MM 5.19-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments.
MM 5.19-5 Prior to issuance of each grading and building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the Planning Director or Planning Services Manager for approval a Construction Waste Management Plan that, at a minimum, specifies that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris shall be recycled or salvaged and identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on site or co-mingled.
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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-20 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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).
5.7.2 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
Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is a recorded change in the average weather of the earth measured by variables such as wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have led to an anthropogenic2 warming trend of the Earth’s average temperature, which is causing changes in the earth’s climate. GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition. This increasing temperature phenomenon is known as “global warming”, and the climatic effect is known as “climate change” or “global climate change”.
GHGs are atmospheric gases and clouds within the atmosphere that influence the Earth’s temperature by absorbing most of the infrared radiation that rises from the sun-warmed surface and that would otherwise escape into space. This process is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. The Earth’s surface temperature averages about 58 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) because of the Greenhouse Effect. Without it, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be somewhere around an uninhabitable 0°F. Anthropogenic GHG emissions enhance the Greenhouse Effect by absorbing radiation from other atmospheric GHGs that would otherwise escape into space, thereby trapping more radiation in the atmosphere and causing temperatures to increase.
GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). CO2 is the most important anthropogenic GHG.3 The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial (roughly 1750) value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) primarily due to fossil fuel use. The annual growth rate in CO2 concentrations continues to increase, with a larger annual CO2 concentration growth.
2 Caused or produced by humans.
3 General discussions on climate change often include water vapor, ozone, and aerosols in the GHG category.
Water vapor and atmospheric ozone are no t gases that are formed directly in the construction or operation of development projects, nor can they be controlled in these projects. Aerosols are not gases. While these elements have a role in climate change, they ar e not considered by either regulatory bodies (such as the California Air Resources Board [CARB]) or climate change groups (suc h as the California Climate Action Registry [CCAR]) as gases to be reported or analyzed for control. Therefore, no further discussion of water vapor, atmospheric ozone, or aerosols is provided in this EIR section.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-21 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHGs are global pollutants and are therefore unlike air pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern.
While pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (generally on the order of a few days), GHGs have relatively long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe.
GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects; therefore, climate scientists have established a unit called a global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO
2. For example, since CH 4 and
N2O are approximately 21 and 310 times more powerful than CO2 (respectively) in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 21 and 310, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1).
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO
2e.
Climate change effects in California are anticipated to impact resources including, but not limited to, the following: public health, wildfires, energy, droughts, sea level and flooding, agriculture, forestry, and ecosystems.
Existing GHG Emissions
Table 5.7-1, Comparison of Worldwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, compares the magnitude of GHG emissions on the global, national, State, and local (Project Site) scales. CO2e emissions are commonly expressed as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2e); larger quantities of emissions, such as on the State or world scale, are expressed as million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO
2e). Metric tons may also be stated as “tonnes”. The CO2e for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP, such that MMTCO 2e = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the GWP for CH 4 is 21. This means that emission of 1 million metric ton of CH 4 is equivalent to the emissions of 21 million metric tons of CO2.
TABLE 5.7-1
COMPARISON OF WORLDWIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Area and Data Year
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMTCO2e)
World (2018) 48,900
United States (2020) 5,981
California (2019) 404
Project Site1 0.02
GHG: greenhouse gas; MMTCO2e: million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 AB32 Reporting requirements for direct emissions.
Source: WRI 2022; USEPA 2022b; CARB 2022; AB32 Reporting The United States contributes approximately 12 percent of worldwide GHG emissions per year; California contributes approximately 0.8 percent; and the Project Site contributes approximately
0.00004 percent. The most common GHG is CO
2, which constitutes approximately 79 percent of
all GHG emissions in the United States and California (USEPA 2022b). The primary contributors to California GHG emissions are (1) transportation (38 percent), (2) industrial uses (23 percent), and (3) electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources (11 percent).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-22 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions are generated on an annual basis from the Project Site by area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, solid waste disposal, and water and wastewater transportation and treatment. Area source emissions are generated by the operation of landscape maintenance equipment and the use of consumer products. Energy sources are generated by the consumption of natural gas for heating, hot water, and cooking, and the generation of electricity. Mobile source emissions are generated by the vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Solid waste disposal generates GHG emissions through transportation and processing of solid waste and release of CH
4 at landfills. GHGs for water supply, distribution, and treatment and wastewater treatment result from the electricity required for the processes.
B. Regulatory Framework
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Findings
On December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere —CO 2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
The findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementin g GHG emissions standards for vehicles (USEPA 2021a). A light-duty vehicle is defined any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or less (CARB 2021a).
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have been working together on developing a National Program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking establishing standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. On October 15, 2012, the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. The rules require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 295 grams of CO 2 per mile by 2012,
decreasing to 250 grams per mile by 2016, and finally to an average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams per mile in model year 2025. The 2016 standard is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and the 2025 standard is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if the levels were achieved solely through improvements in fuel efficiency. The agencie s expect, however, that a portion of these improvements will occur due to air conditioning technology improvements (i.e., they will leak less) and due to the use of alternative refrigerants, which would not contribute to fuel economy. These standards would cut GHG emissions by an estimated 2 billion metric tons and 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2017–2025). The combined USEPA GHG standards and NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards resolve previously conflicting r equirements under both federal programs and the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-23 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
standards of the State of California and other States that have adopted the California standards (USEPA and NHTSA 2012).
On September 19, 2019, NHTSA and the USEPA issued a final action entitled the “One National Program Rule” (SAFE-1) to enable the federal gov ernment to provide nationwide uniform fuel economy and GHG emission standards for automobile and light duty trucks. This action finalized critical parts of the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule that was first proposed in August 2018. In this proposal, the agencies proposed new and amended GHG and CAFE standards for model year 2021 to 2026 light duty vehicles (USEPA and NHTSA 2019).
In this action, USEPA withdrew the Clean Air Act waiver that had been granted to the State of California in January 2013 for the State’s Advanced Clean Car program with respect to GHG and Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) elements. In November 2019, California, 21 other states, the District of Columbia, and four California cities filed a petition for the USEPA to reconsider SAFE-1. A petition for reconsideration was also filed by several environmental groups.
On April 28, 2021, USEPA published a Notice of Reconsideration: California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Car Program; Reconsideration of a Previous Withdrawal of a Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment. The public comment period closed July 6, 2021 (USEPA 2021).
On March 14, 2022, the USEPA determined that the actions taken as a part of SAFE-1 were decided in error and are now entirely rescinded. Wi th this action California’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement its own gr eenhouse gas emission (GHG) emission standards and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate is restored (USEPA 2022a).
State
Assembly Bill 1493 (Mobile Source Reductions)
AB 1493, adopted September 2002, also known as Pavley I, requires the development and adoption of regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation in the State. The em ission standards have become increasingly more stringent through the 2016 model year. California committed to further strengthening these standards beginning in 2017 to obtain a 45 percent GHG reduction from 2020 model year vehicles (CARB 2021b). Regulations to make California emissions standards for model year 2017 and beyond consistent with federal standards were adopted in 2012 and are discussed further below.
California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Cars Program In January 2012, California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, an emissions-control program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
The program also requires car manufacturers to offer for sale an increasing number of ZEVs each year, including battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In March 2017, CARB adopted GHG standards for 2022 through 2025 model years and directed staff to begin rule development for 2026 and subsequent model years (CARB 2021c).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-24 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 (Statewide GHG Targets)
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains; could further exacerbate California’s air quality problems; and could potentially cause a rise in sea levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce the impacts of climate change, Executive Order S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
However, executive orders do not have the same status as a law because under California’s constitution, it is the Legislature, not the Governor, who is entrusted with the role of making statewide laws. The Legislature declined to include the Executive Order's 2050 goal in AB 32 (discussed below), and again declined to use the EO's 2050 goal in adopting Senate Bill (SB) 375 (discussed below), nor has it incorporated it in any implementing legislation or applicable plans.
Additionally, although CARB has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary beyond the AB 32 horizon year 2020 to meet the target set forth in S-3-05, the agency has not done so. Since the Legislature has never enacted EO S-3-05’s 2050 target, and no expert agency has interpreted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to require it, the 2050 target has only the force and effect of an executive order issued by a former Governor. If the Legislature has delegated any of its authority to define CEQA’s requirements, it delegated that authority to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).
Senate Bill 97 and the CEQA Guidelines
Pursuant to SB 97, OPR developed and California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Amendments) for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and their effects. The CEQA Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
The CEQA Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emi ssions. The CEQA Amendments note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance based standards” (CNRA 2009b). Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment (CNRA 2009b):
The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting;
Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and
The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
All of these are considered in the impact analysis presented in this section. The revisions to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines, which is often used as a basis for lead agencies’ selection of significance thresholds, do not prescribe specific thresholds.
Rather, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks whether the project would conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions or would generate GHG emissions that DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-25 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
would significantly affect the environment, indicating that the determination of what is a significant effect on the environment should be left to the lead agency. Accordingly, the CEQA Amendments do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment; they do not establish specific thresholds of significance; and they do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Amendments emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009b).
The CEQA Amendments indicate that lead agenc ies should consider all feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring and reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions. As pertinent to the Project, these potential mitigation measures, set forth in Section 15126.4(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, may include (1) measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of GHG emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; (2) reductions in GHG emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project design features; (3) off-site measures, including offsets, to mitigate a project’s emissions; and (4) carbon sequestration measures (CNRA 2009b).
Among other things, the CNRA noted in its Public Notice for these changes that impacts of GHG emissions should focus on the cumulative impact on climate change. The Public Notice states (CNRA 2009):
While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CNRA] indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions shou ld center on whether a project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable.
Thus, the CEQA Amendments continue to make clear that the significance of greenhouse gas emissions is most appropriately considered on a cumulative level.
Assembly Bill 32 (Statewide GHG Reductions)
In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the California Legislature adopted the public policy position that global warming is “a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California” (California Health and Safety Code, Section 38501). The public policy statements became law with the enactment of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) in September 2006, after considerable study and expert testimony before the Legislature. The law instructs CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 directed CARB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The scoping plan is described further below.
Executive Order B-30-15 (Statewide Interim GHG Targets) California EO B-30-15 (2015) set an “interim” statewide emission target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and directed State agencies with jurisdiction over GHG emissions to implement measures pursuant to statutory authority to achieve this 2030 target and the 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. Specifically, the Executive Order directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express this 2030 target in metric tons.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-26 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 32/Assembly Bill 197
SB 32, signed September 8, 2016, implements a goal of EO B-30-15. Under SB 32, in “adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” CARB must ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. SB 32's findings state that CARB will “achieve the state’s more stringent greenhouse gas emission reductions in a manner that benefits the state’s most disadvantaged communities and is transparent and accountable to the public and the Legislature.” AB 197, a companion to SB 32, adds two members to the CARB and requires measures to increase transparency about GHG emissions, climate policies, and GHG reduction actions.
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emission level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business as usual”).
The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions; integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities; identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations; and outlines the role of a cap-and- trade program.
First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB approved the final “First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan” on May 22, 2014.
The first update describes California’s progress towards AB 32 goals, stating that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 greenhouse gas limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” . Specifically, “if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (s uch as 12,000 megawatts [MW] of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under AB 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050” (CARB 2014). Reducing the "business as usual" condition of 509 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) to the 1990 emissions level of 431 MMTCO 2e will require a
reduction of 78 MMTCO2e, or approximately a 15.3 percent reduction (compared to a 28.5 percent reduction as set forth in the original Scoping Plan but not directly comparable because of the change in methodology).
Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB prepared a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target established in Executive Order B-30-15 and in Senate Bill 32 (discussed above). The Final Proposed 2017 Scoping Plan was published in November 2017, and the third public Board Meeting for the Proposed Scoping Plan was held on December 14, 2017, where the Final Proposed 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, or 2017 Scoping Plan Update) was adopted.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes new statutory GHG reduction requirements that were not included in the current Scoping Plan, including Senate Bill 32 (discussed below) which sets a 40 percent GHG reduction target below 1990 GHG levels to be achieved by 2030, SB 350 (which sets a 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions from electricity generation and other energy uses DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-27 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in existing structures, and a 50 percent renewable energy portfolio requirement), and SB 650 (which establishes priority GHG reduction targets for designated types of greenhouse gases such as methane). The key elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update proposal call for further GHG reductions from the refinery sector specifically, further reductions from other stationary sources through either a renewed and expanded cap and trade or carbon tax program, further reductions from other sectors such as transportation technologies and services, water and solid waste conservation and management, and land uses in both open space and urban areas (CARB 2017). 2022 Scoping Plan Update
The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier through the reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan takes an aggressive approach to decreasing fossil fuel use and decarbonization of every sector of emissions. Measures include moving to zero-emission transportation, phasing out the use of fossil fuel gas used for heating, reduction in the use of chemicals and refrigerants with high global warming potential, development of sustainable infr astructure that provides opportunities for walking, biking and public transit to reduce reliance on automobiles, and development of renewable energy (CARB 2022).
Senate Bill 375 (Land Use Planning)
Signed September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans (RTPs) and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. There are two mutually important facets to SB 375: reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. SB 375 also includes provisions for exemptions from or streamlined CEQA review for projects classified as transit priority projects (SCAG 2016). See additional discussion of the SCAG plan under “Regional” regulations below.
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and SBX1-2 (Renewable Portfolio Standards) Established in 2002 under SB 1078, accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, and again in 2011 under SBX1-2, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020. Initially, the Renewable Portfolio Standard provisions applied to investor -owned utilities, community choice aggregat ors, and electric service providers. SBX1-2 added, for the first time, publicly owned utilities to the entities subject to RPS.
Senate Bill 350
SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is the implementation of some of the goals of EO B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are as follows:
(1) To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our 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 (CEC 2021a).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-28 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by December 31, 2045. This policy requires the transition to zero-carbon electric systems that do not cause contributions to increase of GHG emissions elsewhere in the western electricity grid (CEC 2021b). SB 100 also creates new standards for the RPS goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases required energy from renewable sources for both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B-55-18, which sets a new statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve net negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 was added to the existing Statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions, including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO B-30-15 and SB 32), and by Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 (EO S-3-05).
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2021, Governor Newsom announced that California will phase out the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered cars to reduce GHG emissions. The Executive Order directs the State to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles. This would aid in reducing CO
2 emissions, half of which are from the
transportation sector.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 11) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The currently applicable standards are the 2022 Standards, effective January 1, 2023 (CBSC 2022). The 2022 standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non- residential lighting requirements. The ventilation m easures improve indoor air quality, protecting homeowners from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources (CEC 2022). The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. Both natural gas an d electricity use produce GHG emissions. The goal of the standards is to reduce energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent.
The California Energy Commission (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 t hat California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020”. Additionally, it has been California policy that all new residential buildings will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and new commercial buildings will be ZNE by 2030, as described in the 2008 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) long-term energy efficiency strategic plan. The 2022 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards establish building design and construction requirements that move closer to achieving California’s ZNE goals through encouragement of energy efficient heat pumps, electric-ready alternatives to use of natural gas, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-29 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
electric vehicle charging options, renewable energy generation and electricity storage, as well improving indoor air quality through ventilation standards. The requirements of the energy efficiency standards result in the reduction of natural gas and electricity consumption. Both natural gas use and electricity generation result in GHG emissions.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California) (CBSC 2022). 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. In short, 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.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
The California Air Pollution Control Officers A ssociation (CAPCOA) is the association of Air Pollution Control Officers representing all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California.
CAPCOA is not a regulatory body but has been an active organization in providing guidance in addressing the CEQA significance of GHG emi ssions and climate change as well as other air quality issues. The August 2010 CAPCOA publication entitled Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures provides guidance on the quantification of project-level mitigation of GHGs associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project areas. The guidance includes detailed procedures about the approaches to assessing and calculating the GHG emissions reductions associated with project design features and mitigation measures (CAPCOA 2010). This publication’s methods are used in the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer model that is used to calculate GHG emissions.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
As previously discussed, SB 375 specifical ly required Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including SCAG, to incorporate an SCS in their RTPs that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SCAG’s current SCS is included in its 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal (SCAG 2020) for counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.
4 The core vision of this Plan includes Demand & System Management, Goods Movement, Complete Streets, System Preservation & Resilience, and Transit Backbone.
The 2020 RTP/SCS combines the need for mobility with a “sustainable future” through a reduction in the emissions produced from transportation sources. The document was adopted by SCAG on September 3, 2020. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is expected to reduce per capita transportation emissions by 19 percent by 2035 relative to 2005.
4 The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS succeeds the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-30 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
South Coast Air Quality Management District
As previously discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, air quality in Orange County is regulated by the SCAQMD, the agency principa lly responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes Orange County. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, County transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.
Beginning in April 2008, the SCAQMD convened a Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. The Working Group was scheduled to meet once per month. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO
2e per year (MTCO 2e/yr)5 for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. In September 2010, the Working Group presented a revised tiered approach to determining GHG significance for residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD 2010). These proposals have not yet been considered by the SCAQMD Board.
At Tier 1, GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant if the proposed Project qualifies under a categorical or statutory CEQA exemption. At Tier 2, for projects that do not meet the Tier 1 criteria, the GHG emissions impact would be less than significant if the proposed Project is consistent with a previously adopted GHG redu ction plan that meets specific requirements. 6 At
Tier 3, the Working Group proposes extending the 10,000 MTCO 2e/yr screening threshold currently applicable to industrial projects w here the SCAQMD is the lead agency, described above, to other lead agency industrial projects. For residential and commercial projects (that is, non-industrial projects), the Working Group proposes the following Tier 3 screening values: either (1) a single 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for all land use types or (2) separate thresholds of 3,500 MTCO2e/yr for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO 2e/yr for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for mixed-use projects. These screening values were developed from a survey of CEQA projects. It is estimated that projects with emissions above these values would produce 90 percent of the anticipated GHG emissions from residential/commercial projects and projects below the screening level would contribute 10 percent or less of the regional GHG emissions from land development. Therefore, a project with em issions less than the applicable screening value would be considered to have less than significant GHG emissions. Projects with emissions greater than the Tier 3 screening values would be analyzed at Tier 4 by one of three methods:
1. A Percent Emission Reduction Target. This method is used by the Sacramento Metropolitan and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts and the City of San Diego. The SCAQMD Working Group made no recommendation relative to this method.
5 GHG emissions are commonly expressed as MTCO 2e. Larger quantities of emissions, such as on the world or State scale, are expressed in MMTCO2e.
6 The plan must (a) quantify GHG emissions, both existing an d projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (b) establis h a level, based on substantia l evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (c) identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (d) specify measures or a gr oup of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (e) establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and (f) be adopted in a public process following environmental review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-31 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2. Early Implementation of Applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures. The Working Group assumes implementation of AB 32 measures would be incorporated in method 3 below.
3. Efficiency Targets. On the project level, 2020 GHG emissions should not exceed 4.8 MTCO2e/year per service population (SP) where SP is project residents plus employees.
Further, 2035 GHG emissions should not exceed 3.0 MTCO 2e/year per SP (SCAQMD 2010).
Projects with GHG emissions not meeting the Tier 4 targets would be required to provide mitigation in the form of real, quantifiable, and verifiable offsets to achieve the target thresholds.
The offsets may be achieved through project design features, other on-site methods, or by off- site actions, such as energy efficiency upgrade of existing buildings.
In summary, to date, the SCAQMD Board has adopted an interim CEQA significance threshold for GHGs for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency and continues to consider screening levels under CEQA for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects. This proposed screening and mitigation proposal from SCAQMD remains a work in progress; the Working Group has not convened since the fall of 2010. The proposal has not been considered or approved for use by the SCAQMD Board. Thus, no GHG signif icance thresholds are approved for use in the SoCAB for non-industrial projects.
City of Anaheim
General Plan Green Element
The General Plan for the City of Anaheim was adopted in May 2004. While the City of Anaheim General Plan’s Green Element, does not specifically address GHG emissions or climate change, it does address topics concerning conservation of natural resources, including vehicle emissions reduction; vehicle work trip reduction; expansion of transit trips; sound land use planning; efficient, clean-burning public transit; energy conservation; and building performance standards. The goals and policies from the Green Element applicable to the proposed ARSP Amendment and are included in Table 5.10-1 of Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.
Green Connection
The City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department (Anaheim Public Utilities) has established the Green Connection which functions as a centralized resource for Anaheim residents and businesses interested in conservation of energy and water resources. The Green Connection includes information regarding the City’s Green Resolution and Green Building Program, both of which are discussed below, as well as tips for energy and water savings.
Green Resolution
In August 2006, the City adopted Resolution 2006-187, “. . .authorizing and directing the General Manager of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department to establish the green connection that accommodates the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability.” The resolution sets the following goals to achieve environmental soundness and sustainable development:
Increase purchases of renewable energy resources to 10 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2015;
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-32 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Develop a plan to reduce power plant and fleet emissions in accordance with California Environmental Protection Agency mandates;
All City-owned projects over 10,000 square feet in building area that enter the design and construction phase shall meet U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED TM) registration and certification, provided that the project is cost-effective over the life of the building; Encourage developers and builders to receive LEED TM registration and certification; First acquire all cost effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction resources before procuring other energy resources; Achieve an overall citywide goal of 20 percent reduction in energy use and 15 percent in water use by 2015;
Accelerate the rate of fleet vehicle replacement with Alternative Fuel Vehicles so that 90 percent of Utilities light and medium vehicles are Alternative Fuel Vehicles by 2020; Replace 10 percent of the City’s light, non-emergency vehicles with preferred low emission technologies as the vehicles are scheduled for normal replacement; and Provide community leadership as well as education in the principles of environmental soundness and sustainability to increase community awareness, responsibility and participation.
Green Building Program
APU has developed the Green Building Program, which encourages achievement of the goals established by the Green Resolution through incentives and reward programs. Specifically, the Green Building Program identifies numerous ways to certify a building project as green, qualify for rebates and savings, and take advantage of other benefits including accelerated plan approval, waived plan check fees, and free technical assistance.
City of Anaheim Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The most recent version of the City of Anaheim’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, developed by APU, was adopted in May 2020. The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan is a vision for the future of Anaheim’s electric and water resources to be sustainable and environmentally-friendly, while continuing to be affordable and reliable for the benefit of APU residential and business customers. The plan outlines baseline metrics and goals for GHG reduction, and establishes timelines that are consistent with state policies and SB 100. It is not a qualified Climate Action Plan for the City but provides greenhouse gas reduction measures for key activities for the Anaheim Public Utilities Department and provides insight related to GHG emissions reductions for water and energy.
5.7.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Existing and proposed GHG emissions were calculated by using CalEEMod version 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 carbon monoxide (CO); sulfur dioxide (SO
2); respirable particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-33 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(PM10); fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5); the O3 precursors volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx); and the GHG emissions of Bio- CO2, NBio-CO2, Total CO2, CH4, N2O, and CO2e. For this analysis, the results are expressed in MTCO2e/yr. Please see Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, for discussion of the CalEEMod inputs, adjustments, outputs, and other characteristics for construction-related and operational emissions.
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.
Threshold 5.7a Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Threshold 5.7b Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions?
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project will normally have a significant adverse environmental impact related to GHG emissions if it will:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either di rectly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
CEQA Section 21068 defines a “significant effect on the environment” as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. With respect to global climate change, no one project can individually create a direct impact on what is a global problem (i.e., no project will, by itself, raise the temperature of the planet).
However, the emissions generated by a project may be “cumulatively considerable”, meaning “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065[a][3]). Section 15064(h)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines adds that a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the Project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the Project is located.
Generally, the evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a proposed project against a “threshold of significance” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7).
Furthermore, “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7[c]). For GHG emissions and global warming, there is not, at this time, one established, universally agreed-upon threshold of significance by which to measure an impact. In considering GHG emission reductions, the goal is DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-34 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
not to reduce emissions to less than a specific threshold on a project by project basis. This policy would be a disincentive to the creation of large projects that can achieve emissions reductions in greater quantities and more efficiently than small projects. Rather, the goal for GHG emission reductions on the plan and project level is to make a substantial contribution to the larger statewide and regional emissions reductions goals that have been and are being developed. As such, the project was analyzed to determine if it would substantially contribute to the larger Statewide and regional GHG reductions goals that have been established.
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 5.7a Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Significant and Unavoidable. EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required in 1993. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in direct and indirect GHG emissions that would be cumulatively considerable and the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment; however, implementation of the Project would reallocate existing development approvals throughout the Project Site, as detailed in Section 3.0 of this Draft Subsequent EIR, and no new uses are proposed beyond what was analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The following estimated project-specific amortized construction and operational GHG emissions are detailed below and provide a comparison of No Project and Project anticipated GHG emissions.
Construction Emissions
Temporary impacts would result from Project cons truction activities. GHGs would be emitted by off-road and on-road construction equipment and wo rker vehicles. Construction emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The results of that analysis provide an order of magnitude estimate of annual GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the Project. The assumptions and inputs used for the construction emissions estimate are described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, and Appendix D1. Table 5.7-2, Construction Emissions Modeling Inputs, below identifies inputs used to model construction emissions for the both the Project and No Project Scenario to DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-35 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
determine maximum daily emissions, aside from appropriate default values populated by CalEEMod.
TABLE 5.7-2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODELING INPUTS
Input No Project Unmitigated Project Mitigated Project
Construction Duration 2025-2027 2025-2027 2025-2027
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)
The estimated GHG emissions from construction prior to implementation of mitigation are shown in Table 5.7-3, Estimated Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Construction). The average annual emissions are 2,745 MTCO2e for both No Project and Project conditions. Since the Project would reallocate existing development approvals throughout the Project Site, construction activities, equipment types, and equipment quantities would be the same for the No Project and Project conditions. Additionally, because the only additional quantifiable mitigation specific to the Project is the use of Tier 4 engines, which creates no demonstrable difference in GHG emissions, the unmitigated and mitigated emissions would be the same, as shown in Table 5.7-3. Additionally, there are currently no applicable quantitative CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions.
Since the Project would not involve additional GHG emissions above the No Project condition, the Project, considered in isolation from the underlying Disneyland Resort Project and ARSP Project, would result in a less than significant impact to GHG emissions related to construction emissions. However, because The DisneylandForward Project is an amendment to the overall Disneyland Resort Project as evaluated in EIR No. 311 and continued development of the Disney ARSP Properties as evaluated in SEIR No. 340, although the net emissions would be less than significant, the impact when considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project would be significant and unavoidable.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-36 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
TABLE 5.7-3
ESTIMATED TOTAL
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CONSTRUCTION)
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr)
Construction Emissions (No Project)
Hotel 41,702
Theme Park 33,677
Parking 6,979
Total Construction Emissions 82,359
Amortized Construction Emissions 2,745
Construction Emissions (Project, Unmitigated and Mitigateda) Hotel 41,702
Theme Park 33,677
Parking 6,979
Total Construction Emissions 82,359
Amortized Construction Emissions 2,745
Net Annual Emissionsb 0
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding variances.
Amortized construction em issions derived by dividing project-specific construction emissions by 30. Detailed calculations in Appendix D1.
a Because the only additional quantifiable mitigation specific to the Project is t he use of Tier 4 engines which creates no demonstrable difference in GHG emissions, the unmitigated and mitigated emissions would be the same. b Net annual emissions represent the difference between emissions that would occur without Project implementation and emissions that would occur because of the Project.
Operations Emissions
Long-term annual GHG emissions attributed to the Project would be generated from vehicle trips generated by the proposed land uses and from the increased use of electricity, natural gas, and water within the Project Site.
The information provided in Table 5.7-4, 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
5.7-37 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
TABLE 5.7-4
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, Appendix J.
5.032 trips/1000 sf 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, Appendix J-1.
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, Appendix J.
5.032 trips/1000 sf 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, Appendix J-1.
11.39 miles/trip
Electricity Theme Park: 210,984,078 kWh/year**
Hotel: 78,463,176 kWh/year*a
Parking: 114,399,859 kWh/year**
Theme Park: 210,984,078 kWh/year**
Hotel: 76,621,928 kWh/year*
a
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 (represent ative of solid waste
generation for all land uses)
* CalEEMod Default
** Based on data provided by Disney
a Default hotel energy consumption before the incorporation of E-1 “Exceedance of Title 24 by 10%” for both No Project and Project is 81,313,210 kWh/yr.
GHG emissions were calculated as described in Section 5.7.3, Methodology, and are shown in Table 5.7-6, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Operational). Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model. The calculations are shown for 2045, as a conservative buildout year, because GHG emissions and the effects on the environment are long-term concerns. 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 GHG 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 5.7-5, CAPCOA 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 the ARSP portions of the No Project scenario, with the incorporation of CAPCOA measure E-1, as detailed in Table 5. 7-5, because the energy calculations used in DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-38 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future requirements of MM ENE-1 .
Incorporation of the aforementioned CAPCOA reduction measures associated with MM TRA-8 and MM ENE-1 results in a combined 15% reduction of CO2e for both the Project and No Project scenarios.
TABLE 5.7-5
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
* CalEEMod Default
** Based on data provided by Disney
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 Project and No Project scenarios are accurately displayed in Table 5.7-6 below, if referencing Appendix A 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
5.7-39 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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. Incorporation of the aforementioned CAPCOA reduction measures associated with MM ENE-1 and MM TRA-8 results in a combined 15% reduction of CO2e for both the Project and No Project scenarios. As noted in Table 5.7-5, 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 GHG Emissions.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-40 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
TABLE 5.7-6
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (OPERATIONAL)
Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr)
Operational Emissions (No Project)
Area <1
Energy 57,856
Mobile 64,423
Waste 16,873
Water 917
Air Conditioning Refrigerants 1,504
Total Operational Emissions 141,574
Amortized Construction Emissions 2,745
Total Construction and Operational Emissions 144,319
Operational Emissions (Project)
Area <1
Energy 57,541
Mobile 64,326
Waste 16,873
Water 917
Air Conditioning Refrigerants 1,504
Total Operational Emissions 141,162
Amortized Construction Emissions 2,745
Total Construction and Operational Emissions 143,907
Net Annual Emissions* -412
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding variances.
Amortized construction em issions derived by dividing project-specific construction emissions by 30. Detailed calculations in Appendix D1.
Total annual emissions is the sum of amortiz ed construction emissions and operational emissions. *Net annual emissions represent the difference between emissions that would occur without Project implementation and emissions that would occur because of the Project.
As shown in Table 5.7-6, GHG emissions in 2045 are estimated to be 144,319 MTCO2e per year under No Project conditions and 143,907 MTCO 2e per year under Project conditions. As mentioned previously, the Project would allow Disney to transfer previously approved development square footage and hotel rooms to other Disney Properties in the Project Site and no new uses are proposed beyond what was analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. As such, the number and types of GHG emission sources under the No Project and Project conditions are not expected to change. While the Project would result in a slight net reduction in GHG emissions over the No Project condition, the Project, which considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions due to the magnitude of total GHG emissions of the prior projects.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-41 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emission Reduction Measures
In considering GHG emission reductions, it is not a goal to reduce emissions to less than a specific threshold level per project. This policy would be a disincentive to the creation of large projects that can achieve emissions reductions in greater quantities and more efficiently than small projects. Rather, the goal for GHG emission reductions on the plan and project level is to make a substantial contribution to the larger statewide and regional emissions reductions goals that have been and are being developed.
GHG emissions from the Project Site would be reduced through the implementation of statewide measures, including, but not limited to, requirements for new vehicles to have reduced GHG emissions (i.e., the CAFE standards); the low carbon fuel standard; and the increasing amount of renewable energy generation.
There are no new net impacts associated with GHG emissions 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 apply to the Project. These measures would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with both construction and operation, under both the Project and No Project condition. Further, the Project would implement a number of efficiency and sustainability measures detailed in Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Program, including MMs ENE-1 through ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM UTIL 14 , and PDF AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4. These MMs would contribute to a more sustainable and efficient Project.
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 promotes pedestrian travel, use of pedestrian bridges and bicycle infrastructure, and continued use of mass transit from shuttles and light rail, and a would implement a variety of other key sustainability features detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description. As discussed previously, the net change related to the Project would not result in significant GHG emissions and a less than significant impact would occur. However, when considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, of which the DisneylandForward Project is an amendment, GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable. This impact would be new when compared to EIR No. 311, which did not address GHGs, and consistent with SEIR No. 340.
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact would be new when compared with the analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG Emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.7b Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions?
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 GHG emissions as such analysis was not required in 1993. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would not conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
As discussed above under Section 5.7.2, Regulatory Setting, there are numerous State plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-42 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
State plan and policy is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 20207. This goal is further supplemented by SB 32, which established a reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030, and by EO B-30-15 and EO S-3-05, which sets an 80 percent reduction below 1990 emissions by 2050.
The 2022 Scoping Plan implements the reduction target of adopted under SB 32 and seeks to reduce GHG emissions through a number of measur es. Those that are applicable to the Project include the development of pedestrian infrastructure which promotes non-automobile transportation options, mass transit promotion from integration of shuttles with hotels, energy efficient buildings, reduction of VMT by prov iding local employment opportunities, supporting California’s EV mandate by providing EV chargers, onsite employee EV usage, onsite cafeterias, support for renewable energy generation, Transportation Demand Management measures, as well as other energy efficiency and conservation measures. The Project would develop integrated theme park and hotel uses which intertwine these uses with interesting and vibrant thematic features that would promote pedestrian travel from the Project’s different land uses. In addition, the Project would locate parking closer to the I-5 which would reduce the VMT and associated GHG emissions. Disney would continue its existi ng practice of transporting guests from parking facilities by tram or shuttle where appropriate. This is consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s goal of using public transit, promoting nonvehicular forms of transportation, and reduction in traffic congestion which reduces air pollutant emissions. Thus, the Project is consistent with AB 32 and the associated Scoping Plan.
Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard are being implemented at the statewide level; therefore, compliance at the Specific Plan level is not addressed. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with those plans and regulations.
The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code.
Adherence to standard requirements would ensure that the Project would comply with both of these regulations.
At a regional level, SCAG has adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Rooted in the 2008 and 2012 RTP/SCS plans, Connect SoCal’s “Core Vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the existing transportation network while expanding mobility choices. The plan identifies six components of the Core Vision:
Sustainable Development, System preservation and Resilience, Demand and System Management, Transit Backbone, Complete Streets, and Goods Movement. Of these components, Complete Streets and Transit Backbone are applicable to the Project. The Complete Streets component seeks to increase mobility choices, reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and meet greenhouse gas reduction targets by creating streets that are safe and inviting to all roadway users. The Project seeks to increase pedestrian activity and travel through the integration of uses along travel corridors from hotels and theme parks. This would reduce the need for vehicular travel and emissions from automobile exhaust and would indirectly reduce vehicle exhaust associated with congestion along local roadways near the Project Site. Project implementation would also reduce VMT as discussed in Section 5.14, Transportation, related to Project design, TDM, and providing local employment opportunities. The Project would also be consistent with the goals within the Transit Backbone component of the Plan’s Core Vision which seeks to expand the transit network and foster development in transit-oriented communities to meet the Plan’s
7 The initial target date of 2020 has passed, but remains the initial target of AB 32 and is followed-up by other identified targets so remains relevant.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-43 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
mobility and sustainability goals while continuing to grow the regional economy. The Project is supported by a variety of transit opportunities. These transit opportunities include but are not limited to ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes, commuter bus, shuttle services, bicycling, Guaranteed Ride Home, and Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip, in addition to financial incentives offered by The Disneyland Resort TDM program.
The Green Element of the City’s General Plan describes the following goals:
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.
The Project, including previously entitled uses as analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, would potentially generate a significant amount of VMT, as detailed in Section 5.14, Transportation. However, the Project’s implementation of TDM strategies through implementation of MM AQ-4, MM AQ-8, MM AQ-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-11, MM TRA-8, and MM TRA-9 would reduce regional VMT to a less than significant level; therefore, with this mitigation the Project would be consistent with the goals outlined in the City of Anaheim’s General Plan Green Element.
