31b. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 Volume 2 — Anaheim City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 1 of 64)

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100402
DisneylandForward
City of Anaheim
Volume 2 – Appendices A through Q
Prepared for City of Anaheim
Contact: Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805

Prepared by Psomas
Contact: Jennifer Marks
Principal, Environmental Services
5 Hutton Centre, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
September 2023

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES
Appendix
A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
B-1 Shade and Shadow Study
B-2 Height Map
C-1 Model Inputs
C-2 CalEEMod Calculations
C-3 Health Risk Assessment
D-1 DisneylandForward Development History Report
D-2 Historic Resources Technical Report
D-3 South Central Coastal Information Center Records
E Energy Calculations
F Paleontological Records Search Results
G Hazardous Materials Database Search
H-1 Master WQMP
H-2 Hydraulics Report
I Noise and Vibration Analysis
J-1 CEQA Transportation Analysis
J-2 Operational Traffic Analysis
K Tribal Consultation Letters
L-1 WSA
L-2 Sewer Study
M DRSP
N ARSP

O TARIP

P TARLIP
Q Plant List

DisneylandForward
Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352
ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters

City of Anaheim
Planning Department
Notice of Preparation
DATE: October 21, 2021
TO: Responsible Agencies, Property Owners, Residents,
Tenants and Interested Parties
FROM: City of Anaheim (Lead Agency)
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 352 and Scoping
Meeting for the DisneylandForward Project
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (Disney), has submitted applications to the City of Anaheim (City) for the proposed DisneylandForward Project (proposed project) to provide for continued, long-term growth of the Disneyland Resort within The Anaheim Resort. The proposed project is a request from Disney for more flexibility as to the location of permitted uses within Disney’s properties in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (DRSP) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (ARSP) areas and streamlined review of future Disney projects in these areas. The proposed project would also facilitate the use of improved technologies, such as energy efficient lighting and small cellular sites, and more drought-tolerant landscaping that would be applicable to the entire Anaheim Resort.

As shown on the following project site map, the proposed project is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I5) between Ball Road to the north, Walnut Street to the west, and Chapman Avenue to the south. The project site encompasses the three specific plan areas that make up The Anaheim Resort: the DRSP, the ARSP, and the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (HCSP). These specific plan areas, which were initially established in the 1990s, provide for the development of visitor-serving uses including theme park, convention center, hotels, restaurants and commercial areas. The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program and Anaheim Resort Identity Program provide design concepts addressing items such as landscaping, street lights, gateways, signs and bus shelters for streets within The Anaheim Resort. The Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map depicts the maximum height of structures permitted within The Anaheim Resort.

The proposed project will affect public rights-of-way within and adjacent to The Anaheim Resort. Therefore, the project site map shows not only the Disney-owned properties but surrounding properties in The Anaheim Resort. Disney will be the applicant for the majority of the properties affected by the proposed amendments; however, the Planning Director has initiated the amendments for the portions of the project area not owned or controlled by subsidiaries of Disney.

Approval of the proposed project would require amendments to the City of Anaheim General Plan, DRSP, ARSP, Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program, Anaheim Resort Identity Program and Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map. No changes are proposed to District A, or the Anaheim GardenWalk, or C-R Overlays, of the DRSP or HCSP.

The City is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 (DSEIR No. 352) to analyze the impacts of the DisneylandForward Project (Project). A detailed description of the Project, its location, and the probable environmental effects are described in the Initial Study, available online at www.anaheim.net/876/Environmental-Documents, and at the following locations:

Anaheim Planning & Building Department
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Anaheim Central Library
500 W. Broadway
Anaheim, CA 92805
Ponderosa Joint Use Branch Library
240 E. Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92802
The purpose of this notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in DSEIR No. 352. This notice has been sent to responsible agencies, property owners and occupants on properties within The Anaheim Resort, property owners and occupants on properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site, and interested parties, and has been published in the Anaheim Bulletin.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, please provide your input at the earliest possible date but, no later than Monday, November 29, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Please send your response to the address below. Please include a name and contact information with your response.

Send Responses to: Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner Anaheim Planning & Building Department
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, MS 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Questions: Telephone: (714) 765-4568
Email: [email protected]
Scoping Meeting: The City of Anaheim will hold a scoping meeting at 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, November 4, 2021, in the Downtown Anaheim Community Center, Assembly Hall, 250 E. Center Street, Anaheim, California 92805.

The purpose of the scoping meeting is for the City to provide an overview of the proposed project and receive input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in DSEIR No. 352. The scoping meeting is not to consider the merits of the proposed project or whether the City should approve the proposed project.

Initial Study
DisneylandForward
Development Project Number: 2021-00069
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352
Prepared for Planning Services Division
Planning and Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92805

Prepared by Psomas
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
October 2021

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ 2

1.3 Project Description..................................................................................... 4

1.4 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ................................................ 7

1.5 Project Phasing.......................................................................................... 8

1.6 Project Approval and Permits .................................................................... 8 Section 2.0 Environmental Checklist................................................................................... 11

2.1 Background.............................................................................................. 11

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................. 13

2.3 Determination: ......................................................................................... 13

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: ..................................................... 14 Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis .................................................................................... 25

3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................ 25

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................ 26

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 28

3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 30

3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 33

3.6 Energy ..................................................................................................... 34

3.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................... 35

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 38

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... 39

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 41

3.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................... 44

3.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................... 45

3.13 Noise ....................................................................................................... 46

3.14 Population and Housing........................................................................... 47

3.15 Public Services ........................................................................................ 48

3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................... 50

3.17 Transportation.......................................................................................... 51

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 52

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................. 53 DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
ii Table of Contents

3.20 Wildfire ..................................................................................................... 57

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................... 58 Section 4.0 Preparers ............................................................................................................ 61 Section 5.0 References ......................................................................................................... 63 TABLES
Table Page
1 Uses Currently Allowed Under DRSP/ARSP For Applicant Properties ............................. 3 2 Proposed Densities for Applicant Properties ..................................................................... 4 3 Anticipated Discretionary Actions ...................................................................................... 8

FIGURES
Figure Follows Page
1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... 1 2 Local Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 1 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................. 1 4 Specific Plan Context ........................................................................................................ 1 5 Existing Zoning Designations ............................................................................................ 2 6 Proposed Updates to Land Use Plans .............................................................................. 4

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
iii Table of Contents

ACRONYMS
AB 52 Assembly Bill 52 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.)
ACMs asbestos-containing materials
ACSD Anaheim City School District
AF&R City of Anaheim Department of Fire & Rescue
APD Anaheim Police Department
AQMP air quality management plan
ARMD Anaheim Resort Maintenance District
ARSP Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BMPs Best Management Practices
CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
City City of Anaheim
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CO carbon monoxide
C-R Commercial Recreation
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DRSP Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
HCML Harbor Cast Member Lot
I-5 Interstate 5
LBP lead-based paint
LOS level of service
MCML Manchester Cast Member Lot
mgd million gallons per day
MHP Mobile Home Park
MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
NCCP/HCP Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCWD Orange County Water District
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
iv Table of Contents
PM10 Inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 10 micrometers and smaller
PM2.5 fine inhalable particles, with diameters that are generally 2.5 micrometers and smaller
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB 18 Senate Bill 18 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.)
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SEIR No. 340 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR No. 340 SEIR to EIR No. 311 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to EIR No. 311 SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
TACs toxic air contaminants
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VegCAMP Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program
VMT vehicle miles traveled
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
1 Introduction
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
To allow continued, long-term growth of The Disneyland Resort®, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (the Applicant) proposes DisneylandForward (Project), which would provide flexibility as to the location for permitted uses within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP) area and at properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) area owned or controlled by the Applicant or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company (Disney ARSP Properties). The Project also would provide for future streamlined review by the City of Anaheim (City) of the Applicant’s development projects within the DRSP and ARSP areas. The areas governed by the DRSP and the ARSP are located within an area of the City of Anaheim known as The Anaheim Resort®, which encompasses approximately 1,078 acres generally located adjacent to and southwest of Interstate 5 (I-5) between Ball Road to the north, Walnut Street to the west, and Chapman Avenue to the south.

This Initial Study presents information on the Project and an evaluation of the probable environmental effects anticipated by the Project. Together with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Environmental Checklist Form, the Initial Study has been distributed to all responsible agencies as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A notice also has been sent to all property owners and occupants of properties within The Anaheim Resort, property owners and occupants of properties within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site, property owners within the current General Plan planned extensions of Gene Autry Way and Clementine Street outside of The Anaheim Resort, and other interested parties and has been published in the Anaheim Bulletin, indicating that these documents are available for a 30-day public review at Anaheim City Hall, Planning and Building Department, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim or on the City’s website (www.anaheim.net/5961/DisneylandForward) and at the Ponderosa Library, located at 240 E. Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located entirely within the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. The City of Garden Grove is located just south of The Anaheim Resort. As shown in Figure 1, Regional Location Map, the Project site is located approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and seven miles northwest of Santa Ana, in central Orange County, California. As depicted in Figure 2, Local Vicinity, the Project site is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Interstate 5 (I-5), between Ball Road to the north, Walnut Street to the west, and Chapman Avenue to the south. An aerial photograph of the Project site is shown on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph.

