical, office support, and administrative members. The Disneyland Resort may explore the possibility of a "telecommuting" program that would link some of these cast members to The Disneyland Resort via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). This would help to eliminate certain trips that would otherwise be generated by a cast member who would otherwise physically need to be at the Disneyland Resort.

Work Environment/Facility Management
 Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.  Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead to greater reductions in VMT by project employees.  Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient parking management for cast and guests.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-9 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided.
 Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.

Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
 Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $60 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus pools).
 Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Cast members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers.
 Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction.

Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction programs.
 Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in non- peak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.

Guests
Even though visitors are estimated to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and from !he Disneyland Resort. The applicant is currently developing a list of potential programs and is working with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing materials for the Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not needed.

PDF 3.3-17 Transportation Management Association
Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, other measures to achieve trip reductions and other TDM
program objectives will be
explored, including the formation of a Disneyland Resort Transportation Management Association (TMA), or an Anaheim Resort Area TMA. To increase the likelihood of success of the TDM program, cooperation among other groups and businesses who either have existing TDM programs or have a need for TDM programming could be networked with cast participants. By expanding the number of participants in the various programs, more benefit in trip reduction is likely to be achieved. The TMA would be responsible for matching cast and guest commute services; marketing/promoting ridesharing alternatives (i.e., vanpooling, bicycling, etc.); and providing a "fair share" payment of local TDM programs provided through the TMA.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-10 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PDF 3.4-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park; and ongoing during project operation, the project has been designed to reduce dependence on the private automobile, which will reduce and avoid many of the traffic-related emissions associated with the existing Disneyland theme park, as well as those normally associated with hotels and day-use only special event activities. Guests will be encouraged to park their cars and leave them for the duration of their visits, thus eliminating the trips to restaurants and sightseeing, or entertainment attractions normally associated with vacation stays. Marketing efforts in Southern California will promote the Disneyland Resort as a mini-vacation site for Southland residents.

PDF 3.4-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the East and West Public Parking Structures; ongoing during project operation, all public day-use parking facilities, not including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West public parking structures will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist speed parking procedures:

1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic flows on each facility level.

3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a standard garage, which tends to slow drivers.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-11 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PDF 3.4-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit, project design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy savings will also contribute to reduced emissions:

1. Improved thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.

2. Efficient heating and other appliances.

3. Incorporation of appropriate passive solar design.

PDF 3.7-1 To be installed with project water mains; to be connected if reclaimed water becomes available, for the West Parking Facility: prior to approval of initial building permits for interim condition of a portion of the West Parking Area (for the final landscape plans for the Walnut Street Setback area and for the area adjacent to the Walnut Street soundwall in the private realm); and prior to approval of building permits for the ultimate condition of the West Parking Area (for the final landscape plans for West Street/ Disneyland Drive setback landscape, Cerritos Ave. setback landscape, landscaping at entrance to hotels and landscaping interior to hotel and RD&E parking), to reduce the project's demand on potable water, the property owner/developer shall install water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved on 10/8/97 to clarify the timing for the West Parking Facility as the SP-4 portion of the West Parking Area will first be developed to accommodate surface parking in an interim condition only.

Implementation of this measure for all of the West Parking Area would require substantial portions of the landscaping to be removed in order to implement plans for the ultimate condition of the West Parking Area.)
PDF 3.8-4 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during grading and construction, a Construction Traffic Management Plan which includes mechanisms to reduce construction-related traffic congestion which shall be implemented during grading and construction, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Configure construction parking to minimize onsite and offsite traffic interference.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-12 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes.

3. Provide flagpersons to guide traffic, as determined in the plan. (Note: Environmental equivalency approved on 3/13/97 to clarify the plan shall be submitted prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit. The Planning Department also clarified Traffic was the responsible Division).

PDF 3.8-5 Prior to approval of each grading plan for phase II and III southwest parking facility, a Trip Reduction Plan (excluding the demolition for or relocation of the SCE transmission lines) for construction crew vehicles shall be prepared to reduce potential vehicle trips on the road and identify parking locations for construction employees and equipment.
(Notes: Environmental equivalent approved on 4/1/97 which allows the Trip Reduction Plan to be prepared for each project component to ensure the Plan includes sufficient detail to address said component).

PDF 3.8-10 Ongoing during construction, to decrease solid waste resulting from the construction phases, asphalt and concrete which is demolished as a part of project demolition and construction may be crushed and reused on the project site.