Implementation of these measures would reduce construction-worker vehicle miles as well, further reducing the impact. Additionally, the purpose of the Project is to provide flexibility in land use planning such that integration of hotel and theme park uses enhances pedestrian travel. The Project supports Goals 8:1 and 9:1 of the City’s Green Element by enhancing pedestrian travel which would reduce vehicle trip generation and, vehicular traffic and exhaust emissions along local roadways. The Project would also support Goal 11:1 of the Green Element as the Project utilizes land planning and urban design for mixed-uses through the integration of hotel and theme park uses, while providing pedestrian amenities. Encouragement of pedestrian travel would reduce both air pollutant and GHG emissions from vehicle trips as well as emissions related to roadway congestion. Because the Project is cons istent with the emission reduction goals and legislation established by both the City and the State of California, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of State, regional, or local agencies with implementation of mitigation.
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG Emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.7.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required in 1993.
According to SEIR No. 340, direct and indirect GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
As noted above, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impac t global climate change; therefore, any impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. As discussed previously, the Project would be developed in accordance with the previously approved mitigation measures and goals established under local and State plans and legislation and consequently would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. While the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-44 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
development of the Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction goals, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to GHG because of the Project’s overall contribution of GHG emissions.
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.7.5 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 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.
Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of for 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. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-4) DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-45 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the future expansion district development, excluding the south parking area; and, o 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. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-6)
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-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 DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-46 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
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-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.
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 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 DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-47 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 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) 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, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-48 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 HWQ-2 Exclusive of the Theme Parks including the retail/entertainment component, prior to issuance of each building permit (for non Setback Realm Areas); prior to approval of Final Site Plan (for Setback Realm Areas); 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 Areas (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), Prior to issuance of each building permit, 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:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. 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. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4) MM HWQ-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit, t o 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. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.7-1, SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-5) DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-49 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 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.
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. An online computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort 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. An online computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort 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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-50 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 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 .
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
5.7-51 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
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 DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-52 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 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)
MM TRA-15 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during construction, 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. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-5)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-53 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM TRA-16 Prior to approval of each building permit, a Traffic Management Plan for phasing of roadway improvements, specifying the sequencing of construction to do the following:
1. Coordinate scheduling with other planned construction in the area, including the I-5 widening project.
2. Coordinate scheduling with other infrastructure improvements to allow them to be facilitated efficiently during roadway improvements, such as sewer, storm drain, and water line improvements.
3. Outline procedures for any required traffic detours during construction, including provision of tour bus stops.
4. Phase each roadway improvement to allow access to all existing businesses/residential areas. In some instances this will require lane-by-lane renovation, temporary bypass roads, or traffic reroutes.
5. Employ vertical shoring as often as possible. This will minimize the amount of road surface that will be disturbed at a given location.
6. Sequence the construction of each roadway improvement to minimize disruption to residents and businesses.
7. Establish offsite parking and staging areas, where practical and possible, to minimize the impact to existing level of service on adjacent roadways. These offsite parking and staging areas will allow a dispersion of traffic flow to noncritical areas and will encourage bussing of construction workers from the offsite areas to the construction sites.
8. Identify how the project improvement construction schedules and haul routes will be coordinated with other areawide improvements. The applicant property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC), the Anaheim Convention Center and area hotels to ensure continued operations of these facilities, as well as the continued operation of the existing Disneyland theme park and Disneyland Hotel The Disneyland Resort. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-6 and PDF 3.8-8) MM UTIL-1 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.
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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-54 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.6-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-1)
MM UTIL-14 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 UTIL-17 Ongoing during theme park operations and prior to final building and zoning inspections of new theme park development, the property owner/developer shall implement a solid waste management plan which has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to ensure that the project plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 related to reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim, and the County’s and City’s Integrated Waste Management Plans. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include the following plan components:
a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal, State, and City regulations for hazardous material disposal.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-55 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
d. 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 property owner/developer 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 collections 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. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.3-2 and MM 3.10.3-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-1)
MM UTIL-18 Ongoing during project operation, the existing solid waste recycling and waste minimization practices at Tthe Disneyland Resort shall be expanded as feasible to serve new development in Tthe Disneyland Resort. Existing practices include:
Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, 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, plastic, kitchen grease, laser printer, toner, cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.3- 1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-2)
MM UTIL-20 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-4) MM UTIL-21 Ongoing during project operation, upon City request and no less than annually or more than semi-annually, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director or Planning Services Manager a consolidated Construction Waste Management Report for all development projects on Disney Properties demonstrating that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris has been recycled or salvaged, or has otherwise complied with the City’s waste diversion program, which Report shall identify the materials diverted from disposal and whether the materials have been sorted on site or co- mingled.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-5)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-56 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.7.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.7a Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
This impact would be new when compared with the analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG Emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.7b Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions?
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared with the analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG Emissions. This im pact would not be 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 significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. This impact would be new when compar ed with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.7.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of 2004 (May). City of Anaheim General Plan, Green Element and Bicycle Master Plan. 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.
———. 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=
Anaheim Public Utilities. 2010. Renewable Energy. Anaheim, CA. http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/adv_svc_prog/renew_energy/info.html Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) 2010. Anaheim CA: ART http://www.rideart.org/index.php?loc=1 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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-57 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
———. 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). 2022. California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan Documents. Sacramento, CA.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=carb+2022+scoping+plan+update&cvid=66fd3b09e171 47d7a3e960abb045b15a&aqs=edge.0.0l9j69i11004.4777j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U5 31 ———. 2021a (December 1, access date). Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Sacramento, CA:
CARB. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/gloss.htm.
———. 2021b California's Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Emission Standards under Assembly Bill 1493 of 2002 (Pavley). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/californias-greenhouse-gas-vehicle- emission-standards-under-assembly-bill-1493-2002-pavley. ———. 2021c Advanced Clean Cars Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about.
———. 2021d .AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan.
———. 2017 (November). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA:
CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping- plan/2017-scoping-plan-documents
———. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework.
Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate- change-scoping-plan.
———. 2008. AB32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2008- scoping-plan-documents
California Department of Justice (DOJ). 2010a (January 6). Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Project Level, Sacramento, CA: DOJ. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022 . 2022 Energy Efficiency Building Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-
efficiency#:~:text=Building%20Energy%20Efficiency%20Standards%20- %20Title%2024%202022,a%20vital%20pillar%20of%20California%E2%80%99s%20cli mate%20action%20plan.
———. 2021a. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act—SB 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean- energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350.
———. 2021b. SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Sacramento, CA: CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-58 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009a. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Sacramento, CA: CNRA.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy .pdf
———. 2009b (December). Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action. https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.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.
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.
———. 2016 (April). The 2016–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability and a High Quality of Life. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010 (September 28). Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Diamond Bar, CA:
SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- (ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15- minutes.pdf.
———. 2008 (October). Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)- ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6-guidance- document-discussion.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Laboratory (ESRL) 2022. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Boulder, CO: ESRL.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a (March). California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Car Program; Reconsideration of a Previous Withdrawal of a Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision. Washington, D.C. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-03-14/pdf/2022-05227.pdf _____. 2022b (May). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Washington, D.C. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases ———. 2021. Notice of Reconsideration of a Prev ious Withdrawal of a Waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Car Program (Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements). https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- vehicles-and-engines/notice-reconsideration-previous-withdrawal-waiver.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-59 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA). 2019 (September 19). One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards. ———. 2012 (October 15). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Ec onomy Standards. Federal Register (Volume 77, No. 199, pp. 62623–63200). Washington, D.C.: USEPA and NHTSA.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2022. World Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2018 https://www.wri.org/data/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.7-60 Section 5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-1 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section discusses the existing hazards and hazardous materials setting of the Project Site and assesses potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
5.8.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 determined that potential impacts could occur associated with grading and construction of The Disneyland Resort Project due to historical agricultural use and because of existing and former Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) present within and near The Disneyland Resort (City of Anaheim 1996). However, with implementation of mitigation, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels.
EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Feature EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measures (MM) and project design feature (PDF) regarding hazards and hazardous materials to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant levels.
MM 3.8-10 Ongoing during demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22, and the Uniform Fire Code, Article 87.
MM 3.11-1 The applicant shall implement the project design features or their environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process.
MM 3.11-2 Prior to the approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first demolition permit, whichever occurs first for each phase, investigation for the presence of cryptic tanks using geophysical methods shall be conducted in the subject area for the property owner/developer by a qualified environmental professional in the areas of former service stations and those areas known or thought to have been formerly occupied by USTs and where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading in these areas. Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil sampling results are not available or indicate contamination is present above regulatory guidelines. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas.
MM 3.11-3 Prior to removal of underground tanks; and, during removal of underground tanks, a permit shall be obtained for removal of underground tanks by the property owner/developer. During removal of the underground storage tank, a
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
5.8-2 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
representative from the Environmental Protection Section shall be onsite to direct soil sampling.
MM 3.11-4 Ongoing during remediation, remediation activities conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer of surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage tanks shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Department. Information on subsurface contamination from an underground storage tank shall be provided to the Fire Department.
MM 3.11-5 Prior to approval of the first grading plan or issuance of the first Phase I Demolition Permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer will submit a plan which details procedures that will be taken if a previously unknown UST or other unknown hazardous materials or waste is discovered onsite.
MM 3.11-6 Prior to approval of grading plan for the Miller Tools/Mobile Brake site, a site reconnaissance survey of the Miller Tools/Mobile Brake building shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional for the property owner/developer to assess any potential presence of hazardous materials at this facility. Where possible, interviews with property owners and/or company representatives shall be conducted to obtain information on the hazardous material usage histories and handling practices of the sites, and, if available, copies of contaminant investigation reports shall be reviewed to evaluate the presence and level of hazardous substances in the soil at each property. The results of this investigation shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Department for review and approval. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional in coordination with the Orange County Health Department. Appropria te remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading take place in these areas.
MM 3.11-7 Prior to approval of grading plan or issuance of demolition permit, whichever occurs first, a qualified environmental consultant shall attempt to contact the current and/or known former owners of the following on behalf of a property owner/developer within the C-R Overlay Area; the 7-11 convenience store and the vacant parcels at 1340 S. West Street/Disneyland Drive and 321 West Katella Avenue to obtain information regarding the status of underground tanks and/or tank closures at these sites. If necessary, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional. Results of those analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The following properties have completed this measure as of July 1996: Katella Car Wash, 350 W. Katella Avenue; the Shell Service Station, 2100 S. Harbor Boulevard; National Car Rental.
MM 3.11-8 Prior to any relocation of transformers within non-Disney-controlled properties or City-owned transformers within the Specific Plan Area that may contain PCBs which are being moved or relocated as part of project development, the transformers shall be tested by the property owner/developer for PCBs.
MM 3.11-9 Prior to approval of grading plan or issuance of excavation permit, for the northern portion of the West Street/Disneyland Drive strawberry farm (pumphouse area), the small remaining amount of shallow soil affected by lubricating oil should be handled and disposed of according to all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-3 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 3.11-10 Prior to approval of grading plan or issuance of excavation permit, several representative samples of shallow soils should be collected and analyzed for pesticide and herbicide residue prior to grading or excavation activities in the West Street/Disneyland Drive agricultural area and the S&S Nurseries area. If soils containing pesticides or herbicides above regulated limits are found, remedial actions should be carried out before disturbance of the soils. Remedial actions should consist of removal and disposal or treatment of affected soils according to all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
PDF 3.11-1 Ongoing during project operation, the current compliance efforts for hazardous materials utilized at the existing Disneyland theme park and Disneyland Hotel described under Section 3.11.1.1, shall be expanded to encompass the Disneyland Resort to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340 is a supplemental EIR, certified by the City in 2012, that reevaluated environmental changes that had occurred in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994 (City of Anaheim 1994 and 2012). SEIR No. 340 determined the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) is located within a densely urbanized area and, as such, multiple USTs were identified within the ARSP, most of which are related to automotive service stations. SEIR No. 340 identified more than 40 listed sites within and near the ARSP. Listed sites included either permitted facilities whose operations use, produce, or transport hazardous materials and the locations of reported releases and/or clean-up operations (remediation).
Also, SEIR No. 340 determined that the implementation of the ARSP would have the potential to disturb lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) depending on the age of existing structures within the Public Recreation and Commercial Recreation Districts.
Given the presence of USTs as well as LBP and ACM building materials that could be disturbed during demolition, implementation of the ARSP would have the potential to disturb hazardous materials. With implementation of mitigation, including compliance with the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law, potential impacts related to hazardous material from the ARSP would be reduced to less than significant levels.
SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirements SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures and compliance with standard requirements regarding hazards and hazardous materials to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the ARSP Project to less than significant levels.
MM 5.7-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, in areas of former service stations, in areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by USTs, and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, or the presence of, cryptic tanks, using geophysical methods.
Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil sampling results are not available, or indicate contamination is present above regulatory guidelines.
If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-4 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM 5.7-2 Prior to the removal of USTs, the property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous Materials Management Section of the Fire Department for the removal of such tanks. During the removal of USTs, a representative from the Environmental Protection Section of the Fire Department shall be onsite to direct soil sampling.
MM 5.7-3 Ongoing during remediation all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning & Building.
MM 5.7-4 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is discovered onsite.
MM 5.7-5 Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first for future developments within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area affecting any property on a published list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) that has not been officially closed or resolved, a qualified environmental professional, retained by the property owner/developer, shall attempt to contact the current and/or known former property/business owners to obtain information regarding the status of USTs and/or tank closures at these sites. If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken by a qualified environmental professional, and results of these analyses shall be submitted to the Fire Department and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), for review and approval. Appropriate remediation measures will be developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas. A copy of the approval letter with any appropriate remediation measures shall be submitted to Planning & Building.
MM 5.7-6 Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
MM 5.7-7 Prior to issuance of any discretionary permit for a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, the project property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site assessments, the appropriate response/remedial meas ures will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as appropriate.
SR 5.7-1 All construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with all CalOSHA standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect worker health and safety.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-5 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SR 5.7-2 The removal and disposal of all lead-based paint (LBP) encountered on site during project implementation, shall be performed by an LBP Abatement Contractor that is licensed and registered in California pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 17.
SR 5.7-3 All transport and transfer of hazardous materials shall be performed by a licensed hauler in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
5.8.2 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 and Previous Uses of the Project Site
The Project Site is developed. Existing land uses within the area governed by 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 are surface parking lots, an office building, and the Paradise Pier Hotel and associated parking structure. Surrounding land uses in the ARSP include the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, service station, office, parking lot/structure, single-family residential, rental car offices, event center/banquet hall, vacant lands, RV park uses, and mobile home sites. The ARSP also includes a post office, Orange Grove Elementary, and a vocational school. 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 borders Interstate 5 (I-5) and arterial roadways including Harbor Boulevard, Manchester/Clementine Street, Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street, Ball Road, Katella Avenue, and Walnut Street. Prior to being developed with the current uses, much of the Project Site was utilized for agricultural purposes.
Environmental Data Resources Area / Corridor Report
An EDR Area / Corridor Report (EDR Report) was prepared for the Project in December 2021.
The EDR Report consists of a search of available databases containing environmental records to identify reported hazardous waste and hazardous materials-related risks to the Project Site. The EDR Report identified more than 1,722 listed sites either within the Project Site or within 0.25- mile of the Project Site. Listed sites include both permitted facilities whose operations use, produce, or transport hazardous materials, as well as the locations of reported releases and/or clean-up operations (remediation). A single site can be listed in multiple databases. The listed sites include large and small generators of hazardous waste. Also, listed sites include gas stations, dry cleaners, and other facilities where there are known aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), USTs, and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). Listed sites also include sites where Hazardous Material Incident Reports were previously filed by first responders.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-6 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Asbestos/Lead/PCBs
Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used for years in many building materials for its fire-proofing and insulating properties. While the use of asbestos in the manufacture of most building materials has not been fully prohibited by law, the use of asbestos, for the most part, has voluntarily been discontinued since the late 1970s. Loose insulation, ceiling panels, flooring tiles, and brittle plaster are potential sources of friable (easily crumbled) asbestos. Nonfriable asbestos is generally bound to other materials such that it does not become airborne under normal conditions. Any activity that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during demolition can release friable asbestos fibers unless proper precautions are taken. Inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which makes friable materials a potential health risk.
Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element. Among its numerous uses and sources, lead can be found in paint, water pipes, solder in plumbing systems, soils around buildings, and structures painted with LBP. In 1978, the Consumer Products Safety Commission banned paint and other surface coating materials containing lead. Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Inorganic lead is also regulated as a toxic air contaminant (TAC).
Buildings on the Project Site were constructed beginning in the 1950s. Given the age of the older buildings within the Project Site, particularly those built before the 1980s, ACM and LBP- containing products may have been used during construction. Transite pipe, an asbestos-cement product used in some utility lines, may also be located on the Project Site. The use of asbestos to manufacture transite pipe was phased out in the 1980s.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of organic compounds known as chlorinated hydrocarbons and were widely used for many applications, especially as dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors and coolants. PCBs were also used as plasticizers and additives in lubricating and cutting fluids. Due to PCBs’ toxicity and classification as persistent organic pollutants, PCB production was banned by the United States Congress in 1976. Products made before 1977 that may contain PCBs include old fluorescent lighting fixtures and electrical devices (PCBs were used as coolant in electrical equipment), PCB capacitors, and old microscope and hydraulic oils. PCBs are no longer commercially made in the United States, but many electric transformers and capacitors once filled with PCBs are still in service. Buildings and supporting electrical equipment on the Project Site were initially constructed in the 1950s; therefore, PCBs may be present in buildings and facilities on the Project Site.
Fire Hazards
Based on the CalFire Fire Hazard Map, the Project Site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CalFire 2022). The nearest area designated as a VHFHSZ is located over 5.0 miles northeast of the Project Site.
B. Regulatory Framework
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is a federal agency tasked with implementing certain federal regulations. With respect to hazardous materials, these include the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-7 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
discussed below. These laws impose “cradle-to-grave” regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment. The USEPA is also responsible for the Accidental Release Prevention Program and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA (42 United States Code [USC] Section 6901) is the public law that creates the framework for the proper management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. The law describes the waste management program mandated by Congress that gave USEPA authority to develop the RCRA program. The term RCRA is often used interchangeably to refer to the law, regulations, and USEPA policy and guidance. Under RCRA, the USEPA established a comprehensive regulatory program to ensure that hazardous waste is managed safely from "cradle to grave," meaning from 1) the time it is created; 2) while it is transported, treated, and stored; and 3) until it is disposed.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (15 USC Section 2601) gives the USEPA the ability to track 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced in or imported into the United States. The USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and requires reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human health hazard. The USEPA also has the ability to ban the manufacture and import of chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. The USEPA tracks thousands of new chemicals that are developed each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics. The production, importation, use, and disposal of these toxic substances is regulated by the USEPA, as necessary, to protect human health and the environment.
Accidental Release Prevention Program
Title 40, Part 68, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the federal Accidental Release Prevention Program that lists regulated toxic and flammable substances and sets requirements concerning the prevention of accidental releases. It sets threshold quantities of regulated substances at which owners or operators of a stationary source are required to prepare Risk Management Plans. These Risk Management Plans must contain an assessment of the risks for accidental release, prevention measures, emergency response procedures, employee training, record keeping, and incident investigations.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 (42 USC Section 11001, et seq .) was created to help communities plan for chemical emergencies. It requires facilities to report on the storage, use, and releases of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments. The Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public's knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment.
State
California Health and Safety Code
“Hazardous waste” is any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded or recycled, as defined by Sections 25117 and 25124 of the California Health and Safety Code . In addition, hazardous waste may occasionally be generated by actions that change the composition of DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-8 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
previously nonhazardous materials. The criteria used to characterize a material as hazardous include ignitability, toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, radioactivity, or bioactivity.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) is responsible for enforcing State health and safety standards and implementing federal OSHA regulations.
CalOSHA has regulations to protect worker safety during potential exposure to lead and asbestos under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1529, Asbestos and Section 1532.1, Lead). Asbestos is regulated as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of the CalOSHA. These rules and regulations prohibit em issions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities, require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos, specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers, and require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos. Demolition that could result in the release of asbestos and lead must be conducted according to CalOSHA standards. These standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. Young children, the elderly, and people in poor health may be more susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to asbestos released to the environment.
California Hazardous Waste Control Act
The California Hazardous Waste Control Act (HWCA), California Health and Safety Code (see Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq .), authorizes the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and local Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA)
to regulate facilities that generate or treat hazardous waste. The HWCA authorizes CUPAs to perform the following actions:
Conduct inspections of any factory, plant, construction site, waste disposal site, transfer station, establishment, or any other place or environment where hazardous wastes are stored, handled, processed, disposed of, or being treated to recover resources; Maintain records of compliance with the HWCA;
Require hazardous waste generators as provided herein, to pay inspection and administration fees to cover the costs of administering the provisions in this Act. Fees may include but shall not be limited to the costs of inspection, document development and processing, recordkeeping, enforcement activities, and informational materials development and distribution;
Issue authorization for on-site treatment of hazardous waste to persons eligible to operate pursuant to permit-by-rule, conditional authorization, or conditional exemption; and Enforce against violations of the HWCA.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2) merged the Federal Accidental Release Prevention Program and California Risk Management and Prevention Program to elim inate the need for two separate programs addressing the prevention of accidental releases of regulated toxic and flammable substances.
Businesses using regulated substances exceeding a threshold quantity are evaluated under this program to determine the potential for and impacts of accidental releases. Depending on the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-9 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
potential hazards, business owners may be required to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), also known as the CALGreen code, contains mandatory requirements and voluntary measures for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California) (CBSC 2022). 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. In short, 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.
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was formed in 1991 as the State’s primary environmental authority. CalEPA has a mission to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality while working to restore, protect, and enhance the environment.
CalEPA oversees several state agencies, including these agencies that handle hazardous materials: Air Resources Board (asbestos) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (lead and polychlorinated biphenyls).
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District regulates exposure to asbestos. Because it is a hazardous air pollutant, asbestos is subject to regulation by the SCAQMD under Rule 1403.
The purpose of Rule 1403 is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM.
California Department of Transportation/California Highway Patrol Hazardous materials are routinely transported in the region by truck or rail. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and implemented by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
Transportation of hazardous materials along any city or state roadways within or near the campus is also subject to all hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California Highway Patrol pursuant to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, universal waste handlers are subject to Title 22 of the CCR (Section 66273.30 through Section 66273.39 and Section 66273.70 through Section 66273.77), which identify standards for hazardous waste handlers and authorization requirements for universal waste handlers who treat hazardous wastes.
California Department of Public Health
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has a primary mission to protect the public’s health. By statutory definition, biohazardous materials include biohazardous laboratory wastes and biologic specimens such as human or animal tissue, as defined by Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code . Biohazardous medical waste is generally regulated in the same manner as hazardous waste, except that s pecial provisions apply to storage, disinfection, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-10 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
containment, and transportation. The Medica l Waste Management Program of CDPH enforces the Medical Waste Management Act and regulations related to environmental health and laboratory services.
City
City of Anaheim General Plan, Safety Element
The Safety Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan addresses fire hazards, geologic and seismic hazards, flood hazards, risk-reduction strategies, hazard abatement measures, and potential hazard locations throughout the City (City of Anaheim 2023). An analysis of Project consistency with the goals and policies from the Safety Element that are related to hazards and hazardous materials and that are applicable to the Project are provided in Table 5.10-1 in Section
5.10, Land Use.
5.8.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
The analysis in this section is partially based on information contained in the Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Area /Corridor Report (Inquiry Number 6781597.2s) that was obtained for the Project, which is included as Appendix G of this Draft Subsequent EIR (EDR 2021).
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criterion is derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.
Threshold 5.8a Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Threshold 5.8b Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Threshold 5.8d Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Section 3.9 of the Project’s Initial Study evaluated the hazards and hazardous materials thresholds c (hazards or hazardous materials near a school), e (within or near an airport land use plan), f (impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plan), and g (wildland fires), and concluded the Project would have no impact or less than significant impacts related to those thresholds. As such, those thresholds are not discussed in this SEIR.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-11 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements are applicable to the Project. As appropriate, the measure 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 HAZ-1 All construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with all CalOSHA standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect worker health and safety. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-1)
SR HAZ-2 The removal and disposal of any lead-based paint (LBP) encountered on site during Project implementation shall be performed by an LBP Abatement Contractor that is licensed and registered in California pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 17. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-2)
SR HAZ-3 Activities at the Project Site shall comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport. All on-site generated waste t hat meets hazardous waste criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and in a manner to the satisfaction of the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), as applicable.
All transport and transfer of hazardous materials shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste hauler in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and Title 40, Section 263 (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards; and Division of Occupational Safety and Healthy (Cal/OSHA) standards. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-3)
SR HAZ-4 All construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 requiring a survey for and proper abatement of asbestos-containing materials prior to construction.
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.8a Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; Increased Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 concluded that impacts associated with the potential release of hazardous materials would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation, which required expansion of compliance efforts for the utilization of hazardous materials. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-12 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The potential for the Project to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is evaluated below for Project construction and operation.
Construction
Project construction activities would involve the use and handling of common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, or other liquids associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. The on-site temporary handling, storage, and usage of these materials would be subject to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, including Best Management Practice s (BMPs) required by the City and CalOSHA requirements, as specified in SR HAZ-1. Any hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, as specified in SR HAZ-2, SR HAZ-3, and SR HAZ-4 . With implementation of these standard requirements and MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-5, MM HAZ-6, and MM HAZ-7, construction impacts related to this threshold would be reduced to less than significant.
Operation
Similar to the existing conditions within the Project Site, Project operations would involve transport, storage, and handling of material s such as commercial cleansers, solvents, and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides. The Project Site would continue to include on-site gasoline fueling stations associated with back- of-house uses, generators, and utilities. The Project proposes to continue to operate similar to existing and approved conditions. All anticipated future uses would be similar to existing uses, and potential impacts associated with the handling, transport, and use of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels through continued compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport as outlined in SR HAZ-3.
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation.
This impact
would not be new or substantially more se vere when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment would occur.
Threshold 5.8b Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; Increased Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation . Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials, of EIR No. 311 concluded that impacts associated with the potential release of hazardous materials would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation, which required expansion of compliance efforts for the utilization of hazardous materials. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-13 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The potential for the Project to create a significant hazard to the public or environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is evaluated below for Project construction and operation.
Construction
As noted above for threshold 5.8a, Project construction activities would involve the use and handling of common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, or other liquids associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. The on- site temporary handling, storage, and usage of these materials would be subject to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, including BMPs required by the City and CalOSHA requirements, as specified in SR HAZ-1. Any hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, as specified in SR HAZ-2 and SR HAZ-3.
Given the age of some buildings on the Project Site, ACMs and LBPs may be present within interior and/or exterior materials and surfaces. Demolition of the buildings could expose construction personnel to ACMs and LBP unless proper precautions are taken to minimize risk of exposure. Future demolition of structures would be subject to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403, which requires a survey for and proper abatement of asbestos-containing materials prior to construction ( SR HAZ-4). No other hazardous material surveys are required under federal, state, or local law. The manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) occurred in the United States until 1979, when it was banned by the US EPA.
PCBs were used in dielectric fluids and other hy draulic oils and fluids during this time. Use of lead-based paints in residential structures was outlawed in the United States in 1978, but commercial and industrial use has not been prohibited. Additional hazardous building materials that are still used today may include mercury switches in thermometers and electrical equipment, and other universal wastes (such as batteries and fluorescent light bulbs). Therefore, a potential impact related to unknown hazardous wastes may occur. The Project would implement MM HAZ-1, MM HAZ-2 , and MM HAZ-7 , requiring a hazardous building material survey be conducted to verify the absence of hazardous building materials and, if needed, future abatement by a California-licensed contractor, and/or removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state, and local transportation and disposal regulations. Any hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, as specified in SR HAZ-2 through SR HAZ-3 . With implementation of these standard requirements and mitigation measures, construction impacts related to this threshold would be reduced to less than significant.
Operation
Similar to the existing conditions within the Project Site, during operation of the Project, there would be a limited amount of on-site handling of materials such as commercial cleansers, solvents, and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides. While these materials are technically labeled as “hazardous”, these materials are common in most land uses. Impacts associated with the handling, transport, and use of such materials would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport as outlined in SR HAZ-3.
Due to the nature of the Project, there is a potential for discovery of unknown hazardous materials or waste, including previously unknown USTs. The discovery of these materials may result in a significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.
MMs HAZ-3 and HAZ-7 would be implemented as part of the Project, which requires submittal of DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-14 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a plan, or a Phase I ESA detailing the procedures to be taken if hazardous materials or hazardous waste is encountered. MMs HAZ-4 through MM HAZ-6 would be implemented requiring investigation, including potential subsurface investigation and sampling, of the presence of cryptic tanks for any Project activities near former service stations and/or other areas with known USTs that have not yet been removed. As specified in MM HAZ-5, a permit would be obtained for the removal of any USTs and City staff would be on-site to direct soil sampling during any such removal of USTs.
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more se vere when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment would occur.
Threshold 5.8d Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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 impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation, based on review of available hazardous materials sites at that time. Mitigation included compliance with applicable local regulatory requirements as well as measures related to specific hazardous materials sites.
SEIR No. 340 concluded impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
According to a review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor mapper and the State Water Board GeoTracker database, there are no parcels within the Project Site that are listed on the Cortese list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2022, SWRCB 2023).
The EDR Area /Corridor Report prepared for the Project identifies a number of sites on and off the Project Site where hazardous materials and substances are stored and used, as well as the locations of sites where hazardous materials and substances were released. Some of the identified sites include gas stations that are listed multiple times to identify hazardous material listings. Additional identified sites include existing USTs that have not leaked and hazardous materials generators that use recycling services to properly dispose of such materials; these sites do not pose a significant hazard. Following is a summary of sites that are identified within or in immediate proximity to the Project Site:
1 Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive site; 7 RCRA – Large Quantity Generators;
25 RCRA – Small Quantity Generators;
1 RCRA – Very Small Quantity Generator;
7 Emergency Response Notification System sites;
3 EnviroStor Database sites;
65 Leaking Underground Fuel Tank sites;
2 Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC) Cases sites; DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-15 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
43 Active Underground Storage Tank sites;
5 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities
1 Brownfields site;
1 Waste Management Unit Database site;
2 Registered Waste Tire Haulers Listing sites;
1 School Property Evaluation Program site;
5 Clandestine Drug Labs sites;
23 California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Haz Waste sites; 1 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Contamination Site Location Listing site; 31 State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEPS) UST Listing sites; 41 Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database sites; 14 CERS Tanks sites;
29 Facility Inventory Database sites;
44 California Hazardous Material Incident Report System sites; 53 RCRA- Non Generators/No Longer Regulated sites;
1 Section 7 Tracking Systems site;
1 Integrated Compliance Information System site;
1 Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem site; 165 Facility Index System/Facility Registry System sites; 79 Enforcement & Compliance History Information sites; 34 “Cortese” Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List sites; 6 Cleaner Facilities sites;
27 Emissions Inventory Data sites;
262 Facility and Manifest Data sites;
18 Hazardous Waste & Substances Site List sites;
33 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits Listing sites; 2 Proposition 65 Records sites;
1 Waste Discharge System site;
1 Well Investigation Program Case List site;
71 California Integrated Water Quality System sites;
110 CERS sites;
386 Hazardous Waste Tracking System sites
24 EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations sites;
8 EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners sites; and
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-16 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
87 Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites.
Additionally, Table 5.8-1, On-Site Hazardous Materials Sites, includes a full listing of the known hazardous materials within the Project Site.
TABLE 5.8-1
ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Address Hazardous Materials Database Listing
1100 South Harbor Boulevard ECHO
1100 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA NonGen / NLR
1100 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1100 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
519 West Ball Road SWEEPS UST, CA FID UST
519 West Ball Road LUST, HIST UST, Cortese, CERS
519 West Ball Road UST
519 West Ball Road HAZNET, HWTS
519 West Ball Road FINDS
519 West Ball Road RGA LUST
519 West Ball Road HAZNET, HWTS
519 West Ball Road EDR Hist Auto
519 West Ball Road HWTS
519 West Ball Road HWTS
519 West Ball Road HWTS
519 West Ball Road HAZNET, HWTS
519 West Ball Road RCRA-SQG, FINDS, ECHO
519 West Ball Road HWTS
333 West Ball Road CIWQS
1150 Disneyland Drive RCRA NonGen / NLR
1150 Disneyland Drive ECHO
1150 Disneyland Drive FINDS
1150 Disneyland Drive HAZNET, HWTS
1020 West Ball Road HAZNET, HWTS
1030 West Ball Road CERS
1030 West Ball Road FINDS
1340 South West Street HIST UST
1290 South West Place CERS
1295 South West Place NPDES, CIWQS
1150 West Magic Way RCRA-LQG
1150 West Magic Way ERNS
1150 West Magic Way CHMIRS
1150 West Magic Way HWTS
1150 West Magic Way NPDES, CIWQS
1150 West Magic Way CERS HAZ WASTE, HAZNET, CERS, HWTS
1150 West Magic Way ERNS
1150 West Magic Way NPDES, CIWQS
1150 West Magic Way FINDS, ECHO
1150 West Magic Way ERNS
1343 South Disneyland Drive CERS
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-17 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TABLE 5.8-1
ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Address Hazardous Materials Database Listing
1343 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard LUST, Orange Co. Industrial Site, Cortese 1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard LUST, SWEEPS UST, CHMIRS, EMI 1313 South Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HIST UST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard ICIS, US AIRS, FINDS, ECHO
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA NonGen / NLR
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CERS HAZ WASTE
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard ENVIROSTOR
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA NonGen / NLR
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA-LQG, LUST, CPS-SLIC, CERS HAZ WASTE 1313 South Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA-SQG
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard UST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA NonGen / NLR
1313 South Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HAULERS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-18 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TABLE 5.8-1
ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Address Hazardous Materials Database Listing
1313 South Harbor Boulevard LUST, Cortese, CERS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS, ECHO
1313 South Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard UST
1313 South Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 South Harbor Boulevard Envirosto r
1515 South Manchester Avenue HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue HAZNET, HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue HAZNET, HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue RCRA-LQG
1515 South Manchester Avenue ECHO
1515 South Manchester Avenue HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue FINDS
1515 South Manchester Avenue NPDES, CIWQS, CERS
1515 South Manchester Avenue HAZNET, HWTS
1515 South Manchester Avenue RCRA-SQG, SW EEPS UST, HIST UST, CA FID UST 1515 South Manchester Avenue RCRA NonGen / NLR
1515 South Manchester Avenue CERS
1530 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1515-1585 South Manchester EMI
1515 South Disneyland Drive RCRA NonGen / NLR
1515 South Disneyland Drive HAZNET, HWTS
1515 South Disneyland Drive FINDS, ECHO
1515 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1515 South Disneyland Drive HAZNET, HWTS
1515 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1313 Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 Harbor Boulevard FINDS
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 Harbor Boulevard CHMIRS
1313 Harbor Boulevard LUST, CHMIRS, CIWQS
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard CERS
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-19 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TABLE 5.8-1
ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Address Hazardous Materials Database Listing
1313 Harbor Boulevard FINDS, ECHO
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard RGA LUST
1313 Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1313 Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1585 South Manchester RCRA-SQG
1585 South Manchester FINDS
1585 South Manchester ECHO
1585 South Manchester EMI
1585 South Manchester HWTS
1565 South Disneyland Drive HAZNET, HWTS
1565 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1565 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1565 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1515 Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS, CERS
1515 Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS
1515 Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1550 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1550 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1556 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1556 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1600 Walnut Street RGA LUST
1600 Walnut Street RGA LUST
1600 Walnut Street FINDS, ECHO
1600 Walnut Street HAZNET, HWTS
1600 Walnut Street HAZNET, HWTS
1600 Walnut Street FINDS
1600 Walnut Street LUST, HIST CORTESE
1600 Walnut Street LUST, SWEEPS UST, CA FID UST, Cortese 1600 Walnut Street RCRA-SQG
1600 Walnut Street EMI
1600 Walnut Street HIST UST
1570 South Disneyland Drive FINDS, ECHO
1570 South Disneyland Drive RCRA-SQG
1570 South Disneyland Drive RCRA NonGen / NLR
1570 South Disneyland Drive CERS HAZ WASTE, HAZNET, HWTS 1570 South Disneyland Drive HAZNET, HWTS
1570 South Disneyland Drive FINDS, ECHO
1580 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1580 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1590 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-20 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TABLE 5.8-1
ON-SITE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
Address Hazardous Materials Database Listing
1590 South Disneyland Drive CERS
1601 South Disneyland Drive NPDES, CIWQS
1717 Southwest Street UST
1600 South Disneyland Drive CIWQS, CERS
1600 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1717 South Disneyland Drive UST
1717 South Disneyland Drive CERS TANKS, HAZNET, CERS, HWTS 1717 South Disneyland Drive FINDS
1717 South West Street RGA LUST
1717 South West Street HAZNET, HWTS
1717 South West Street LUST, Cortese, EMI, CERS
1717 South West Street RGA LUST
1717 South West Street RGA LUST
1717 South West Street FINDS
1854 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1854 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1854 South Harbor Boulevard HIST UST, Orange Co. Industrial Site 1854 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA NonGen / NLR, FINDS, ECHO 1854 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
1900 South Harbor Boulevard CIWQS
1900 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA-LQG
1900 South Harbor Boulevard RCRA-LQG
1900 South Harbor Boulevard FINDS, ECHO
1900 South Harbor Boulevard NPDES, CIWQS, CERS, HWTS
2000 South Harbor Boulevard HAZNET, HWTS
ECHO: Enforcement and Compliance History Information; RCRA : Resource Conservation Act; VSQG: Very Small Quantity Generator; SQG: Small Quantity Generator; LQG: Large Quantit y Generator; NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Manifests Database; CIWQS: California Integrated Water Quality System; FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System; HWTS: Hazardous Wast e Tracking System; NLR: Non-Generator; UST: Underground Storage Tank; LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank; CERS: Ca lifornia Environmental Reporting System; HIST UST:
Historic Underground Storage Tank; EMI: Emergency Management Institute; SWEEPS: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System; RGA: Recovered Government Archive; CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System; CPS SLIC: Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations, Cleanups Cases; ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System; US AIRS:
United States Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem.