As shown on Figure 4, Existing ARSP Disney-owned or Controlled Properties, the Project site encompasses The Disneyland Resort, including the existing Theme Park, Hotel, Parking and Future Expansion Districts, and the following ARSP properties owned or controlled by Disney or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company in the ARSP Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1): 1515 S. Manchester Avenue (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member1 Lot); 1585 S. Manchester Avenue (currently a vacant office building and the Manchester Cast Member Lot); 1530 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member Lot); 1900 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Toy Story Parking Lot); 333 W.

Ball Road (currently used as the Harbor Cast Member Lot); and 1717 S. Disneyland Drive (Paradise Pier Hotel). To the extent the Project would update The Anaheim Resort Public Realm and Landscape Program and Anaheim Resort Identity Program to allow for the use of improved technologies and more drought-tolerant landscaping and would amend the DRSP Maximum 1 Cast Member is a term used by Disney for an employee of the Disneyland Resort Regional Location Map
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Figure 1

C A M P

P E N D L E T O N

CLEVELAND
Lake
Mathews

P A C I F I C

O C E A N
San Gabriel
Reservoir

NATIONAL
FOREST
Project Location
San Bernardino
Riverside
ST72
§¨105
§¨5
§¨710 §¨110
§¨605
§¨5
§¨210
§¨15
§¨10
ST1 ST73
ST22
ST2
ST19
ST241
ST74
ST90
ST261
ST142
ST39
ST134
ST110
ST60
ST213
ST71
ST55
ST133
ST57
ST710
ST241
ST91
Riverside
San Diego
Los Angeles
Orange
Anaheim
Viejo
Beach
Santa
Rancho
Rancho
Corona
Downey
Irvine
Carson
Ontario
Mission
San Juan
Whittier
Lakewood
Pasadena
Glendale
Riverside
Cucamonga
Margarita
Santa Ana
Hawthorne
Capistrano
Huntington Costa Mesa
Buena Park
Seal Beach
Long Beach
Westminster
Yorba Linda
West Covina
San Clemente
Laguna Beach
7 3.5 0 7
² Miles
City of Anaheim
Anaheim Way
Haster St
West St
Ninth St
Vermont Ave
South St
Katella Ave
Chapman Ave
Anaheim Blvd
Harbor Blvd
East St
Disney Way
The City Dr
Ball Rd
§¨¦5
²
Local Vicinity Figure 2
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Site
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (SP92-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2)
Hotel Circle Specific Plan (SP93-1)
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Harbor Blvd
Chapman Ave
S Harbor Blvd
W Katella Ave E Katella Ave
Santa Ana Fwy
Disney Way
E Ball Rd
S
Disneyland Dr
W Ball Rd
Disneyland
Dr
Cerritos Ave
Anaheim Way
A naheim
Boulvard
W Orangewood Ave
S Lewis St
West St
Gene Autry Way
Walnut St
Magic Way
S Clementine St
Lewis St
Haster St
S Walnut St
S East St
W Orangewood Ave
SManchester Ave
§¨5
²
Aerial Photograph Figure 3
1,500 750 0 1,500
Feet
Project Site
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (SP92-1)
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2)
Hotel Circle Specific Plan (SP93-1)
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Aerial Source: City of Anaheim Open Data, 2020
Figure 4
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Existing ARSP Disney-owned or Controlled Properties
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
2 Introduction
Permitted Structural Height Map and the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map, the Project would cover the entire Anaheim Resort. The Project site also covers areas identified in the General Plan as planned extensions of Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street and Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue outside The Anaheim Resort.

1.2 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.

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.

The Project site is located within areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP, as depicted in Figure 5, Existing Zoning Designations (City of Anaheim 2021a). Uses currently allowed under the DRSP and ARSP for properties owned or controlled by the Applicant as well as existing levels of development are shown in Table 1.

Figure 5
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Existing Zoning Designations
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
3 Introduction
TABLE 1

USES CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER DRSP/ARSP

FOR APPLICANT PROPERTIES
Disney DRSP Property
Maximum Allowable
Development Under DRSP Existing Development
Remaining
Entitlement
Hotel District Uses
Hotel Rooms 5,600 hotel rooms 2,336 hotel rooms 3,264 hotel rooms Hotel Retail/Restaurant 300,000 sf 159,549sf 140,451sf
Hotel Meeting Space 200,000 sf 161,220 sf 38,780 sf
Parking Spaces 9,930 spaces 6,176 spaces 3,754 spaces
Theme Park District Uses Within the Hotel District Boundary Theme Park District Retail
Entertainment 350,000 sf 246,702sf 103,298sf
Theme Park District
Theme Park 6,850,000 sf 3,192,885 sf 3,657,115sf
Administration Building 475,000 sf 305,430 sf 169,570 sf Administration Building
Parking 2,300 spaces 1,464 spaces 836 spaces
Parking District
East Parking Area 17,600 spaces 1,337 spaces 16,263 spaces West Parking Area 16,700 spaces 16,298 spaces 402 spaces Future Expansion
District
Parking Area 5,100 spaces 2,572 spaces 2,528 spaces
Disney ARSP Properties
Maximum Allowable
Development Under ARSP Existing Development
Remaining
Entitlement
Hotel District Uses
1515 S. Manchester Ave
1585 S. Manchester Ave
1530 S. Harbor Blvd
1,116 hotel rooms (75 rooms
per gross acre or 75 rooms
per lot or parcel, whichever is
greater)
Cast Member parking
(2,706 spaces – temporary
parking lot initially approved
on May 8, 2019 and an
approximately 67,424-
square foot office building
1,116 hotel rooms
1900 S. Harbor Blvd
3,348 hotel rooms (75 rooms
per gross acre or 75 rooms
per lot or parcel, whichever is
greater)
Toy Story Parking Lot
(7,175 spaces-temporary
parking lot approved
through June 26, 2024)
3,348 hotel rooms
333 W. Ball Road
534 hotel rooms (50 rooms
per gross acre or 75 rooms
per lot or parcel, whichever is
greater)
Cast Member parking
(1,324 spaces) 534 rooms
1717 S. Disneyland Drive
564 hotel rooms (50 rooms
per gross acre or 75 rooms
per lot or parcel, whichever is
greater)
Paradise Pier Hotel (489
rooms and approximately
17,619 square feet in
ancillary commercial uses)
45 hotel rooms
Source: WDI 2021.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
4 Introduction

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located within areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP. The Project proposes to modify the limits of District boundaries in the DRSP, to rename Districts within the DRSP, and to allow Overlays within properties within the ARSP owned or controlled by the Applicant or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company. The revised District names and boundaries are shown in Figure 6, Proposed Updates to Land Use Plans. The Project’s proposed densities for properties in the DRSP and at properties within the ARSP owned or controlled by the Applicant or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company are shown in Table 2 for the updated DRSP and ARSP areas.

TABLE 2

PROPOSED DENSITIES FOR APPLICANT PROPERTIES
Disney DRSP Property Maximum Allowable Development Under DRSP Theme Park District
Hotel Rooms Up to 5,600 hotel rooms
Hotel Retail/Restaurant Up to 300,000 sf
Hotel Meeting Space Up to 200,000 sf
Parking Spaces Up to 9,930 spaces
Theme Park District Retail Entertainment Up to 350,000 sf1 Theme Park Up to 5,540,000 sf
Administration Building 475,000 sf
Administration Building Parking 2,300 spaces
Parking District
East Parking Area Up to 17,600 spaces
West Parking Area Up to 16,700 spaces
Southeast District
Theme Park Up to 390,000 sf
Hotel Rooms Up to 1,852 hotel rooms
Parking 5,100 spaces
Disney ARSP Properties Maximum Allowable Development Under ARSP Parking Overlay2
1515 S. Manchester Ave
1585 S. Manchester Ave
1530 S. Harbor Blvd
A portion of the parking spaces allocated to the East Parking Area of the DRSP and up to 1,116 hotel rooms
333 W. Ball Road Up to 5,700 spaces parking spaces and up to 534 hotel rooms Theme Park East Overlay3
1900 S. Harbor Blvd Up to 840,000 sf of theme park uses and up to 3,348 hotel rooms Theme Park West Overlay3
1717 S. Disneyland Drive Up to 80,000 sf of theme park uses and up 564 hotel rooms Notes:
1 Up to 350,000 sf of 5,540,000 sf allowed for theme park development may be developed as Retail, Dining and Entertainment. 2 Proposed uses to include parking and transportation facilities allowed under Section 18.114.080 for the East Parking Area of the Parking District of the DRSP, and the same type of back-of-house uses, limited retail, dining and entertainment uses, and hotel uses allowed under Section 18.114.060 for the Theme Park District of the DRSP. Any square footage for back-of-house uses or limited retail, dining and entertainment uses would be deducted from the allowed square footage for hotel uses. 3 Parking requirements within the Theme Park East and Theme Park West Overlay would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.116 ARSP Zoning and Development Standards.