PDF 3.9-1 Ongoing during Project operations, the existing Disneyland theme park and Disneyland Hotel special employment programs such as summer employment for teachers and educational programs offering local high schools students jobs will continue. The Walt Disney Company will also aggressively recruit workers who are already a part of the resident work force in the region. Implementation of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan will further efforts in offering employment opportunities at various socioeconomic levels.

PDF 3.10.9-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, in order to conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall implement numerous energy saving practices in compliance with Title 10, which may include the following:

 Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts for assistance with energy-conservation design features.
 Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems controlled by a computerized management system including features such as a variable air volume system, a 100-percent outdoor air economizer cycle, sequential operation of air conditioning equipment in accordance with building demands, isolation of air conditioning to any selected floor or floors.
 Use of electric motors designed to conserve energy.
 Use of special lighting fixtures such as motion sensing lightswitch devices and compact fluorescent fixtures in place of incandescent lights.  Use of T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Metal hallide or high-pressure sodium for outdoor lighting and parking lots.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-13 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PDF 3.14-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, the project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend their length of stay; thus incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are expected to be reduced. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved prior to 3/98 which eliminated the requirement for monitoring this feature on an ongoing basis during project operation in that the approval of the various project components will constitute satisfaction of the feature).

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 concluded that although the ARSP Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and although feasible mitigation measures would be incorporated into the ARSP Project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact regarding GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts.

SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirements SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures (MM) and compliance with the following standard requirements (SR) regarding GHG emissions to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the ARSP.

MM 5.2-4 Prior to the issuance of each grading permit (for import/export plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for demolition plan), the property owner/developer shall submit demolition and import/export plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.

5.7-14 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning and Building Department.

MM 5.2-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.
d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center.
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.

MM 5.8-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install piping on-site with project water mains so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available.

MM 5.14-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) system, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. Proof of compliance with this requirement shall be submitted by the ATN to the City Traffic Engineer. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. Proof of compliance with this requirement shall be the submittal of a copy of the recorded covenant to the City Traffic Engineer.

MM 5.14-8 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office and proof of compliance with this requirement shall be the submittal of a copy of the recorded covenant to the City Traffic Engineer. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
a. Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-15 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
b. Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project- generated trips.
c. Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.

MM 5.14-9 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, City Traffic Engineer, for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons’ transportation options. These options may include, but are not limited to, the list below. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation and proof of compliance with this requirement shall be the submittal of a copy of the recorded covenant to the City Traffic Engineer.
a. On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as the food, retail, and other services.
b. Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.
c. Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs.
d. Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region.
e. Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for guests. f. Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. g. Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
h. Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.
i. Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts.
j. Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-16 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
k. Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem). l. Parking Management. Develop a parki ng management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single- occupant auto to travel to work.
m. Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles. n. Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.
o. Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work.
p. Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs. q. Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of longest commute trips.

MM 5.14-20 Prior to the approval of a Final Site Plan, the property owner/developer shall meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine whether a bus stop(s) is required to be placed adjacent to the property. If a bus stop(s) is required, it shall be placed in a location that least impacts traffic flow and may be designed as a bus turnout or a far side bus stop as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager and per the approval of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

MM 5.15-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during project operation), the property owner/ developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department plans for review and approval which shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. The water conservation measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems. b. Use of waterway recirculation systems.
c. Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals.
d. Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-17 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
e. Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors.
f. Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels.
g. Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water- using appliances.
h. Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest. i. Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.
j. Use of water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.

MM 5.15-4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall indicate that separate irrigation lines for recycled water shall be constructed and recycled water will be used when it becomes available. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water.

MM 5.17-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Business and Community Programs Division, in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy efficient measures which may include the following:
a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution
c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle
d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units)
g. Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces
h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps
i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps
j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient lighting for outdoor lighting
k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage.

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-18 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified
m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high- pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots
n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air-conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods. o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.
p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as:
i. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems. ii. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements. iii. Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical assistance.

MM 5.19-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning Inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that s hall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to:
a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities. b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulation for hazardous material disposal.
d. Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City.
e. In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352

5.7-19 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but not limited to:
f. Facilitating recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins.
g. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and storing. h. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
i. Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.
j. Prohibiting curbside pick-up.

MM 5.19-2 Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer:
a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and packaging. b. Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. c. Collection of office paper for recycling.
d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.

Anaheim City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Anaheim City Council
April 16, 2024