Source: EDR 2021
As detailed in the EDR Report, the majority of the hazardous material sites listed above in Table 5.8-1 and identified within the Project Site are instances of historic events including leaks or isolated releases of hazardous materials, or existing or historic generators of hazardous wastes that have no reported violations. Although no open cases are identified which would directly impact future development associated with the Project, there is potential that contaminated soil could pose a significant impact if encountered during Project construction. Additionally, due to the nature of the Project, there is a potential for discovery of unknown hazardous materials or waste, including previously unknown USTs. The discovery of these materials may result in a significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. MMs HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-7 would be implemented as part of the Project, which require submittal of a plan or a Phase I ESA detailing the procedures to be taken if hazardous materials or hazardous waste is encountered. MMs HAZ-4 through MM HAZ-6 would be implemented requiring investigation, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-21 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
including potential subsurface investigation and sampling, of the presence of cryptic tanks for any Project activities near former service stations and/or other areas with known USTs that have not yet been removed. As specified in MM HAZ-5, a permit would be obtained for the removal of any USTs and City staff would be on-site to direct soil sampling during any such removal of USTs.
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.
5.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
EIR No. 311 concluded that, with compliance with federal and State regulations regarding the treatment and storage of potentially hazardous materials, no significant cumulative impacts would occur. According to SEIR No. 340, hazards would be limited to the site itself and would not contribute to hazardous conditions in a larger cumulative study area; therefore, buildout of the ARSP would not contribute to any significant cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
Cumulative projects within the Project vicinity would have the potential to expose future area residents, employees, and visitors to hazardous materials through redevelopment of sites and structures that may be contaminated from either historic or ongoing uses. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites. Therefore, similar to the Project, other cumulative projects within the City would be required to undergo individual environmental review, including review of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to that particular development site and proposed use. If lead and asbestos are found to be present in buildings planned for demolition or renovation by cumulative projects, these conditions would require appropriate mitigation to include implementation of standard regulatory conditions and remedial action of contaminated sites. It is assumed that all cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable local, State and federal codes and regulations, as well as applicable BMPs, related to the treatment, handling, and disposal of each hazardous material. Further, because restrictions on dev elopment or remediation requirements would be applied in the event that hazardous materials or waste posed a risk to safety, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts from exposure to hazards or hazardous materials or waste would be less than significant. Additionally, land use changes anticipated to occur under the Project would facilitate the safe removal of potentially hazardous building materials and the cleanup of contaminated properties, thus reducing the level of risk on a particular site in the nearby vicinity and within the Project area as a whole, compared to existing conditions. With implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7, the Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
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 analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-22 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8.5 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 HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation of transformers within non-Disney-controlled properties or City-owned transformers within the Specific Plan Area that may contain PCBs which are being moved or relocated as part of project development, the transformers shall be tested by the property owner/developer for PCBs. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-8)
MM HAZ-2 Ongoing during demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22, and the Uniform Fire Code, Article 87.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-10; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-6)
MM HAZ-3 Prior to approval of the first a grading plan or issuance of a the first Phase I dDemolition pPermit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared pursuant to current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments to identify potential threats to human health and the environment plan for review and approval by the Fire Department by the City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as appropriate. The ESA shall which details procedures that shall be taken if a previously unknown underground storage tank (UST) or other unknown hazardous materials or waste is discovered onsite. The ESA shall outline where hazardous materials may be found, types of hazardous materials anticipated, how to screen for them, and what to do in the event they are identified. The ESA shall identify the party responsible for the screening, and training requirements for those responsible for undertaking the screening effort. The ESA shall specify requirements for reporting, handling, staging, disposal, and recordkeeping.
The ESA shall also identify contingencies in the event that significant contamination is identified that is 1) above regulatory thresholds and 2) cannot be removed/mitigated remediated by proposed construction. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-4 and MM 5.7-7)
MM HAZ-4 Prior to Approval of the First Grading Plan or issuance of the first a grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first, in areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by underground storage tanks (USTs), or other hazardous materials or waste, and in areas where tank removal has not been DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-23 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
verified prior to excavation or grading; for Each Phase, the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, or the presence of, cryptic tanks using geophysical methods that include the potential use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) or similar technologies to determine no abandoned USTs are present shall be conducted in the subject area for the property owner/developer by a qualified environmental professional in the areas of former service stations and those areas known or thought to have been formerly occupied by USTs and where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading in these areas.
Soil sampling or a soil organic vapor survey may be required if soil sampling results are not available or indicate contamination is present above regulatory guidelines.
If warranted, subsurface investigation and sampling shall be undertaken in these areas, and appropriate remediation measures developed, if necessary, before demolition, excavation, or grading takes place in these areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-1)
MM HAZ-5 Prior to the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs), the property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous Materials Management section of the Fire Department shall be obtained for removal of such underground tanks by the property owner/developer. During removal of the underground storage tank, a representative from the Hazardous Materials Section (HMS) of the Fire Department Environmental Protection Section shall be onsite to direct soil sampling. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-2) MM HAZ-6 Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage tanks (USTs), conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer of surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage tanks shall be overseen by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and witnessed by Anaheim Fire Department/Hazardous Material Management Section (HMS).Orange County Health Department. Information on subsurface contamination from an underground storage tank shall be provided to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning & Building. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-3) MM HAZ-7 Prior to issuance of each demolition permit, a hazardous building material survey shall be conducted to verify the absence of hazardous building materials and, if needed, future abatement by a California-licensed contractor, and/or removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state, and local transportation and disposal regulations.
The following mitigation measures are either not applicable to the Project or completed:
EIR No. 311 MM 3.11-9 and MM 3.11-10 were completed at the time of construction of Disneyland Drive and Magic Way and adjacent parking lots in the Hotel District and the Parking District, West Parking Area;
EIR No. 311 MM 3.11-6 is not applicable to this Project. This mitigation measure is specifically applicable to the Anaheim Gardenwalk Overlay, which does not include any Disney Properties;
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-24 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EIR No. 311 MM 3.11-7 is not applicable to this Project. Portions of this mitigation measure mentioning 321 West Katella Avenue relate to the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay, which does not include any Disney Properties. For the other properties, the requirements in this mitigation measure were implemented when these sites were developed between approximately 2000 and 2010;
EIR No. 311 PDF 3.11-1 is not applicable as it has been replaced by SR HAZ-1 through SR HAZ-4; and
SEIR No. 340 MM 5.7-5 is not applicable as there are no open LUST sites in the Project Site.
5.8.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.8a Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
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 increased when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment would occur.
Threshold 5.8b Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
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 increased when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment would occur.
Threshold 5.8d Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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.
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 analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-25 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2023 (January 10). General Plan Safety Element. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/47834/Safety- Element_01102023
———. 2012 (last accessed September 14, 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://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 Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2022 (January 4, date accessed).
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Anaheim . Sacramento, CA: CalFire. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5880/c30_anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf.
Department of Toxic Substances Cont rol. 2022 (September 14, date accessed). DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List . Sacramento, CA: DTSC. https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2021 (December 9). EDR Area / Corridor Report, DisneylandForward, Interstate 5, Ball Rd, Walnut St, Chapman Ave, Anaheim, California 91789 (Inquiry Number 6781597.2s). Shelton, CT: EDR.- (Appendix G) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023 (March 12, date accessed). GeoTracker.
Sacramento, CA: SWRCB. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.8-26 Section 5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-1 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section discusses the existing setting regarding hydrology and water quality of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
Information is based on the Disneyland Resort Master Water Quality Management Plan (Master WQMP) (LaRoc 2014), included as Appendix H-1, which addresses all Disney Properties.
5.9.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311, certified by the City in 1993, determined that despite storm water runoff increases related to the development of The Disneyland Resort Project, compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permi t requirements and implementation of best management practices would reduce any impacts to water quality and hydrology to less than significant levels. Additionally, the development of The Disneyland Resort was found to be located outside the 100-year floodplain. The City determined no significant impacts to water quality or hydrology would occur with implementation of MM 3.7-1 through 3.7-5, MMs 3.8-2 and 3.8-3, and PDF 3.7-1.
EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Feature EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067
1 required implementation of the following mitigation
measures (MM) and project design feature (PDF) regarding hydrology and water quality to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant levels.
MM 3.7-1 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 3.7-2 Prior to approval of the Phase II grading plan, to be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan; and, prior to approval of phase III grading plan; to be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval.
The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items:
a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm. b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project- generated drainage and runoff.
c. Detailed assessment of existing water quality, potential water quality impacts, and a description of proposed measures to maintain water quality to the extent required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and its regulations, including the following:
1. Incorporation of structural and nonstructural City controlled Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs shall, to the extent permitted by law, include, but are not limited to, containment of masonry and paint wastes on the construction site; proper disposal of vehicle fuel and maintenance wastes; disposal of trash and debris; prohibiting water wash down of paved
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
5.9-2 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
areas (both during and after construction unless allowed by the NPDES permit); and education/training for construction workers on these practices.
Engineering details, maintenance procedures, and funding responsibilities of these BMPs shall also be described.
2. Incorporation of measures to comply with applicable actions to be identified by the RWQCB in conformance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) statewide water quality control plan for inland surface waters, adopted April 11, 1991.
3. Description of a water quality monitoring program to monitor water quality during and subsequent to construction and to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. The water quality monitoring program shall identify: (1) the person/agency responsible for implementing the program, (2) sources of pollutants in runoff (e.g., nuisance flows from development areas, irrigation flows), (3) specific types of pollutants expected in runoff that will be monitored (e.g., total suspended solids, phosphorous, lead), (4) water quality sampling stations that are representative of runoff from the sources identified above, (5) sampling program methodology, including devices to be used and frequency and duration of sampling, ( 6) method for evaluating data collected from a sampling program, including threshold standards for determining effectiveness of BMPs, and (7) additional measures, if necessary, to increase the effectiveness of the BMPs to the threshold standards identified in C(l) above.
MM 3.7-3 Exclusive of the Theme Parks including the retail/entertainment component, prior to issuance of each building permit (for non Setback Realm Areas); prior to approval of Final Site Plan (for Setback Realm Areas); 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 Areas (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), 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:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. Grading design plan.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-3 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
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 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.
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 3.7-4 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the applicant shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including,' but not limited to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a periodic basis if allowed in the applicant's NPDES permit. Nightly washdown shall be allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the applicant's and City's NPDES permit. Flushing debris, residue, and sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the applicant's NPDES requirements. Applicant DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-4 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
agrees that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the City's NPDES permit.
MM 3.7-5 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback Realm Areas), the property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of Substantial Completion, as described in the Specific Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (Note: Environmental equivalent approved prior to 3/98 which clarifies 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).
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.).
MM 3.8-2 Ongoing during grading operations, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion.
MM 3.8-3 Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall obtain required NPDES construction storm permits from the State Water Resources Control Board, if applicable. Copies of the Notice of Intent or permits, as applicable, shall be submitted to the City Engineer.
(Note: Environmental equivalent approved prior to 3/98 to change the timing for submittal of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to a more appropriate point in the process.)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan SEIR No. 340
SEIR No. 340, certified by the City in 2012, is a Supplemental EIR that evaluated environmental changes in and around The Anaheim Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in 1994. According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP Project would result in the potential for short-term construction-related and long-term operational water quality impacts. However, implementation of MM 5.8-1 through MM 5.8-6 and compliance with the standard requirements would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Although direct impacts to the underlying DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-5 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
groundwater resources would not occur, indirect impacts associated with the anticipated increase in long-term demand for domestic water, landsc ape irrigation, and maintenance activities would be significant. Implementation of the mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources, and potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels.
As identified in SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP Project would result in site-specific changes to drainage patterns on development sites but would not adversely impact regional hydrology or drainage flows in the surrounding area. SEIR No. 340 found that potential increases in impervious surfaces could increase runoff rates and volumes. Additionally, the ARSP Project has the potential to increase runoff volumes and rates to exacerbate existing deficiencies, potentially leading to localized street flooding. However, implementation of the mitigation measures and compliance with standard requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Additionally, SEIR No. 340 identified that 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 and 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.
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 hydrology and water quality to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the ARSP Project to less than significant levels.
MM 5.8-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Orange County (OC) Public Works/OC Engineering. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items:
a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and, b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project- generated drainage and runoff.
MM 5.8-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division.
MM 5.8-3 Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited.
MM 5.8-4 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City certifying that the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-6 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans.
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 5.8-6 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
SR 5.8-1 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 shall be responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP.
SR 5.8-2 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.
SR 5.8-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall pay the Storm Drain Impact Fees which would go toward future storm drain improvements within The Anaheim Resort area and South Central City area.
SR 5.8-4 Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the City’s NPDES Ordinance, which provides regulations to comply with the CWA, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s NPDES permit. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates illicit connections to the storm drain system; requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water; and requires local discharge permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-7 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
SR 5.8-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer of individual developments shall provide written proof to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division of a water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirement (WDR) as well as a plan for compliance with the discharge prohibitions, TMDLs, and various programs of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin through the through issuance of individual WDRs; discharge prohibitions; water quality certifications; programs for salt management, non-point sources, and storm water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as necessary.
5.9.2 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
Hydrologic Setting
Watershed
The Project Site is located within the Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbor, and Bolsa Chica Watershed Management Area (Watershed). The Project Site and surrounding area slopes in a southwesterly direction and drains through the storm drain system to the Anaheim Barber City Channel, which merges with the Bolsa Chica Channel, and drains to Huntington Harbour with its ocean outlet through Anaheim Bay. The Basin Plan identifies the beneficial uses of waters within the Watershed. The beneficial uses of Anaheim Bay, Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbor, and Bolsa Bay include the following: municipal and domestic supply; navigation; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; recreational commercial and sportfishing; biological and wildlife habitats for rare, threatened or endangered species; aquatic habitats for spawning, reproduction and development; marine habitat; shellfish harvesting; and estuarine habitat (SARWQCB 2019).
There are existing storm drain lines in and near the Project Site which provide storm water drainage for existing developments, some of which have been identified in the City’s General Plan as deficient (City of Anaheim 2004). Storm water runoff from the Project Site enters local drainage facilities and flows into the Anaheim Barber City Channel (CNC 2006,). The Anaheim Barber City Channel conveys runoff in a southwesterly direction and connects to the Bolsa Chica Channel which, in turn, flows south and west and discharges runoff into the Anaheim Bay and Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbor (CNC 2006). According to the Master WQMP, the Anaheim Barber City Channel discharges directly into the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, which has been designated as a nature reserve to protect coastal wetlands containing resident threatened and endangered species, and finally to Bolsa Bay.
Floodplain
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Panel Nos. 06059C0133J and 06059C0141J), the Project Site is located in Flood Hazard Zone “X” – Other Flood Areas. Zone X is defined as an area inundated by a 500-year flood; an DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-8 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
area inundated by 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding (FEMA 2009).
Groundwater Resources
The Project Site is located within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (the Basin), which underlies the northern half of Orange County. This groundwater basin covers approximately 310 square miles and is bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the San Joaquin Hills to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest; and terminates near the Orange County boundary to the northwest, where it connects to the Central Basin of Los Angeles.
The Basin consists of the Upper, Middle and Lower Aquifers, where porous and permeable sediments or rock readily transmit and hold water; they are segregated by materials with low permeabilities. The Upper Aquifer has an average thickness of about 800 feet and consists mostly of sand, gravel, and conglomerate with some silt and clay beds. It provides most of the irrigation water for the Basin. The Middle Aquifer has an average thickness of 1,600 feet and is composed of sand, gravel, and minor amounts of clay. It provides 90 to 95 percent of the groundwater for the basin. The Lower Aquifer is composed of sand and conglomerate that is 350 to 500 feet thick and not used for groundwater production (DWR 2020).
The total capacity of the basin is estimated at 38 million acre-feet (af), with 37.7 million af of water in storage. Basin recharge occurs through percolation of Santa Ana River flow, infiltration of rainfall, injection into wells, and surface recharge of imported water and recycled water.
Groundwater quality has high concentrations of sodium-calcium bicarbonate, with the average total dissolved solids content in 240 public supply wells at 507 milligrams per liter.
Sea water intrusion has occurred near the coast. Colored water — from natural organic materials in the Lower Aquifer and increasing levels of salinity, nitrates, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) — has been observed (DWR 2020).
According to the Master WQMP, groundwater is generally greater than 50 feet below the existing grade at the Project Site. The predominant soil types on the Project Site and surrounding area are A and B. According to the Orange County Hydrology Manual (1986), Group A soils have low runoff potential. They have high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of deep, well-drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and const chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained sandy-loam soils with moderately fine course textures.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
B. Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping data.
Communities subject to flood hazards voluntarily participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce the potential for flood damage. In turn, the NFIP offers federally funded flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. Under this program, the FEMA produces FIRM that identify properties and buildings in flood risk areas. Flood hazards related to storm events are generally described DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-9 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
in terms of 100- or 500-year floods. These are floods that, respectively, have a 1 percent and 0.2 percent chance of occurring every year.
The City’s General Plan designates the Project Site as being located in the 100-year to 500-year Flood Zone (FEMA 2009).
Clean Water Act
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]) was amended to require National Pollutant Discharge Eliminati on System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants to “Waters of the U.S.” from any point source. In 1987, the CWA was again amended to require that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) establish regulations for permitting under the NPDES permit program for municipal and industrial storm water discharges.
The USEPA published final regulations regarding storm water discharges on November 16, 1990.
The regulations require that municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES permit. MS4s are a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains), and are owned or operated by a public body that has jurisdiction over the disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes. The MS4s are designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water only (i.e., not wastewater or combined sewage).
In addition, the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for water bodies, to be approved by the USEPA. Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses for a particular water body (e.g., wildlife habitat, agricultural supply, fishing), along with water quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Water quality criteria are prescribed concentrations or levels of constituents, such as lead, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform bacteria, or narrative statements that represent the quality of water that supports a particular use. Because California has not established a complete list of acceptable water quality criteria, the USEPA has established numeric water quality criteria for certain toxic constituents in the form of the California Toxics Rule (see 40 Code of Federal Regulations §131.38).
When designated beneficial uses of a particular water body are compromised by water quality, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires identifying and listing that water body as impaired. Once a water body has been deemed impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for each impairing water quality constituent. There are no Section 303(d)-listed water bodies within the Project Site or to which waters from the Project flow.
State
California Porter-Cologne Act
The federal CWA places the primary responsibility for the control of water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources with the states. California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Wa ter Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) broad powers to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementing California’s responsibilities under the Federal CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to (1) adopt plans and policies; (2) regulate discharges to surface water and groundwater; (3) regulate waste disposal sites; and (4) require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-10 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, and oil or petroleum products.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality plan (or Basin Plan) for its region. The regional plans conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and those established by the SWRCB in its State Water Policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also enables the RWQCBs to include water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste within its regional plan. The RWQCBs are also authorized to (1) enforce discharge limitations; (2) take actions to prevent violations of these limitations from occurring; and (3) conduct investigations to determine the status of the quality of any “Waters of the State.” Civil and criminal penalties are imposed on persons who violate the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act or any SWRCB/RWQCB orders.
California Toxics Rule
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) is a federal regulation that is issued by the USEPA and provides water quality criteria for potentially toxic constituents in receiving waters with human health or aquatic life designated uses in California. CTR criteria are applicable to the receiving water body and therefore must be calculated based upon the probable hardness values of the receiving waters for evaluation of acute (and chronic) toxicity criteria. At higher hardness values for the receiving water, copper, lead, and zinc are more likely to bind with components in the water which, in turn, reduces the bioavailability and resulting potential toxicity of these metals. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin objectives and the CTR criteria do not apply directly to discharges of urban runoff, but rather to specified receiving waters.
Local
Drainage and Flood Control
Major regional drainage facilities are designed to provide protection against major loss of life and property for a 100-year storm event. Intermediate facilities include smaller channels and detention facilities (such as the Carbon Canyon Diversion, Carbon Canyon, Atwood, Richfield, and Southeast Anaheim Channels). The regional and intermediate drainage facilities serving the City of Anaheim are owned and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control Division.
The City of Anaheim owns and maintains local drainage facilities, which include those with watersheds less than 640 acres. Improvements to local drainage and flood-control structures are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. These facilities must be designed to accommodate a 25-year frequency storm event, as outlined in the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Since there are no on-site regional or intermediate facilities and since all on-site facilities have tributary areas that are less than 640 acres, these local facilities need to meet the 25-year storm design standards.
Orange County Water District Act
The Orange County Water District Act was amended by the State Legislature in 1953, authorizing a replenishment assessment to be charged to all groundwater pumpers and requiring that all pumpers report semi-annually the amount of groundwater they extract. By knowing the total amount of groundwater extraction in the basin, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) could estimate the amount of replenishment water needed to offset the annual overdraft, as well as reduce the accumulated overdraft (OCWD 2017). This has allowed the OCWD to reverse the trend of groundwater depletion. OCWD is entrusted to manage and replenish the region's DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-11 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
groundwater basin, which provides water to approximately 2.5 million people (OCWD 2018, 2022).
Santa Ana River Basin Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (also the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana Region, hereafter referred to as the “Basin Plan”) seeks to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect the beneficial uses of water bodies in the Santa Ana River Watershed. The Basin Plan discusses the existing water quality, beneficial uses of the groundwater and surface waters, and local water quality conditions and problems within the Santa Ana River watershed. The Basin Plan provides water quality standards for water resources in the Santa Ana River and its watershed, and includes an implementation plan to maintain these standards. The standards serve as the basis for the basin’s regulatory programs.
Basin Plan implementation occurs primarily through issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs); discharge prohibitions; water quality certifications; programs for salt management, non- point sources, and storm water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as necessary.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit
Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB) issued a renewal of the MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2009-0030) to the County, the OCFCD, and the northern Orange County cities, including the City of Anaheim (collectively “the Co-permittees”). This Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit regulates storm water discharges to the MS4 in northern Orange County and details the requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects, including specific sizing criteria for treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs).
To implement the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the Co-permittees have committed to (1) the continued implementation of a Storm Water Management Program and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and (2) the development of a Proposed Plan of Storm Water Quality Management Activities. The Proposed Plan of Storm Water Quality Management Activities includes (1) all the activities the Co-permittees propose to undertake during the next permit term, (2) the goals and objectives of these activities, and (3) an evaluation of the need for additional source control and/or structural and non-structural BMPs and proposed pilot studies.
In addition, the Co-permittees have established a Performance Commitment for new and existing program elements and compliance schedules for implementing storm water pollutant controls, as well as procedures for detecting illicit discharges and illicit connections. Co-permittees must also follow enforcement procedures and actions to require compliance with the approved Storm Water Management Program and to provide information on public agency activities, monitoring results, and program effectiveness.
Continued inspection, monitoring and reporting acti vities are also required, including continued implementation of the Water Quality Managem ent Plans (WQMPs) for new development and significant redevelopment projects within its jurisdiction as part of the development plan and entitlement approval process. The WQMP must identify permanent source-control BMPs, Site Design BMPs, and treatment-control BMPs that would be implemented to treat, infiltrate, or filter first flush runoff from individual development sites.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-12 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Activities Permit Pursuant to CWA Section 402(p), which requires regulations for permitting of certain storm water discharges, the SWRCB has issued a 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 as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ is currently in effect
2. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
Under the Construction General Permit, storm wa ter discharges from construction sites with a disturbance area of one acre or more are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by the Construction General Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is obtained by completing and filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB and preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any land disturbance. The SWPPP identifies erosion control, sediment control, tracking control, wind erosion control, waste management, and non-storm water management BMPs that would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce or eliminate pollutants entering the storm drain system.
City of Anaheim General Plan
Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan addresses public services and infrastructure, such as fire protection, law enforcement, parks, schools, water, sewer, and storm drain systems (City of Anaheim 2004). The Element discusses and shows the storm drain system map and existing deficiencies in the system. Applicable goals and policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element that relate to storm drainage and that are applicable to the Project are provided in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.
Green Element
The Green Element of the City’s General Plan is a single, comprehensive plan to add more green areas throughout the City and to protect and enhance its natural and recreational resources. It addresses ways to protect water quality of the City’s surface water and groundwater resources.
Applicable goals and policies from the Green Element that are related to water quality and that are applicable to the Project are provided in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.
Safety Element
The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan addresses the following: natural and man-made hazards in the City; ways to reduce fire hazards, geologic and seismic hazards, and flood hazards; and includes City-wide disaster preparedness measures. It identifies flood and inundation hazards and programs to protect the City from these hazards (City of Anaheim 2023). Applicable goals and policies from the Safety Element that are related to flood hazards and that are applicable to
2 The Statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Wate r Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities was reissued on September 8, 2022 but will not be effective until September 1, 2023. Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, CAS 000002, adopted by SWRCB Sept. 8, 2022.(subject to limited reopener).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-13 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
the Project are provided in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, with a project consistency analysis.
Anaheim Municipal Code
Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance
Chapter 10.19 of Title 10 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance. This ordinance establishes an alternative ordinance acceptable under Executive Order B-29-15 as being at least as effective as the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and promotes the design, installation, and maintenance of landscaping in a manner that conserves regional water resources by ensuring that landscaping projects are not unduly water-needy and that irrigation systems are appropriately designed and installed to minimize water waste.
Storm Drain Impact Fees
The City of Anaheim has adopted Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fees, as outlined in Chapter 10.14 of the City’s Municipal Code (City of Anaheim 2022). The regulations implement (1) the goals and objectives of the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area; (2) Section 4 of the ARSP; (3) the City’s General Plan; and (4) the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Financial Implementation Plan for the South Central City Area. The fees would mitigate the flooding and storm drainage impacts caused by new development and/or by additions and expansions to existing developments. The storm drain fees are placed in a separate and special account, and along with any interest earnings on that account, are used solely to pay for the construction of Master Plan of Drainage Facilities within the South Central City Area or to reimburse the City for drainage facilities constructed by the City with funds advanced by the City from other sources. Credits and fee adjustments are made for projects that include the construction of Master Plan of Drainage Facilities as part of the development.
Local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations Chapter 10.09, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), of the Anaheim Municipal Code, outlines the City’s regulations for complying with the NPDES and its MS4 Permit.
It identifies the following: (1) prohibitions on illicit connections to the storm drain system; (2) prohibited discharges; (3) controls on urban runoff from new development and significant redevelopment through preparation of Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs); (4) local discharge permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system; and (5) the City’s inspection and enforcement responsibilities.
5.9.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
The analysis in this section is based on review of information available in the City of Anaheim General Plan, EIR No. 311, and SEIR No. 340 (City of Anaheim 2004, 1993 and 2012).
Additionally, information is based on review of information available in the Master WQMP, which addresses all Disney Properties, as well as the State of California, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and The Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff, Orange County (Santa Ana RWQCB 2009).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-14 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.
Threshold 5.9a Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Threshold 5.9b Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Threshold 5.9c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Threshold 5.9e Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Hydrology and water quality thresholds c(iv) (impede or redirect flows) and d (in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation) were evaluated in Section 3.10 of the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no impact related to these thresholds, and, therefore, these thresholds are not discussed in this Draft Subsequent EIR.
C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements (SR) are applicable to the Project. As appropriate, the measure 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 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- DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-15 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
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 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)
SR HWQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Disney ARSP Properties , the property owner/developer shall pay the Storm Drain Impact Fees which would go toward future storm drain improvements within The Anaheim Resort area and South Central City area. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-3)
SR HWQ-4 Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the City’s NPDES Ordinance, which provides regulations to comply with the CWA, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s NPDES permit. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates illicit connections to the storm drain system; requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water; and requires local discharge permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-4)
SR HWQ-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property owner/developer of individual developments shall provide written proof to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division of a water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirement (WDR) as well as a plan for compliance with the discharge prohibitions, TMDLs, and various programs of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin through the through issuance of individual WDRs; discharge prohibitions; water quality certifications; programs for salt management, non-point sources, and storm water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as necessary. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-5)
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.9a Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
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, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would increase contaminants l eaving the site; however, implementation of DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-16 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the project would result in short-term construction-related and long-term operational water quality impacts. These impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of proposed mitigation and compliance with standard requirements.
This section discusses the Project’s potential construction- and operational-related water quality impacts. The Project could result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality from grading and other construction-related activities (e.g., erosion, sediment, spills and leaks from construction equipment). Also, the Project would generate typical urban pollutants (e.g., sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and cleaning agents) that could be discharged into the local and regional drainage systems.
Short-Term Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Continued development of the Project would include a variety of commercial, entertainment, and visitor-serving uses, such as theme park uses, hotels, restaurants, retail uses, parking facilities, and other uses allowed under the DRSP and ARSP. Storm water runoff from individual construction sites could contain pollutants such as soils and sediments that are released during grading and excavation activities and petroleum-related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Other common pollutants that can result from construction activities include solid or liquid chemical spills; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, acids, lime, plaster, and cleaning agents; and heavy metals from equipment.
The storm water runoff would flow into the storm drain inlets in the DRSP and ARSP areas and would eventually be discharged into the Pacific Ocean at Anaheim Bay, Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbor, and/or Bolsa Bay.
The CWA establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities through the NPDES program. Projects with construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land are required to obtain an NPDES permit from the SWRCB, Division of Water Quality. A SWPPP is required for a project to be covered under the NPDES General Construction Permit and must include BMPs to reduce water quality impacts. These BMPs include various measures to control on-site erosion; reduce sediment flows into the storm water; control wind erosion; track soil and debris into adjacent roadways and off-site areas; and manage wastes, materials, wastewater, liquids, hazardous materials, stockpiles, equipment, and other site conditions in order to prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system. Inspections, reporting, and storm water sampling and analysis are also required to ensure that visible and non- visible pollutants are not discharged off site.
Compliance with SR HWQ-1, SR HWQ-2, SR HWQ-4 and SR HWQ-5 requiring preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP and compliance with the NPDES would minimize construction impacts from continued development on the Project Site through implementation of BMPs that would reduce construction-related pollutants. Implementation of these requirements would ensure that any impacts to downstream waters resulting from construction activities associated with the Project Site would be less than significant. In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the California Building Code and grading permit requirements include elements that also require reduction of erosi on and sedimentation impacts during construction.
Full compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations and implementation of MM HWQ-6 would reduce water quality impacts associated with construction of the Project to less than significant with mitigation.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-17 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Long-Term Operational Water Quality
According to the Master WQMP prepared for The Disneyland Resort, which covers all Disney Properties, potential pollutants that could be generated by maximum buildout of the Project Site could include, but are not limited to, bacteria/viruses, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, suspended solids/sediments, tras h and debris, and oil and grease. Specific pollutants would depend on the type of land use and the site improvements, and all improvements would have the potential to generate different storm water pollutants.
As indicated in the Master WQMP, the following structural source control BMPs would achieve long-term water quality enhancement through proposed drainage and treatment systems:
providing storm drain stenciling and signage; design of outdoor hazardous material storage areas; trash enclosures; efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; and incorporating requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from NPDES Permit required by SR HWQ-2 ). Non-structural BMPs (also identified in the Master WQMP), including education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; and BMP maintenance would reduce pollutant loading into storm water runoff.
According to the Master WQMP, all future development and redevelopment projects are required to be evaluated on a project-specific level and through final design project WWMPs to be based on the Preliminary Project WQMP using the guidance and procedures outlined in the Master WQMP methodology. Future project-specific WQMPs and their corresponding treatment BMPs will continue to be tracked as part of the Master WQMP.
Therefore, with compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Disneyland Resort Master WQMP, potential impacts related to storm water would be less than significant.
Future development associated with the Project would also need to comply with the City’s NPDES Ordinance, required by SR HWQ-4, which prohibits the discharges of certain pollutants into the storm water, regulates illicit connections to th e storm drain system; requires implementation of permanent BMPs; and requires local discharge permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system.
The Santa Ana RWQCB requires industrial projects and land uses that generate storm water or discharges that can directly affect water courses/water bodies to obtain individual WDRs and/or water quality certifications, as provided in the standard requirements. Compliance with WDR conditions of approval and a water quality certification, required by SR HWQ-5, would prevent the violation of water quality standards.
Compliance with the standard requirements and implementation of mitigation measures MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-5 and MM HWQ-8 , including preparation of WQMPs for future development associated with the Project, and involving issuance of grading permits, implementation of water quality BMPs identified in those WQMPs, and compliance with erosion control measures associated with irrigation plans would ensure that future Project development would result in less than significant construction and operational water quality impacts with implementation of mitigation.
As a future option, the City of Anaheim has developed a voluntary Stormwater Credit Program intended to provide public and private projects the opportunity to purchase stormwater credits to allow for offsite treatment rather than treating stormwater on-site. The City proposes to construct, own, and operate regional retention facilities to provide the following benefits:
a) Reducing stormwater pollutants in greater volumes and more effectively than site by site efforts,
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-18 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
b) Supplementing local water supply by infiltrating water into the aquifer, c) Enhancing the City’s flood control capabilities,
d) Improving water quality immediately, rather than waiting until each project comes “online” to capture pollutants on a site-by-site basis, and e) Lowering costs, increasing certainty of regulatory compliance for development projects.
If Disney chooses to participate in this future program, such off-site treatment also would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels 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 analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.9b Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
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 The Disneyland Resort Project would require extraction of supply from the groundwater basin, however, implementation of conservation measures including PDF 3.7-1 regarding use of reclaimed water, would ensure a significant impact would not occur. SEIR No. 340 concluded that excavation and grading activities for future development according to the ARSP would not result in direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources. However, buildout within the C-R and PR Districts would result in an increase in long-term demand for domestic water, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities that would be less than significant with mitigation.
According to the Master WQMP, groundwater at the Project Site is generally greater than 50 feet below existing grade. Excavation and grading activities for future development are not expected to be deep enough to affect the underlying groundwater resources. Thus, no direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would occur during Project construction.
The Project has the potential to result in increased impervious surfaces within the Project Site, which has the potential to decrease groundwater recharge. However, future development projects within the Project Site would be required to prepare WQMPs and to implement BMPs specified therein, as required by SR HWQ-2, which would ensure that groundwater is recharged even with these developments. Therefore, the increase in impervious surface coverage would not impede sustainable management of the groundwater basin.
As discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City of Anaheim provides water services to the City, including the Project Site, using water sources from the local aquifer, and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. Project implementation would result in an increase in long-term demand for potable and reclaimed water to be used for domestic purposes, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities. This increased water demand may lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. Implementation of MM HWQ-7 would help to reduce this impact through installation of reclaimed water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-19 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
A replenishment assessment fee is levied on cities in accordance with the Orange County Water District Act for the amount of groundwater extracted, and this fee is used by OCWD for various groundwater replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft of local groundwater resources occurs. OCWD’s groundwater is recharged primarily through artificial replenishment, not natural recharge. Implementation of the Project would shift the potential for development of land uses to new areas of the Project Site and could lead to an increase in impervious surfaces. Development may also increase the number of residents and workers in the City, which would increase overall demand for groundwater supplies.