Source: WDI 2021.

Figure 6
DisneylandForward Initial Study
Proposed Updates to Land Use Plans
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
5 Introduction
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
The environmental impacts of the DRSP were analyzed in EIR No. 311, which was certified by the City of Anaheim in 1993 along with the adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0067.

In 1996, in conjunction with an amendment to the DRSP, the City Council approved an Addendum to EIR No. 311, including a Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 0067. As detailed above in Table 1, the DRSP as amended currently allows the following development:
 Theme Park District: up to 6,850,000 square feet of theme park uses, up to 1,025 hotel rooms, and up to 475,000 square feet of administration buildings with up to 2,300 associated parking spaces;
 Hotel District: up to 5,600 hotel rooms (including the 1,025 hotel rooms which have been constructed in the Theme Park District), up to 300,000 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, up to 9,930 parking spaces, and up to 200,000 square feet of meeting rooms/convention space;
 Theme Park District/Hotel District: up to 350,000 square feet of the theme park square footage allowed in the Theme Park District may be developed as a retail entertainment center in the Hotel District;
 Parking District, East Parking Area: up to 17,600 parking spaces, including up to 5,000 parking spaces that may be located in the Theme Park District;  Parking District, West Parking Area: up to 16,700 parking spaces; and  Future Expansion District: up to 5,100 parking spaces.

To date, the Applicant has used approximately 45 percent of the approved square footage for theme park uses in part due to the open-air nature of the Applicant’s theme parks. The Project would allow the Applicant to move all or a portion of the unused approved square footage to the existing Hotel District, which would become part of the new Theme Park District of the DRSP. The Project would also allow the Applicant to move a portion of the unused approved square footage to the existing Future Expansion District, which would become the Southeast District of the DRSP.

The proposed districts are shown in Figure 6, Proposed Updates to Land Use Plans. Under the Project, the Applicant could develop cumulatively up to 5,930,000 square feet of theme park uses in the DRSP, including up to 5,540,000 square feet in the new Theme Park District and up to 390,000 square feet in the new Southeast District. Similarly, the Project would allow the Applicant to move the unused portion of the hotel room approvals from the existing Hotel District to the existing Theme Park District or the existing Future Expansion District. Under the Project, the Applicant could develop cumulatively up to 5,600 hotel rooms in the DRSP, including a combination of up to 5,600 hotel rooms in the new Theme Park District and up to 1,852 hotel rooms in the new Southeast District. As part of the Project, the Applicant is not seeking additional square footage for theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms within The Disneyland Resort. Instead, the Project would allow the Applicant to move the existing approvals to other areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP. The Project would not include any changes to District A, the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay, or the C-R Overlay of the DRSP.

Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Master EIR No. 313 analyzed the environmental impacts of the ARSP and was certified by the City in 1994, along with the adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C. In December 2012, the Anaheim City Council certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (SEIR No. 340) in support of the approval of the Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP Project. SEIR No. 340 reevaluated the environmental changes that had occurred in and around The Anaheim DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
6 Introduction
Resort since certification of EIR No. 313 in September 1994. As appropriate, SEIR No. 340 incorporated the findings from EIR No. 313, particularly related to the loss of agricultural land, which was fully analyzed and identified a significant and unavoidable impact in EIR No. 313.

Because a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this impact associated with EIR No. 313, and no new or additional impacts were found to occur with the Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP Project, SEIR No. 340 incorporated the findings from EIR No. 313 for this topic, which is also reflected in this Initial Study. For all other topics, SEIR No. 340 superseded the analyses and related findings from EIR No. 313. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the cumulative impacts associated with the entire Anaheim Resort and surrounding area, including the full build-out of the three specific plans within the ARSP. As detailed in Table 1, the ARSP as amended allows development on Disney ARSP Properties of up to 75 or 50 hotel rooms per gross acre with approval of a Final Site Plan as indicated below:
 Up to 1,116 hotel rooms on 1515 S. Manchester Avenue (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member Lot), 1585 S. Manchester Avenue (currently used as an office building and the Manchester Cast Member Lot), and 1530 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Manchester Cast Member Lot);
 Up to 3,348 hotel rooms at 1900 S. Harbor Boulevard (currently used as the Toy Story Parking Lot);
 up to 534 hotel rooms at 333 W. Ball Road (currently used as the Harbor Cast Member Lot); and
 Up to 564 hotel rooms at 1717 S. Disneyland Drive (Paradise Pier Hotel).

Section 18.116.070 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code also allows the development of theme parks, entertainment venues, and transportation facilities on these properties with approval of a conditional use permit. The Project would create a Theme Park East Overlay within the ARSP for the existing Toy Story Parking Lot and a Theme Park West Overlay within the ARSP for the existing Paradise Pier Hotel. The purpose of the Theme Park Overlay would be to allow the Applicant to develop theme park uses on these properties concurrently with the development of theme park uses on the expanded Theme Park District or the Southeast District of the DRSP.

With the Project, the Applicant could develop up to 840,000 square feet of theme park uses within the Theme Park East Overlay and up to 80,000 square feet of theme park uses within the Theme Park West Overlay for a cumulative total of up to 920,000 square feet of theme park uses in these Overlays. The Project also would create a Parking Overlay within the ARSP for Disney ARSP Properties located at 1515 S. Manchester Avenue, 1585 S. Manchester Avenue, 1530 S. Harbor Boulevard, and 333 W. Ball Road. The Parking Overlay would permit development of the same type of parking and transportation facilities allowed under Section 18.114.080 for the East Parking Area of the Parking District of the DRSP, and the same type of back-of-house uses, limited retail, dining and entertainment uses, and hotel uses allowed under Section 18.114.060 for the Theme Park District of the DRSP.

General Plan Amendment
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 density. Also, as discussed below, the Project would require approval of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
7 Introduction
Transportation System Modifications
The Project would require approval of amendments to the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The amendments include the following:
 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;
 Removal of the portion of Disneyland Drive between Ball Road and Katella Avenue as the Project would privatize the portion of Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue; and
 Reclassification of Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard 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).

The Project would also require approval of amendments to the Circulation Element, Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities Map, and Amendments to Figures 6 and 13 and Tables 7 and 10 of the Bicycle Master Plan to shift the planned bike path between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard from the Southern California Edison easement to Disney Way.

In addition, the Project also would also require approval of the abandonment of public right-ofway in Magic Way between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive, in Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue, and 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. The Project would also identify opportunities for additional pedestrian bridgess over Harbor Boulevard and Disneyland Drive. Any future pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard would require an encroachment agreement. The Project would also make the above changes in the DRSP and ARSP.

Future Streamlined Review
The Project would allow future streamlined review by the City of the Applicant’s projects in the DRSP and at properties within the ARSP owned or controlled by the Applicant or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company. Upon approval of the Project, the property owner could submit building plans for projects proposed by the Applicant in the DRSP or at Disney ARSP Properties to the Planning and Building Department for review by the Planning Services Division for conformance with the applicable specific plans and associated zoning standards prior to issuance of building permits. If the plans are in conformance with the objective standards of the applicable specific plan, no discretionary review by the Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council would be required.

The Project would require the project actions listed above and in Section 1.6, Project Approval and Permits, among others, from the City of Anaheim.

1.4 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The potential environmental impacts of the Project will be reviewed in a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to EIR No. 311 (The Disneyland Resort) and SEIR No. 340 (The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan), including impacts from EIR No. 313 which were assumed in DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
8 Introduction
SEIR No. 340. The review will be limited to the impacts of the Project’s proposed changes as discussed in Section 1.3, Project Description.

Mitigation measures mentioned herein for the DRSP are from Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program 0067, which the City adopted in conjunction with the 1996 Addendum to EIR No. 311.

Mitigation measures mentioned for the ARSP are from Mitigation Monitoring Program 85C, which the City adopted in conjunction with SEIR No. 340.

1.5 PROJECT PHASING
The Applicant would implement the Project in multiple phases over the next 30 years or more.

The time frame for future development of the Project site would be controlled by market forces and determined by the Applicant and third-party owners of the parcels within the Project site.

1.6 PROJECT APPROVAL AND PERMITS
The City of Anaheim is the lead agency under CEQA and has the principal approval authority over the Project. A responsible agency is a public agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project (CEQA Guidelines § 15381 and PRC § 21069). The following discretionary actions will be required to implement the Project.