In accordance with the Orange County Water District Act, the City pays the OCWD a replenishment assessment for the amount of groundwater extracted. This assessment is used by the OCWD for various groundwater replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft of local groundwater resources occurs. Thus, with implementation of mitigation measures, water demand from Project implementation would not deplete lo cal groundwater resources and 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 not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.9c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 grading activities associated with The Disneyland Resort would have the potential to result in erosion and runoff from the site; however, due to the topography of the site and with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact was found to be less than significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the project would result in site specific changes to drainage patterns on development sites but would not adversely impact regional hydrology or drainage flows in the surrounding area. Potential increases in impervious surfaces could increase runoff rates and volumes, while reducing potential for soil erosion. These impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
As described above in response to threshold 5.9a, the Project has the potential to result in erosion and siltation during construction. Development a nd implementation of a SWPPP, as required by SR HWQ-1, for development that occurs pursuant to the Project would ensure potential effects related to erosion and siltation during construction are reduced to less than significant levels. Also, as discussed above under threshold 5.9a, appropriate drainage and storm water improvements, as required by SR HWQ-2, would be incorporated into future development of the Project, which would reduce the potential for erosion and siltati on during Project operations. Implementation of mitigation measures MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-4, MM HWQ-5, and MM HWQ-8 related to irrigation planning and controls and MM GEO-6 related to erosion control plans would reduce this impact to less than significant 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 analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-20 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold 5.9c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 determined that despite stormwater runoff increases related to the development of The Disneyland Resort Project, compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPD ES) permit requirements and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would redu ce any impacts to groundwater and surface hydrology to less than significant levels with mitigation. SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the ARSP Project may increase runoff volumes and rates to exacerbate existing deficiencies, potentially leading to localized street flooding. Implementation of proposed mitigation and compliance with standard requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Future development of the Project has the potential to increase impervious surfaces within the Project Site, which could increase runoff volumes and rates, resulting in a potentially significant impact related to on- or off-site flooding and storm drain capacity. However, the City requires that individual developments provide engineering plans as well as drainage studies and PWQMPs, as required by SR HWQ-1, SR HWQ-2 and SR HWQ-4, specifying methods to convey, retain, and treat storm water, which would ensure that storm water runoff from the Project Site would not increase the risk of flooding or exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. As required by SR HWQ-3, Disney is responsible for payment of all required fees associated with funding of storm drain improvements, including construction of necessary improvements to the off-site storm drain system, when it develops the Disney ARSP Properties. Therefore, with implementation of site-specific storm drain improvements for the Project and MMs HWQ-1 and MM HWQ-9, impacts related to deficiencies in the off-site storm drainage system serving the Project Site and preventing localized flooding would be less than significant with mitigation. In addition, any storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans would be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
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 5.9e Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 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, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would increase contaminants l eaving the site; however, implementation of regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Similarly, SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP Project would be subject to mitigation to reduce potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater quality, and impacts were found to be less than significant.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-21 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
The Santa Ana RWQCB prepares and maintains the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan sets water quality standards in the Santa Ana River Basin by establishing beneficial uses for specific water bodies and designating numerical and narrative water quality objectives. The Basin Plan sets water quality objectives for the Project Site and surrounding areas. Water quality thresholds identified in the Basin Plan are intended to reduce pollutant discharge and ensure that water bodies are of sufficient quality to meet their designated beneficial uses. As discussed above in response to threshold 5.9a, pollutant discharge during construction would be avoided through compliance with the Construction General Permit, including the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, as required by SR HWQ-1 and through implementation of SR HWQ-1 . The Project would not conflict with the water quality standards outlined in the Basin Plan with implementation of MM HWQ-3 requiring structural and non-structural BMPs, including those that are already in use throughout the Project Site such as retention ponds, control devices, secondary containment structures, and treatment. As the Project is constructed, the Project, pollutants generated during Project operations would be treated using the BMPs identified in the WQMPs to treat identified pollutants of concern, therefore, the Project would not be a source of significant pollutants for downstream water bodies and the Project would thereby not conflict with the Basin Plan.
OCWD has adopted a Groundwater Management Plan for the sustainable management of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OCWD 2015). The Master WQMP includes general storm water BMPs intended to minimize pollutant exposure to rain water and storm water, including specific recommendations for treatment technologies that allow for water capture and groundwater recharge via infiltration units. The technologies also treat oil, grease, and sediment prior to infiltration. Further, the Project would continue treatment BMPs involving use of pervious pavement, infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and landscaped areas. With continued implementation of the BMPs identified in the Master WQMP, the Project would not interfere with any of the water supply monitoring efforts or infiltration areas outlined in the Groundwater Management Plan, nor would the Project impact any of the recharge facilities, groundwater replenishment processes, or seawat er intrusion and barrier management activities that are listed in the plan.
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.
5.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
EIR No. 311 determined that new development associated with The Disneyland Resort and cumulative projects would increase the potential of stormwater runoff transporting surface water quality contaminants into the storm drain system; however, compliance with mitigation measures, including compliance with NPDES requirements, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. According to SEIR No. 340, with implementation of standard requirements and the proposed mitigation measures, buildout of the ARSP would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
The cumulative study area with regard to hydrology and water quality includes the entire Orange County Groundwater Basin and its tributary waterways. Future development of the Project, in conjunction with the existing development and planned development in the City of Anaheim, may result in a cumulatively considerable impact to surface water runoff due to construction activities in the area and post-development runoff. All construction projects larger than one acre would be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements for implementation of individual SWPPPs, which outli ne erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste management, and DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-22 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
materials pollution control BMPs. Additionally, new development and significant redevelopment projects are required to prepare and implem ent WQMPs for long-term implementation and maintenance of source-control, site design, and treatment-control BMPs to ensure compliance with water quality goals and compliance with the City’s NPDES Ordinance. Thus, pollutants generated by the Project and cumulative projects in the basin would be reduced through compliance with identified standard requirements ( SR HWQ-1 through SR HWQ-4 ) during construction activities and in the long-term. Compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s requirements for the water quality certifications and/or WDRs and discharge prohibitions would also prevent long-term storm water quality impacts.
Payment of the replenishment assessment to the OCWD by the City and all other agencies that extract groundwater in the Coastal Plain would allow the OCWD to continue its programs to protect groundwater resources and to recharge the local aquifers in order to prevent overdraft.
With regard to the existing storm drain system, and as previously discussed, Disney is responsible for payment of all required fees associated with funding of storm drain improvements, including construction of necessary improvements to the off-site storm drain system, when it develops the Disney ARSP Properties pursuant to SR HWQ-3. Therefore, Disney’s continued compliance with these requirements would ensure adequate storm drainage infrastructure is constructed or provided to serve existing and future developments and significant cumulative impacts would not occur.
With implementation of MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-9, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.
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.
5.9.5 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 HWQ-1 Prior to approval of the Phase II grading planOngoing during Project operations, to be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan; and, prior to approval of phase III grading plan; to be implemented in accordance with the phasing plan, the property owner/developer shall submit comply with the Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) and shall submit updates as required for new grading for review and approval by the City Engineer. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items:
a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm. b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project- generated drainage and runoff.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-23 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
c. Detailed assessment of existing water quality, potential water quality impacts, and a description of proposed measures to maintain water quality to the extent required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and its regulations, including the following:
1. Incorporation of structural and nonstructural City controlled Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs shall, to the extent permitted by law, include, but are not limited to, containment of masonry and paint wastes on the construction site; proper disposal of vehicle fuel and maintenance wastes; disposal of trash and debris; prohibiting water wash down of paved areas (both during and after construction unless allowed by the NPDES permit); and education/training for construction workers on these practices.
Engineering details, maintenance procedures, and funding responsibilities of these BMPs shall also be described.
2. Incorporation of measures to comply with applicable actions to be identified by the RWQCB in conformance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) statewide water quality control plan for inland surface waters, adopted April 11, 1991.
3. Description of a water quality monitoring program to monitor water quality during and subsequent to construction and to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. The water quality monitoring program shall identify: (1) the person/agency responsible for implementing the program, (2) sources of pollutants in runoff (e.g., nuisance flows from development areas, irrigation flows), (3) specific types of pollutants expected in runoff that will be monitored (e.g., total suspended solids, phosphorous, lead), (4) water quality sampling stations that are representative of runoff from the sources identified above, (5) sampling program methodology, including devices to be used and frequency and duration of sampling, ( 6) method for evaluating data collected from a sampling program, including threshold standards for determining effectiveness of BMPs, and (7) additional measures, if necessary, to increase the effectiveness of the BMPs to the threshold standards identified in C(l) above. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-1)
MM HWQ-2 Exclusive of the Theme Parks including the retail/entertainment component, prior to issuance of each building permit (for non Setback Realm Areas); prior to approval of Final Site Plan (for Setback Realm Areas); 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 Areas (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), Prior to issuance of each building permit, 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:
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-24 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. 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. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4) MM HWQ-3 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the applicant property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a periodic basis if allowed in the applicant's property owner/developer’s NPDES permit and allowable based on drought restrictions. Nightly washdown shall be allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the applicant's property owner/developer and City's NPDES permit.
Flushing debris, residue, and sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the applicant's NPDES requirements. Applicant Property owner/developer agrees that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the City's NPDES permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-3) MM HWQ-4 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback Realm Areas), the property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of Substantial Completion, as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-5)
MM HWQ-5 Ongoing during grading operations, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-2)
MM HWQ-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-25 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-2)
MM HWQ-7 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, Prior to issuance of each building permit, t o 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. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.7-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-5) MM HWQ-8 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-4) MM HWQ-9 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-6)
5.9.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.9a Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
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 5.9b Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-26 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold 5.9c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 5.9c Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; 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 5.9e Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management 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 analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
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.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-27 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
5.9.7 REFERENCES
Anaheim, City of. 2023 (January 10). General Plan Safety Element. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/47834/Safety- Element_01102023
———.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://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master-Environmental-Impact- Report-Number-313-?bidId=
Ardurra. 2023 (June). Hydraulic Analysis for DisneylandForward. Newport Beach, CA: Ardurra. (Appendix H-2)
California Department of Water Resources. 2020 (January 20). California’s Groundwater Updated 2020 – Bulletin 118. Sacramento, CA: DWR. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003- Basin-Descriptions/8_002_01_ChinoSubbasin.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . 2009 (December 12). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address (webpage). https:/msc.fema.gov/portal/search LaRoc Environmental. 2014 (December). Disneyland Resort Master Water Quality Management Plan. Carlsbad, CA: LaRoc. (Appendix H-1)
Orange County Water District. 2022 (November 14, date accessed). About Us (webpage).
Fountain Valley, CA: OCWD. https://www.ocwd.com/about/
———. 2018 (January). OCWD District Act January 2018. Fountain Valley, CA: OCWD. https://www.ocwd.com/media/6702/final-ocwd-district-act-2018.pdf Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019 (June). Water Quality Control Plan Stan Ana River Basin. Sacramento, CA: RWQCB.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ ———. 2009 (March 27). Order No. R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS61830 (as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062) Waste Discharge Requirements for The County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.9-28 Section 5.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County. Riverside, CA: Santa Ana RWQCB.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov//rwqcb8/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/0 9_030_oc_ms4_as_amended_by_10_062.pdf
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-1 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section discusses the existing land use and planning setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to land use and planning.
5.10.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
Land Use-Related Plans and Policies
The analysis of The Disneyland Resort Project in EIR No. 311, certified by the City in 1993, evaluated the redesignation of a 5.7-acre area of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area from Medium Density Residential uses to Commercial Recreation land uses; adoption of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (including zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan); and approval of infrastructure financing programs, property acquisition, structural height limits for the Commercial Recreation area, including adoption of an amendment to the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map, possible subdivision plans, grading permits, building permits and other actions related to the proposed construction, development and operation of The Disneyland Resort. EIR No. 311 determined that full buildout of The Disneyland Resort would require an amendment to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). EIR No. 311 did not consider this a significant impact. Additionally, The Disneyland Resort Project, with approval of the proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan and approval of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP), would be consistent with all other land use plans and policies; therefore, with implementation of MMs 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 and PDF 3.1-1, The Disneyland Resort Project’s impacts related to consistency with land use-related plans and policies would be less than significant.
Section 3.1, Land Use and Related Plans and Policies, of EIR No. 311 also addressed agricultural resources. The loss of approximately 80 acres of land designated prime agricultural land was considered a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. This included approximately 25 acres located northwest of Disneyland Drive and Cerritos Avenue (in the Hotel and Parking (West Parking Area) Districts) and 56 acres located southeast of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue.
Prior to certification of EIR No. 311, the 56 acres located southeast of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue were removed from the proposed Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and added to the proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. ARSP EIR No. 313 (Section 3.1, Land Use- Related Plans and Policies) also evaluated the loss of this approximately 56 acres of prime agricultural land and identified the impact as significant and unavoidable. For purposes of this Subsequent EIR, this impact was identified in the Initial Study and is not included for further analysis in this document.
Land Use Compatibility
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort Project, including the DRSP, would allow for the replacement of on-site uses with similar land uses, thus resulting in no significant impact with implementation of MMs 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 and PDF 3.2-1. However, EIR No. 311 also identified that The Disneyland Resort Project would contribute to a significant impact related to land use compatibilities inherent in the juxtaposition of commercial and residential uses. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this land use compatibility impact.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-2 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
EIR No. 311 Mitigation Measures
EIR No. 311 and MMP No. 00671 presented the following mitigation measures and project design features to avoid or reduce potential impacts related to land use.
MM 3.1-1 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 3.1-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit, building plans shall be submitted by the property owner/developer and will be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan.
PDF 3.1-1 Prior to approval of each final site plan or issuance of each building permit, whichever occurs first,
the proposed project shall be implemented based on the
guidelines and standards in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan.
All development proposals within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area must be consistent with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the City of Anaheim General Plan.
MM 3.2-1 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 3.2-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking facilities associated with the Hotel and Parking Districts, 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 Specific Plan.
PDF 3.2-1 Prior to approval of each final site plan or issuance of each building permit, whichever occurs first,
applicant shall submit documentation that project design features are in compliance with all building setbacks, height standards, landscaping requirements, and design guidelines as specified in Section 7.0 of Appendix B, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
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 concluded that buildout of the ARSP Project would be consistent with the respective goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents. Specifically, the ARSP Project buildout was found to be consistent with and supportive of the three key principles set forth in the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: mobility, economy, and sustainability. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 provided a consistency analysis with all relevant goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General 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
5.10-3 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures
SEIR No. 340 did not require mitigation measures specific to land use and related planning programs.
5.10.1 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
Project Location
The Project Site is located entirely within the City in Orange County, California, within an area known as The Anaheim Resort®, a 1,078-acre portion of the City especially designated by the City's General Plan for Commercial Recreation land uses and which is intended to provide for tourist and entertainment-related industries, such as theme parks, hotels, tourist-oriented retail, movie theaters, and other visitor-serving facilities. The Anaheim Resort is located 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, seven miles northwest of Santa Ana, and just north of Garden Grove in central Orange County. As shown in Exhibit 3-1, Regional Location Map, and Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity and Existing Specific Plan Designations, the Project Site is located generally west of the U.S. Interstate 5 corridor, south of Vermont Avenue, east of Walnut Street, and north of Chapman Avenue within the City. The Anaheim Resort includes the following three specific plan areas: DRSP (489.7 acres), ARSP (581.3 acres) and Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (HCSP) (6.8 acres).
The Project Site is located within areas regulated by the DRSP and the ARSP. Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity and Existing Specific Plan Designations, shows the Project Site relative to the boundaries of The Anaheim Resort, ARSP, DRSP and HCSP. Interstate 5 provides regional access to the Project Site; Harbor Boulevard, Katella Avenue, and Disneyland Drive provide local access. An aerial photograph of the Project Site is shown on Exhibit 3-3, Aerial Photograph.
As shown on Exhibit 3-4, DRSP and Disney ARSP Properties , the Project Site encompasses The
Disneyland Resort, including the existing Theme Park, Hotel, Parking and Future Expansion Districts, shown in Exhibit 3-5, Current Development Districts, and the Disney ARSP Properties, which are listed below:
1515 S. Manchester Avenue (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member 2 Lot);
1585 S. Manchester Avenue (currently occupied by an office building and also used as 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
2 Cast Member is a term used by Disney for an employee of The Disneyland Resort.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-4 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
1717 S. Disneyland Drive (Paradise Pier Hotel).
To the extent the Project would update The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program, The Anaheim Resort Identity Program and the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map, the Project Site includes the entire Anaheim Resort (inclusive of the ARSP, DRSP, and HCSP). The Project Site also includes areas identified in the General Plan as planned extensions of Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street and of Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue, portions of which are outside The Anaheim Resort.
Environmental Setting.
Existing land uses within the area governed by 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 are surface parking lots, an office building, and the Paradise Pier Hotel and associated parking structure. Existing land uses in the ARSP include the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, service station, office, parking lot/structure, single-family residential, rental car offices, event center/banquet hall, vacant lands, RV park uses, and mobile home sites. The ARSP also includes a post office, Orange Grove Elementary, and a vocational school.
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 zoning designation for the planned extension of Gene Autry Way west of Haster Street is within an existing apartment complex, which is located outside of The Anaheim Resort and designated on the General Plan and zoned for multiple-family residential uses.
Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project Site are shown in Exhibit 3-3, Aerial Photograph. Surrounding land uses in The Anaheim Resort include the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, service station, office, parking lot/structure, single-family residential, rental car offices, event center/banquet hall, vacant lands, RV park uses, and mobile home sites. The Anaheim Resort also includes a post office, Orange Grove Elementary, and a vocational school.
The Project Site is surrounded by a variety of land uses including hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, single-family residential, multi-family residential, and recreational land uses. The following describes existing land uses surrounding the Project Site:
North: The Project Site is generally bounded on the north by Ball Road with some parcels extending to Vermont Avenue. Land uses north of the Project Site are predominately residential with limited school uses, commercial areas and hotels and motels. Residential uses include both single- and multi-family units.;
East: The I-5 generally serves as the eastern project boundary for most of the Project Site.
Immediately east of the I-5 and south of Cerritos Avenue, existing developments are predominately industrial uses. Much of this area is under development associated with The Platinum Triangle, an 820-acre area east of the I-5 that includes Angel Stadium of Anaheim DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-5 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
and the Honda Center, which includes upscale, mixed-use development and office uses.
Land uses to the northeast are largely residential with some commercial areas and a school; West: The Project Site is generally bounded by Walnut Street to the west, and land uses located west of the Project Site include residential uses; and South: Land uses located south of the Project Site area vary and include the Anaheim Convention Center, hotel and commercial areas, and single- and multi-family residences.
A. Regulatory Framework
State, regional, and local land use and planning programs relevant to the Project are discussed throughout this section and are described below.
State
Senate Bill SB 375
Signed on September 30, 2008, SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans (RTPs) and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by California Air Resources Board (CARB). There are two mutually important facets to SB 375: reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future. SB 375 also includes provisions for exemptions from or streamlined CEQA review for projects classified as transit priority projects (projects that are consistent with SCS/Alternative Planning Strategy, at least 50 percent residential, minimum 20 dwelling units per acre, and within 0.5 mile of major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor) (SCAG 2016).
Regional
Connect SoCal
SCAG is designated as a MPO and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments for Orange County and the Project Site. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. The agency develops long-range RTPs including SCS and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations and a portion of the South Coast Air Quality management plans (SCAG 2022a).
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. It was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-6 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura (SCAG 2022b).
Master Plan of Arterial Highways
The Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) was initially established in 1956 to ensure that a regional arterial highway network would be planned, developed, and preserved to supplement the County’s developing freeway system. This vision has withstood the test of time and is consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s view today “that multiagency collaboration is a critical element in developing 21st century solutions for 21st century transportation challenges, such as reducing traffic congestion”. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for administering the MPAH, including the review and approval of amendments requested by local agencies. The MPAH map illustrates both constructed and unconstructed (planned) arterial highways, including principal, major, primary, secondary, divided collector, and collector roadways, as well as freeways/toll roads, smart streets, interchanges, and right-of-way reserve (OCTA 2017).
Local
Orange County Congestion Management Plan
The Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is designed to maintain adopted level of service (LOS) standards on key intersections throughout the County as well as to identify and implement improvement programs when necessary to bring those facilities into compliance with the standards. CMP facilities should operate at LOS E or better based on the intersection capacity utilization (“ICU”) methodology. There are a total of five CMP-monitored intersections within the Project area:
Harbor Boulevard & I-5 Northbound Ramps
Harbor Boulevard & I-5 Southbound Ramps
Harbor Boulevard & Katella Avenue
Manchester Avenue / I-5 Southbound Ramps & Katella Avenue Anaheim Way & Katella Avenue
According to 2021 Orange County Congestion Management Program Report, the latest CMP monitoring report published by OCTA, four of those five intersections currently operate at LOS A during the morning and afternoon peak hours and Harbor Boulevard & I-5 Northbound Ramps operates at LOS A during the morning peak hour and LOS B during the afternoon peak hour.
City of Anaheim General Plan
The State of California requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a general plan. State law also specifies the content of the plan and requires that it be comprehensive and consistent and that it have a long-term perspective. The City of Anaheim General Plan is comprehensive, not only in terms of the geographic planning area that it considers, but also in the range of issues addressed (City of Anaheim, 2004). Issues associated with the City’s development include physical, social, and economic concerns. By law, the City’s General Plan must address the following seven subject areas or elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. It may also address any other issues or include any other elements that relate to the physical development of the city or county. The City of Anaheim has also elected to include an Economic Development Element, a Grow th Management Element, a Public Services DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-7 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
and Facilities Element, and a Community Design Element. The current General Plan went through a comprehensive update in May 2004. Since that time, various elements of the General Plan, including text and maps, have undergone various updates and amendments to both General Plan maps and text. The City adopted an updated Safety Element in January 2023, and the current Housing Element (2014-2021) in February 2014. Each element of the approved General Plan is generally described below along with a consistency analysis of the Project with specific goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the distribution and location of land uses throughout the City and addresses permitted density and intensity of the various land use designations. The incorporated area of the City comprises approximately 28,000 acres and the City’s sphere of influence includes an additional 2,431 acres.
The Land Use Element identifies nine broad categories of land uses throughout the City, including Residential, Quasi-Public/Governmental, Industrial/Manufacturing, Commercial/Office, Entertainment/Lodging, Parks/Open Space, Water Uses/Waterways, Agriculture/Vacant, and Other. These land uses, several of which are divided into multiple designations, are defined in the Land Use Element and used to determine the amount and intensity of development that is allowed. Figure LU-5: Areas of the City with Special Density Limitations and Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City of the Land Use Element also identify eight areas of the City with special density limitations, including Mountain Park, Area A, The Disneyland Resort (SP 92-1), The Anaheim Resort (SP92-2), Hotel Circle (SP 93-1), The Platinum Triangle Area, Stonegate, and Area No. 17.
The Project Site is located within The Anaheim Resort and in areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP.
Within the DRSP, areas are currently divided into the following five Districts: Theme Park, Hotel, Parking, Future Expansion District, and District A. The DRSP, particularly the DRSP Zoning and Development Standards in Chapter 18.114 of the City’s Municipal Code, specifies the land uses allowed for each District as summarized in Table 2 within Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Subsequent EIR.
Within the ARSP, the Disney ARSP Properties are located within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1). The ARSP, particularly the ARSP Zoning and Development Standards in Chapter 18.116 of the City’s Municipal Code, specifies the land uses allowed for this area as summarized in Table 2 within Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Subsequent EIR.
The land use-related goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1 of this section.
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element describes the existing circulation system and serves as an infrastructure plan that addresses the mobility of people, goods and services, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the purpose of the Circulation Element “is to design and improve a circulation system to meet the current and future needs of all Anaheim residents and visitors”. Within or adjacent to its borders, the Project Site includes several major circulation routes including the I-5 and City streets such as Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road, and Katella Avenue. According to Figure C-1 of the Circulation Element, DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-8 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
several area roadways within or adjacent to the Project Site are classified on the City’s Planned Roadway Network, including:
Ball Road, Primary Arterial;
Katella Avenue, Resort Smartstreet;
Disney Way, Major Arterial;
Gene Autry Way, Primary Arterial;
Clementine Street, Secondary Arterial;
Haster Street, Primary Arterial;
Harbor Boulevard, Major Arterial;
Manchester Avenue, Secondary Arterial;
West Street/Disneyland Drive, Secondary Arterial; and Walnut Street, Secondary Arterial.
Existing traffic conditions in the Project area are described in Section 5.14, Transportation, of this Subsequent EIR. The circulation-related goals and policies of the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1 of this section.
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 Space 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.
Specifically, this element addresses the following: water resources; wildlife resources; land resources; energy resources; air quality; visual/scenic resources; waste management and recycling; parks and recreation; and trail systems. According to the Green Element, there are no existing or proposed parks or service areas designated within the Project Site, nor are there any designated trails in the Project Site. Additionally, no mineral or biological resources are identified within the Project Site. Table 5.10-1 provides (1) resource-related goals and policies of the Green Element regarding air quality, biological resources, and recreation; (2) resource-related goals and policies of the City’s General Plan that are relevant to the Project; and (3) 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. Table 5.10-1 provides public services and facilities related goals and policies of the Public Services and Facilities Element that are relevant to the Project and a project consistency analysis.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-9 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Growth Management Element
The Growth Management Element provides gu idance for future development based on the availability of capital facilities such as traffic management and other public facilities by augmenting and supporting the other General Plan Elements. The goal of the Growth Management Element is to reduce traffic congestion and “to ensure that growth is based on the City’s ability to provide adequate levels of traffic management and other public facilities and services pursuant to the Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Component of Measure M”. The goals and policies of the Growth Management Element that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1.
Safety Element
The Safety Element, adopted in January 2023, identifies potential risks of natural or man-made hazards in the City and contains policies to address those hazards. The information contained in the Safety Element is also used to influence the types and locations of land uses and circulation facilities throughout the City. According to the Safety Element, the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, earthquake-induced Landslide Hazard zone, or a fire hazard severity zone. The Project area is within the Prado Dam Inundation Area and the 100-Year (with flooding below 1 foot) to 500-Year Flood Zone as well as a liquefaction hazard zone (City of Anaheim 2023a). Potential seismic and geologic hazards are addressed in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, and potential flood hazards are addressed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The goals and policies of the Growth Management Element that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1.
Noise Element
The Noise Element includes the following: an overview of noise terminology; a description of the effects of noise on humans; applicable State regulations; a summary of the City’s noise environment; and a statement of goals, objectives, and policies designed to minimize existing and foreseeable noise impacts. The Noise Element is intended to be used as a guide in balancing land uses in the City to minimize incompatibilities and exposure to excessive noise while providing the range of uses needed to maintain a high quality of life. According to the Noise Element, sources of noise within the City of Anaheim include vehicular traffic, entertainment facilities, sports events, commercial and industrial activity, and periodic occurrences such as construction and aircraft travel. Portions of the Project Site are located within the 70, 65, and 60 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours associated with major circulation routes within the City, including Katella Avenue, Ball Road, and Harbor Boulevard. Portions of the Project Site are also located within the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL noise contours associated with the I-5. Additional information regarding the Noise Element and potential noise impacts resulting from the Project is provided in Section 5.11, Noise. The goals and policies of the Noise Element that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1.
Economic Development Element
The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to “guide the City in expanding the local economy, which provides jobs, attracts and retains businesses, supports diverse and vibrant commercial areas, and brings in sufficient revenue to support various local programs and services”. This element establishes goals and policies to ensure a prosperous economic future.
The goals and policies of the Economic Development Element that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are provided in Table 5.10-1.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-10 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Community Design Element
The Community Design Element helps to establish a positive and strong community identity for the City of Anaheim. This element provides policy guidance in unifying the diverse areas of the City through carefully crafted design policies. According to the Community Design Element, the Project Site is located within The Anaheim Resort community design district. Section 5.1, Aesthetics, addresses visual impacts and consistency with The Anaheim Resort. The goals and policies of the Community Design Element that are relevant to the Project, as well as a project consistency analysis, are included in Table 5.10-1.
Housing Element
The City’s Housing Element identifies policies designed to carry out the State, regional, and local general plan policies. The Housing Element policies relevant to the Project address the need for additional housing opportunities to meet continued demand and are identified in Table 5.10-1.
The California Department of Housing and Communi ty Development found the City’s Housing Element to be in compliance with State housing laws in 2009. The Anaheim City Council certified its Housing Element on August 11, 2009, incorporating the RHNA target and the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan goals. See Section 5.12, Population and Housing, for more information related to RHNA. In accordance with State law, the City initiated an update to the City’s Housing Element and, as of June 24, 2022, the City transmitted the revised 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element to the HCD and final approval is pending.
Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City in 2017 and amended in 2022 to guide implementation of citywide bicycle facilities, and is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility (City of Anaheim 2022). The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities that will improve multi-modal connectivity and increase bicycle mode share, especially for short trips. There are limited existing bikeways near the Project Site, including existing Class II bike lanes on West Orangewood Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard and along Chapman Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard. Class II bike lanes are proposed within the Bicycle Master Plan on the following streets within the Project area: West Ball Road, South Walnut Street, South Anaheim Boulevard, and South Haster Street. A Class I bikeway is proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan for the north side of West Disney Way between South Harbor Boulevard and South Anaheim Boulevard.
City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinance
The City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinance is the primary tool for implementing the City’s General Plan (City of Anaheim 2023b). It provides development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, site coverage, parking, and sign requirements), identifies allowable land uses, and specifies other regulations. In addition to guiding the uses, design and improvements of development projects, the Zoning Ordinance provides detailed guidance for development based on, and consistent with, the land use policies established in the General Plan.
5.10.2 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
Information for this section was compiled from the City of Anaheim General Plan (City of Anaheim 2004), the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR 330 (City of Anaheim 2004), the 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update (City of Anaheim 2022b), the Safety Element (Anaheim DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-11 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
2023a) and other related planning documents. Also, the DRSP and ARSP were reviewed to respond to the threshold questions in this section (City of Anaheim 1993, 1994, 1996, and 2012).
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criterion is derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.
Threshold 5.10a Would the project physically divide an established community? Threshold 5.10b Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Standard Requirements
No standard requirements for this resource topic apply to the Project.
D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.10a Would the project physically divide an established community? New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant. EIR No. 311 did not directly analyze impacts related to dividing an established community. SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP Project has the potential to divide or eliminate the established community present at two mobile home parks. However, pursuant to Section 18.26.070 the City’s Municipal Code, impacts associated with the conversion of the mobile home parks to other uses would be mitigated. Further, SEIR No. 340 determined that development pursuant to the ARSP would not create any land use incompatibilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the division of an established community were determined to be less than significant.
The Project Site is developed with a variety of land uses, with residential uses abutting the Project Site at various locations. The Project would not convert existing residential uses to commercial uses. Although the Project would involve redevel opment of currently developed areas, all areas are under the private ownership or control of the Applicant or related Disney entities and are currently developed with visitor-serving uses. Additionally, public access would be maintained around the Project Site along public roadways. The Project includes the abandonment of the public rights-of-way in Magic Way between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive, in Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and the southern property line of the proposed Southeast District of the DRSP, previously dedicated by Disney to the City, and in Hotel Way north of Disney Way.
Alternative pedestrian through-access as well as vehicular access to the Disneyland Hotel and Grand Californian would be provided in the areas of Magic Way to be abandoned as part of the Project. The Grand Californian would still be accessible via Disneyland Drive. The Project includes the construction of at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges north of Disney Way and south of Manchester Avenue to connect the east side of Harbor Boulevard with the Theme Park District and to enhance pedestrian access and circulation. The Project also includes the construction of up to two additional pedestria n bridges or crossings over Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue. These bridges would improve circulation and minimize potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Furthermore, the Project would implement pedestrian circulation improvements, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, which would improve community connectivity for pedestrians within the Project Site while not physically dividing a DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-12 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
community or area of development. Accordingly, the Project would not divide and established community.
The Project would result in a less than significant impact. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not evaluate physically dividing an established community. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.10b Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Reduced Impact from EIR No. 311; New Impact from SEIR No. 340 - Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would be consistent with all land use plans and policies as modified by The Disneyland Resort Project. EIR No. 311 also concluded that a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use incompatibilities between residential areas on the west side of Walnut Street and the proposed public parking and hotel parking facilities on the east side of Walnut Street would occur.
Additionally, it concluded that development of the Future Expansion District would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the adjacency of residential uses and development of uses other than parking facilities. In SEIR No. 340, the City concluded the ARSP Project would be consistent with the respective goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents, and no significant impacts would occur.
Implementation of the Project would allow for continued development of the currently entitled uses and would allow the ability to transfer previously approved uses to other Disney Properties within the Project Site. An analysis of the consistency of these land use-related actions with existing regional and local plans (including applicable goals and policies) is provided below. Although the Project would be developed over a period of decades based on market conditions and demand, the analysis describes the consistency of the Project with current local and regional plans and policies.
Connect SoCal
In the development of the demographic and growth assumptions associated with Connect SoCal, SCAG utilized parcel-level existing and future (general plan) land use designations. The Project would allow the transfer of previously approved uses to other Disney Properties within the Project Site. As such, the Project would not result in additional development over that previously analyzed and approved for full buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project; therefore, the Project would be consistent with the assumptions utilized to develop Connect SoCal.
Master Plan of Arterial Highways
The Project would require the approval of an amendment to the Orange County MPAH to implement the following: (1) removal of the planned extensions of Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street and of Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue, which are planned through the Southeast District of the DRSP and the Theme Park East Overlay in the ARSP; and (2) reclassification of Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard from a six-lane Major Arterial to a four-lane Primary Arterial. The MPAH seeks to balance regional mobility and local access and to coordinate with local jurisdictions’ land use plans. None of the three streets that would be modified with the proposed amendments serve regional traffic circulation needs. They provide local access to uses within The Anaheim Resort area, including Project uses. The proposed MPAH amendments are consistent DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-13 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
with proposed amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, the ARSP, and DRSP, and therefore are consistent with the purpose of the MPAH. Given that the Project includes the amendment of the MPAH, the Project would not conflict with the MPAH once OCTA approves the proposed amendment to the MPAH.
Orange County Congestion Management Plan
SB 743 resulted in a change to CEQA that now requires transportation impacts to be analyzed on the basis of VMT rather than LOS. As such, CEQA and the City Guidelines no longer require an analysis of a project’s impacts on LOS at CMP intersections. Nonetheless, a detailed LOS analysis was prepared to demonstrate consistency with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and each of the five CMP-monitored intersections were forecast to operate at LOS E or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. This analysis can be found in the Operational Traffic Analysis for the Disneyl andForward Project (LOS Analysis), prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc (August 2023) and included as Appendix J-2. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the CMP.
City of Anaheim
City of Anaheim General Plan
The City of Anaheim General Plan provides gui dance for long-term growth and development in the City through comprehensive plans for future development (City of Anaheim 2004). Land use designations and policies are developed to provide compatibility between existing and future land uses. The Project Site has been incorporated into the General Plan as a planned land use.
The Project would allow for continued development of a cohesive development plan with unique development regulations that would be specific to the Project, as set forth in the DRSP and the ARSP. Land uses would be designed and located to avoid potential new land use incompatibilities. The Project would involve the continued development of the Project Site with a mix of theme park and hotel uses and parking areas. Land use densities and allowed uses have been designed to complement existing land uses surrounding the Project Site, including maintaining consistency with the General Plan land use designations, and the Project would not directly impact these uses.
The Project would require approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan to describe the Project’s amended District names, new Overlays and associated uses. This amendment would allow the transfer of previously approved uses to other Disney Properties in the Project Site.
The Project also would require approval of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan for the following:
Approval of an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to remove the Class I Bike Path in the Southern California Edison right-of- way (ROW) between Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard and add a Class I Bike Path on the north side of Disney Way between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard; Approval of an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to add a Class I Bike Path on the west side of Clementine Street between Alro Way and Disney Way (limits subject to change based on determination of proposed dedication);
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-14 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Removal of the planned future extensions of Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue, and Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street, which are planned through the Southeast District of the DRSP and the adjacent Theme Park East Overlay in the ARSP;
Approval of an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Planned Roadway Network map (Figure C-1 of the General Plan Circulation Element) to reflect the following intersection lane configurations:
o At Harbor Boulevard & Convention Way, provide two left-turn lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane on the eastbound approach and one left-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach (consistent with existing configuration);
3 o At Haster Street & Gene Autry Way, provide a single shared left-turn/through/right- turn lane for the eastbound approach and three left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes for the westbound approach. The northbound approach would be equipped with a right-turn signal overlapping with the westbound left-turn signal phase; Reclassification of Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard from a six-lane Major Arterial to a four-lane Primary Arterial (with no reduction to the width of the ultimate public right-of-way); and
Approval of an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to modify the classification of the planned bike facility on Walnut Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road from a Class II Bike Lane to a Class I Bike Path on the east side of Walnut Street.
Approval of amendments to the General Plan al so would require amendments to maps, figures, text and tables throughout the General Plan. Table 5.10-1 addresses the consistency of the Project with the relevant goals and policies outlined in the City of Anaheim General Plan.
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Land Use Element
Goal 1.1 Preserve and enhance the
quality and character of
Anaheim’s mosaic of
unique neighborhoods.
Consistent. The underlying purpose of the Project is to allow continued, long-term growth of The Disneyland Resort Project, approved by the City in 1993, by allowing the transfer of previously approved theme park, hotel, and other retail, dining and entertainment uses to other Disney Properties in the Project Site to support a fully integrated, multi-day vacation destination.
The Project would limit development immediately adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods through compliance with height restrictions, landscape requirements, and setback requirements as detailed in Se ction 3.0, Project Description, and discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics. Therefore, the Project Policy 1 Actively pursue
development standards
and design policies to
preserve and enhance the
quality and character of
Anaheim’s many
neighborhoods.
3 The final intersection configuration is subject to c hange and will be finalized when a site-specific access analysis is conducted for the Theme Park East Overlay.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-15 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 2 Ensure that new
development is designed
in a manner that preserves
the quality of life in existing
neighborhoods.
would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and
would not detract from their quality and character.
Goal 3.1 Pursue land uses along
major corridors that
enhance the City’s image
and stimulate appropriate
development at strategic
locations.
Consistent. As discussed previously in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project Site is located along several major circulation routes including Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, wh ich are designated as the Central Core of The Anaheim Resort. Consistent with the intent of the original DRSP and ARSP, the Project would facilitate the development of visitor-serving uses, the majority of which would front onto major transportation corridors. All development and redevelopment would comply with development standards and design guidelines set forth in the DRSP and, as applicable, the ARSP, to maintain a consistent image throughout the Project Site and surrounding areas.
Policy 3 Ensure quality
development along
corridors through
adherence to established
development standards
and Community Design
Element goals, policies
and guidelines.
Consistent. Development along roadways (corridors) would be subject to the Design Plans of the DRSP and ARSP, which promote visual continuity thro ughout the Project Site through the use of development stand ards and design guidelines, landscaping, street furniture, signage, lighting, color, and other visual elements.
Policy 4 Continue to pursue
additional open space,
recreation, and
landscaping amenities
along major transportation
routes.
Consistent. Although the Project does not designate any areas for open space or recreation, there are requirements for landscaping along all major roadways within The Anaheim Resort. All new development or redevelopment would be
subject to the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the DRSP or ARSP, as applicable.
Goal 3.2 Maximize development
opportunities along
transportation routes.
Consistent. The Project Site is located along several major circulation routes including Katella Avenue and Harbor
Boulevard, which are designated as the Central Core of The Anaheim Resort. Consistent with the intent of the original DRSP and ARSP, the Project would facilitate the development of visitor-serving uses, the majority of which would front onto major transportation corridors that which are served by the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) syst em, which provides shuttle service access to a variety of Resort uses destinations as well as the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC).
Policy 1 Where appropriate,
designate land adjacent to
freeways, proposed Bus
Rapid Transit stops and
Metrolink stations for
employment intensive land
uses.
Goal 4.1 Promote development that
integrates with and
minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses.
Consistent. All future development within the Project Site would be subject to development standards and design
guidelines set forth in the DRSP and ARSP. The Project would involve the transfer of previo usly approved uses under The Disneyland Resort Project to other areas of the DRSP and Disney ARSP Properties. The Project would expand upon the current land use pattern within the Project Site, providing a more integrated and cohesive development. The location and density of future land uses would be determined based on compatibility with on-site and surrounding land uses. The Project would Policy 1 Ensure that land uses
develop in accordance with
the Land Use Plan and
Zoning Code in an effort to
attain land use
compatibility.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-16 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 2 Promote compatible
development through
adherence to Community
Design Element policies
and guidelines.
potentially introduce new land uses adjacent to off-site residential areas, including along Walnut Street and south and east of the Southeast District and Theme Park East Overlay.
EIR No. 311 concluded that development adjacent to existing land uses would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use compatibility. However, in addition to the design of the Project as discuss ed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, which requires adherence to setbacks and height restrictions as detailed in Table 5.1-1, M odifications to the Anaheim
Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map and the DRSP and ARSP Zoning and Development Standards, the Project would implement development
standards and design guidelines as set forth in the DRSP and ARSP to minimize impacts between these land uses.
The
DRSP and ARSP include policies and methods for establishing and maintaining a unified resort identity, which would help to ensure compatibility. Also, “setback realm areas” have been incorporated into the Project, which include enhanced
landscaping to ensure future compatibility with surrounding areas as buildout of the Project occurs (City of Anaheim 2022c).
Compliance with these development standards and design
guidelines would reduce impacts to less than significant levels related to land use compatibility, which would be a reduction in impact from the impact analysis in EIR No. 311.
Policy 3 Ensure that developers
consider and address
project impacts upon
surrounding
neighborhoods during the
design and development
process.
Policy 4 Require new or expanded
uses to provide mitigation
or buffers between existing
uses where potential
adverse impacts could
occur.
Goal 5.1 Create and enhance
dynamic, identifiable
places for the benefit of
Anaheim residents,
employees and visitors.
Consistent. As stated previously, future development within the Project Site would be subject to development standards and design guidelines set forth in the DRSP or ARSP as well as The Anaheim Resort Identity Program and The Anaheim Resort
Public Realm Landscape Program, as applicable. Specifically, development along the major transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and str eet furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. The Project’s system of sidewalks provides easy access to a variety of land uses within and adjacent to The Dis neyland Resort and the Disney ARSP Properties. In addition to the enhanced pedestrian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by the Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) system, which provides access to a variety of resort uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC.
Additionally, Disney would continue to implement and
administer a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program for all cast members and continue to participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). The Project would continue to implement a variety of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future cast member commute options, including, but not limit ed to, ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes, commuter busses, and shuttle services.
Policy 1 1) Encourage mixed-use
and commercial
development that provides:
a) Safe, protected places
for pedestrians to walk;
b) Attractive surroundings;
c) Opportunities for social
interaction;
d) Comfortable places to
sit and relax; and
e) Interplay between the
interior uses of buildings
and outdoor activities,
such as sidewalk cafes or
tastefully designed outdoor
merchandise displays.
Policy 4 Promote development that
is efficient, pedestrian-
friendly, and served by a
variety of transportation
options.
Goal 6.1 Enhance the quality of life
and economic vitality in
Anaheim through strategic
infill development and
revitalization of existing
development.
Consistent. Buildout of the Project Site would provide for a variety of uses specific to The Disneyland Resort, including theme park and hotel uses, and parking areas. Due to the largely developed nature of the Project Site, the majority of development would consist of ei ther redevelopment or infill development. All future development would be subject to development standards and design guidelines set forth in the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-17 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis DRSP or, as applicable, the ARSP for Disney ARSP Properties, to ensure quality development. The Project would allow the continued development of a visitor-serving district as
established by The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project. Allowable land uses include a balance of visitor-serving uses including hotel, theme park, and related commercial, retail, and restaurant uses. Continu ed development associated with the Project would enhance the role of the Disneyland Resort as a strong economic base for the City by attracting visitors who, in turn, support other local businesses and help the growth of the economy.
Circulation Element
Goal 1.1 Provide a comprehensive
multimodal transportation
system that facilitates
current and long-term
circulation of people and
goods in and through the
City.
Consistent. As part of The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, the circulation system around The Anaheim Resort was improved to facilitate movement of vehicles and pedestrians around The Anaheim Resort. The Project supports alternative transportation modes through provision of bicycle parking, pedestrian infrastructure, transit support, and TDM measures. Bicycle parking is provided for cast members at key locations throughout The Disneyland Resort and would
continue to be installed as r equired by the City. The Project proposes installation of at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard in conjunction with construction of a parking structure and potential relocation of the transit center, and provides a network of pedestrian paths and
sidewalks throughout The Anaheim Resort to provide easy access to a variety of land uses within and adjacent to the Resort area. The Project also proposes up to two additional pedestrian bridges or crossings over Disneyland Drive.
Development along the major transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and str eet furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. In addition to the enhanced pedestrian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by the Anaheim Resort Trans portation (ART) system, which provides access to a variety of land uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC.
Additionally, Disney would continue to implement and
administer a TDM program for all cast members. The Project would continue to implement a variety of TDM program
strategies and elements for both existing and future cast member commute options, incl uding, but not limited to, ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes, commuter busses, and shuttle services.
Additionally, the Project includes several circulation
improvements which are detailed Table 19 (Recommended
Intersection Improvements and 20 (Other Transportation
Improvements) of the Operatio nal Traffic Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project, included as Appendix J-2).
Feasible Intersection Improvements
Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way: Add westbound
left turn lane, restripe westbound through lane to share westbound through/right turn lane and eliminate north
leg crosswalk
Policy 3 Require that major new
development proposals
include traffic impact
analyses that identify
measures and financing to
mitigate traffic impacts.
Policy 6 Ensure the provision of
needed transportation
improvements through the
site plan and
environmental review
process.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-18 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue: Re-program
the traffic signal to double-service the westbound turn lane to reduce westbound turn lane queuing
Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue: Add
northbound turn lane and southbound turn lane
Clementine Street and Katella Avenue: Add
southbound turn lane
Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street and Katella Avenue:
Lengthen southbound turn lane and westbound turn
lane pockets to accommodate queues
Operational Improvement Funding
Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road
Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue
Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road
Anaheim Boulevard/Hast er Street and Katella
Avenue
Other Improvements
Installation of a pedestrian signal on Walnut Street at Magic Way
Installation of Class I Bike Path with a single two-way, off-street, shared-use pathway for pedestrians and
bicycles with a minimum width of 10 feet
4 on the east
side of Walnut Street from Ball Road to Katella Avenue
Installation of (1) a Class I Bike Path with a minimum width of 10 feet on the north side of Disney Way
between Anaheim Boulevard
5 and Clementine Street;
(2) a Class I Bike Path with a minimum width of 10 feet on the west side of Clement ine Street between Alro
Way and Disney Way; and (3) a bike parking facility in
the East Parking Area and/or Parking Overlay
Provision in-lieu contribution and dedicate ROW
adjacent to the Project Site on Ball Road and Haster
Street for proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes on those
streets
Installation of traffic signal control at the existing driveway to the Southeast District on Haster Street
south of Katella Avenue6
Installation of traffic signal control at the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Clementine Street and Alro Way7
4 Where utility relocations are not f easible, the pathway may include brief sections with a minimum width of 8 feet. 5 The portion between Anaheim Boulevard and the I-5 s outhbound off-ramp is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Disney and the City would work with Caltrans to approve and implement this Bike Path. 6 This action would be subject to a traffic signal warrant analysis. 7 This action would be subject to a traffic signal warrant analysis.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-19 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Construction of at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way
and south of Manchester Avenue with public access
to/from the sidewalk on Harbor Boulevard
Widen Katella Avenue to four westbound lanes along
Disney’s property adjacent to the Theme Park District
from Disneyland Drive to approximately 800 feet west
of Harbor Boulevard
Widen Katella Avenue to four eastbound lanes along
Disney’s property adjacent to the Southeast District
(from approximately 700 fe et west of Clementine
Street to approximately 40 0 feet east of Clementine
Street)
Moreover, Construction Traffic Management and Trip
Reduction Plans would be developed prior to approval of any grading or demolition plans for the Project.
Policy 9 Consider aesthetics,
including the provision of
appropriate landscaping, in
the development of arterial
highways.
Consistent. Development along roadways (corridors) would be subject to the Design Plans of the DRSP and ARSP, which promote visual continuity thro ughout the Project Site through the use of development stand ards and design guidelines, landscaping, street furniture, signage, lighting, color, and other visual elements.
Goal 2.1 Maintain efficient traffic
operations on City streets
and maintain a peak hour
level of service not worse
than D at street
intersections.
Consistent. In accordance with the City of Anaheim Criteria for the Preparation of Traffic Im pact Studies, the Project was evaluated for any effects on the existing and future circulation system. Where intersection defici encies were identified, the Project is responsible for either implementing for contributing its fair share to feasible improvements as described in the analysis under Circulation Element Goal 1.1, above.
Policy 1 Make improvements to
streets and intersections
experiencing conditions
worse than the applicable
Level of Service standard
by providing appropriate
improvements, including,
but not limited to:
Landscaped median
islands to restrict left
turns, with median
opening spacing
occurring a minimum
of 400 feet apart, and
preferably limited to
signalized locations.
Adequate driveway
spacing of 125 feet (at
30 mph) to 230 feet (at
45 mph) between
driveways on arterial
highways.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-20 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Install new warranted
signals as funding permits,
with minimum preferred
spacing of 1,000 feet apart.
Consistent. Based on review of forecasted traffic conditions and in an effort to improve tr affic capacity and smooth traffic flow, the Project would install traffic signal control at: 1) the existing driveway to the Southeast District on Haster Street south of Katella Avenue subject to a traffic signal warrant; and 2) the intersection of Manchester Avenue/Clementine Street and Alro Way subject to a traffic signal warrant.
Goal 2.2 Provide a safe circulation
system.
Consistent. The Project would not involve the construction of any new roadways, nor would the Project involve any new geometric design features that would have the potential to substantially increase hazards. Also, the Project does not propose any new uses that would be incompatible with the existing transportation system or with other nearby land uses as the Project proposes to redistribute previously approved uses on Disney Properties in the Project Site.
The Project directly supports a safe circulation system through the provision of the East Espl anade transit center west of Harbor Boulevard to locate bus and shuttle loading off-street.
The Project would construct a parking facility in the East Parking Area, at which time it would c onstruct at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges north of Disney Way and south of Manchester Avenue to connect the east side of Harbor
Boulevard with the Theme Park District and to separate
pedestrians from vehicle traffic. The Project proposes to abandon the public rights-of-way in Magic Way between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive, in Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and the southern property line of the proposed Southeast District of the DRSP, previously dedicated by Disney to the City, and in Hotel Way north of Disney Way. Additionally, the Project would install a pedestrian signal across Walnut Street at Magic Way. All Project access points would be designed to City standards and would be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works for safe design and operation.
As stated previously, de velopment along the major
transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. The Project’s system of sidewalks provides easy access to a variety of land uses within and adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. In addition to the enhanced pedes trian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by th e ART system, which provides access to a variety of uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC.
Policy 1 Promote the principle that
streets have multiple uses
and users, and protect the
safety of all users.
Policy 2 Discourage high speed,
through traffic on local
streets with appropriate
traffic calming measures
(e.g., traffic enforcement,
bulb-outs, lane striping,
chokers, etc.).
Policy 3 Design access onto major
arterial streets in an orderly
and controlled manner.
Policy 4 Promote common
driveways and reduce curb
cuts along arterial
highways to minimize
impacts to traffic flows.
Policy 5 Minimize disruptions to
traffic and
pedestrian/bicycle flow.
Policy 6 Implement street design
features such as the use of
medians, bus turnouts,
consolidated driveways
and on street parking
prohibitions to minimize
mid-block traffic
congestion.
Policy 7 Implement street design
features that discourage
through traffic intrusion on
residential streets.
Policy 10 Provide adequate sight
distances for safe
vehicular movement on
roadways, at intersections
and at driveways.
Goal 5.1 Promote bus service and
paratransit improvements.
Consistent. As stated previously, development along the major transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. The Project’s system of sidewalks provides easy access to a variety Policy 3 Support transit supportive
land uses in new
development.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-21 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 5 Intensify land uses in close
proximity to future BRT
stop(s) where appropriate.
of land uses within and adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. In addition to the enhanced pedes trian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by th e ART system, which provides access to a variety of uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC.
Additionally, Disney would continue to implement and
administer a TDM program for all cast members and continue to participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN).
The Project would continue to implement a variety of TDM program strategies and element s for both existing and future cast member commute options, in cluding, but not limited to, ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes, commuter busses, and shuttle services. Disney also would continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the ART system.
The Disneyland Resort is served by multiple bus lines and Disney provides bus and shuttle stops at the East Esplanade transit center west of Harbor Boulevard. Also, The Disneyland Resort is designed to accommodate people with all levels of mobility, providing accessibility for wheelchair users and people pushing strollers.
Policy 6 Improve pedestrian access
to transit facilities.
Goal 7.1 Protect and encourage
bicycle travel.
Consistent. The Project would not impact any existing bicycle lanes. The Construction Management Plan that would be
prepared prior to approval of any demolition or grading for the Project would include details on the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities during construction and connectivity through the Project Site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Bicycle parking is provided for cast members at key locations throughout The Disneyland Resort and would continue to be installed as required by the City and Disney’s TDM program.
The Project would implement t he following bicycle circulation improvements:
Installation of Class I Bike Path with a single two-way, off-street, shared-use pathway for pedestrians and
bicycles with a minimum width of 10 feet on the east
side of Walnut Street from Ball Road to Katella
Avenue;
Installation of (1) a Class I Bike Path with a minimum width of 10 feet on the north side of Disney Way
between Anaheim Boulevard8 and Clementine Street;
(2) a Class I Bike Path with a minimum width of 10 feet on the west side of Clement ine Street between Alro
Way and Disney Way; and (3) a bike parking facility in
the East Parking Area and/or Parking Overlay; and
Provide in-lieu contri bution and dedicate ROW
adjacent to the Project Site on Ball Road and Haster
Street for proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes on those
streets.
Policy 2 Incorporate bicycle
planning into the traditional
transportation planning
process.
Policy 3 Support and implement
bicycle routes that
minimize cyclist/motorist
conflicts.
8 The portion between Anaheim Boulevard and the I-5 s outhbound off-ramp is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Disney and the City would work with Caltrans to approve and implement this Bike Path.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-22 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 8.1 Protect and encourage
pedestrian travel.
Consistent. All future development within the Project Site would be subject to development standards and design
guidelines set forth in the Design Plans for the DRSP and the ARSP, as applicable. Consist ent with development within The Disneyland Resort and the ARSP area to date, future
development would continue to focus on centralized parking facilities that connect to an integrated system of pedestrian- oriented pathways and walkways connecting to hotels, retail and dining, and theme parks. As detailed in the Design Plans, landscaping, lighting, and comp lementary features such as pedestrian-friendly furnishings would be located along the walkways to provide an enhanced experience. From the parking facilities and within the Project Site, pedestrian circulation would be directed to protected routes, or those that are physically separated from roadways and avoi d street crossings. The Project would include at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges south of Manchester Avenue and north of Disney Way to provide connection between the East Parking Area parking structure and the Theme Park District without impeding traffic flow. The Project also would include up to two additional pedestrian bridges or crossings over Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue. In addition to the enhanced pedestrian areas, the parking facilities would also be served by the Disney-operated tram system, providing direct access to retail and dining areas and theme parks. Implementation of these pedestrian improvements would encourage motorists to park their vehicles and travel by foot throughout The Anaheim Resort (i.e., park once and walk to the other destinations).
With the removal of the planned extensions of Clementine Street and Gene Autry Way, fu ture sidewalks along those streets would also be eliminated from the General Plan. Despite the closure of Magic Way, pedestrian connectivity would be maintained from Ball Road and Katella Avenue to the Theme Park District and between Walnut Street, Disneyland Drive, Harbor Boulevard and the Theme Park District.
Future development within the Project Site would be subject to specific development standards intended to enhance the
pedestrian experience with a focus on accessibility and safe passage.
Policy 1 Encourage and improve
pedestrian facilities that
link development to the
circulation network and
that serve as a transition
between other modes of
travel.
Policy 2 Improve pedestrian and
bicycle connections from
residential neighborhoods
to retail activity centers,
employment centers,
schools, parks, open
space areas and
community centers.
Policy 5 Add raised, landscaped
medians, and bulbouts,
where appropriate, to
reduce exposure to cross
traffic at street crossings.
Policy 6 When appropriate,
walkways should include
pedestrian amenities such
as shade trees and/or
plantings, trash bins,
benches, shelters, and
directional kiosks.
Policy 7 Ensure that streets and
intersections are designed
to provide visibility and
safety for pedestrians.
Policy 10 Require commercial
developments to provide
specific pedestrian access
points independent from
auto entrances.
Goal 9.1 Provide carpooling and
vanpooling opportunities
for commuters.
Consistent. Disney would continue to implement and
administer a TDM program for all cast members and continue to participate in ATN. The Project would continue to implement a variety of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future cast member commute options, including, but not limited to, ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes, commuter busses, and shuttle services. The Project’s TDM program also includes carpool/vanpool matching services for Disney cast members and provides financial support and
incentives for participation.
Policy 2 Continue to encourage
vanpooling for City
residents and workers.
Policy 4 Cooperate with public or
private providers of
vanpool services and
publicize vanpool options
to residents.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-23 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 12.1 Ensure adequate parking
is made available to City
residents, visitors, and
businesses.
Consistent. Parking associated with new development within the Project Site would be subject to existing parking
requirements set forth in Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code and would be subject to review and approval by the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
The Project includes allowances for thousands of parking spaces for theme park guests, hotel guests, and cast members in various locations throughout the Project Site. The West Parking Area allows up to 16 ,700 parking spaces, the East Parking Area allows up to 17,600 spaces, the Future Expansion district allows up to 5,100 s paces, the Theme Park District allows up to 12,230 spaces, and t he parking overlay at Harbor Cast Member Lot would allow up to 5,700 parking spaces.
Disney actively manages parking demand for guests and cast members and provides programs and financial incentives to encourage cast members not to drive a vehicle to The
Disneyland Resort. Disney parking facilities incorporate aesthetic design features and visual and acoustic screening to the City’s satisfaction and provide bicycle parking according to City requirements.
Policy 1 Assess the adequacy of
existing or proposed on-
and off-street parking as
needed, especially in
urban and commercial
areas, to ensure that an
adequate supply is
provided.
Policy 5 Encourage the use of well-
designed, aesthetically-
enhanced parking
structures as an alternative
to large, expansive surface
parking lots.
Consistent. Future development of parking areas, including parking structures, would be subject to requirements set forth in the Design Plans of the DRSP and ARSP, as applicable,
intended to enhance the visual appearance of parking areas.
Specifically, the Design Plans identify parking area design requirements including the location of parking areas to the rear or side of buildings, and development standards and design guidelines for parking structures to both enhance the exterior appearance of the parking structure and conceal views of cars inside the structures. The Design Plans also identify required setbacks from adjacent public street rights-of-way and require a minimum amount of landscaping within the setback areas, including large-scale materials planted according the layered landscape principles details in the Design Plans.
Policy 6 Encourage businesses to
provide bicycle parking
facilities such as bike racks
and lockers to promote
bicycling.
Consistent. Bicycle parking is provided for cast members at key locations throughout The Disneyland Resort and would continue to be installed as required by the City and Disney’s TDM program. The Project would implement the following
bicycle circulation improvements:
Installation of Class I Bike Path with a single two-way, off-street, shared-use pathway for pedestrians and
bicycles with a minimum width of 10 feet on the east
side of Walnut Street from Ball Road to Katella
Avenue;
Installation of (1) a Class I Bike Path with a minimum width of 10 feet on the north side of Disney Way
between Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street;
(2) a single two-way, off-street, shared-use pathway
for pedestrians and bicycles with a minimum width of
10 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between
Alro Way and Disney Way; and (3) a bike parking
facility in the East Parking Area and/or Parking Overlay just north of the East Parking Area; and
Provide in-lieu cont ribution and dedicate ROW
adjacent to the Project Site on Ball Road and Haster
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-24 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Street for proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes on those
streets.
Green Element
Goal 3.1 Actively plan for the use of
utility easements as
recreational trails and open
space amenities.
Consistent. As part of the Project, Disney Way would be reclassified from a six-lane Major Arterial to a four-lane Primary Arterial (with no change to the width of the ultimate public right- of-way) to provide flexibility in the implementation of access for the East Parking Area.
The Project would also require approval of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan to add new Bike Paths, as detailed previously under Goal 7.1, Policy 3, of the Circulation Element.
The Project is consistent with Goal 3.1 as the changes
discussed above will provide for bike access to a new bike parking facility in the DRSP East Parking Area and/or the ARSP Parking Overlay where there will be pedestrian access to Harbor Boulevard and the Theme Park District.
Goal 5.1 Continue Anaheim’s water
conservation efforts to
ensure that all City facilities
are water efficient.
Consistent. All future development associated with the Project would be subject to the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance, including the mandatory cuts authorized by Section 10.18.070 of the Ordinance, if needed, which would achieve substantial water use savings. In pursuit of environmental sustainability on the Project Site, Disney has successfully implemented various initiatives that go beyond comp liance with federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations. As part of this Project, the following key water-conserving features would be incorporated:
Use of high-efficiency light-emitting diode (LED) indoor and outdoor lighting;
Use of water-efficient landscaping, with no turf;
Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; Use of waterways re-circulation systems;
Use of 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 irrigatio n systems such as drip
irrigation and autom atic systems which use moisture
sensors;
Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels;
Use of water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers,
clothes washers, and other water-using appliances;
Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when
evaporation rates are lowest;
Policy 3 Specify and install water-
conserving plumbing
fixtures and fittings in
public facilities such as
parks, community centers,
and government buildings.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-25 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Display of water conservation information to the public in conspicuous places;
Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials
wherever feasible; and
Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the
use of water for washdown of exterior areas.
Goal 5.2 Continue and expand
Anaheim’s educational
outreach and incentives
programs aimed at water
conservation.
Consistent. In pursuit of environmental sustainability on the Project Site, Disney has successfully implemented various initiatives that go beyond comp liance with federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations. As part of this Project, Disney would continue to engage in water conservation efforts, including implementation of water conservation measures, efficiency and reuse and use of water-friendly landscaping. Disney would also continue to work with the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to develop a process for storing water instead of releasing it to the ocean through storm drains. When large bodies of water or water attractions are drained at the resort, the water is sent to the OCWD’s
Groundwater Replenishment System , where it is purified and added to Orange County’s groundwater supply.
Policy 3 Continue to encourage
landscape projects
employing water efficient
irrigation.
Goal 7.1 Reduce urban run-off from
new and existing
development.
Consistent. All future development associated with the Project would be required to comply with federal and State
requirements related to water quality, including the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ordinance for construction and operation. Further, future development projects would be r equired to prepare individual Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) that identify (1) the potential pollutants of concern t hat would be generated by the Project and (2) the site and hydrologic conditions of concern at downstream locations. The WQMP would identify permanent site design, source control, and treatment control best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented as part of the Project, including maintenance responsibilities and funding sources, and would be signed as a notarized agreement between the City and the Property Owner/Developer to provide a long-term commitment to its implementation. Preparation and implementation of a WQMP for new development would satisfy MS4 Permit requirements and allow the City to comply with the water quality standards for storm water runoff.
Policy 1 Ensure compliance with
the Federal Clean Water
Act requirements for
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits,
including developing and
requiring the development
of Water Quality
Management Plans for all
new development and
significant redevelopment
in the City.
Policy 2 Continue to implement an
urban runoff reduction
program consistent with
regional and federal
requirements, which
includes requiring and
encouraging the following:
Increase permeable
areas and install
filtration controls
(including grass lined
swales and gravel
beds) and divert flow
to these permeable
areas to allow more
percolation of runoff
into the ground;
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-26 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Use natural drainage,
detention ponds or
infiltration pits to
collect runoff; and,
Prevent rainfall from
entering material and
waste storage areas
and pollution-laden
surfaces.
Policy 4 Require new development
and significant
redevelopment to utilize
site preparation, grading
and best management
practices that provide
erosion and sediment
control to prevent
construction-related
contaminants from leaving
the site and polluting
waterways.
Goal 8.1 Reduce locally generated
emissions through
improved traffic flows and
construction management
practices.
Consistent. Construction and operation related to the
implementation of the Project would generate emissions related to earth disturbance, constructi on activities, daily operational activities, and vehicular traffic. Adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403 would reduce fugitive dust emissions and Rule 1113 would reduce emissions associated with architectural c oatings. Improvements to the circulation system would also reduce vehicular emissions through improved traffic flows and intersection wait time.
Policy 1 Reduce ve hicle emissions
through traffic flow
improvements, such as
traffic signal
synchronization, Intelligent
Transportation Systems,
the Scoot Adaptive Traffic
Control System, and
related capital
improvements.
Policy 2 Regulate construction
practices, including
grading, dust suppression,
chemical management,
and encourage pre-
determined construction
routes that minimize dust
and particulate matter
pollution.
Goal 9.1 Reduce single-occupancy
vehicle trips
Consistent. The Anaheim Resort, including the Project Site, is served by the ART system, which provides shuttle service among access to a variety of Resort destinations as well as uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC. In addition to access to these transit options, Disney’s current TDM program 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; Policy 1 Encourage alternative
work schedules for public
and private sector workers.
Policy 2 Encourage development of
new commercial and
industrial projects that
provide on-site amenities
that help to lesson vehicle
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-27 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis trips such as on-site day
care facilities, cafeterias,
automated teller machines
and bicycle storage
facilities.
incentives for using alternative travel modes; flex schedule and telecommuting; electric vehicle parking and incentives; shuttle services; and promotions, ma rketing, and education of the programs and incentives. Disney will also continue to participate in the ATN.
Additionally, the Project includes several transportation infrastructure improvements as discussed previously under Goal 1.1 of the Circulation Element.
The Project also would improve bicycle circulation and
amenities under Goal 7.1, Policy 3, above.
Policy 3 Encourage use of
vanpools and carpools by
providing priority parking
through the project design
process.
Policy 4 Encourage bicycle and
pedestrian travel by
improving the City’s trail
and bikeway Master Plan
and by providing
convenient links between
the trail system and
desired destinations.
Goal 11.1 Encourage land planning
and urban design that
support alternatives to the
private automobile such as
mixed-use, provision of
pedestrian amenities, and
transit-oriented
development.
Consistent. The Disneyland Resort Project proposes parking structures on the west and east sides of the Resort so guests traveling to the Resort park t heir vehicles and then use mass transit or pedestrian amenities to circulate throughout the Resort. Additionally, development along the major
transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. The Project’s system of sidewalks provides easy access to a variety of land uses within and adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. In addition to the enhanced pedes trian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by th e ART system, which provides access to a variety of uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the AR TIC. This continued provision of pedestrian access throughout The Anaheim Resort provides opportunities for visitors to access the surrounding area and patronize local commercial and retail uses.
Additionally, all future development pursuant to the DRSP and the ARSP would be in accordance with the General Plan
Commercial Recreation land use designation, which is intended to provide for tourist and entertainment-related industries, such as theme parks, hotels, tourist- oriented retail, movie theaters, and other visitor-serving facilities.
Policy 1 Encourage commercial
growth and the
development of
commercial centers in
accordance with the Land
Use Element.
Goal 14.1 Conserve natural habitat
and protect rare,
threatened and
endangered species.
Consistent. The Project would be subject to State law
concerning migratory birds and/or nesting raptors when habitat is present which would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.
Goal 15.2 Continue to encourage site
design practices that
reduce and conserve
energy.
Consistent. Future development associated with the Project would incorporate energy-saving practices as detailed in the DRSP and ARSP, including use of energy-saving equipment and other high-efficiency systems. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, The
Disneyland Resort has successfully implemented various
initiatives that go beyond comp liance 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 Policy 1 Encourage increased use
of passive and active solar
design in existing and new
development (e.g.,
orienting buildings to
maximize exposure to
cooling effects of prevailing
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-28 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis winds and locating
landscaping and
landscape structures to
shade buildings).
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted more responsible resource use. These initiatives would continue to be applied as part of Project buildout.
Goal 16.1 Continue to monitor and
improve the Anaheim
Recycle program.
Consistent. The Disneyland Resort and Disney-owned ARSP properties are currently and w ould continue to be served by independent waste haulers. Addi tionally, the City of Anaheim maintains a comprehensive recycling program with the goal of reducing solid waste by 50 percent. Anaheim Waste Disposal provides all recovered recyclabl e residential an d commercial waste to a hauling facility where recyclable materials are sorted.
As discussed 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, including:
Each year, Disney’s Property Control department
collects and repurposes over one million pounds of
company assets that the company no longer needs.
These include theme park props, décor, furniture, and
appliances removed during refurbishments. The
assets are reused internally, offered to cast members
and/or donated to local charities;
Disney maintains a recycling program that has grown
into a comprehensive resort-wide effort, both onstage
and backstage. Over 25 different commodities are
collected at the resort for recycling, including
cardboard, paper, plastics, glass, metal, food waste,
green waste and construction debris. With these
efforts, Disney diverts more than 30 million pounds of
materials from landfill annually; and
Since launching a food scraps program in 2013,
Disney continues to make great strides in reducing and
recovering food waste. Today, this program diverts
over five million pounds of food waste from landfills
annually. In 2019, participation expanded throughout
the resort to include locations in food and beverage
service areas, storefronts, and office buildings. This
program has been recognized by external groups
multiple times, including most recently by the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Challenge in 2020.
The Walt Disney Company has also identified the following goals related to sustainability:
Waste
Zero waste to landfill for wholly owned and operated
parks and resorts
Materials
Use recycled, certified, or verified sustainable paper At least 30 percent recycled plastic in products and
packaging
Design packaging for reuse, recycling, or composting
Policy 2 Provide adequate solid
waste collection and
recycling for commercial
areas and construction
activities.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-29 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Use of recycled content or sustainable textiles for
apparel
Sustainable production processes for products
Sustainable Design
New projects achieve near net zero, maximize water
efficiencies and are designed to support zero waste
operations
90 percent diversion for construction waste for
domestic and European Union projects
The Project would also incorporate the following key features:
Use of recycled paper products for stationery,
letterhead, and packaging;
Recovery of materials such as: food scraps,
cardboard, recyclables, landscape material, kitchen
grease, scrap metal and many other recoverable
materials that align with our zero-waste goal; and
Continued participation in the City of Anaheim’s
voluntary “Recycle Anah eim” program or other
substitute program as may be developed by the City.
As discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, Disney would continue to implem ent its solid waste diversion program to reduce the amount of solid waste being transported to the landfill. The Project also would comply with local statutes and regulations related to waste reduction.
Goal 17.1 Encourage building and
site design standards that
reduce energy costs.
Consistent. As discussed 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, including:
An early focus of Disney’s environmentally-focused
culture, Disneyland Railr oad steam trains and the
Mark Twain Riverboat were converted in 2009 to be
fueled with 99.9 percent biodiesel made from used
kitchen cooking oil, replacin g the 200,000+ gallons of petroleum diesel fuel previously used every year to
fuel those attractions;
In 2016, Cars Land received a 40,000-square-foot
photovoltaic system (solar array) atop the Radiator
Springs Racers attraction;
In 2016, Disney successfully completed a ten-year
diesel minimization plan through which Disneyland
Finding Nemo submarines were re-powered with zero
emission technology, diesel-fueled construction light
towers were replaced with solar light towers, and
diesel-fueled pressure washers were replaced with
propane or electric units. This initiative reduced
Disney’s diesel fuel consumption by nearly 90 percent;
Since 2014, Disney has de ployed over 400 electric
vehicle charging ports for guests and cast members,
Policy 1 Encourage designs that
incorporate solar and wind
exposure features such as
daylighting design, natural
ventilation, space planning
and thermal massing.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-30 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis and intends to continue growing its EV-charging
infrastructure;
Over the years, Disney has placed considerable
emphasis on reducing water consumption through
various conservation measures, efficiency and reuse.