TABLE 3

ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Agency Action
City of Anaheim
Certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report to EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 and adoption of
a Mitigation Monitoring Program
Approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the City of Anaheim General Plan to describe the
amended District names and new Overlays and
associated density
Approval of an amendment to the Circulation Element of
the City of Anaheim General Plan to (1) remove the
planned future extensions of Clementine Street between
Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue and Gene
Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street,
and (2) to remove the portion of Disneyland Drive
between Ball Road and Katella Avenue as the Project
would privatize the portion of Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue, and (3) to reclassify
Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor
Boulevard 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)
Approval of an amendment to the Circulation Element of
the City of Anaheim General Plan, Existing and Planned
Bicycle Facilities Map and Amendments to Figures 6 and
13 and Tables 7 and 10 of the Bicycle Masterplan to shift the planned bike path between Anaheim Boulevard and
Harbor Boulevard from the Southern California Edison
easement to Disney Way
Approval of an amendment to the DRSP and the DRSP
Zoning and Development Standards
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
9 Introduction
TABLE 3

ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Agency Action
Approval of an amendment to the ARSP and the ARSP
Zoning and Development Standards, including approval
of The Anaheim Resort Theme Park East Overlay, The
Anaheim Resort Theme Park West Overlay, and The
Anaheim Resort Parking District Overlay
Approval of amendments to the DRSP Maximum
Structural Height Map and the Anaheim Commercial
Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height
Map
Approval of amendments to the Anaheim Resort Public
Realm Landscape Program and Anaheim Resort Identity
Program
Approval of the abandonment of the public right-of-way in Magic Way between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive,
in Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella
Avenue, and 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
Approval of an encroachment agreement for a pedestrian
bridge(s) over Harbor Boulevard and termination of
existing encroachment agreements for pedestrian
bridges over Magic Way and Disneyland Drive
Approval of an amendment to the 1996 Development
Agreement between Walt Disney World Co. (renamed
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. in 2009) and
the City
Approval of an amendment to the Anaheim Resort
Maintenance District (ARMD)
Orange County Transportation Authority
Approval of an amendment to the Orange County Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to (1) to remove 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 adjacent existing Toy Story Parking Lot in the ARSP; (2) to remove the portion of Disneyland Drive between Ball Road and Katella Avenue as the Project
would privatize the portion of Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue; and (3) to reclassify
Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor
Boulevard from a six-lane Major Arterial to a four lane Primary Arterial

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
10 Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
11 Environmental Checklist
SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

2.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: DisneylandForward

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, California 92805

3. Contact Person:

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
714-765-4568
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

See Section 1.1, Project Location. A Regional Location Map, Local Vicinity Map, and Aerial Photograph of the Project site are shown in Figures 1 through 3, respectively.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91105
Attention: Deanna Detchemendy, Esq.

6. General Plan Designation:

Commercial Recreation

7. Zoning:

SP 92-1; Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP)
SP 92-2; Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP)

8. Description of Project:

See Section 1.3, Project Description.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

See Section 1.2, Environmental Setting, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
12 Environmental Checklist

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
 Orange County Sanitation District
 Orange County Transportation Authority
 Regional Water Quality Control Board
 South Coast Air Quality Management District
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
13 Environmental Checklist

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Aesthetics Land Use/Planning
Agricultural & Forestry Resources Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population/Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Energy Recreation
Geology/Soils Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tribal Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Utilities/Service Systems Hydrology/Water Quality Wildfire

2.3 DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project, nothing further is required. ____________________________________
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP, Senior Planner
Printed Name/Title
10/18/2021
Date
714-765-4568
Phone No.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
14 Environmental Checklist

2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
15 Environmental Checklist

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
16 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?    
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?    
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
   
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?    
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
17 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.
   
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?    
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?     IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
   
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
   
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
   
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
18 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic
Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?    
VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?    
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42.    
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
(iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section
1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?    
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
   
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
19 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?    
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
   
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
   
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d) 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?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
   
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
20 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) 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 offsite?    
(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 stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
   
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?    
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?     X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?    
b) 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?    
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
   
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) 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?
   
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?    
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces
Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
21 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
   
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?    
Police protection?    
Schools?    
Parks?    
Other public facilities?    
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?    
XVII. TRANSPORTATION -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
   
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
22 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section §21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section §5020.1(k), or
   
(ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section §5024.1. In applying
criterial set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
   
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?    
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years (including largescale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form)?
   
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
23 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE -- If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?    
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
24 Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
25 Environmental Analysis
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099:

Question a: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Section 3.12, Visual Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project would not impact a scenic vista. According to Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of SEIR No. 340, there are no scenic vistas visible from the Anaheim Resort area; therefore, no impact would occur. The Project site is developed and is not located in an area considered to contain a scenic resource or vista. The Anaheim General Plan Green Element identifies Anaheim’s major scenic features, which are the Hill and Canyon Area, Santa Ana Mountains, Santa Ana River, and golf courses (City of Anaheim 2004a). These areas provide a scenic and recreational resource for the City and the region. The Project site is approximately 2.5 miles from Dad Miller Golf Course, 1.67 miles from the Santa Ana River, and over 7.5 miles from the Hill and Canyon Area. The Project site is generally flat in topography, and these visual features are not visible from the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
No Impact. Section 3.12, Visual Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project would have beneficial impacts on the area as a result of the extensive landscaping and design features and would not result in significant impacts related to scenic resources. According to Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area does not contain any scenic resources, nor are any scenic vistas visible from the ARSP area; therefore, no impact would occur. The nearest state-designated scenic highway to the Project site is SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) between SR-55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and Weir Canyon Road (Caltrans 2021). This segment of SR-91 is approximately 5.15 miles to the northeast of the Project site, and the Project site is not visible from the highway. Moreover, the Project site is already developed, and no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be damaged due to Project implementation. No impacts associated with state scenic highways would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question c: In non-urbanized area, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.12, Visual Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project would have beneficial impacts on the area as a result of the extensive landscaping and design features. However, unavoidable adverse visual impacts were anticipated for property owners immediately adjacent to the West Parking Area and hotel parking facilities along Walnut Street, and potentially the Future Expansion District, even with the implementation of project design features and mitigation. Additionally, short-term visual DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
26 Environmental Analysis
impacts associated with site preparation and construction were identified as significant and unavoidable. According to Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of SEIR No. 340, future development and redevelopment associated with buildout of the ARSP area would change the existing visual character of individual areas; however, buildout of the ARSP area would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts were identified as less than significant with implementation of mitigation. However, Section 4.3.1 of SEIR No. 340 also found that buildout of the C-R District could result in potential shade and shadow impacts on properties immediately adjacent to the ARSP area that would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The Project would allow for development of previously approved theme park uses within the existing Hotel District and Future Expansion District. Similarly, the Project would allow for development of approved hotel uses in the existing Theme Park District and Future Expansion District. Although the Project does not propose additional square footage for theme park, retail entertainment, or hotel uses, the Project would allow movement of previously approved theme park square footage and hotel rooms to other areas within the DRSP and ARSP. This movement of previously approved uses may result in development of land uses that differ from existing and currently permitted land uses in height, scale, mass, and character. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question d: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact. According Section 3.12, Visual Resources, of EIR No. 311 and Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of SEIR No. 340, development within the Anaheim Resort would not result in significant impacts associated with light or glare. The area governed by the DRSP is already developed with a variety of uses, including Disneyland, Downtown Disney, California Adventure, Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel, Disneyland Hotel, administration offices, parking lots/structures, and back-of-house uses owned and/or operated by Disney as well as hotels, motels, rental car, and convenience store uses owned and/or operated by third parties. The area governed by the ARSP similarly contains a variety of existing development, including the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as hotel, motel, retail, restaurant, service station, office, parking lot/structure, single-family residential, multi-family residential, rental car, event center/banquet hall, vacant, and RV park uses, and mobile home sites. The area governed by the ARSP also includes a post office, Orange Grove Elementary, and a vocational school. Existing sources of light include street lights, vehicle headlights, building and security lights, and parking lot lights.

Implementation of the Project would potentially allow for intensification of existing land uses and new development with associated lighting that were not previously analyzed. Therefore, new sources of light and glare could increase levels of light and glare above existing conditions, potentially resulting in adverse impacts to day or nighttime views. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
27 Environmental Analysis
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Question a: Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Agricultural Resources were addressed in Section 3.1, Land Use and Related Plan and Policies, of EIR No. 311. The loss of approximately 80 acres of land designated prime agricultural land was considered a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. This included approximately 24 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. Because the impact related to the loss of agricultural land was fully analyzed as part of EIR No. 313, Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 identified that a new significant impact related to agricultural resources would not occur.

Project impacts related to the conversion of farmland identified in FMMP mapping were previously evaluated and disclosed as significant and unavoidable impacts in EIR No. 311, EIR No. 313, and SEIR No. 340. All farmland areas previously identified within the areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP have been developed. Accordingly, the Project would result in no impact to parcels designated as farmland in FMMP mapping. According to the latest FMMP mapping, there are no remaining FMMP-designated farmlands within the Project site (DOC 2021a). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The loss of approximately 56 acres of agricultural land under a Williamson Act contract and located southeast of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue was evaluated in Section 3.1, Land Use and Related Plan and Policies, of EIR No. 311 and Section 3.1, Land UseRelated Plans and Policies, of EIR No. 313. Both EIRs acknowledged that a non-renewal notice had been filed to allow the agricultural preserve contract to expire on March 1, 2000. After that date, the property would be eligible for development of nonagricultural uses. Neither specific plan proposed for development to occur until after expiration of the contract and a significant impact was not identified. This area has since been fully developed as the Toy Story Parking Lot and a hotel. According to Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340, there is no land within the ARSP boundaries currently under a Williamson Act contract; therefore, implementation of the ARSP would not conflict with a standing Williamson Act contract.