In 2019, Disney used less potable water than in 2009,
all while serving many more guests;
Disney manages its irrigation based on changing
weather conditions using an on-site weather system
comprised of satellite irrigation controllers around the resort. The weather system’s features include drip
irrigation, flow sensors and cut off valves, soil moisture sensors and water-friendly planting, among other
features;
Disney worked with the Orange County Water District
(OCWD) to develop a process for storing water instead
of releasing it to the ocean through storm drains. When large bodies of water or water attractions are drained
at the resort, the water is sent to the OCWD’s
Groundwater Replenishment System, where it is
purified and added to Orange County’s groundwater
supply;
Each year, Disney’s Property Control department
collects and repurposes over one million pounds of
company assets that the company no longer needs.
These include theme park props, décor, furniture, and
appliances removed during refurbishments. The
assets are reused internally, offered to cast members
and/or donated to local charities;
Disney maintains a recycling program that has grown
into a comprehensive resort-wide effort, both onstage
and backstage. Over 25 different commodities are
collected at the resort for recycling, including
cardboard, paper, plastics, glass, metal, food waste,
green waste and construction debris. With these
efforts, Disney diverts more than 30 million pounds of
materials from landfill annually; and
Since launching a food scraps program in 2013, Disney
continues to make great strides in reducing and recovering food waste. Today, this program divert s over five million pounds of food waste from landfills annually. In 2019, participation expanded throughout the resort to include locations in food and beverage service areas, storefronts, and office buildings. This program has been recognized by external groups multiple times, including most recently by the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Challenge in 2020. Additionally, future development within the Project Site would be required to demonstrate that future development meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the applicable California Green Building
Standards (24 CCR 11). Adherence to these requirements
would comply with Goal 17.1 and the associated policy.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal 1.1 Provide sufficient staffing,
equipment and facilities to
Consistent. Implementation of the Project would allow the transfer of previously approved uses to Disney Properties DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-31 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis ensure effective fire
protection, emergency
medical and rescue
services, permitting and
fire inspection, and
hazardous material
response services that
keep pace with growth.
throughout the Project Site, as detailed in Section 3.0 of this Subsequent EIR. No new uses are proposed, however,
previously approved uses could occur in different locations and configurations within the Project Site. These changes have the potential to alter existing access routes and the anticipated density of development in certain areas. The Project would also result in changes to the interface with off-site properties through the introduction of different types of development to new areas, including along the Project Site’s boundaries. As discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services, construction of a new substation in the Theme Park District would reduce this impact to less than significant. The Project also would continue to pay applicable fees.
Policy 1 Maintain adequate
resources to enable the
Fire Department to meet
response time standards,
keep pace with growth,
and provide high levels of
service.
Policy 3 Maintain and/or upgrade
water facilities to ensure
adequate response to fire
hazards.
Consistent. The Project Site is served by local water lines owned and maintained by the City of Anaheim. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 previously identified certain improvements to the water system that were required to accommodate buildout of The Disneyland Resort and the Disney-owned properties in the ARSP. As of November 2022, all required improvements have been fully constructed and are operational. These
improvements are detailed in Table 5.16-2, Constructed Water Improvements, in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft Subsequent EIR. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services, and required through
implementation of identified mitigation, Disney is responsible for payment of all required fees associated with funding public services, including fees related to fire protection and emergency response resources.
Goal 2.1 Meet the community’s
needs for public safety and
law enforcement by
ensuring adequate
resources for the
prevention, detection, and
investigation of crime, and
response to calls for
service.
Consistent. Implementation of the Project would reallocate previously approved uses to other Disney Properties within the Project Site, as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft Subsequent EIR. As det ailed in Section 5.13, Public Services, the Project would result in additional demand requiring new facilities, potential for expanding current facilities, additional staffing, and additional equipment. This increase in demand for police protection services could create a potentially significant impact. Construction of a police substation in the Theme Park District and a Satell ite Office in the Southeast District or the Theme Park East Overlay, all of which are within the defined development footpr int for the DisneylandForward Project, would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Additionally, Disney would continue to pay applicable fees for police protection services.
Policy 1 Maintain adequate
resources to enable the
Police Department to meet
response time standards,
keep pace with growth,
and provide high levels of
service.
Goal 4.1 Provide a water system
that produces high quality
water, sufficient water
pressure, and necessary
quantities of water to meet
domestic demands
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the estimated buildout water supply requirement for the Project is projected to be 4,012 acre-feet per year. This is approximately 6.0 percent of the total City supply requirement estimated for 2045 in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Project and discussed in more detail in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, indicates that the City would have adequate water supplies to meet demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years to 2045 (Psomas 2022). The Project would Policy 1 Provide for the efficient
and economic distribution
of adequate water supply
and pressure to all
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-32 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis residential, commercial,
industrial, and public areas
served by the Public
Utilities Department.
comply with mitigation identified in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, requiring water conservation measures to be incorporated into future landscape plans to help conserve the water supply. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, The Disneyland Resort has also successfully implemented various initiatives that ensure compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance, as go beyond compliance with
federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations, including:
Over the years, Disney has placed considerable
emphasis on reducing water consumption through
various conservation measures, efficiency and reuse.
In 2019, Disney used less potable water than in 2009,
all while serving many more guests; and
Disney manages its irrigation based on changing
weather conditions using an on-site weather system
comprised of satellite irrigation controllers around the resort. The weather system’s features include drip
irrigation, flow sensors and cut off valves, soil moisture sensors and water-friendly planting, among other
features.
The Project would also incorporate the following key features:
Use of water-efficient landscaping, with no turf;
Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system; Use of waterways re-circulation systems;
Use of 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 irrigatio n systems such as drip
irrigation and autom atic systems which use moisture
sensors;
Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels;
Use of water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers,
clothes washers, and other water-using appliances;
Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when
evaporation rates are lowest;
Display of water conservation information to the public in conspicuous places;
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; and
Policy 2 Continue to provide
municipal water service
that meets or exceeds
State and Federal health
standards and monitor
water quality according to
established criteria, with
respect to health
standards.
Policy 3 Examine and utilize the
use of alternative water
supplies, such as grey
water and reclaimed water,
where appropriate and
feasible.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-33 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts for assistance with energy-conservation design
features.
Goal 5.1 Provide a safe and
effective sewer system that
meets the needs of the
City’s residents,
businesses, and visitors.
Consistent. The Project Site is served by local sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Anaheim. As detailed previously, EIR No. 311 and SEI R No. 340 identified certain improvements to the sewer system that were required to accommodate buildout of The Disneyland Resort and the
Disney ARSP Properties. As of November 2022, all required improvements have been fully constructed and are operational.
These improvements are detailed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, in Table 5.16-3, Constructed Sewer
Improvements.
As detailed in Section 3.0, Pr oject Description, the Project would allow Disney to move previously approved uses to other Disney Properties within the Proj ect Site; no additional square footage for theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are proposed as part of this Project.
Nevertheless, demand for sewer infrastructure would occur in areas currently used as surface parking lots, which would create a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation detailed in Section 5.16, Utilities, would mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.
Policy 1 Ensure that appropriate
sewer system mitigation
measures are identified
and implemented in
conjunction with new
development based on the
recommendations of prior
sewer studies and/or future
sewer studies that may be
required by the City
Engineer.
Goal 6.1 Maintain a storm drain
system that will adequately
protect and enhance the
health, safety and general
welfare of residents,
visitors, employees, and
their property.
Consistent. As part of the buildout of The Disneyland Resort under current entitlements, a private st orm drain system has been constructed and improv ed to accommodate continued development and redevelopment of the Project Site.
Implementation of structural source control best management practices (BMPs) that are det ailed in the Master WQMP
prepared for The Disneyland Resort continue to ensure long- term water quality enhancement. As detailed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, b ecause no development not already anticipated by EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 is
proposed, increased stormwater flows are not anticipated.
Additionally, because all required improvements have been constructed to serve The Disneyland Resort as analyzed in EIR No. 311 and the Disney ARSP Properties as analyzed in SEIR No. 340, upgrades to the existing infrastructure system are not anticipated, and would not be required to implement the Project.
However, although the overall amount of future development associated with the Project would remain unchanged, the Project has the potential to increase impervious surfaces within different areas of the Project Site, which could increase runoff volumes and rates to certain facilities. However, the City requires that individual developments provide engineering plans as well as drainage studies and Preliminary WQMPs specifying methods to convey, retain, and treat storm water, which would ensure that storm water runoff fr om the Project Site would not increase the risk of flooding or exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. Disney is responsible for
payment of all required fees a ssociated with funding of storm drain improvements, including construction of necessary improvements to the off-site storm drain system, when it develops the Disney ARSP Properties. Therefore, with
implementation of site-specific storm drain improvements the Project would not result in impacts related to deficiencies in the off-site storm drainage system serving the Project Site In Policy 1 Improve the City’s storm
drain system to address
current deficiencies as well
as long-term needs
associated with future
development to minimize
flood damage and
adequately convey rainfall
and subsequent runoff
from a 25-year frequency
storm.
Policy 3 Minimize the amount of
impervious surfaces in
conjunction with new
development.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-34 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis addition, any storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans would be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Goal 7.1 Minimize, recycle and
dispose of solid and
hazardous waste in an
efficient and
environmentally sound
manner.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and Section 5.16, Utilities and Services Systems, The
Disneyland Resort has successfully implemented various
initiatives that go beyond comp liance with federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations, including:
Each year, Disney Property Control department
collects and repurposes over one million pounds of
company assets that the company no longer needs.
These include theme park props, décor, furniture, and
appliances removed during refurbishments. The
assets are reused internally, offered to cast members
and/or donated to local charities;
Disney maintains a recycling program that has grown
into a comprehensive resort-wide effort, both onstage
and backstage. Over 25 different commodities are
collected at the resort for recycling, including
cardboard, paper, plastics, glass, metal, food waste,
green waste and construction debris. With these
efforts, Disney diverts more than 30 million pounds of
materials from landfill annually; and
Since launching a food scraps program in 2013,
Disney continues to make great strides in reducing and
recovering food waste. Today, this program diverts
over five million pounds of food waste from landfills
annually. In 2019, participation expanded throughout
the resort to include locations in food and beverage
service areas, storefronts, and office buildings. This
program has been recognized by external groups
multiple times, including most recently by the U.S. EPA Food Recovery Challenge in 2020.
The Walt Disney Company has also identified the following goals related to sustainability:
Waste
Zero waste to landfill for wholly owned and operated
parks and resorts
Materials
Use recycled, certified, or verified sustainable paper At least 30 percent recycled plastic in products and
packaging
Design packaging for reuse, recycling, or composting
Use of recycled content or sustainable textiles for
apparel
Sustainable production processes for products
Policy 2 Reduce the volume of
material sent to solid waste
sites in accordance with
State law by continuing
source reduction and
recycling programs and by
ensuring the participation
of all residents and
businesses.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-35 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Sustainable Design
New projects achieve near net zero, maximize water
efficiencies and are designed to support zero waste
operations
90 percent diversion for construction waste for
domestic and European Union projects
The Project would also incorporate the following key features:
Use of recycled paper products for stationery,
letterhead, and packaging;
Recovery of materials such as: food scraps,
cardboard, recyclables, landscape material, kitchen
grease, scrap metal and many other recoverable
materials that align with our zero-waste goal; and
Continued participation in the City of Anaheim’s
voluntary “Recycle Anah eim” program or other
substitute program as may be developed by the City.
Continued implementation of these initiatives would support the City’s attainment of solid waste reduction goals, including compliance with AB 939 and SB 1838 requiring reduction in organic waste to reduce the overall amount of solid waste being transported to the landfill system.
Goal 8.1 Coordinate with private
utilities to provide
adequate natural gas and
communications
infrastructure to existing
and new development in a
manner compatible with
the surrounding
community.
Consistent. As appropriate, Disney would be responsible for coordination with private utility companies prior to and during construction to ensure ade quate service to the proposed development project(s) and to avoid any loss of service to the surrounding community.
Goal 9.1 Provide a dependable fiber
optics system that meets
existing and future needs.
Consistent. AT&T would continue to serve the Project Site, providing telephone, digital cable, and high-speed internet services. The infrastructure capacity for telephone service typically expands with new development. Facilities needed to connect the Project to the existing telephone system may include new conduit, fiber and copper facilities. These improvements would be implemented in accordance with
applicable State and local regulations. Any new systems would be consistent with current techno logies, whether or not that includes a fiber-optics system, as identified in Goal 9.1, or alternative and higher technology. The Project would be consistent with the intent of this Goal and related policy.
Goal 10.1 Improve the City’s
appearance by mitigating
the visual impacts of utility
equipment and facilities.
Consistent. As detailed in both the DRSP and ARSP as well as Chapters 18.114 and 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, development standards and design gui delines are provided to effectively screen utilities and back-of-house uses from public view. Service areas, storage areas, utility meters and other equipment would be concealed from view through use of
landscaping; architectural elements including walls and fences; Policy 2 Use a combination of
architectural
enhancements, equipment
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-36 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis undergrounding, screen
walls and landscaping to
reduce or eliminate
visibility of utility equipment
and facilities, whenever
feasible.
utility undergrounding; and locating these uses in an internal, side, or rear yard.
Growth Management Element
Goal 1.1 Provide a balance of
housing options and job
opportunities throughout
the City.
Consistent. Although the goals of the Project are not directly tied to the provision of housi ng, future development of the Project would create approximately 39,375 new jobs associated with total buildout the Project and, as discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, with 13,853 additional jobs added by the Project. These numbers would not be a substantial quantity of the jobs that are anticipated to exist in the region. Similarly, at the City level, the quantity of new jobs that would be staffed by local residents is minor when compared to the overall number of residents and overall number of jobs that are projected within the City. Furthermore, the Project would increase the demand for housing (1,842 dwelling units) within the City and add population (6 ,079 persons); however, the population increase would repr esent 1.5 percent of the projected population in the City by 2045 and the increased demand for housing would be within the housing projections for the City.
Policy 3 Ensure a balance of retail,
office, industrial and
residential land uses to
enhance the economic
base of the City when
considering land use
changes.
Consistent. The Project would allow the continued
development of a visitor-serving di strict as established by The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project. Allowable land uses include a balance of visitor-serving uses including hotel, theme park, and related commercial, retail, and
restaurant uses. These uses are intended to support a strong economic base by attracting visitors to the City who would support other local businesses.
Policy 5 Continue and enhance the
City’s comprehensive
program of business
attraction, promotion and
retention.
Goal 1.4 Develop land use
strategies and incentives
to reduce the amount of
vehicle miles traveled
within the City.
Consistent. Continued development of the Project Site would enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a variety of land uses within walking distance and along primary pedestrian corridors, thereby reducing the total vehicle miles traveled.
Future development within the Project Site would include hotel uses adjacent to the existing and future theme park uses, and pedestrian pathways would be provided to facilitate walking and non-passenger car travel for both employees and
visitors/patrons, to a greater extent than would be the case for similar development in outlying areas not adjacent to the Disneyland area or areas without transit availability.
Additionally, Disney would continue to implement a TDM
program, as discussed in Section 5.14, Transportation, which is designed to reduce VMTs from cast members driving to and from The Disneyland Resort. Disney will also continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the ART system .
Policy 4 Encourage employment
centers to provide support
uses and services such as
restaurants, retail uses,
child-care facilities, shuttle
services to shopping
areas, etc., in order to
reduce potential vehicle
trips.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-37 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 2.1 Reduce traffic congestion
on the City’s arterial
highway system.
Consistent. Pursuant to SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), VMT is the method for measuring and addressing vehicular circulation system facilities under CEQA.
Analysis of LOS is no longer the metric for determining transportation environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA.
However, the LOS analysis is required to determine general consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element, as described previously.
The Project includes several circulation improvements that would be implemented in conjunction with the Project as discussed previously under Goal 1.1, Policies 3 and 6 of the Circulation Element.
Policy 4 Continue to maintain
consistency between the
City and County Master
Plan of Arterial Highways.
Consistent. As discussed previously under Goal 7.1 of the Circulation Element, the Project would require the approval of an amendment to the Orange County MPAH. Given that the
Project includes the amendment of the MPAH, the Project would not conflict with the MPAH once OCTA approves the proposed amendment to the MPAH.
Policy 5 Promote the use of public
transportation and
alternative modes of
transportation by
increasing access to public
transit, including Bus
Rapid Transit, through land
use planning (e.g., locating
higher density residential
projects near
transportation corridors),
ensuring direct and
convenient pedestrian
access to public transit
stops, implementing
bicycle routes,
encouraging pedestrian-
friendly developments, and
supporting High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
lanes.
Consistent.
As stated previously, development along the major
transportation corridors would include a variety of visitor-serving uses with generous sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture to accommodate pedestrians within The Anaheim Resort. The Project’s system of sidewalks provides easy access to a variety of land uses within and adjacent to The Anaheim Resort.
In addition to the enhanced pedestrian areas, The Anaheim Resort is also served by th e ART system, which provides access to a variety of uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink train and bus services at the ARTIC.
Policy 7 Improve traffic flow by
reducing the number of
curb cuts and encourage
driveway consolidation
along arterial highways in
conjunction with future
development.
Consistent. As discussed previously under Goal 2.2 of the Circulation Element, the Project supports a safe circulation system through the provision of the East Esplanade transit center west of Harbor Boulev ard to locate bus and shuttle loading off-street. The Project will construct a parking facility in the East Parking Area, at which time it would construct at least one and up to three pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way and south of Manchester Avenue to
connect the east side of Harbor Boulevard with the Theme Park District and to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic. These project elements as well as the continued use of the Mickey and Friend and Pixar Pals parking structures would centralize vehicular parking with access points along arterial highways.
Goal 2.2 Evaluate the traffic-related
impacts of proposed
developments and/or
intensification of existing
Consistent. Pursuant to SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), VMT is the method for measuring and addressing vehicular circulation system facilities under CEQA.
Analysis of LOS is no longer the metric for determining DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-38 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis land uses and address
said impacts.
transportation environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA.
However, the LOS analysis is required to determine general consistency with the General Plan Circulation Element, as described previously.
With implementation of mitigatio n identified in Section 5.14, Transportation, which includes continued implementation of Disney’s existing TDM program and continued participation in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the ART system, the
Project’s impact related to VMT would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Nevertheless, the Project includes several circulation
improvements as discussed previously under Goals 1.1 and 2.1 of the Circulation Element.
Policy 1 Continue to review
development projects to
ensure traffic-related
impacts are addressed
appropriately.
Policy 4 Prior to issuing building
permits for new
development forecast to
generate 100 or more peak
hour (morning or evening)
trip ends, require traffic
impact analyses be
completed that identify
arterial and intersection
improvements that may
potentially be needed to
provide no worse than LOS
E along Interstates/State
Routes/Smart Streets
(unless current operation is
LOS F), and not worse
than LOS D along the
balance of the arterials on
the City’s Circulation
Element that are
measurably impacted by
the new development and
are under the City’s
jurisdiction.
Policy 5 Require development
projects that exceed LOS
standards beyond
acceptable levels to
provide necessary
improvements and/or
funding to mitigate said
impacts, if determined
necessary by the City.
Safety Element
Goal 1.1 Minimize the risk to public
health and safety and
disruptions to vital
services, economic vitality,
and social order resulting
from seismic and geologic
activities.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, all impacts related to the development of the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level through construction pursuant to current building codes and standards. Additionally, the Project Site is not located within an earthquake hazard zone and all related seismic impacts would be less than significant.
Policy 1 Minimize the risk to life and
property through the
identification of potentially
hazardous areas,
adherence to proper
construction design
criteria, and provision of
public information.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-39 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Goal 3.1 Reduce, to the greatest
extent possible, the risk to
life, property, public
investment, and social
order created by flood
hazards.
Consistent. The Project Site is located within the 100-Year (with flooding below 1 foot) to 500-Year Flood Zone and within the general limits of the flo od impact zones associated with Prado Dam failure. Implementation of the Project may
potentially expose more people and habitable structures to potential flooding. However, development of structures in compliance with local, State, and federal regulations, including compliance with the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act requirements and State of Calif ornia Model Ordinance as set forth in the City of Anaheim General Plan, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur.
Policy 1 Evaluate all development
proposals located in areas
that are subject to flooding
to minimize the exposure
of life and property to
potential flood risks.
Goal 4.1 Decrease the risk of
exposure for life, property
and the environment to
hazardous materials and
hazardous waste.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, all development within areas of known hazardous materials releases or spills would be subject to remediation prior to construction of any new structure.
Additionally, all development and redevelopment would be subject to regulations regarding handling of materials containing asbestos and/or lead based pai nt or development in areas subject to historic pesticide and/ or herbicide use, effectively reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Policy 2 Promote the proper
handling, treatment and
disposal of hazardous
materials and hazardous
waste.
Policy 3 Encourage businesses to
utilize practices and
technologies that will
reduce the generation of
hazardous wastes at the
source.
Policy 4 Implement Federal, State
and local regulations for
the disposal, handling, and
storage of hazardous
materials.
Noise Element
Goal 1.1 Protect sensitive land uses
from excessive noise
through diligent planning
and regulation.
Consistent. As detailed in Section 5.11, Noise, of this Subsequent EIR, implementat ion of the Project has the
potential to impact noise sens itive land uses during both construction and daily operation. Construction activities would be performed consistent with the City’s Municipal Code
requirements; however, these impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable, even with implement ation of the mitigation measures identified. Nevertheless, consistent with the General Plan goal and policies in question, the Project’s noise study has provided recommendations regarding site planning and mitigation measures that would help to protect sensitive land uses and to ens ure noise compatibility with nearby uses to the extent feasible.
Policy 2 Continue to enforce
acceptable noise
standards consistent with
health and quality of life
goals and employ effective
techniques of noise
abatement through such
means as a noise
ordinance, building codes,
and subdivision and zoning
regulations.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-40 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 3 Consider the compatibility
of proposed land uses with
the noise environment
when preparing, revising or
reviewing development
proposals.
With regard to operational noise, future development projects would be required to comply with several mitigation measures which would reduce noise exposure levels related to HVAC systems, loading docks, and parking structures. In Section 5.11, Noise, several mitigation measures are included requiring noise studies be prepared and noise monitoring performed to
demonstrate that noise-sensit ive receptors would not be significantly impacted by Proj ect operations and to confirm compliance with the City’s Sound Level Pressure Ordinance.
Policy 5 Encourage proper site
planning and architecture
to reduce noise impacts.
Policy 7 Require site-specific noise
studies be conducted by a
qualified acoustic
consultant utilizing
acceptable methodologies
while reviewing the
development of sensitive
land uses or development
that has the potential to
impact sensitive land uses.
Goal 2.1 Encourage the reduction of
noise from transportation-
related noise sources such
as motor vehicles, aircraft
operations, and railroad
movements.
Consistent. Based on noise modeling data, the addition of project-related traffic would not create a significant change in the existing volume of traffic noise and the Project would not cause a significant impact regarding traffic noise. Also, adherence to the development standards and design guidelines related to architectural elements and landscaping would assist in reducing noise levels at uses proposed adjacent to roadways.
Policy 3 Require that development
generating increased
traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient
noise level adjacent to
noise-sensitive land uses
provide appropriate
mitigation measures.
Goal 3.1 Protect residents from the
effects of “spill over” or
nuisance noise emanating
from the City’s activity
centers.
Consistent. As discussed above with regard to operational noise, future development projects would be required to comply with several mitigation measures detailed in Section 5.11, Noise, which would reduce noise exposure levels related to Project operations, including noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and parking structures.
Construction activities would be performed consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements. Additionally, identified mitigation measures would include placement of an 8-foot-high perimeter or portable construc tion barrier along boundaries of construction areas which have noise-sensitive land use
adjacent to them to minimize noise impacts as well as use of properly maintained mufflers on all construction equipment. As discussed, this impact, although consistent with City Code and reduced through implementation of mitigation measures, would continue to result in a significant and unavoidable, temporary impact.
Policy 1 Discourage new projects
located in commercial or
entertainment areas from
exceeding stationary-
source noise standards at
the property line of
proximate residential or
commercial uses, as
appropriate.
Policy 3 Enforce standards to
regulate noise from
construction activities.
Particular emphasis shall
be placed on the restriction
of the hours in which work
other than emergency
work may occur.
Discourage construction
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-41 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis on weekends or holidays
except in the case of
construction proximate to
schools where these
operations could disturb
the classroom
environment.
Policy 4 Require that construction
equipment operate with
mufflers and intake
silencers no less effective
than originally equipped.
Policy 5 Encourage the use of
portable noise barriers for
heavy equipment
operations performed
within 100 feet of existing
residences or make
applicant provide evidence
as to why the use of such
barriers is infeasible.
Economic Development Element
Goal 1.1 Continue and expand the
City’s marketing and
promotional campaign.
Consistent. Buildout of the Project Site would provide for a variety of uses specific to The Disneyland Resort, including theme park and hotel uses, and parking areas. Due to the largely developed nature of the Project Site, the majority of development would consist of ei ther redevelopment or infill development. All future development would be subject to design criteria set forth in the DRSP or, as applicable, the ARSP for Disney ARSP Properties, to ensure quality development. The Project would allow the continued development of a visitor- serving district as established by The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project. Allowable land uses include a balance of visitor-serving uses including hotel, theme park, and related commercial, retail, and restaurant uses. Continued
development associated with t he Project would enhance the role of The Disneyland Resort as a strong economic base for the City by attracting visitors who, in turn, support other local businesses and help the growth of the economy.
Policy 1 Continue to market
Anaheim as a business-
friendly city and implement
the following strategies to
promote the City’s special
activity areas and
neighborhoods:
Continue to market
the Anaheim
Convention Center as
a showcase for the
community and an
opportunity for new
and existing
businesses to
network.
Market The Anaheim
Resort, Angel
Stadium of Anaheim,
The Grove Theater
and the Arrowhead
Pond of Anaheim as
major entertainment
amenities for local
regional and national
businesses.
Promote The
Platinum Triangle as
a unique and special
urban place where a
wide variety of people
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-42 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis come together to
work, live, shop and
recreate.
Promote Downtown
Anaheim/Colony as
the cultural, artistic,
historic and civic
center of the City.
Continue to promote
Anaheim Canyon as a
high profile, business
center in Orange
County.
Promote West and
East Anaheim as
areas with emerging
high quality housing
and retail
opportunities.
Community Design Element
Goal 1.1 Create an aesthetically
pleasing and unified
community appearance
within the context of
distinct districts and
neighborhoods.
Consistent. As previously discussed, all future development within the Project Site would be required to comply with the development standards and design guidelines set forth as the Design Plans in Section 5 of the DRSP or ARSP, as applicable.
Specifically, the Design Plans promote an aesthetically pleasing sense of visual continuity in the public and setback realms through use of landscaping, street furniture, signage, lighting, color palette, and other pageantry elements.
The Central Core of the ARSP, defined by major corridors Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, would be subject to specific development standards and design guidelines intended to
create a coherent, unique resort identity that reinforces the image of The Anaheim Resort as a high-quality destination resort and improve the aesthetic character of The Anaheim Resort by visually defining the boundaries with appropriate landscape treatments. Specific requirements regarding the placement, design, size, massing, and general appearance of signs are detailed throughout both the ARSP and DRSP, as well as Chapters 18.114.130 and 18.116.160 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Moreover, future development and redevelopment associated with the Project would create greater visual unity and
complement the visual appear ance of the area. Although the existing visual character of individual areas may be changed, the Project would create a more visually cohesive and
appealing environment.
Policy 4 Pursue unifying
streetscape elements for
major corridors, including
coordinated streetlights,
landscaping, public
signage and street
furniture, to reinforce
Anaheim’s community
image.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-43 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Policy 5 Identify and
preserve/enhance view
corridors for major
landmarks, community
facilities, and natural open
space in the planning and
design of all public and
private projects.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the Project Site does not contain any designated scenic resources, nor are any scenic vistas visible from the Project Site; therefore, no impact would occur. As discussed previously, the Project would continue development al ong the Central Core of the ARSP, consistent with devel opment standards and design guidelines detailed throughout both the ARSP and DRSP, as well as Chapters 18.114 and 18.11 6 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Policy 7 Screen public and private
facilities and above-ground
infrastructure support and
equipment, such as
electrical substations, and
water wells and recharge
facilities, with appropriately
scaled landscaping or
other methods of
screening.
Consistent. Pursuant to screening requirements set forth in Chapter 18.46 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, public facilities structures and infrastructure would be subject to screening requirements such as decorative walls, fences, and/or
landscaping to conceal them from view. Further, Section 5, Design Plan, of the DRSP or ARSP, as applicable, provides requirements for concealing building equipment including utility equipment, pipes, vents, and air conditioners. As new
construction progresses, all aboveground power lines would be undergrounded with the exception of existing SCE transmission lines. Policy 8 Construct public and
private facilities and
support structures (e.g.,
water pipes, irrigation and
electrical controls, vents)
to blend with the
surrounding environment.
Policy 9 Minimize visual impacts of
public and private facilities
and support structures
through sensitive site
design and construction.
This includes, but is not
limited to: appropriate
placement of facilities;
undergrounding, where
possible; and aesthetic
design (e.g., cell tower
stealthing).
Goal 2.1 Attractively landscape and
maintain Anaheim’s major
arterial corridors and
prepare/ implement
distinctive streetscape
improvement plans.
Consistent. The Central Core of t he ARSP, defined by major corridors Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, would be subject to specific development standards and design
guidelines intended to create a coherent, unique resort identity that reinforces the image of The Anaheim Resort as a high- quality destination resort and improve the aesthetic character of The Anaheim Resort by visually defining the boundaries with appropriate landscape treatment s. Specific requirements regarding the placement, design, size, massing, and general appearance of signs are detailed throughout both the ARSP and DRSP, as well as Chapters 18. 114.130 and 18.116.160 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Policy 4 Ensure adherence to sign
regulations, which address
issues of scale, type,
design, materials,
placement, compatibility,
and maintenance for uses
along freeways, toll roads
and major arterial
corridors.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-44 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
TABLE 5.10-1
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Anaheim General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Analysis Housing Element
Guiding Principle D Sustainable design and the
efficient utilization of
resources create more
livable neighborhoods and
can have both
environmental and financial
benefits.
Consistent. Implementation of the Project would result in the development of a mix of visitor-serving uses including hotels, theme parks, and related retail/dining/entertainment uses, all of which would serve to improve the attractiveness and vitality of The Anaheim Resort. Although the Project does not propose construction of residential neighborhoods, the Project Site is located close to existing neighborhoods. The Project would limit development immediately adj acent to existing residential neighborhoods through complianc e with height restrictions, landscape requirements, and setback requirements as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description and discussed in Section
5.1, Aesthetics. Further, the Project would include provision of development that is walkable and pedestrian-friendly, which would enhance local opportunities for retail and dining, as well as employment, within walking distance of existing
neighborhoods in the local area. Therefore, the Project would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and would not detract from their quality and character.
Policy Strategy #3: Housing Quality and
Design Strategy
Consistent. The underlying purpose of the Project is to allow continued, long-term growth of The Disneyland Resort Project, approved by the City in 1993, by allowing the transfer of previously approved uses to Disney Properties within the Project Site to support a fully integrated, multi-day vacation destination. The Project involves the buildout of entitled uses within The Disneyland Resort previously evaluated in EIR No. 311, as well as Disney ARSP pr operties as currently entitled and previously evaluated in EIR No. 313 and SEIR No. 340.
The Project would expand upon the current land use pattern within the Project Site, providing a more integrated and cohesive development. The location and density of future land uses would be determined based on compatibility with on-site and surrounding land uses. The Project would limit
development immediately adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods through complianc e with height restrictions, landscape requirements, and setback requirements as detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, and discussed in Section
5.1, Aesthetics. The DRSP and ARSP include policies and methods for establishing and maintaining a unified resort identity, which would help to ensure compatibility. All future development within the Project Site would be subject to development standards and design guidelines set forth in the DRSP and ARSP. Also, “setback realm areas” have been
incorporated into the Project, which include enhanced
landscaping to ensure future compatibility with surrounding areas as buildout of the Proj ect occurs (City of Anaheim 2022c).
Strategy 3E Community Design
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan The Project involves modifications to the DRSP and ARSP, which are detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description. These amendments to the DRSP and ARSP are intended to update and better coordinate these two specific plans. By updating and amending the DRSP and ARSP, the Project would be consistent with these two specific plans. Given that the Project involves the ability to transfer previously approved uses to Disney Properties in the Project Site, the Project DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-45 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
would not change the underlying tourist-oriented character of these specific plan areas.
Implementation of MM LU-1 through MM LU-3 would reduce the impact related to consistency to less than significant with mitigation.
Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City, some of which are within and near the Project Site. The Project proposes to amend the Circulation Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan to do the following:
remove the Class I Bike Path in the Southern California Edison right-of-way (ROW) between Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard and add a Class I Bike Path on the north side of Disney Way between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard; add a Class I Bike Path on the west side of Clementine Street between Alro Way and Disney Way (limits subject to change based on determination of proposed dedication); and
modify the classification of the planned bike facility on Walnut Street between Katella Avenue and Ball Road from a Class II Bike Lane to a Class I Bike Path on the east side of Walnut Street.
The Project would include the following improvements to bicycle circulation in The Anaheim Resort area:
Installation of Class I Bike Path on the east side of Walnut Street from Ball Road to Katella Avenue;
Installation of (1) a Class I Bike Path on the north side of Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street; (2) a Class I Bike Path on the west side of Clementine Street between Alro Way and Disney Way; and (3) a bike parking facility in the East Parking Area and/or Parking Overlay; and
Provision of an in-lieu contribution and dedication of ROW adjacent to the Project Site on Ball Road and Haster Street for proposed Class II Bicycle Lanes on those streets.
Bicycle parking is provided for cast members at key locations throughout The Disneyland Resort and would continue to be installed as required by the City and Disney’s TDM program. These modifications would improve bicycle facilities, and no impact would occur.
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would not be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which did not require mitigation.
5.10.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort was found to contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to land use compatibility due to the proximity of Commercial Recreation uses, as proposed in EIR No. 311, and residential development. According to SEIR No. 340, continued development of the ARSP would not cause any significant adverse cumulative growth impacts related to land use.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-46 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Within the City of Anaheim, recent development actions have continued the ongoing trend of redevelopment of underdeveloped areas. However, previously approved and future development within the City is required to comply with the adopted land use standards, policies, and ordinances set forth in both the General Plan and the Municipal Code. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and regional planning programs, as modified by the Project. Furthermore, the Project would implement development standards and design guidelines as set forth in the DRSP and ARSP to minimize impacts between residential and non-residential uses, in compliance with MM LU-1 through MM LU-3. Similar design guidelines would be requir ed for cumulative projects to minimize potential land use incompatibilities for future; therefore, the Project 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 reduced when compared with the impact analysis in to EIR No. 311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.10.4 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 LU-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, building plans shall be submitted by the property owner/developer and will be reviewed for consistency with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311, MM 3.1-2)
MM LU-2 Prior to approval of each final site plan or issuance of each building permit, whichever occurs first, the proposed project shall be implemented based on the guidelines and standards in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan.
All development proposals within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area must be consistent with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan , the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the City of Anaheim General Plan. (EIR No 311, PDF 3.1-1) 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)
PDF LU-1 Prior to approval of each final site plan or issuance of each building permit, whichever occurs first, property owner/developer applicant shall submit documentation that project design features are in compliance with all building setbacks, height standards, landscaping requirements, and design guidelines as DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-47 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
specified in Section 7.0 of Appendix B, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311, PDF 3.2-1)
5.10.5 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.10a Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact.
This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not evaluate physically dividing an established community. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Threshold 5.10b Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which did not require mitigation.
Cumulative Impacts
Impact Summary: The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in to EIR No. 311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.10-48 Section 5.10 – Land Use and Planning
5.10.6 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 ———.2022b. 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/5998/2021-2029-Draft-Housing-Element ———.2020 (July 17, date amended). Bicycle Master Plan. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/3398/Bicycle-Master-Plan
———. 2012 (last accessed September 14, 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://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2494/Master-Environmental-Impact- Report-Number-313-?bidId=
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc (August 2023b). Operational Traffic Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project, Anaheim, California. Los Angeles, CA; Gibson. (Appendix J- 2)
Orange County Transportation Authority. 2017. Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Santa Ana, CA: OCTA. https://www.octa.net/News-and-Resources/Open-Data/MPAH- Overview/
Southern California Association of Governments. 2022a. SCAG – About Us – Webpage. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/about-us
———. 2022b (last accessed September 14, 2022). Connect SoCal webpage. Los Angeles, CA:
SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal
———. 2020 (September). Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy . Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. https://scag.ca.gov/connect- socal#:~:text=Adopted%20Final%20Connect%20SoCal%202020,- Overview%20November%2021&text=It%20charts%20a%20path%20toward,of%20life% 20for%20Southern%20Californians.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-1 Section 5.11 – Noise
5.11 NOISE
This section discusses the existing noise setting of the Project Site and assesses potential impacts related to noise that could result fr om implementation of the Project. The following information is based on the Operational and Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the Project by Veneklasen Associates (Veneklasen 2023), which is included as Appendix I to this Draft Subsequent EIR.
5.11.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311 concluded that The Disneyland Resort Project had the potential to result in significant operational and construction noise impacts. Operational noise previously evaluated as part of EIR No. 311 includes traffic-related noise, firework noise, and noise from amphitheater shows.
EIR No. 311 found that with implementation of the mitigation measures and project design feature listed below, impacts related to noise and vibration would be reduced to less than significant levels.
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 and project design features regarding noise and vibration to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant levels.
MM 3.5-1 The applicant shall implement all project design features or the environmental equivalent. The City of Anaheim Planning Department will ensure compliance through the mitigation monitoring process.
MM 3.5-2 Ongoing during project operation of the second theme park, the applicant shall obtain (on an annual basis) a permit for use of fireworks.
MM 3.5-3 Prior to issuance of building permit for amphitheater, plans submitted for the location of the amphitheater will document that the facility is no closer than 2,000 feet from the nearest existing residence. The design and orientation of the amphitheater will be reviewed by a certified acoustical engineer; the applicant shall submit a report, for review and approval by the City, to ensure that noise from the amphitheater does not exceed the noise levels established by the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
MM 3.5-4 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the amphitheater and within 9 months of commencement of amphitheater operations, a Noise Monitoring Program prepared by a certified acoustical engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. The applicant shall submit the results of the Noise Monitoring Program conducted by a certified acoustical engineer to ensure that there are not violations of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance from amphitheater operations outside the Disneyland Resort. If noise in excess of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance is detected, the applicant shall modify operations within three days to bring the amphitheater into conformance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
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
5.11-2 Section 5.11 – Noise
MM 3.5-5 Prior to approval of each final site plan and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, for hotels within the 70 CNEL contour from West Street/Disneyland Drive, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer identifying whether noise attenuation is required, and defining any attenuation measures and specific performance criteria, if any such measures are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code.
Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final locations of such buildings and noise-sensitive room/uses inside the buildings.
MM 3.5-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit, for construction of the public parking facilities, South Parking Area facility, and any hotel parking facilities adjacent to residential areas, plans shall document that the driving surfaces shall be a textured surface to minimize tire squeal noise.
MM 3.5-7 Ongoing during project operations of the second theme park, engine noise from sweeping equipment used in the public parking facilities, South Parking Area facilities and any hotel parking facilities adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled.
MM 3.5-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, for structures that are adjacent to residential areas, the applicant shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
PDF 3.5-1 Ongoing during project operations, lower noise-producing fireworks displays will be used at the Second Theme Park to minimize noise from 11:00 p.m. fireworks shows to meet the noise levels in the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
PDF 3.5-2 Prior to issuance of building permit for the west public parking facility; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspection for the second theme park, noise from the west public parking facility adjacent to Walnut Street will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to the parking facility, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire squealing, and tiering the parking facility in the West Parking Area above the third floor to provide greater distance to the receptors. Noise from the West Public Parking Facility adjacent to the Conestoga Hotel will be reduced by the provision of sound attenuation louvers in the openings on the north side of the structure adjacent to the Conestoga Resort.
PDF 3.5-3 Submittal of noise study prior to issuance of southwest parking area building permit; and sound wall construction prior to the commencement of operation of the southwest parking area, the applicant shall construct a 9-14 feet in height sound wall along Walnut Street next to the Southwest Parking Area. The actual height of the wall will be determined by a noise study submitted with the parking facility construction plans.
MM 3.8-7 Ongoing during demolition and construction, construction noise shall be limited by the property owner/developer to 60 dBA along the property boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. as governed by Chapter 6.7, Sound Pressure Levels, of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-3 Section 5.11 – Noise
(Note: Planning Department changed the responsible Division to the Code Enforcement Division.)
MM 3.8-8 Prior to issuance of building permit, for the parking facility in the West Parking Area or any parking structure or facilities in the Hotel District and the South Parking Area, an 8-foot perimeter or portable construction barrier along streets adjacent to construction areas, to be in place during construction, shall be provided to minimize noise impacts.
(Note: Planning Department changed the responsible Division to the Code Enforcement Division.)
MM 3.8-9 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construc tion equipment are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
(Note: Planning Department changed the responsible Division to the Code Enforcement Division.)
PDF 3.8-3 c. Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall, submit a truck route plan identifying truck routes along arterials, avoiding residential areas to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. The Plan shall show conformance with the external noise limits for construction between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Plan shall also prohibit construction traffic on residential streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and construction signage at appropriate locations. The Truck Route Plan shall provide for monitoring of street conditions and potential repairing and/or repaving by property owner/developer after completion of construction as required by the City Engineer. (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 Code Enforcement was the responsible Division.)
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. SEIR No. 340 determined that construction activities associated with the ARSP Project have the potential to significantly impact noise- sensitive receptors. Adherence to the standard requirements and implementation of the MMs 5.10-1 through 5.10-12 would reduce potential impacts; however, these impacts may remain significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential sh ort-term, construction-related deficiencies. SEIR No. 340 also determined construction in the ARSP area would have the potential to cause vibration levels that would be noticeable for short periods. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, vibration impacts during construction would be less than significant.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-4 Section 5.11 – Noise
Development associated with the ARSP Project would create long-term land use compatibility issues related to noise and would expose receptors to noise levels in excess of established standards, thereby resulting in potentially significant impacts. However, it was determined that adherence to the standard requirements and implementation of MMs 5.10-4 through 5.10-7 would reduce long-term, operational impacts to less than significant levels.
SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures and Standard Requirements SEIR No. 340 required implementation of the following mitigation measures and compliance with standard requirements regarding noise and vibration to reduce potential impacts associated with full buildout of the ARSP to less than significant levels.
MM 5.10-1 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
MM 5.10-2 Prior to approval of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections.
MM 5.10-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are adjacent to noise- sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
MM 5.10-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer shall ensure that noise from parking structures adjacent to residential areas will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to parking facilities, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire squealing, and tiering a parking facility to provide greater distance to the receptor.
MM 5.10-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on building plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers at the project perimeter areas.
The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a continuous barrier.
Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled with an acceptable solid vision product.
MM 5.10-6 Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical considerations shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-5 Section 5.11 – Noise
MM 5.10-7 Ongoing during construction and project operation, sweeping operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line.
MM 5.10-8 Ongoing during construction, property owners/developers shall pay for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at any point on the exterior project boundary property line do not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day where outside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance.
MM 5.10-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning Department, Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels would be less than 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor use areas (including dining patios, pools, playgrounds, or outdoor gathering areas).
This requirement can be accomplished through shielding areas behind buildings or the construction of a noise barrier.
MM 5.10-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that noise levels from planned mechanical ventilation equipment, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.
MM 5.10-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of large bulldozers or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home.
MM 5.10-12 Prior to issuance of each building permit if pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities.
SR 5.10-1 Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, contractor specifications shall include a note indicating that noise-generating construction activities which produce a sound pressure level at any point along the property line in excess of 60 dBA shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on any day, except on Sundays or a City-recognized holiday when no noise-generating construction activities shall be permitted. This requirement is identified in Section
6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by and on approval of the Director of Public Works or Building Official.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-6 Section 5.11 – Noise
SR 5.10-2 Development shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, which establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Title 24 requires that new hotels, motels, and multi-family residences be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed the 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in any habitable room with windows closed.
SR 5.10-3 No commercial use shall produce noise associated with continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM (Municipal Code Section 18.32.130).
5.11.2 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 Draft 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.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and can be an undesirable by-product of society’s normal day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health.
People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” However, the sound pressure magnitude can be objectively measured and quantified using a logarithmic ratio of pressures which yields the level of sound, utilizing the measurement scale of decibels (dB). The decibel is generally adjusted to the A-weighted level (dBA) which de-emphasizes very low frequencies to better approximate the human ear’s range of sensitivity. In practice, the noise level of a sound source is measured using a sound level meter that includes an electronic filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve.
Even though the A-weighted scale accounts for the relative loudness perceived by the human ear and, therefore, is commonly used to quantify individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response effects also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
Ambient (background) sound level
Magnitude of the event sound level relative to the background noise Spectral (frequency) composition (e.g. presence of tones) Duration of the sound event
Number of event occurrences, repetitiveness, and intermittency Time of day the event occurs.
In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in human responses to daytime and nighttime noises. At night, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night, and exterior noise may become increasingly noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and have greater sensitivity to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a 24-hour descriptor, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) has been developed.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-7 Section 5.11 – Noise
The CNEL divides the 24-hour day into a daytime period of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., an evening period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In determining the CNEL, noise levels occurring during the evening period are increased by 5 dB, while noise levels occurring during the nighttime period are increased by 10 dB to account for the greater sensitivity during the evening and nighttime periods.
The effects of noise on people fall into three general categories:
Subjective effects of annoyance and nuisance
Interference with activities such as speech, sleep and learning Physiological effects such as hearing loss
In most cases, the levels associated with environmental noise produce effects only in the first two categories. However, workers in industrial plants may experience noise effects in the last category. There is no completely effective way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance, because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and degrees to which people become acclimated to noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise source is by comparison to the existing environment to which they are accustomed (the “ambient environment”). In general, the more the level of a noise event exceeds the prevailing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the noise source will be to those exposed to it.
With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships are applicable to this analysis:
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1 dB change cannot be perceived; Outside of a laboratory, a 3 dBA change will be generally perceivable by most people, often described as the “just noticeable difference”;
A change in level of at least 5 dBA is considered a noticeable change by most people; and A 10 dBA change will result in the perception of doubling or halving the loudness of the noise.
Noise sources are either “point sources”, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles, or “line sources”, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites, and at a rate of 7.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” sites.
2 For example, a 60 dBA noise level measured
at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source and it would be 48 dBA at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.
3 Man-made or natural barriers can also attenuate
sound levels.
2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97. A "hard" or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt, concrete, and very hard packed soils. An acoustically "soft" or absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and most ground with vegetation.
3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-8 Section 5.11 – Noise
Characteristics of Vibration
Vibration is minute variation in pressure through structures and the earth, whereas, noise is minute variation in pressure through air. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck pass-bys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Ground-borne vibration attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitude can be measured as peak particle velocity (PPV), the maximum instantaneous peak amplitude in inches per second (in/s), or root-mean-square (RMS) velocity in inches per second (in/s) or as vibration level in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 micro-inch per second. The ratio between the PPV and the maximum RMS amplitude is termed the “crest factor.” According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the PPV level for construction equipment is typically 1.7 to 6 times greater than the RMS vibration level. The FTA uses a crest factor of 4 for the conversion of PPV levels to RMS vibration levels. For the purposes of ground-borne vibration analysis of impacts to existing structures, vibration velocity is described in terms of PPV.
Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. The level of interest for the purposes of this analysis correlate to 0.2 in/s PPV 4,
which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Caltrans threshold for similar building damage is consistent with the FTA threshold. Caltrans also lists the threshold of human response to vibration as being distinctly perceptible at 0.24 in/sec PPV
5 for transient vibration sources.
A. Existing Conditions
Existing Noise Levels
Veneklasen Associates conducted an extensive source level measurement survey of noise from operations throughout Disney’s theme parks from April 4 to 8, and on April 12 and 13, April 21, and June 16, 2022. Sources of sound included activity from numerous attractions throughout Disneyland and Disney California Adventure Park. Examples of sound sources include the operation of rides, amplified music and live shows, audience and crowd noise, mechanical equipment, and back-of-house operations. The locations of source level measurements and measured noise levels are summarized in Tables (D1) and (D2) of the Noise Study (Appendix I to this Draft Subsequent EIR). Measurements also were also collected on select roadways surrounding the Project Site to understand the existing noise environment along the circulation system surrounding the Project Site. The measurement locations in the theme parks were selected to get a complete overview of noise from theme park uses with a focus on obtaining measurements from uses with the highest noise levels.
Measurements were conducted utilizing Type 1/Class 1 Bruel & Kjaer 2250/2270 sound level meters positioned on a tripod at a height of approximately five (5) feet. The sound level meters were placed as close as possible to the source of interest to attempt to measure the specific event or attraction. For rides and attractions, Veneklasen staff determined the locations of measurement by conducting an observation of the source prior to measuring to identify the loudest portions of the ride or attraction. In some cases, sound level meters were placed in landscaping or restricted
4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transporta tion, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018), p. 186.
5 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual , (Sacramento, California, April 2020), p. 22.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-9 Section 5.11 – Noise
walkways to measure as close to the ride as feasible. Once determined, the sound level meter and tripod were placed at each measurement location and the ride or attraction noise level was captured. For outdoor attractions where ride noise is an actively moving source (Autopia, Jungle Cruise, etc.), the sound level meter was brought onto the ride to measure the on-ride noise and gather the source levels from the ride itself. Additionally, the queuing area for each ride or attraction was also measured. Where rides or attractions were solely indoors (Haunted Mansion, Peter Pan’s Flight, etc.), only the queuing area was measured. For events (parades, shows, etc.), two to three locations were selected for each event to capture the source levels. In the case of shows, one location was positioned directly in front of a main loudspeaker for the event, a second location was positioned within the crowd for the event, and a third location was positioned at various distances to determine the noise propagation from the event as applicable. For parades, two to three measurement locations were selected at different locations on the parade route, with the sound level meter and tripod set up directly in front of a speaker playing the parade’s soundtrack. Lastly, various back-of-house activities and equipment were captured as part of the survey. Sources of back-of-house included, but were not limited to, HVAC and plumbing equipment, delivery trucks, after hours construction, vehicle pass-bys, power washing, and general ambient levels at the back-of-house locations. Finally, arterial roadways were measured near noise sensitive receptors during evening and nighttime hours to understand the general ambient noise near the end of park operations or shortly after park closure. The primary intent of the measurement of nearby arterial roadways was to determine the spectral content (i.e., frequency spectrum) of the noise source to be used in conjunction with traffic counts when assessing noise impacts.
The duration of each measurement was dependent on the source being measured. For example, many ride cycles last for approximately 2 to 3 minutes, which includes passenger loading, the ride itself, and passenger unloading. Alternatively, parades and shows may last 10 to 15 minutes, in which the entirety of the event was measured. Typically, at minimum, a duration of 10 minutes was measured at each location, which would capture at least three ride cycles, as applicable, or the general ambient in the area.
This extensive source level measurement survey provided noise data to develop a computer noise model of Disneyland and Disney California Adventure theme parks. Bruel and Kjaer’s Predictor software (V2022 rev 1) was used to develop The Disneyland Resort noise model and the respective noise level contours. Google Earth 3-D images along with the respective angle from the model of both Disneyland (view from the south) and Disney California Adventure (view from the north) and have been shown in Exhibit 5.11-1, Disneyland Aerial and Model Views.
The noise model was calibrated using the noise measurements performed throughout the theme parks and allows for the movement of noise sources to different locations for analysis and assessment of potential future noise impacts. It also allows for different various activities to be reviewed at different times of the day, such as shows, rehearsals, and parades. The model also allows for inputs based on specific periods of usage for each source, with daytime hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., evening hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For example, for both theme parks, rides and attractions assume full operation during the daytime hours and only slightly reduced operation during evening hours. For Disneyland, since it is open until 12:00 a.m., the rides assume two hours of operation into the nighttime hours. For Disney California Adventure, since it is open until 10:00 p.m., all rides were assumed to be inoperable after this time.
Exhibit 5.11-1
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
D
isneyland and California Adventure Aerial and Model Views 0 400 800 1,600
Feet
Dis
neyland Aerial View from the South
Dis n eyland Model View from the South
Cali for nia Adventure Aerial View from the North
Cali for nia Adventure Model View from the North
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-10 Section 5.11 – Noise
The daytime noise contours for existing conditions are shown in Exhibit 5.11-2, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, Exhibit 5.11-3, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay; and Exhibit 5.11.4, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Parking Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard.
B. Regulatory Framework
State
The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning.
The types of land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use.
According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is “normally acceptable” for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential and hotel uses, respectively. 6 The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines 7 establishes thresholds for the evaluation of significant impacts of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. Under these thresholds, a proposed project would have a significant noise impact if the project would result in:
1. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
2. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Local
City of Anaheim
General Plan- Noise Element
The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan is based in part on federal and State regulations and is intended to control, minimize, or mitigate environmental noise effects. The Noise Element identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. The City’s goal by incorporating the land use compatibility matrix, as shown in Table 5.11-1, City of Anaheim Noise Element Land Use Compatibility Matrix, is to protec t sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and regulation.
6 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, (Sacramento, CA: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, October 2003), p. 250. 7 Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3, Appendix G.
Exhibit 5 .11- 2
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
N
oise Level Contours without Project - Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay
Exhibit 5 .11- 3
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
N
oise Level Contours without Project - expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay Exhibit 5 .11- 4N oise Level Contours without Project - Northeast Parking Overlay D
isneylandForward Subsequent EIR
8' Solid Wall
8' Solid Wall
8' Solid Wall
8' Solid Wall
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-11 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-1
CITY OF ANAHEIM NOISE ELEMENT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-12 Section 5.11 – Noise
In the Noise Element, the most prominent non-transportation related noise production occurs at the three major attraction venues in the City: The Anaheim Resort, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the Honda Center of Anaheim. However, the Noise Element states that within the property line of these uses, the noise levels are generally considered acceptable and appropriate to the use. These uses employ large setbacks, parking buffers, and a variety of sound barriers to minimize noise impacts. The goal in addressing non-transportation related noise sources is to protect residences from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from the City’s activity centers. The City’s Noise Element addresses non-transportation related noise sources and the noise associated with these uses; however, this approach to address non-transportation noise, which relies on the Anaheim Municipal Code exterior noise limits that generally exclude traffic noise, is distinct from the City’s incorporation of typical land use compatibility guidelines that do not include consideration of noise from transportation sources. Traffic sounds, sound created by emergency activities and sound created by governmental units are exempt from the applications of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Therefore, for land use planning, the City’s Noise Element has adopted the State of California standards as shown in Table 5.11-2, State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.
TABLE 5.11-2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Land Use CNEL (dBA)
Categories Uses Interior1 Exterior2
Residential Single and multiple-family, duplex 45 3 65
Mobile Homes – 65 4
Commercial
Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 –
Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 –
Office Building, research and development, professional offices 50 –
Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 – Gymnasium, (Multipurpose) 50 –
Sports Club 55 –
Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale, utilities 65 –
Movie Theaters 45 –
Institutional/Public Hospital, school classrooms/playgrounds 45 65 Church, library 45 –
Open Space Parks – 65
1 Indoor environment excluding: bathrooms, kitchens, toilets, closets, and corridors 2 Outdoor environment limited to:
Private yard of single-family dwelling
Multiple-family private patios or balconies accessed from within the swelling (Balconies 6 feet deep or less are exempt) Mobile home parks
Park picnic areas
School playground
Hospital patios
3 Noise level requirement with closed windows, mechanical vent ilation or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. 4 Exterior noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
Source: City of Anaheim 2004
Municipal Code
Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes a property line noise limit for sound radiated from any premises, indicating noise shall not exceed 60 dBA (equivalent continuous DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-13 Section 5.11 – Noise
sound level (L eq.)). Readings must be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s instructions, using the slowest meter response. To check for compliance using a sound level meter, the meter must be placed at any point on the property line, but not closer than three feet from any wall and not less than three feet above the ground. At any point, the measured level must be the average of not less than three readings taken at two minute intervals. For a noise source to be considered objectionable, the levels must be five decibels (dB) or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the sources of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating. Prevailing noise levels measured when Project sound sources are not operating will be referred to as “ambient” noise levels throughout this analysis. Therefore, at property line locations where ambient noise levels are more than 55 dBA, operational noise levels shall not exceed the ambient noise level plus 5 dBA. At property line locations where ambient noise levels are 55 dBA or less, operational noise levels shall not exceed 60 dBA.
Also pursuant to Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the City is exempt from the application of Chapter 6.70 of the City’s Municipal Code during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. Therefore, if construction work is to occur outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., it must meet the requirements established by the noise ordinance, which is 60 dBA L eq as described previously.
This is also consistent with the findings in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
5.11.3 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. Methodology
The information in this section is primarily derived from the Operational and Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Noise Study) prepared for the Project (Veneklasen 2023), which is provided as Appendix I to this Subsequent EIR. The DisneylandForward Project is a modification of The Disneyland Resort Project, as evaluated in EIR No. 311, and the ARSP Project, as evaluated in SEIR No. 340. As detailed in Section 2.0, Introduction, the primary purpose of this Draft Subsequent EIR is to reevaluate the analysis in EIR No. 311 for The Disneyland Resort Project and the analysis in Master EIR No. 313 and SEIR No. 340 for the ARSP Project to determine if the changes proposed to these projects by the DisneylandForward Project (Project) create new potentially significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of prior significant impacts. This analysis addresses how the impacts associated with the transfer of previously approved uses to other Disney Properties in the Project Site compare to those impacts discussed and analyzed in the Prior EIRs and determines if the Project would create a new or substantially more severe significant impact than determined in the Prior EIRs.
Analysis of the existing noise and potential increases in noise associated with implementation of the Project is based on technical reports, noise monitoring, and noise prediction modeling conducted as part of the Project’s Noise Study (Veneklasen 2023). Also, as part of the Noise Study, a noise monitoring program was conducted within and around both Disneyland and Disney California Adventure theme parks to capture, summarize and categorize the various noise sources throughout the theme parks to understand both the existing noise levels of current attractions and events, and use the existing levels to model current and potential future conditions.
The primary intent of the noise monitoring program was to create an abundant library of various theme park noise levels and events associated with typical operation of Disney’s theme parks.
The various source types were then analyzed, categorized, and used to inform the acoustical model of source inputs around the Project Site. Potential future conditions include the movement of theme park uses closer to Walnut Street, move ment of theme park uses, hotels, retail, dining and entertainment to the existing Toy Story Parking Lot, and development of parking uses in the DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-14 Section 5.11 – Noise
ARSP Parking Overlay. Noise modeling involved the calculation of existing and future operational noise levels throughout the Project Site.
Various operational noise sources of the two existing theme parks, Disneyland and Disney California Adventure, were categorized by event type, as indicated in Table 5.11-3, Noise Events By Category, below. Each event category was created based on the event’s associated sound levels and specific characteristics typical of a theme park. For example, the “Thrill (Outdoor)” category includes rides that primarily include outdoor, track-style portions as the main features to the rides where the loudest portions occur outdoors. In contrast, the “Thrill (Indoor)” category includes rides that may also be track-style or have minor outdoor features, but the loudest portions of the ride occur indoors. While Splash Mountain or Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission:
BREAKOUT! do have portions that occur outdoors, both rides occur primarily indoors and include outdoor “drop” features with openings that face the theme park’s interior with the remainder of the ride indoors. “Family (Indoor)” rides are typically track-style (e.g., Peter Pan’s Flight) or theater (e.g., Soarin’) rides and may have certain queue portions outdoors. “Family (Outdoor)” rides can be trackless (e.g., Luigi’s Rollickin’ Roadsters), wi th a track (e.g., Casey Jr. Circus Train), or include a unique operation (e.g., Mad Tea Party), with various sources such as loudspeakers playing a soundtrack that occurs with the ride. In some cases (e.g., Autopia), the ride may include a collection of noise sources that must be taken into consideration. Lastly for rides, the “Rounds” are spinning-style circular rides (e.g., Dumbo) that include various sources such as loudspeakers throughout the ride and queue. The remaining event categories were broken out by the common offerings of the theme park. “Large Shows” include significant productions in which a large portion of the park’s attendance would attend, with multiple noise sources utilized throughout the area of the show. Typically, only one to two occurrences of a Large Show occur per day. Similarly, “Parades” use the theme park’s sound system and noise sources and follow a specific pathway throughout the park. These may occur one to two times per day. “Small Shows” are events that occur at specific times repeatedly throughout the day and often include live performances. “Back- of-House” areas have been differentiated as “(Active)” and “(Inactive)” based on the measured sound levels of the specific areas, as some areas were observed to be louder than others. All remaining sources, such as mechanical equipment and crowd noise, was typical.
The model was created using ISO 9613, “Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors".
Part 2 of the standard defines the general calculation method, in which there are three (3) types of sources (a line source, an area source, and a point source). Line sources are represented by a series of point sources with a defined maximum distance between each source and can be observed in the model by the red line through the center of each point source. This designation has been used for sources such as roadways, thrill rides, and walkways in which there are a series of continuous point sources with similar levels in a linear formation. Area sources are represented by a series of point sources with a defined vertical and horizontal (x, y) distance between each source and can be observed in the model with a dashed line around the perimeter of a grid of point sources. This designation has been used for sources such as family (outdoor) rides and ride queues. Lastly, the standard point source designation has been used for round rides, small shows, and the entrances to indoor rides that generate noise. With all sources created in the model, the results of the contours were compared with the measurement data of both existing park operations and traffic noise to verify consistency between the measured and modeled conditions.
Various combinations of the loudest operational noise sources were assessed for each event type to provide a conservative analysis of noise levels at various property lines of the Project Site.
Additionally, each event type was analyzed to determine a set of guidelines defining the noise reduction required for the proposed relocation of permitted uses and operations within the DRSP and at Disney’s ARSP Properties.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-15 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-3
NOISE EVENTS BY CATEGORY
Event Category Examples
Back-of-House (Active) Space Mountain BOH, Cars Land BOH, Indiana Jones Adventure BOH
Back-of-House (Inactive) Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge BOH, Casey Jr. Circus Train BOH Thrill (Outdoor)
Radiator Springs Racers, Goofy’s Sky School, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, Incredicoaster, Matterhorn Bobsleds, Grizzly River Run
Thrill (Indoor)
Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission: BREAKOUT!, Space
Mountain, Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance, Millennium Falcon:
Smuggler’s Run, Indiana Jones Adventure, Splash Mountain Family (Indoor) Toy Story Midway Mania!, Haunted Mansion, Peter Pan’s Flight, Soarin’, Web Slingers: A Spider-Man Adventure, Star Tours Family (Outdoor) Luigi’s Rollickin’ Roadsters, Mater’s Junkyard Jamboree, Casey Jr. Circus Train, Autopia, Mad Tea Party
Round Dumbo the Flying Elephant, Astro-Orbiter, King Arthur’s Carrousel, Jumpin’ Jellyfish, Jessie’s Carousel
Parades Main Street Electrical Parade, Pixar Pals
Large Shows World of Color, Fantasmic!, Fireworks
Small Shows Paradise Garden Bandstand, Guardians of the Galaxy: Dance Off, Avengers Assemble
Utility Facilities Chiller Plant, Water Treatment Plant Maintenance Facilities (indoor) Enclosed Warehouses
Queuing/Crowd Noise Throughout Disney Parks
Special noise sources Crowd noise, Automobile Traffic
BOH – Back-of-House
Source: Veneklasen 2023
B. Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria are derived from the City of Anaheim Environmental Checklist.
Threshold 5.11a Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Threshold 5.11b Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Noise threshold c (aviation noise) was evaluated in Section 3.4 of the Initial Study prepared for the Project. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no impact related to that threshold, and, therefore, that threshold is not discussed further in this Subsequent EIR.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-16 Section 5.11 – Noise
The CEQA Guidelines and the City’s General Plan provide no definition of what constitutes a substantial noise increase. Consistent with EIR No. 311 for The Disneyland Resort Project, the thresholds used for significance are:
A potentially significant impact due to operational and construction noise would occur if:
o The future ambient noise levels without the Project would increase by 3 dBA or more and/or exceed the local standards or ordinances with implementation of the Project.
8 A potentially significant impact due to traffic noise would occur if:
o Where future traffic noise levels without the Project would be less than 65 dBA CNEL, a +3 dBA CNEL increase in roadway noise would occur with implementation of the Project; and
o Where future traffic noise levels without the Project would be greater than 65 dBA CNEL, a +1.5 dBA CNEL increase in roadway noise would occur with implementation of the Project.
A potentially significant impact due to vibration would occur if:
o Vibration levels caused by the Project at nearest noise-sensitive receptors would exceed the threshold for damage to standard construction of 0.2 in/sec PPV and or the threshold for distinct human perception of 0.24 in/sec.
C. Standard Requirements
The following standard requirements (SR) are applicable to the Project. As appropriate, the standard requirement from SEIR No. 340 is listed in parentheses after the standard requirement.
Modifications to the original standard requirement are shown as strikethrough for deleted text and bold for new, inserted text.
SR NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, contractor specifications shall include a note indicating that noise-generating construction activities which produce a sound pressure level at any point along the property line in excess of 60 dBA shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on any day, except on Sundays or a City-recognized holiday when no noise-generating construction activities shall be permitted. This requirement is identified in Section
6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by and on approval of the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-7; SEIR No. 340, SR 5.10-1) SR NOI-2 Development shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, which establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Title 24 requires that new hotels, motels, and multi-family residences be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed the 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in any habitable room with windows closed. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-9, SR 5.10-2)
8 As previously discussed, a noise level incr ease of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-17 Section 5.11 – Noise
SR NOI-3 No commercial use shall produce noise associated with continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM (Municipal Code Section 18.32.130). (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.10-3) D. Impact Analysis
Threshold 5.11a Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Significant and Unavoidable.
Construction Noise
EIR No. 311 found construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. SEIR No. 340 concluded that construction activities associated with future development within the ARSP area have the potential to significantly impact noise-sensitive receptors, and, as a result, found a significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.
Consistent with EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, construction of the Project would generate temporary increased noise levels beyond the property lines of the Project Site. While specific locations, site plans, and construction details have not been developed, construction would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time. Because of the effects of noise attenuation, the distance from the noise source to a receptor is a primary consideration in determining the actual noise level experienced at the receptor. In addition, different construction stages involve different pieces of equipment and may involve only localized portions of a site so each stage of construction can result in different noise levels being generated, depending on the relative distance to sensitive receptors. Therefore, for the Project, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific noise-sensitive receptors. In construction projects, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels as grading involves the largest equipment.
Pursuant to Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction noise is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance provided it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (SR NOI-1). Nevertheless, the Noise Report analyzes the impacts of construction noise between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to determine if the 60 dBA criteria previously established in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 would be met during construction of the Project.
The typical sound levels and usage of construction equipment can be seen in Table 5.11-4, Reference Sound Pressure Levels at 50 ft for Construction Equipment Analyzed, below, most of which were sourced from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) database.
The only exceptions are instances where Veneklasen has had the opportunity to measure and database construction noise equipment, which hav e been labeled with an asterisk (*). For all cases, the highest reference noise level has been selected between FHWA’s predicted/measured values or Veneklasen’s measured values, with usage rates sourced from FHWA. For the purposes of this analysis, all construction equipment was assumed to be at the distance specified of 50 feet.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-18 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-4
REFERENCE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS AT 50 FT
FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ANALYZED
Equipment
Sound Level (dBA)
at 50 ft
Typical Usage
(%)
Backhoe* 82 40
Blasting 94 1
Compactor 83 20
Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40
Dozer 85 40
Dump Truck 84 40
Excavator 85 40
Generator 82 50
Pile Driver (Impact) 101 50
Pile Driver (Sonic) 95 50
Pumps 81 50
Roller 85 50
Tractor* 86 40
Source: Veneklasen 2023
Analysis and calculations have been conducted using various pieces of construction equipment to determine the level of impact to nearby receptors exposed to potential noise. Since a site- specific construction plan will not be developed until final building permits are issued by the City, a generalized assumption of construction activity consistent with the Project has been made regarding the construction equipment type and usage. Since grading is typically the loudest phase with the highest potential for noise impact to sensitive receptors, a representative selection of typical equipment used at The Disneyland Resort is included in the analysis, consisting of the following: Backhoe, Dozer, Dump Truck, Excavator, Front End Loader, Grader, Scraper, and Tractor.
Based on the computer model and the described usages above, the resulting sound levels due to construction will exceed 60 dBA at the property line, with sound levels expected to be approximately 65 to 75 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. Levels were calculated to the receptors identified as R1 through R6 in the following section for Operational Noise assessment and were calculated at the ground level or the second story where two-story residences occur.
The most notable impact will occur in the Toy Story Parking Area (future Southeast District and Theme Park East Overlay) when construction is occurring closest to the property line generally within 100 feet. However, the southern and eastern perimeters of this area includes an existing 12- to 16-foot barrier wall previously constructed to mitigate noise impacts from construction and operation of the existing parking lot. When future construction activity moves towards the center of the Toy Story Parking Area, the impact will be gradually reduced. Mitigation measures will also be implemented to limit the amount of disturbance during construction, such construction barriers throughout the Project Site to reduce noise ( MM NOI-10; MM TRA-13 ), assigning a noise disturbance coordinator to respond to neighborhood complaints and adjust operations causing the complaints (MM NOI-17), and locating stationary construction equipment a minimum of 75 feet from noise-sensitive receptors (MM NOI-18).
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-19 Section 5.11 – Noise
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 identified the referenced mitigation measures to reduce the potential effects of construction noise on adjacent properties. Implementation of MM NOI-8 requiring that that the property owner/developer ensure all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers; MM NOI-9 requiring submittal of a noise study identifying if noise attenuation is required and, if so, proposing noise attenuation measures; MM NOI-11 limiting pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical consideration along the property line to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; MM NOI-12 requiring the property owner/developer to pay all reasonable costs associated with construction noise monitoring to confirm noise between the hours of 7:00 pm to 7:00 am does not exceed the 60 dBA threshold; MM NOI-13 requiring that prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of clam shovel drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home; MM NOI-14 requiring preparation of a noise and vibration analysis if pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction on Disney ARSP Properties to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities; and MM NOI-19 prohibiting use of impact driven piles in conjunction with construction of parking structures. Although these mitigation measures would help to reduce the overall noise levels, they may not reduce construction noise impacts to less than significant.
The Project may result in a temporary potentially significant and unavoidable construction noise impact even with the implementation of mitigation measures. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not new or substantially more severe and consistent with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Operational Noise
No New Impact from EIR No. 311; No New Impact from SEIR No. 340 – Project Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 determined that implementation of mitigation would reduce any potential noise impacts from parking facilities, fireworks and the proposed amphitheater in the second theme park to a level considered less than significant. Traffic-related noise impacts were within the limits of the Noise Ordinance and therefore would be considered less than significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded that impacts regarding operational noise would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
Future Operational Noise Levels
Without implementation of mitigation, operation of theme park uses adjacent to property lines would exceed noise levels permitted under the City’s Noise Ordinance and would create a significant impact. However, the potential impact is heavily dependent on the orientation and design elements of the theme park uses, including but not limited to the layout of “Lands” or areas, buildings, barriers, facades, and all respective heights associated with them. The 3-D acoustical model and subsequent noise contours allowed the development of mitigation measures to reduce noise to less than significant.
Existing source levels were categorically modeled using Predictor software to predict future noise levels from multiple scenarios and combinations of theme park operations within the expanded Theme Park District and the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay. The expanded Theme Park District includes the following existing areas: Downtown Disney District and Simba Cast Member Parking south of Paradise Pier Hotel, and Stitch Parking Lot area south of the Pixar Pals Parking structure. The Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay currently contains the Toy Story Parking Lot. Noise-sensitive receptors have been identified consistent with EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, which include residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, auditoriums, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, amphitheaters, and parks.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-20 Section 5.11 – Noise
Attractions, lands, events, or parking operations from each category were modeled at different locations within the expanded Theme Park Distri ct and the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, and the Parking Overlay at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard closest to off-site residential areas and hotels, and the results of various modeling scenarios were assessed at multiple property line locations in the direction of the noise-sensitive receivers. Noise- sensitive receptors (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6) are identified as follows for each location, which have been selected since they are in the closest proximity to the Project Site and contain sensitive uses (i.e., residential, hotels):
R1 - Downtown Disney District and Simba Cast Member Parking: One- to two-story single- and multi-family residences west of the Project Site across Walnut Street and two- to three-story hotels and motels south of the Project Site across Katella Avenue; R2 - Stitch Parking Lot area: One- to two-story single- and multi-family residences west of the Project Site across Walnut Street;
R3 - Toy Story Parking Lot area: One- to two-story multi-family residences south and east of the Project Site;
R4 – Toy Story Parking Lot area: Two- to five-story hotel and motel properties southwest of the Project Site along Harbor Boulevard, north of Orangewood Avenue; and hotel and motel properties northwest of the Project Site along Harbor Boulevard south of Katella Avenue;
R5 – Parking Overlay at northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard: One-story single-family residences east of the Project Site and south across Ball Road; R6 – Parking Overlay at northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard: One-story elementary school north of the Project Site.