Agricultural crops are permitted in the ARSP, C-R District; however, the Project site contains no parcels with agricultural uses and does not contain any parcels with an active Williamson Act contract (City of Anaheim 2021a). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
28 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that the project evaluated in SEIR No. 340 would not result in the conversion of forest land or timberland. The Project site contains no parcels zoned for forestry use or containing forestry resources (City of Anaheim 2021a). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340, found that the project evaluated in SEIR No. 340 would not result in the conversion of forest land or timberland. The Project site is built-up urban land, and no forest land would be lost due to project implementation (City of Anaheim 2021). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question e: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The loss of prime farmland previously was evaluated in Section 3.1, Land UseRelated Plans and Policies, of EIR 311, Section 3.1, Land Use-Related Plans and Policies, of EIR 313, and Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR 340 and was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. These areas have since been fully developed. The Project site is currently developed and contains no agricultural or forestry uses (City of Anaheim 2021a).

Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural or forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Question a: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.2, Air Quality, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that the project analyzed in SEIR No. 340 would conflict with the applicable air quality plan; the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and is subject to the air quality management plan (AQMP) prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities of future development, revitalization, and/or redevelopment activities that would be accommodated by the Project would generate exhaust from construction equipment and vehicle trips, fugitive dust from demolition and ground-disturbing activities, and off-gas emissions from architectural coatings and paving. The air quality impacts of the construction of theme park square footage and hotel rooms already were analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. Implementation of the Project would allow development of a mix of uses in locations and densities different from what was analyzed in prior environmental documentation, which may result in an increase in criteria air pollutants. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
29 Environmental Analysis
Question b: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.4, Air Quality, of EIR No. 311 concluded that, with implementation of mitigation and adherence to project design features, increases in emissions resulting from construction-related activities related to implementation of the Disneyland Resort Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on a cumulative basis. Similarly, Section 4.13, Cumulative Impacts for Air Quality, of EIR No. 311 found stationary sources and utilities would not contribute to adverse impacts on a cumulative basis after offsetting pursuant to SCAQMD regulations. Section 5.2, Air Quality, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP could result in cumulatively considerable increase of nonattainment pollutants during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Mitigation would not reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (California standard only). Implementation of the Project may increase existing levels of criteria pollutants and contribute to the nonattainment status for these criteria pollutants in the SoCAB. Air pollutant emissions associated with development that would be accommodated by the Project would include short-term site preparation and construction activities. In addition, emissions could result during long-term operation of the Project. The air quality impacts of the construction and operation of theme park square footage and hotel rooms already were analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. Implementation of the Project would allow development of a mix of uses in locations and densities different from what was analyzed in prior environmental documentation, which may result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutant emissions. Therefore, an air quality analysis will be prepared to determine if the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.4, Air Quality, of EIR No. 311 concluded that local air quality impacts would not result in a significant adverse local carbon monoxide (CO) impact on a project or cumulative basis. However, the increase in emissions from vehicle trips associated with the project, without mitigation, would contribute to a significant impact on a cumulative basis.

Section 5.2, Air Quality, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that exposure of persons to local CO concentrations would be less than significant. Short-term exposure of persons to PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds would occur during excavation near sensitive receptors; the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Exposure of persons to toxic air contaminants (TACs) would be less than significant. An air quality analysis will be prepared for the Project to determine if the potential mobile and stationary air emissions associated with the Project could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to significant concentrations of air pollutants beyond what was previously disclosed in prior environmental analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. This evaluation will address potential impacts to sensitive receptors that would be exposed on a recurring basis to substantial air emissions associated with the Project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
30 Environmental Analysis
Question d: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.2, Air Quality, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that odor impacts would be less than significant. The Project has the potential to result in objectionable odors associated with construction and future operational activities at locations different than locations analyzed in previous environmental documentation. Therefore, given the variety of land uses proposed and their shift in location as well as the potential for construction odors, the Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Question a: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Section 1.2.3, Potential Impacts Found to be Not Significant, of EIR No. 311 found that the DRSP area did not contain sensitive natural resources, including habitat to support endangered species, and no significant impacts were identified. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that while several endangered and special status plant and wildlife species have been reported from the region, none is expected to occur in the ARSP due to lack of habitat, and no significant impacts were identified. The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City and is mostly developed with urban land uses with few remaining vacant properties. Any remaining vacant properties have been previously cleared of vegetation, and do not contain habitat for special status species. Special status species include those listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act, species otherwise given certain designations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and plant species listed as rare by the California Native Plant Society. According to a review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) web mapper, there is no critical habitat for federally-listed species within the Project site (USFWS 2021a). Also, no occurrences of special status species are recorded within the Project site according to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which is an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California (CDFW 2021a). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Section 1.2.3, Potential Impacts Founds To Be Not Significant, of EIR No. 311 found that the DRSP area did not contain sensitive natural resources, such as riparian habitat and no significant impacts were identified. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that the ARSP lacks habitat to support biological resources, including riparian or other sensitive natural communities, and no significant impacts were identified. The Project site is fully developed and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.

Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, that are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species or are known to be important wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
31 Environmental Analysis
rivers and streams. Given the developed nature of the Project site, there is no remaining native vegetation that would be considered a sensitive natural community by any applicable regulatory agency. CDFW has developed an online mapping platform called the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), which contains information on known locations of natural communities collected through the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) (CDFW 2021b). CDFW’s available mapping shows no sensitive natural communities occur within or in the vicinity of the Project site. Also, stormwater in the vicinity is conveyed via the City’s storm drain system so there is no riparian habitat within the Project site. According to a review of aerial imagery as well as the USFWS National Wetland Inventory, no wetlands are located in the Project site (USFWS 2021b). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question c: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Section 1.2.3, Potential Impacts Founds To Be Not Significant, of EIR No. 311 found that the DRSP area did not contain sensitive natural resources, including wetlands, and no significant impacts were identified. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that the ARSP lacks habitat to support biological resources, including wetlands, and no significant impacts were identified. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. In addition to wetlands, other non-wetland jurisdictional features that are regulated include “waters of the U.S”. and “waters of the State”, which are described as relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water, such as streams, rivers, and lakes. The Project site is developed and there are no wetlands or areas defined as include “waters of the U.S”. and “waters of the State” within or in the vicinity of the Project site. Furthermore, there are no records of any natural wetlands within the Project site in the Wetlands Mapper that is maintained by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory program. The only features shown in the NWI mapping include three separate water features, two within Disneyland and one within California Adventure, which were artificially constructed and are not associated with a natural drainage, and these areas do not contain wetland characteristics due to their frequent maintenance (USFWS 2021b). No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 1.2.3, Potential Impacts Founds To Be Not Significant, of EIR No. 311 and Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 both found that the ARSP did not contain habitat to support native or special status wildlife species and no significant impacts were identified. Wildlife movement corridors facilitate movement of species between large patches of natural habitat. The Project site and its surrounding area are located in an urbanized setting that lacks suitable habitat for wildlife species and is not a native wildlife nursery site. The Notice of Preparation/Initial Study written for The Disneyland Resort Project (included as Appendix A of EIR No. 311) notes there were no significant biological resources within the DRSP area at the time of scoping and no mitigation was identified. However, consistent with the findings in SEIR No. 340, there are several trees and DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
32 Environmental Analysis
other vegetation on the Project site that would be removed as part of the Project. This vegetation may be used for nesting by migratory birds, which are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712). The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. If removal of the vegetation occurs during nesting season (typically between February 1 and July 1), the project applicant is required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. In addition, the potential loss of an active raptor nest, including common raptor species, would be considered a violation of the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Impacts on an active bird/raptor nests would be considered potentially significant. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question e: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Section 1.2.3, Potential Impacts Founds To Be Not Significant, of EIR No. 311 found that the DRSP area did not contain prominent or sensitive trees and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no significant impacts were identified. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that the Anaheim Resort is not located within the Scenic Corridor Overlay (which includes Specimen Tree preservation policies) and is not subject to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and identified that a significant impact would not occur.

Implementation of the Project would require removal of ornamental trees on the privately-owned land and may require the removal of street trees within the City’s rights-of-way. The Anaheim Resort is maintained by the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District (ARMD) and the Project would be required to comply with all applicable ARMD requirements associated with the public realm landscaping throughout the DRSP and ARSP. There are no local policies protecting trees on private property within this portion of the City. Therefore, impacts associated with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question f: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of SEIR No. 340 found that the ARSP is not located within an area classified as sensitive community such as a Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), therefore a significant impact was not identified. The Project site is not located within the Orange County's Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP area and does not contain any sites designated for nature reserves under the NCCP. According to the Anaheim General Plan Green Element, a portion of the City generally south of SR-91 and east of SR-55 is located within the NCCP; this area is over 11.75 miles northeast of the Project site (City of Anaheim 2004a).

Implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provision of any adopted habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
33 Environmental Analysis

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Question a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.13, Cultural Resources, of EIR No. 311 concluded that no impacts to historical resources were expected to occur from development of the DRSP.

Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340 determined that no designated historical resources exist within the ARSP; however, mitigation, which requires evidence that any structures aged 45 years or older are not eligible for historical designation, was identified to preclude any impacts to unknown historical resources. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), listed in a local register of historical resources, or identified as historically significant by the lead agency. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR 60.4) and include those listed below
i. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
iv. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, there are no historical landmarks or historic districts in the Project site (City of Anaheim 2010). The nearest site identified in the National Register of Historic Places is the Truxaw-Gervais House located at 887 S. Anaheim Boulevard, approximately 0.25-mile northeast of the Project site (NPS 2021). Also, there are no nearby California Historical Landmarks (California State Parks 2021). However, given the passage of time, there is potential for historic resources to be located in the Project site, which may not have been previously evaluated or that may not have been of historic age (e.g., fifty years old) when previous historical resources identification efforts occurred. Therefore, potentially significant impacts may result and the Draft SEIR will evaluate the potential existence of historical resources in the Project site based on recent documentation as well as any potential impacts, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.13, Cultural Resources, of EIR No. 311 concluded that no impacts to cultural, historic, or prehistoric resources were expected to occur from development of the DRSP; however, mitigation was identified requiring evidence that an archaeologist has been hired to identify and evaluate any unexpected discoveries of cultural resources during grading or development which reduced impacts to less than significant levels.

Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340 found that no resources are anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP; however, implementation of identified mitigation requiring evidence that an archaeologist has been hired for the Project would reduce impacts to less than significant DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
34 Environmental Analysis
levels. The Project site is generally developed and the currently vacant parcels throughout the Project site have been developed previously.

The Project may result in development that would require excavation to depths greater than were disturbed by previous development within previously undisturbed soils. Therefore, there is the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources associated with the Project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that grading and construction activities associated with buildout of the ARSP could disturb previously unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, which would be considered a significant impact. However, compliance with standard requirements would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. As disclosed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, the Project involves ground disturbance, which could potentially result in the inadvertent discovery of human remains.

However, the Project site has been previously disturbed and the likelihood of finding human remains is low. As stated in SEIR No. 340, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered during project activities, disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Project would comply with existing laws, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.6 ENERGY
Question a: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Question b: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 did not directly address energy consumption related impacts, although they did provide analysis of electricity and natural gas demand. Section 3.14, Energy, of EIR No. 311 discussed energy demand and capacity, but did not address the 2019 CEQA Checklist questions as they relate to efficient use of energy resources. EIR No. 311 also found that energy consumption with mitigation would result in vehicular fuel consumption impacts and other energy usage impacts at a level not considered significant. SEIR No. 340 addressed adequacy of existing infrastructure in Sections 5.15 through

5.18, and the greenhouse gas emissions analysis provided in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, included an evaluation of energy efficiency requirements applicable to the ARSP.

Also, Section 5.17, Electricity, of SEIR No. 340 discussed energy demand and utility capacity, but did not fully address the 2019 CEQA Checklist questions as they relate to efficient use of energy DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
35 Environmental Analysis
resources as they were not in effect at the time. The Project would consume energy during the construction and operations phases of the Project. The Project would be required to comply with the State of California’s Title 24 Building Standards and the latest CEC building energy efficiency standards, which would minimize electrical energy usage associated with the Project. Impacts related to Energy were analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. Implementation of the Project would allow development of a mix of uses in locations and densities different from what was analyzed in prior environmental documentation, which may result in a considerable increase in energy impacts. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Question a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 4.6, Earth Resource, of EIR No. 311 determined that the Disneyland Resort Project would expose people to seismic risk typical of Southern California. Such a risk was considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation requiring the preparation of a soils and geological report; approval of foundation design information; submission of a report regarding foundation excavations; submission of plans showing analysis of earthquake loading; training with the Fire Department for hotel staff and cast members; and approval of an earthquake emergency response plan for hotels. Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that the project would be exposed to seismic ground shaking; however, with implementation of the proposed mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The Project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region in the influence area of several fault systems. Although the Project site does not lie within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS 2021), the proximity of known faults may potentially cause substantial adverse effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or seismic ground shaking. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Section 4.6, Earth Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that the potential for liquefaction at The Disneyland Resort is very low. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City of Anaheim determined that the project would not have a significant impact on seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Any buildings or structures on these sediments may float, sink, or tilt as if on a body of water.

Liquefaction potential is based on three main factors: 1) cohesionless, granular soils with relatively low densities (usually of Holocene age); 2) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet); and DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
36 Environmental Analysis
3) moderate to high seismic ground shaking. Lateral spreading refers to lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as a result of pore pressure buildup or liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Based on a review of the liquefaction zone mapping maintained by the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Project site is not located within a liquefaction zone (CGS 2021a). A liquefaction zone is defined as an area where historical liquefaction or local geologic, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements, such that mitigation would be required. Therefore, the Project site is not prone to liquefaction and a less than significant impact would occur with implementation of the Project, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Section 4.6, Earth Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that impacts related to geology and soils are based primarily on site-specific conditions. The exception to this is in instances where development of a project might affect the geology of the adjacent development areas (e.g., due to extensive erosion or landslides). The Disneyland Resort project area is not affected by any of the specific geologic conditions mentioned above as the effects relating to geology and soils can be mitigated. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City of Anaheim determined that the project would not have a significant impact on landslides and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. Susceptibility of slopes to landslides and other forms of slope failure depend on several factors, which are usually present in combination—steep slopes, condition of rock and soil materials, presence of water, formational contacts, geologic shear zones, seismic activity, etc. According to the mapping maintained by CGS and consistent with the findings in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, the Project site is not located in a designated landslide hazard zone, nor is it located near an unstable slope (CGS 2021a). Therefore, the Project site and immediate surrounding areas are not susceptible to landslides and no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As stated previously, Section 4.6, Earth Resources, of EIR No. 311 concluded that soil erosion may occur along project boundaries during construction and in areas where temporary soil storage is required; however, due to the topography of the site, the potential for erosion is not significant. Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that future buildout of the Anaheim Resort would expose areas to erosion and loss of topsoil during demolition and/or construction activities. Adherence to standard requirements would ensure that this impact would be less than significant. The Project site is located in a relatively flat and developed area; however, Project construction would expose soils on the Project site and would potentially require the hauling of soil and demolition materials off-site, which could result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil if not implemented consistent with regulatory requirements. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
37 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Section 4.6, Earth Resources, of EIR No. 311 determined that because the earth materials underlying the site are relatively dense, the potential for subsidence at the project site is minimal. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, the Project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. As discussed in Threshold 3.7(a)(iv), the Project site is not located in an area subject to landslides.

Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with liquefaction, is a function of ground-shaking and may occur during an earthquake. The potential for earthquake-induced lateral spreading of confined, discontinuous interbedded zones of liquefiable sandy soils underlying a relatively level surface is low. As discussed under the analysis of Threshold 3.7(a)(iii) above, impacts from seismic-related ground failure related to liquefaction for the Project are considered to be less than significant.

Land subsidence and collapse can occur due to the loss of surface elevation from the removal of subsurface support, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. The Project would not involve activities that would remove subsurface support as noted above; therefore, less than significant impacts related to subsidence and collapse would occur. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that expansive soils are known to exist within The Anaheim Resort; therefore, buildout of the ARSP may result in a significant impact related to expansive soil. Implementation of proposed mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. As noted in SEIR No. 340, expansive soils are known to exist in The Anaheim Resort. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question e: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. The Project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative sewer disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts related to supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
38 Environmental Analysis
Question f: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 4.13, Cultural Resources, of EIR No. 311 and Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that unique paleontological resources are not expected to be present in the Project site. However, the Project may result in development that would require excavation to depths greater than were disturbed by previous development within previously undisturbed soils. Therefore, there is the potential to encounter unknown paleontological resources associated with the Project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Question a: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact. EIR No. 311 did not directly address greenhouse gas emissions; however, an analysis of the Disneyland Resort Project’s impacts related to energy was provided in Section 3.14, Energy. Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of SEIR 340 included a full GHG analysis and concluded that although feasible mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact of GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the analysis prepared for SEIR No. 340, the Project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially Significant Impact. EIR No. 311 did not directly address greenhouse gas emissions; however, an analysis of the Disneyland Resort Project’s impacts related to energy was provided in Section 3.14, Energy. Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of SEIR 340 concluded that although the project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the analysis prepared for SEIR No. 340, the Project is not expected to conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The applicable plans for the Project consist of the City of Anaheim’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan), adopted May 2020, and the SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.

The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
39 Environmental Analysis

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Question a: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
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 requires 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. The Project would involve development of previously approved and entitled land uses in different areas throughout the DRSP and ARSP.