Based on observations and review of existing “Lands” within Disneyland and Disney California Adventure theme parks, without the implementation of mitigation measures, operation of the Project would create potentially significant noise impacts on the noise-sensitive receivers if theme park attractions with elevated noise levels were operated near the property line. Accordingly, the model assumed that either solid buildings for interior portions of rides or solid barriers (i.e., ride/“Land” facades or similar) would surround each “Land” and would act as an acoustical barrier between the center of the “Land” where guests congregate and the property line. This would be consistent with MM NOI-22 through MM NOI-24, and MM NOI-15 wherein ride buildings or facades can be strategically utilized as noise barriers. Back-of-house areas also typically would border the property line, which would be consistent with Disney’s existing lands throughout the Disneyland Resort. To create an acoustical separation between the back-of-house areas and the property line, a minimum 12-foot-tall barrier (greater height where already existing) was assumed around the resort boundary to minimize noise impacts at the property line. As an example, 14 to 16-foot walls along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Toy Story Parking Lot have been used successfully to minimize noise impacts from the existing parking lot on neighboring multi- family residential areas. Specific details rega rding the construction of the barrier are found in MM NOI-21.
As an assessment of potential worst-case scenarios of noise levels at property line locations, operations from typical park events that include a mixture of elements were assumed in the noise model to occur simultaneously and were assessed at the closest possible distance to a given property line. Where the Noise Study identified modeled noise levels exceeding 60 dBA, the future ambient noise without the Project was compared to the noise level with implementation of the Project to determine whether the impact was less than 3 dB with the Project’s operational noise, which is more stringent than the City’s Noise Ordinance. For additional protection to nearby DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-21 Section 5.11 – Noise
sensitive receptors, MM NOI-16 specifies requirements for noise monitoring consistent with a new theme park development. These sound monitoring requirements have been incorporated as a mitigation measure consistent with the previously adopted language.
Daytime noise contour maps for various noise source scenarios of the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, and the Parking Overlay at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard are shown in Exhibit 5.11-5, Noise Level Contours with Project – Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, Exhibit 5.11-6, Noise Level Contours with Project – Expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay, and Exhibit 5.11-7, Noise Level Contours with Project – Parking Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. Evening and night noise contours for both conditions are provided in the Noise Study (Appendix I of this Draft Subsequent EIR). All contour sound level values have been labeled so that they can be observed and compared to one another.
In the figures, the model included the future traffic noise, which, as discussed below, does not significantly change as compared to existing traffic noise. As further verification, measurements were collected on April 12, 2022, during the evening hours of 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. along South Walnut Avenue at West Kimberly Place and Calle de las Estrellas to understand existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. The time period selected represents a period when attendees typically leave the resort shortly after the closure of Disney California Adventure and shortly before the closure of Disneyland. The existing hourly measured noise levels from traffic along South Walnut Avenue were between 66 to 67 dBA, with 5-minute intervals ranging from 63 to 70 dBA.
Accounting for the noise level reduction to nearest sensitive receptors, this is consistent with the modeling showing that traffic alone is the primary source of noise along Walnut Avenue. Noise levels from Project operations, as modeled, and future traffic noise levels at noise sensitive receiver locations R1 through R4 are represented in Table 5.11-5, Noise Levels at Sensitive Receiver Locations, below. R5 and R6 receiver locations are not included in Table 5.11-5 as they would not be exposed to operational noise levels and would result in noise decreases with implementation of the Project due to proposed parking structure providing acoustical shielding of existing traffic noise.
Exhibit 5 .11-5
DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
N
oise Level Contours With Project - Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay Isometric View included to show relative height of existing and proposed buildings. 12' Barrier (min)
14' Barrier (min)
Note: This scenario is conceptual in nature and does not necessarily represent the actual future buildout; final building plans will comply with Specific Plan regulations.
Buildings along perimeter streets could also serve as noise barriers.
DisneylandForward S ubsequent EIR
Exhibit 5 .11- 6
Noise Level Contours with Project- expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay Isometric View included to show relative height of existing and proposed buildings.
Note: This scenario is conceptual in nature and does not necessarily represent the actual future buildout; final building plans will comply with Specific Plan regulations.
N
oise Level Contours with Project - Northeast Parking Overlay DisneylandForward Subsequent EIR
Exhibit 5 .11- 7
Isometric View included to show relative height of existing and proposed buildings.
Note: This scenario is conceptual in nature and does not necessarily represent the actual future buildout; final building plans will comply with Specific Plan regulations. 8' Solid Wall
8' Solid Wall
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-22 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-5
NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
Calculation
Point Receiver Type
Receiver
Location
Project
Operations
Noise Level
(dBA Leq 1-
hour)
Future Traffic
Noise Level
without Project
(dBA Leq 1-
hour)
Noise
Increase due
to Project
Operations
(dBA)
Less than
3 dBA
Increase?
1 Single-family
Residences
West of Walnut
Street (R1/R2) 49.7 67.0 0.1 Yes
2 Multi-family
Residences
West of Walnut
Street (R1/R2) 51.5 63.9 0.2 Yes
3 Hotels South of Katella
Avenue (R1) 50.2 68.7 0.1 Yes
4 Motels South of Katella
Avenue (R1) 51.2 69.1 0.1 Yes
5 Hotel and motel
properties
Along Harbor
Boulevard, south
of Katella
Avenue (R4)
48.4 58.7 0.4 Yes
6 Hotel and motel
properties
Along Harbor
Boulevard, north
of Orangewood
Avenue (R4)
48.0 56.0 0.6 Yes
7 Multi-family
Residences
South of Project
Site, east of
Clementine
Street (R3)
50.6 52.5 2.2 Yes
8 Multi-family
Residences
East of Project
Site, west of
Haster Street
(R3)
47.0 52.0 1.2 Yes
Source: Veneklasen 2023
In addition to the calculation points referenced in Table 5.11-5, the daytime noise contours with potential future Project development shown in Exhibit 5.11-5, Noise Level Contours with Project - Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, and Exhibit 5.11-6, Noise Level Contours with Project – Expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay, and Exhibit 5.11-7, Noise Level Contours with Project – Parking Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard can be directly compared to the contours shown in Exhibit 5.11-2, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay, Exhibit 5.11-3, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Expanded Theme Park District/Theme Park West Overlay, and Exhibit 5.11-4, Noise Level Contours Without Project – Parking Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. The representative sound levels of each noise contour have been labeled within each figure within the contour lines themselves and by color in the legend in the upper right.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-23 Section 5.11 – Noise
For example, the noise contours at sensitive receptors for the Expanded Theme Park/Theme Park West Overlay model along Walnut Avenue with current operational sources without a representative development of the Project (Exhibit 5.11-3) resulted in levels from 60 to 67 dBA, unrelated to theme park activities and primarily the result of traffic noise. The contours at sensitive receptors did not noticeably change when applying iterations of potential future development of the proposed land use with the Project (Exhibit 5.11-5) and were consistent with the previous noise contours. The lack of change or movement of the noise contours indicates that the noise levels are staying generally consistent with the ambient noise levels without the Project, which are primarily controlled by traffic noise in the area and are changing less than the significance threshold of 3 dBA. This demonstrates implementation of the Project would not significantly raise the overall noise levels. Samples of sources used for the model have been labeled in the figures consistent with those defined within Table 5.11-3.
Similar results are seen for the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay and Parking Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. Specific to the Parking Overlay, the model of the parking structure utilizes design elements consistent with the existing Mickey & Friends and Pixar Pals parking structures and MM NOI-20, with sound louvers, barriers at each level, and tiering of each level of the parking structure. A setback from the property lines has also been included. Further, compliance with MM NOI-6 will require engine noise from sweeping equipment to be muffled. Finally, compliance with MM NOI-7 will require plans for structures adjacent to residential areas or other sensitive uses to demonstrate noise levels from loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s noise ordinance level of 60 dBA at the property line.
Although the acoustical model demonstrates the impact of future operational noise of the Project to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, noise monitoring by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer is included as part of MM NOI-16. If the monitoring finds that the operations exceed the City’s Noise Ordinance, then modifications to the ongoing operations, such as lowering the volume of amplified audio, would be commenced immediately to bring the sound level into compliance.
Additionally, in compliance with MM NOI-3 , aerial fireworks shows would not occur west of Disneyland Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays. Additionally, any fireworks that are non-explosive (i.e., stage pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!), would be required to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line.
Further, in compliance with MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 , Disney would continue to obtain pyrotechnic permits on an annual basis and use lower noise-producing fireworks displays at Disney California Adventure to minimize noise from 11 p.m. fireworks shows.
Future operational noise would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Future Traffic Noise Levels
Traffic from I-5 and the main arterials within The Anaheim Resort is the primary source of ambient noise in the general area of the Project Site. As part of the Project’s Noise Study, measurements were collected on select roadways surrounding the Project Site, and future noise levels related to traffic were calculated based on data in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project, Anaheim, California (Gibson 2023). The existing and future noise levels (predicted to the year 2045) and the change in levels related to traffic have been calculated based on the full buildout of the DRSP and ARSP. Results have been shown in Table 5.11-6, Future Traffic Noise Levels with and without the DisneylandForward Project and Acceptability, below, which shows that all changes in levels result in a less than significant impact relative to the 1.5 dBA CNEL or DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-24 Section 5.11 – Noise
3 dBA CNEL thresholds. The thresholds of 1.5 dBA CNEL and 3 dBA CNEL relate to how traffic volume correlates to the traffic noise levels. A doubling of traffic would generally result in a 3 dBA CNEL increase. However, where traffic volumes are already relatively high (typically 20,000 AADT or greater), a doubling of traffic volume is often not viable to the roadways already existing. This is especially true where traffic volumes are 40,000 AADT or greater, as is the case with portions of Disneyland Drive, Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road, and Anaheim Boulevard. Therefore, the threshold of significance was determined by whether the calculated CNEL without the Project resulted in a value above or below 65 CNEL, which generally aligns with the volumes previously referenced. Where the CNEL without the Project was below 65 CNEL, an increase of 3 dBA CNEL with the Project was used as the threshold of significance. Where the CNEL without the Project was above 65 CNEL, an increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL with the Project was used as the threshold of significance.
Future calculated traffic noise levels have been referenced when assessing future operational source levels of park operations since, in many cases, the future levels due to traffic on the major arterials surrounding the Project Site already exceed the 60 dBA criteria targeted for the park operations. For all arterial roadways within The Anaheim Resort surrounding the Project Site, noise levels caused by traffic alone without the Project, predicted to 2045, were calculated to range from 61.5 to 72.7 dBA CNEL. This analysis excludes the levels reported along Clementine Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue and Gene Autry Way from Haster Street to Harbor Boulevard since the Project would remove both future planned roadways.
Regardless of the threshold used, calculations for all roadways resulted in less than a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase. Therefore, the overall noise level increase of future traffic with implementation of the Project would be less than both 1.5 dBA CNEL for roads with higher traffic volumes or 3 dBA CNEL for roads with lesser traffic volumes, and would not be significant based on the future noise levels reported to 2045. A less than significant impact regarding traffic noise would occur.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-25 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-6
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH AND WITHOUT
THE DISNEYLANDFORWARD PROJECT AND ACCEPTABILITY
Road Road Segment
Speed
(mph)
Future AADT
Without
Project
Conditions
CNEL at 50ft
Without
Project (dB)
Future AADT
With Project
Conditions
CNEL at 50ft
With Project
(dB)
Difference in
Level
Without
Project (dB)
Less Than
1.56 dB
Increase?
Walnut Street Ball Rd to Cerritos Ave 35 17740 66.1 17740 66.1 0.0 Yes Cerritos Ave to Katella Ave 40 16430 67.2 16430 67.2 0.0 Yes Disneyland Dr
Manchester Av to Ball Rd 40 42930 71.4 42930 71.4 0.0 Yes Ball Rd to Magic Way 35 32800 68.7 19653 66.5 -2.2 Yes
Magic Way to Katella 35 34500 69.0 31372 68.6 -0.4 Yes
S. West Street Katella Ave to Oran gewood Ave 40 15030 66.8 14777 66.7 -0.1 Yes Harbor Blvd
Ball Rd to I-5 35 59460 70.5 65487 70.9 0.4 Yes
Manchester Ave to Disney Way 35 54670 70.5 60421 70.9 0.4 Yes Disney Way to Katella Ave 35 56950 70.7 62462 71.1 0.4 Yes Katella Ave to Convention Way 35 50570 70.0 58480 70.6 0.6 Yes Convention Way to Orangewood Ave 35 47600 69.7 53197 70.2 0.5 Yes Orangewood Ave to Wilken Way 35 50410 70.0 52151 70.1 0.1 Yes Clementine St Manchester Ave to Disney Way 30 24080 66.6 24826 66.7 0.1 Yes Disney Way to Katella Ave 30 8470 61.5 10419 62.4 0.9 Yes Katella Ave
9th St to Walnut St 40 48170 71.3 48143 71.3 0.0 Yes
Walnut St to Disney Dr 40 56930 72.0 56903 72.0 0.0 Yes Disneyland Dr to Hotel Way 40 67110 72.7 65194 72.6 -0.1 Yes Hotel Way to Harbor Blvd 40 63060 72.5 61334 72.4 -0.1 Yes Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 40 59260 72.2 66757 72.7 0.5 Yes Clementine St to Anaheim Blvd 35 59840 70.8 66457 71.3 0.5 Yes Anaheim Blvd to Manchester Ave 35 57710 70.7 61891 71.0 0.3 Yes Manchester Ave to Anaheim Way 35 53740 70.4 55250 70.5 0.1 Yes Ball Rd
Euclid St to Walnut St 35 34040 69.0 34348 69.0 0.0 Yes Walnut St to Disney Dr 35 42390 69.4 45114 69.7 0.3 Yes Disneyland Dr to Harbor Blvd 35 58690 70.8 57660 70.7 -0.1 Yes Harbor Blvd to Anaheim Blvd 40 47460 71.3 49110 71.4 0.1 Yes Disney Way Haster St to Manchester Ave 30 17040 64.1 20425 64.9 0.8 Yes Clementine St to Anaheim Blvd 30 26660 65.8 28966 66.2 0.4 Yes Haster St Katella Ave to Gene Autry Way 35 25290 67.6 33887 68.9 1.3 Yes Gene Autry Way to Orangewood Ave 35 39830 69.6 44074 70.0 0.4 Yes Orangewood
Ave
West St to Harbor Blvd 35 22670 67.8 22670 67.8 0.0 Yes Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 40 21850 68.4 23784 68.8 0.4 Yes Clementine St to Haster St 40 21480 68.4 29817 69.8 1.4 Yes Haster St to Manchester Ave 40 25910 69.2 26047 69.2 0.0 Yes Manchester Ave Harbor Blvd to Clementine St 30 10290 63.1 11036 63.4 0.3 Yes Anaheim Blvd
Ball Rd to Cerritos Ave 35 46190 69.8 47469 69.9 0.1 Yes Cerritos Ave to I-5 35 55320 70.5 56599 70.6 0.1 Yes
I-5 to Katella Ave 35 31080 67.6 33216 67.9 0.3 Yes
Source: Veneklasen 2023
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-26 Section 5.11 – Noise
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation regarding operations. 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 5.11b Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
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 address groundborne vibration or groundborne noise impacts. SEIR No. 340 concluded that construction activities related to future development projects within the ARSP area have the potential to generate vibration and groundbourne vibration impacts. Implementation of proposed mitigation would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Project construction would generate vibration and groundborne vibration impacts. The impacts potentially affect the same surrounding sensitive uses discussed above regarding noise.
As defined by Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings is 0.2 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration sources, which include machines and traffic. Below this level, there is virtually no risk of building damage. Caltrans also defines the threshold for distinct perceptibility of vibration in humans as caused by transient events, which is
0.24 in/sec PPV. General vibration levels of construction equipment that would occur on the Project Site is shown within Table 5.11-7, General Vibration Levels at 25ft for Construction Equipment Analyzed, which is based upon data provided by the Federal Transit Administration. This data was selected and utilized for analysis since it is also referenced within the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
Construction vibration levels from equipment operating more than 25 feet from a residential structure would be at or below the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. The operation of equipment such as vibratory rollers and clam shovel drops at a distance of 25 feet would be just barely above the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold, requiring a distance of 26 feet to be below the threshold. Therefore, since the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure (MM NOI-13) would prohibit the operation of such equipment within 25 feet of any existing residential structure, the mitigation would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Vibration data and vibration propagation calculations indicate that construction equipment vibration levels would be below the 0.24 in/sec PPV level of distinct perceptibility when heavy construction equipment is operating at distances greater than 25 feet from the nearest residential structure. Given that vibration levels dissipate rapidly with distance and that nearly all sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project are located more than 25 feet away from the Project property lines, residential land uses are not expected to be subject to distinctly perceptible vibration levels over extended periods of time. The only exception would be the single-story residential structures at the northeast corner located in R3 near calculation point 8 and the two-story motel to the north located in R4 of the Southeast District/Theme Park Overlay. Vibration-inducing within 25 feet or less to the property line would be prohibited for these locations. It is also important to note that ground-borne vibration decreases rapidly as distance from the vibration source increases, as observed in the calculations described previously. Therefore, construction in the Project area would have the potential to cause vibration levels that would be noticeable at residential receivers for short periods, but would not be considered to be a significant impact.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-27 Section 5.11 – Noise
TABLE 5.11-7
GENERAL VIBRATION LEVELS AT 25 FT
FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ANALYZED
Equipment
Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) in
in/s at 25ft
Pile Driver (Impact, Upper Range) 1.518
Pile Driver (Impact, Typical) 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic, Upper Range) 0.734
Pile Driver (Sonic, Typical) 0.170
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202
Hydromill (slurry wall, in soil) 0.008
Hydromill (slurry wall, in rock) 0.017
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
in/s – inches per second
Source: Veneklasen 2023.
Pile driving and rock blasting would have the potent ial to generate higher vibration levels than discussed above, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM NOI-13 would prevent the operation of clam shovel drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home. While not anticipated to occur with the Project, implementation of MM NOI-14 would require preparation of a technical study to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts if pile driving and/or blasting are anticipated during the construction on Disney ARSP Properties. The Disneyland Resort Project condition of approval COA No. 63 states: “That in conjunction with the construction of the East and West Public Parking Facilities, the Hotel Parking Structures, and the South Parking Area Structure, no impact driven piles shall be allowed”. This condition has been converted into a mitigation measure for the Project, MM NOI-19 . This mitigation would reduce potential vibration impacts to nearby structures and persons to a less than significant level. Potential mitigation may include using non-explosive rock removal methods and low-impact pile driving methods.
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation related to vibration.
This impact is new when compared to EIR No. 311, which did not analyze groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
EIR No. 311 concluded that residents within 100 feet of construction areas would be exposed to construction noise between 69 and 73 dBA when grading occurs; however, due to the short-term nature of construction noise this would not represent a significant cumulative impact. For long- term noise impacts related to traffic, development of The Disneyland Resort would contribute to cumulative noise impacts; however, due to the cons truction of soundwalls or other mitigation for other projects, particularly the I-5 corridor construction, cumulative impacts were identified to be DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-28 Section 5.11 – Noise
less than significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact; impacts related to construction vibration and operational traffic noise would not contribute to a cumulative significant impact.
The Project as well as other cumulative projects have the potential to result in vibratory impacts during construction, and in short- and long-term noise impacts. Noise and vibration impacts during construction would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time throughout the construction periods of future development activities within the Project Site. The Project would reduce noise and vibratory impacts during construction by complying with the City’s noise ordinance, as we ll as by implementing MM NOI-6, MM NOI-8, MM NOI-10, MM NOI-11, MM NOI-12, MM NOI-13, MM NOI-14, and MM NOI-17 ; however, cumulative short-term noise impacts are still anticipated to result from construction of the Project. The Project’s contribution may be cumulatively considerable and therefore would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Similarly, and due to the highly developed nature of this portion of the City, other construction projects in the area may also significantly impact sensitive receptors.
Cumulative construction projects would be required to evaluate their cumulative contributions to construction-related noise and to comply with City Code and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures, which would help to reduce cumulative noise impacts. However, if cumulative projects were also to be constructed at the same time and in close proximity to the edges of the Project Site, a higher level of noise and/or a longer cumulative period of noise would result when compared to just the Project itself, which would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
The Project would reduce vibratory impacts to less than significant levels through implementation of MM NOI-13 and MM NOI-14. As these mitigation measures are required by SEIR No. 340 for any projects in the ARSP, other nearby cumulative projects would be required to conduct their own noise and vibration analyses and prepare appropriate vibratory mitigation measures for any cumulative projects that require the use of pile driving, blasting, and/or other construction methods that would produce high levels of vibration. Therefore, less than significant short-term, cumulative vibratory impacts are anticipated to result from the Project in combination with other cumulative projects.
The Project would result in ongoing operational noise impacts, which would be mitigated to less than significant levels through MMs NOI-1 through MM NOI-7 ; MM NOI-9 ; MM NOI-11 ; and MM NOI-15 through MM NOI-16. Cumulative development projects would be required to evaluate their cumulative contributions to operational noise and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures, which would help to ensure that cumulative noise impacts of the Project and cumulative projects would be less than significant.
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to construction noise. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation related to operational noise. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when 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 related to vibration. This impact would be new w hen compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not analyze groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-29 Section 5.11 – Noise
5.11.5 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 NOI-1 Ongoing during project operation of the second theme park, the property owner/developerapplicant shall obtain pyrotechnic permits (on an annual basis. Additions or modifications to firework shoots shall require a separate permit) a permit for use of fireworks. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-2) MM NOI-2 Additionally, the following shall be implemented Oongoing during project operations, lLower noise-producing fireworks displays will be used at Disney California Adventurethe Second Theme Park to minimize noise from 11:00 p.m. fireworks shows to meet the noise levels in the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.5-1 )
MM NOI-3 No aerial fireworks show shall be allowed west of Disneyland Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays. Prior to the commencement of any show in these areas that includes fireworks that are non-explosive (i.e., stage pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!), the property owner/developer shall present a noise study to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate that noise leve ls from the fireworks would meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and would not create a noise increase greater than 5 d BA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.
MM NOI-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for an amphitheater, plans submitted for the location of the amphitheater will document that the facility is no closer than 2,000 feet from the nearest existing residence. The design and orientation of the amphitheater will be reviewed by a certified acoustical engineer; the applicant property owner/developer shall submit a report, for review and approval by the City, to ensure that noise from the amphitheater does not exceed the noise levels established by the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-3)
MM NOI-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the amphitheater and within 9 months of commencement of amphitheater operations, a Noise Monitoring Program prepared by a certified acoustical engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. The applicant property owner/developer shall submit the results of the Noise Monitoring Program conducted by a certified acoustical engineer to ensure that there are not violations of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance from amphitheater operations outside the Disneyland Resort. If noise in excess of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance is detected, the applicant property owner/developer shall modify operations within three days to bring the amphitheater into conformance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-4)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-30 Section 5.11 – Noise
MM NOI-6 Ongoing during construction and project operations of the second theme park, engine noise from sweeping equipment used in the public parking facilities, South Parking Area facilities and any hotel parking facilities adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled. Sweeping operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-7; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-7) MM NOI-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit, to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, for structures that are adjacent to residential areas or other sensitive uses , the applicant property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate that noise levels from ensure that all mechanical ventilation units, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 DBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 3 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive are shown on plans and installed in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-8; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-3 and MM 5.10-10)
MM NOI-8 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-9; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-1) MM NOI-9 Prior to issuance approval of each building permit final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the CaliforniaUniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise- sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures , such as but not limited to acoustic sound barriers, shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-2)
MM NOI-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit for construction within 75 feet of noise sensitive receptors , a note shall be provided on building plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers between the project perimeter and the sensitive receptor at the project perimeter areas. The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled with an acceptable solid vision product. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-8; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-5)
MM NOI-11 Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-31 Section 5.11 – Noise
considerations and in areas along the property line or accessible by the public shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-6)
MM NOI-12 Ongoing during construction, property owners/developers shall pay for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at any point on the exterior project boundary property line do not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day where outside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-8) MM NOI-13 Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of clam shovel drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-11) MM NOI-14 Prior to issuance of each building permit on Disney ARSP Properties if pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Department to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities, including site design features such as setbacks and trenches. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-12)
MM NOI-15 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall present area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any development of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays includes 30-foot-tall buildings or structures between the property line near residential or other noise sensitive land uses and the proposed theme park land or theme park attraction. If a noise barrier is provided, such as a ride façade, the material used shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25.
MM NOI-16 The property owner/developer shall pay all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer under the direction of the Planning Department to ensure that The Disneyland Resort ongoing operations do not exceed 60 dBA at any point on the property line between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, modifications to the ongoing operations, such as adjustments to volume at the source or orientation of speakers, shall be commenced immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance. Monitoring shall be conducted as follows:
(a) Ongoing: Semi-annually on a random basis for a three (3) day period.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-32 Section 5.11 – Noise
(b) During the first five (5) years of operation of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District west of Disneyland Drive, the Southeast District, and/or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays: Four (4) times a year on a random basis for a three (3) day period.
(c) In response to a noise complaint, at the City’s discretion: For a three (3) day period at the location of the noise exceedance.
MM NOI-17 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, grading permit or demolition permit, a note shall be provided on the plans stating that ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise complaints and requiring implementation of reasonable measures to correct the noise issue.
MM NOI-18 Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators a minimum of 75 feet from noise sensitive receptors.
MM NOI-19 Ongoing during construction, n o impact driven piles shall be allowed in conjunction with the construction of parking structures. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-6) MM NOI-20 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a parking structure, the property owner/developer will submit plans to the Planning and Building Department indicating noise from the parking structure will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to the parking structure, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), and the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire squealing.
MM NOI-21 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate development of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays shall include installation and maintenance of at least 12-foot-tall noise barriers along the property line to reduce back-of-house noise, such as vehicle pass-bys and truck deliveries with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25.
MM NOI-22 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Indoor) and Family (Indoor) attractions shall be located no less than 200 feet from the center of the ride or attraction to noise-sensitive receptors and shall include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors. The planning of each attraction shall take into account any openings or outdoor areas of the attractions and directionally orient the openings away from noise-sensitive receptors and towards the center of the new theme park development.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-33 Section 5.11 – Noise
MM NOI-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Outdoor), rides taller than 50 feet, Parades and Large Shows shall be located:
1. For 1st to 3rd Offsite Floor Receptors: No less than 550 feet from the center of the ride to any noise-sensitive receptor and shall include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors.
2. For 4th Floor Offsite Receptors and above (i.e., no shielding from 30-foot buildings/barriers): No less than 1100 feet between the center of the ride and any noise-sensitive receptor. If the distance of 1100 feet cannot be met, an indoor rollercoaster shall be considered. If a distance less than 1100 feet is considered with exposure to 4th Floor receptors, the distance to noise- sensitive receptors and layout shall be reviewed by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer prior to finalizing the site plan. In general, the entire full height of the ride shall include a solid barrier shielding it from any noise- sensitive receptors. The material used for the barrier shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25.
MM NOI-24 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Family (Outdoor), Round and Small Show attractions shall be located at least 400 feet from sensitive receptors and include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors.
MM TRA-13 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during grading and construction, a Truck Route Plan identifying truck routes along arterials, avoiding residential areas to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
The Plan shall show conformance with the external noise limits for construction between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Plan shall also prohibit construction traffic on residential streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and construction signage at appropriate locations. The Truck Route Plan shall provide for monitoring of street conditions and potential repairing and/or repaving by property owner/developer after completion of construction as required by the City Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-3)
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-34 Section 5.11 – Noise
The following mitigation measures and project design features are now covered by a standard requirement or a new mitigation measure:
EIR No. 311 MM 3.5-5 and SEIR No. 340 MM 5.10-9 have been replaced by SR NOI-2; EIR No. 311 MM 3.5.6 and PDF 3.5-2 have been combined and replaced with MM NOI-2; EIR No. 311 PDF 3.5-3 has been replaced by MM NOI-21; and SEIR No. 340 MM 5.10-4 has been replaced by MM NOI-20.)
5.11.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
Threshold 5.11a Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact Summary:
Construction Noise. The Project may result in a temporary potentially significant and unavoidable construction noise impact even with the implementation of mitigation measures. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not new or substantially more severe and consistent with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
Operational Noise Levels. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation regarding operations. 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 5.11b Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact Summary: The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation related to vibration. This impact is new when compared to EIR No. 311, which did not analyze groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would not be 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 significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to construction noise. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation related to operational noise. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when 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 related to vibration. This impact would be new w hen compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not analyze groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-35 Section 5.11 – Noise
impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
5.11.7 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=
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. 2023 (May). Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project, Anaheim, California. Los Angeles, CA: Gibson. (Appendix J- 2)
Veneklasen Associates. 2023 (June). Operational and Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: Veneklasen Associates. (Appendix I) DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.11-36 Section 5.11 – Noise
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.12-1 Section 5.12 – Population and Housing
5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section discusses the existing population and housing setting of the Project Site and assesses the Project’s potential impacts related to population and housing.
5.12.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The Disneyland Resort EIR No. 311
EIR No. 311, certified by the City in 1993, determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would result in minimal growth within the City, and that The Disneyland Resort Project would create a less than significant impact related to employment, population, or housing and no mitigation was required. EIR No. 311 found The Disneyland Resort Project would result in the addition of 15,163 new jobs directly, 3,211 jobs induced throughout the City, and 14,277 jobs indirectly of which 2,142 would be in Anaheim, which total 20,516 total jobs in Anaheim. Although The Disneyland Resort Project does not include any new dwelling units that would lead to direct population growth, EIR No. 311 found that indirect population growth would occur that would increase the need for housing by 553 housing units, which was considered a less than significant impact. Nevertheless, The Disneyland Resort Project would implement PDF 3.9-1, which is provided below. The City’s approval of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan included Condition of Approval No. 23 related to housing, which provided:
That the applicant will build or preserve, or cause to be built or preserved, 500 affordable housing units in the City of Anaheim in connection with the development of the Project.
The housing units shall be preserved, constructed or under construction prior to the opening of the Second Theme Park. The City shall cooperate with the applicant in securing financing, identifying sites and approving entitlements. The applicant shall consult with the City prior to entering into binding agreements to build or preserve, or cause to be built or preserved, such housing units in the City. The applicant shall give priority to the preservation of existing housing units in deteriorating multi- family areas of the City. The applicant shall give priority to family units of 2 and 3 bedrooms with a goal of 50% of the units to be 2 or more bedrooms. The applicant shall have discretion to select the particular projects in which it will participate. Affo rdable housing units required as part of other projects’ conditions of approval shall not be eligible for credit. A minimum of 40% of the units shall serve “very low income households” (as defined in Title 25 of the California Administration Code, Section 6926) The remainder of the units will serve low income households.
Further, the existing Development Agreement between Disney and the City states:
"3.1.6 Neighborhood Improvements/Housing. As provided by the Finance Agreement and in connection with the issuance of municipal securities pursuant to the Finance Agreement, the City will receive five million dollars ($5,000,000) to be used by the City for neighborhood improvements/housing in the immediate vicinity of the Anaheim Resort as the City, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate. Payment of such amount pursuant to the Finance Agreement shall be deemed satisfaction of Condition of Approval Number 61." This obligation has been satisfied.
DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.12-2 Section 5.12 – Population and Housing
EIR No. 311 Project Design Feature
EIR No. 311 and Modified MMP No. 0067 1 presented the following PDF to reduce potential impacts regarding population and housing associated with The Disneyland Resort Project to less than significant levels.
PDF 3.9-1 Ongoing during project operations, the existing Disneyl and theme park and the Disneyland Hotel special employment programs such as summer employment for teachers and educational programs offering local high school 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.
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. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP Project has the potential to increase population by approximately 9,099 residents and result in a demand for 2,757 housing units in the City.
However, the increases related to population and housing would be well within City projections.
Additionally, the creation of 2,757 new households, was assumed in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern Calif ornia Association of Governments (SCAG).
SEIR No. 340 concluded buildout of the ARSP would result in a less than significant impact related to population and housing.
SEIR No. 340 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in SEIR No. 340 for impacts related to population, housing, or employment associated with the ARSP Project.
5.12.2 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 Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352 compares the effects of the Project changes on the previously approved projects to 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 Disneyland Resort Project 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 known as the Paradise Pier Hotel, and associated parking structure. The Project site is surrounded by a variety of land
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
5.12-3 Section 5.12 – Population and Housing
uses including hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, single-family residential, multi-family residential, and recreational land uses.
Population and Housing
Existing and Projected Population
According to the United States Census Bureau, the population of Orange County has increased from 3,010,232 people in 2010 to 3,186,989 people in 2020 (United States Census Bureau 2022).
The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population in Orange County will increase to 3,291,863 persons by 2030 and would then contract to 3,268,048 persons by 2050 (DOF 2021). According to more recent data provided in the SCAG Connect SoCal 2024 Preliminary Regional and County Growth Forecast, Orange County’s total population in 2020 was 3,188,000. SCAG forecasts that Orange County’s total population will increase to 3,253,000 in 2030 and to 3,427,000 in 2050 (SCAG 2022a).
SCAG jurisdiction-level growth forecasts for the City of Anaheim anticipate a growth in the City’s population from 356,700 in 2016 to 416,800 in 2045 (SCAG 2020a).
Existing and Projected Housing
The DOF estimates that the number of households within Orange County will increase from 1,053,731 households in 2020 to 1,131,153 households in 2030 (DOF 2020). Similarly, the numbers from the SCAG Connect SoCal 2024 Preliminary Regional and County Growth Forecast anticipate an increase in households in Orange County from 1,077,000 in 2020 to 1,165,000 in 2030 (SCAG 2022a).
SCAG jurisdiction-level growth forecasts for the City of Anaheim anticipate a growth in the City’s number of households from 101,100 in 2016 to 122,700 in 2045 (SCAG 2020a).
Existing and Projected Employment
Total employment within Orange County is antic ipated by SCAG to increase from 1,657,000 in 2020 to 1,926,000 in 2030 and to 2,006,000 by 2050 (SCAG 2022a).
SCAG jurisdiction-level growth forecasts for the City of Anaheim anticipate a growth in the City’s employment from 197,200 in 2016 to 250,500 in 2045 (SCAG 2020a).
B. Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The State of California housing law calls upon local jurisdictions to provide a fair-share of housing to meet the needs of California’s residents. In implementing this law, the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) assigns fair share housing targets to each of the Council of Governments (COG) in the State based on the DOF population projections and regional forecasts. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of each local General Plan. State law requires each regional COG to determine existing and future housing needs for its region (California Government Code § 65584.05[h]). The local General Plan Housing Elements address how these housing targets can be achieved during an eight-year timeframe DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
5.12-4 Section 5.12 – Population and Housing
given local demographics, land use, and zoning. Loc al jurisdictions are required to submit Housing Elements to HCD review and approval. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The current planning period is October 2021 to October 2029. Table 5.12-1, City of Anaheim Regional Housing Needs Assessment Targets:
2021-2029, identifies the 2021–2029 RHNA targets for the City.
TABLE 5.12-1
CITY OF ANAHEIM REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT TARGETS: 2021–2029
Household Income Categorya Target
Extremely Lowb 1,884 units (10.80 percent)
Very Low/Low Income 4,280 units (24.52 percent)
Moderate Income 2,945 units (16.87 percent)
Above Moderate Income 8,344 units (47.81 percent)
Total 17,453 units (100 percent)
a Units allocated to extremely low, very-low, low, and moderate income categories have been restricted to households that meet the income requirements for these categories. Units allocated to the above moderate income category include all market rate units that are not income restricted.
b The allocation for extremely low income units is assumed to be 50 percent of the very-low income allocation. The allocation is a subset of the very-low income allocation and is not added to the total construction need.