Project construction activities routinely involve the transport, use and handling, and disposal of limited volumes of commonly used hazardous materials, such as petroleum (fuel), paints, adhesives, and solvents. During construction, there is a limited risk of spills and/or accidental release of hazardous materials that are used for 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 Practices (BMPs) required by the City and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. Any hazardous materials used during construction would also be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to any applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations. The Project would result in the on-site handling of materials that are common in similar urban developments, such as commercial cleansers, solvents and other janitorial or industrial-use materials; paints; and landscape fertilizers/pesticides. While many such common materials are technically labeled “hazardous”, the presence of such materials is common in a mixed-use urban environment and their transport. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 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 requires 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.

Project construction activities routinely involve the use and handling of limited volumes of commonly used hazardous materials, such as petroleum (fuel), paints, adhesives, and solvents.

During construction, there is a limited risk of spills and/or accidental release of hazardous materials that are used for 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 Practices (BMPs) required by the City and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. Any hazardous materials used during construction would also be transported, used, stored, and DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
40 Environmental Analysis
disposed of according to any applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations. Compliance with standard State and local construction requirements would ensure the risk of any damage or injury from any potential spill hazards would be less than significant level.

Furthermore, given the age of the buildings on the Project site, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) 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. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340.

The Project is located within a quarter-mile of existing schools, which include Parkview Elementary School (0.1-mile to the west), Paul Revere Elementary (0.12-mile to the east), and Earl Warren Elementary School (0.1-mile to the south). Also, Orange Grove Elementary School is located adjacent to the northern portion of the Project site within the boundaries of the ARSP (Google Earth 2021). However, as noted above, the Project would not involve the storage, handling, or transport of hazardous materials beyond those associated with typical construction and operational activities such as common cleaners and detergents. The handling and transport of these materials would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: 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?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.11, 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, 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 identified no active sites identified on the Cortese List compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 within the boundaries of or adjacent to the ARSP.

According to a review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor mapper, there are no parcels within the Project site that are listed on the Cortese list compiled pursuant to DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
41 Environmental Analysis
Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2021). Of the hazardous materials sites identified in the Project vicinity, none of the sites pose a hazard to the Project site.

Due to the nature of the Project site, there is a potential for discovery of unknown hazardous materials or waste, including previously unknown underground storage tanks. The discovery of these materials may result in a significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question e: For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340.The Project site is not within an adopted Airport Land Use Plan or located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport, or helistop.

No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question f: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. 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 on an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. The Project site is located within a fully developed area of the City and any future modifications to the circulation system with the potential to impact emergency response or evacuation plans would be subject to review and approval by the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Fire Department, and Department of Public Works. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question g: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The topic of wildfires was not analyzed in EIR No. 311 or SEIR No. 340. However, the Project site is located within an urban, developed area and would not be subject to wildland fire risks. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Question a: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. 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 DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
42 Environmental Analysis
standard requirements. 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. Also, 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). While EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts and required the implementation of mitigation measures, the Draft SEIR will describe current water quality conditions and provide an analysis of potential short-term and long-term water quality impacts associated with the project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: 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?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of 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. Implementation of proposed mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources, and potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City of Anaheim owns and operates a network of groundwater wells to supply potable water to their users (Anaheim 2004). The City receives approximately 75 percent of its water supply from groundwater and 25 percent from imported water. The Project could lead to an increased demand for water, which could lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. However, 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 Orange County Water District (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. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts and required the implementation of mitigation measures, The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of 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. Implementation of proposed mitigation and compliance standard requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Project site is in an urban setting and there are no natural streams or rivers within or near the Project site. Also, most of the Project site is covered with impervious surfaces and is relatively flat. Implementation of the Project would not DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
43 Environmental Analysis
result in a substantial increase in the amount of impervious surface. The Project would convey storm water to existing storm drains that connect to regional flood control and runoff conveyance facilities. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts and required the implementation of mitigation measures. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river 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;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.7, Groundwater and Surface Hydrology, of EIR No. 311 determined that despite stormwater runoff increases related to the development of the DRSP, compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) would reduce any impacts to groundwater and surface hydrology to less than significant levels. Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the 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. As noted above, buildout of the Project could increase the rate or amount of runoff when compared with existing conditions due to the potential increase of impervious surfaces. If increased, the additional runoff could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems in the Project site. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts and required the implementation of mitigation measures. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question c: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact related to flood flows and no further analysis of these issues are presented in SEIR No. 340. Consistent with the analysis in Section 3.7, Groundwater and Surface Hydrology, of EIR No. 311 and as discussed in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of SEIR No. 340, the Project site is located within the 100-Year (with flooding below one foot) to 500-Year Flood Zone and within the general limits of the flood impact zones associated with a 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 California Model Ordinance as set forth in the City of Anaheim General Plan, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur. Therefore, because the Project site is in the same location as previously analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 and because the flood conditions in the DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
44 Environmental Analysis
area are unchanged, a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects would not occur related to the 100-year flood hazard area from the Project. The impacts identified for the Project would not be greater than what was identified in EIR No. 311 and EIR No. 340 for the Project site; therefore, the Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. Section 3.7, Groundwater and Surface Hydrology, of EIR No. 311 determined that there is no potential for tsunami or seiche damage at the Disneyland Resort. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact related to flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiche zones, and no further analysis of these issues are presented in SEIR No. 340. Development of the Project would not result in any hazards arising from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
 Tsunami: A tsunami is a large wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. The Project site is approximately 10.65-miles from the Pacific Ocean and is outside of the tsunami inundation zone.
 Seiche: Seiches are waves that oscillate in enclosed water bodies, such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, or semi enclosed bodies of water. Seiches may be triggered by moderate or large submarine earthquakes or sometimes by large onshore earthquakes. There are no large bodies of water in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, and no significant impacts from an earthquake-induced seiche would occur.
 Mudflow: Mud and debris flows are mass movements of dirt and debris that occur after intense rainfall, earthquakes, and severe wildfires. The speed of a slide depends on the amount of precipitation and steepness of the slope. The Project site is relatively flat and is outside of the impacted zones for earthquake-induced landslides. Therefore, there is no expectation of mudflows or debris slides to occur in the Project site.

No impact arising from a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question e: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311 or SEIR No. 340. The Project has the potential to introduce sources of water pollutants that would have the potential to interfere with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Question a: Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the project has the potential to divide or eliminate the established community present at the two mobile home parks. However, pursuant to the Anaheim Municipal Code, impacts associated with the conversion of the mobile home parks to other uses would be mitigated. Therefore, impacts associated with the division of DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
45 Environmental Analysis
an established community would 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 redevelopment of currently developed areas, all areas are under the 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 right-of-way in Magic Way between Walnut Street and Disneyland Drive, in Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue, and 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. Alternative pedestrian through access as well as vehicular access to the Disneyland Hotel would be provided in the immediate area. Impacts would be less than significant. The Project includes the construction of pedestrian bridge(s) over Harbor Boulevard, which would not block or otherwise impair public circulation. The Project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: 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?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation The analysis of the DRSP in Section 3.1, Land UseRelated Plans and Policies, and Section 3.2, Land Use Compatibility, of EIR No. 311 determined that the project would require an amendment to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) (OCTA 2021). This was not considered a significant impact. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with all other land use plans and policies. Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that the project would be consistent with the respective goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents. No impacts would occur. The Project would continue development generally in accordance with the land use designations set forth in the DRSP and ARSP. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Question a: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. According to SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area is not located in an area designated as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) or Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources Area. Because no additional excavation beyond what was previously evaluated would occur, the project would not result in the loss of any mineral resource.

The California Geological Survey Mineral Resources Project provides information about California’s non-fuel mineral resources. The Mineral Resources Project classifies lands throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resources, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The Project site does not occur within any MRZs mapped by the California Geological Survey (DOC 2021b). No loss of availability of known resources would result from Project implementation, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
46 Environmental Analysis
Question b: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340 the City determined that the ARSP area is not located in an area designated as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) or Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources Area. Because no additional excavation beyond what was previously evaluated would occur, the project would not result in the loss of any mineral resource, and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No. 340. The Project site is not a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the Anaheim General Plan (City of Anaheim 2004a). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.13 NOISE
Question a: 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.5, Noise, of 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. Section 5.10, Noise, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that construction activities associated with future development within the ARSP area have the potential to significantly impact noise-sensitive receptors. Adherence to the standard requirements and implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce potential impacts; however, these impacts may remain significant and unavoidable. The Project has the potential to increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site related to theme park attractions and outdoor activities, as well as operational sources such as vehicle noise and building equipment noise. In addition, Project-related demolition and construction activities could generate noise affecting nearby noise sensitive land uses. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 3.5, Noise, of 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. Section 5.10, Noise, of 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.

Groundborne vibration or noise would primarily be associated with construction activities of future development projects that would be accommodated by the Project. These increased levels of vibration could impact vibration-sensitive land uses in and surrounding the Project site. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
47 Environmental Analysis
Question c: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact related to projects located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, and no further analysis of these issues is presented in SEIR No. 340. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport to the Project site is Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 4.7 miles to the northwest (Airnav.com 2021). Future guests and cast members at the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from aircraft-related operations. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Question a: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.9, Employment, Population, and Housing, of EIR No. 311 determined that the Disneyland Resort Project would result in minimal growth within the City, and would not create a significant impact to employment, population, or housing.

According to Section 5.11, Population and Housing, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP has the potential to increase population by approximately 9,099 residents and result in a demand for 2,757 housing units in the City of Anaheim. However, it was identified that the increases related to population and housing would be well within City of Anaheim projections and represent a less than significant impact. Additionally, the creation of 2,757 new households, was assumed in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts on local and regional population, housing, and employment resulting from implementation of the Project, as well as consistency with local and regional planning programs. This analysis will provide a comparison between what was presented in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 and will focus analysis on any new impacts which were not previously addressed. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Section 3.9, Employment, Population, and Housing, of EIR No. 311 determined that the Disneyland Resort Project would result in minimal growth within the City, and would not create a significant impact to employment, population, or housing. Section 5.11, Population and Housing, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the project has the potential to displace housing units and residents associated with the Mobile Home Park (MHP) overlay zone. However, assuming compliance with State law and the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not require the removal of housing units or displacement of residents. Although the Project would remove the current General Plan’s planned extension of Gene Autry Way through an existing area zoned for and developed with residential uses, the modification would not displace any housing. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
48 Environmental Analysis

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Question a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.10.1, Fire Protection, of EIR No. 311 concluded that the Disneyland Resort Project would increase the demand for fire protection services thus increasing response times, the number of service call responses, and the number of search, rescue, and disaster responses. However, this increased demand would be satisfied with implementation of mitigation to include an additional inspector and plan checker in combination with roadway and intersection improvements. According to Section 5.12, Public Services, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would create additional demand for fire and/or emergency rescue services, but potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The Project site is served by the City of Anaheim Department of Fire & Rescue (AF&R) for fire protection services. Implementation of the Project may increase the demand for fire protection services. Consultation with AF&R will be conducted to estimate the level and type of demand associated with the changes the Project is proposing to the projects analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 and to evaluate site access. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Police Protection?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. According to information contained in Section 3.10.2, Police Services, of EIR No. 311, development of the Disneyland Resort Project would increase the volume of calls for police services. However, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. According to Section 5.12, Public Services, of EIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would create additional demand for police services, but potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.

The Project site is served by the City of Anaheim Police Department (APD). APD is responsible for patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist-oriented policing, and detention facilities. Implementation of the Project may increase the demand for police protection services.

Consultation with APD will be conducted to estimate the level and type of demand associated with the changes the Project is proposing to the projects analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 and to evaluate site access. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
49 Environmental Analysis
Question a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Schools?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.10.5, Schools, of EIR No. 311 determined that development of the Disneyland Resort Project would not create any direct impacts to local schools because the DRSP does not allow for the construction of new dwelling units. However, schoolaged children of project employees would create a potential indirect impact from development of the project that would be mitigated through payment of state-mandated Development Fees.

Although not required under State law, Disney entered into an agreement with the Anaheim Elementary School District, formerly known as the Anaheim City School District, for early payment of the fees for buildout of the Disneyland Resort Project. Also, a DRSP project design feature (PDF 3.10.5-1) requires that the Applicant continue to provide educational programs in cooperation with the local community that are designed to enhance and complement the other existing educational opportunities and experiences within the community. Thus, the potential impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.

According to Section 5.12, Public Services, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would generate new school-aged students. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation, which includes payment of state-mandated Development Fees and the City working cooperatively with school districts to identify opportunities for new schools and school expansion.

The Project does not involve the construction of new dwelling units. Therefore, direct impacts on the Anaheim City School District (ACSD) or the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) are not expected to occur as a result of the Project. However, development of the Project could produce an indirect impact, generating a population increase in the City related to new workers and jobs created by the Project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Parks?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.10.4, Parks, of EIR No. 311 determined that development of the Disneyland Resort Project would result in increased use of ball fields by project cast members (employees). Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. According to Section 5.12, Public Services, of SEIR No. 340, full buildout or implementation of the ARSP would indirectly increase population by approximately 9,099 residents (8,264 associated with buildout of the C-R District and 835 associated with the convention center expansion within the PR District). Because this increase was identified to take place over the next 20 years and because the ARSP area is not located in a designated Park Deficiency Area, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational uses were identified as less than significant. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 concluded DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
50 Environmental Analysis
that any residential development project within the Residential Overlay Zone would be subject to the Quimby Act, which requires the provision of parkland and/or the payment of fees, thereby ensuring that a significant impact would not occur. Further, Disney’s compliance with MM 3.10.4- 2 adopted in connection with EIR No 311 and requiring funding of night lighting of two ballfields and upgrades to two City parks would ensure no impact would occur. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, no direct increase in demand for City park lands or recreational facilities is expected to result from Project implementation because the Project would function primarily as a visitor-serving use. Additionally, while the Project has the potential to indirectly increase the residential base of the City, the number of potential new residents associated with the increase in employment positions is expected to be minor. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Other Public Facilities?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. According to Section 5.12, Public Services, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would introduce new borrowers to the Anaheim Public Library service area. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. Local public services include libraries, post offices, and hospitals. The Project would result in an incrementally higher demand for such services. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.16 RECREATION
Question a: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Question b: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 did not specifically address recreation; however, it did address impacts to parks. Section 3.10.4, Parks, of EIR No. 311 determined that development of the Disneyland Resort Project would result in increased use of ball fields by project cast (employees). Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. According to Section 5.13, Recreation, of SEIR No. 340, full buildout or implementation of the ARSP would indirectly increase population by approximately 9,099 residents (8,264 associated with buildout of the C-R District and 835 associated with the convention center expansion within the PR District). Because this increase was identified to take place over the next 20 years and because the ARSP area is not located in a designated Park Deficiency Area, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational uses were identified as less than significant. Additionally, Section 5.13, Recreation, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that any residential development project within the Residential Overlay Zone would be subject to the Quimby Act, which requires the provision of parkland and/or the payment of fees, DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
51 Environmental Analysis
thereby ensuring that a significant impact would not occur. As discussed previously in Section 3.14, no direct increase in demand for City parklands or recreational facilities would result from project implementation because the project would function primarily as a visitor-serving use.

While the Project has the potential to indirectly increase the residential base of the City, the number of potential new residents associated with the increase in employment positions would be so minor that related impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. Further, it is impossible to determine where, within the City, the new residents would choose to locate. The Project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects than those analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. Although a significant impact would not occur, adherence to requiring compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 17.08.250, which requires the provision of parkland and/or the payment of fees, consistent with the Quimby Act and Disney’s compliance with MM 3.10.4-2 adopted in connection with EIR No. 311 and requiring funding of night lighting of two ballfields and upgrades to two City parks (described in Section 3.15, Parks) would ensure no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Question a: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. In 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743 into law to better align with State policies that promote public health, infill development, multimodal transportation networks (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit), and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of SB 743 is to more effectively analyze and disclose a proposed project’s transportationrelated impacts on the environment as part of the CEQA review process before a decision on a project is made. As amended in December 2018, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 specifies that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) shall be the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. A project’s effect on automobile delay and roadway congestion, previously measured by level of service (LOS), will no longer constitute an environmental impact. Although LOS can no longer be used to determine significant impacts under CEQA, LOS analysis may still be included as part of the Project’s review for policy consistency outside of and in addition to the CEQA process.

The Draft SEIR will evaluate the Project’s consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Draft SEIR will evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (Anaheim 2004a and 2017). Impacts related to compliance with plans and policies that establish measures of effective performance of the circulation system could be potentially significant. Therefore, the Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Potentially Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311 or SEIR No. 340.

An analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be prepared for the Project to evaluate consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
52 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?
Potentially Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses and no further analysis of these issues are presented in SEIR No. 340. The Project would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. However, design features would be introduced to the Project site as a part of the Project and the Draft SEIR will analyze their potential to create hazardous conditions (e.g., modifications to existing roadways and intersections, new driveway approaches). The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question d: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially Significant Impact. This issue was not analyzed in EIR No. 311. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on emergency access and no further analysis of these issues are presented in SEIR No. 340.The Project would not result in substantial changes to the existing circulation patterns and would not change the circulation system of emergency access routes. As discussed in the Project Description, the Project would involve the abandonment of the public right-of- way in Magic Way between Walnut Avenue and Disneyland Drive, in Disneyland Drive south of Magic Way to Katella Avenue, and in the portion of the proposed extension of Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the new Southeast District, previously dedicated by Disney to the City, and the subsequent privatization of Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and Katella Avenue. These modifications would require review and approval by the City and adequate alternative access routes would be identified internal to the DRSP area and the Disney ARSP properties. Additionally, during the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with AF&R and APD to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into the Project, and that adequate circulation and access (e.g., adequate turning radii for fire trucks) is provided in the traffic and circulation components of the Project. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Question a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
53 Environmental Analysis
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 did not directly address impacts to tribal cultural resources. However, Section 3.13, Cultural Resources, of EIR No. 311 concluded no impacts to cultural resources were expected to occur from development of the Disneyland Resort Project. According to Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340, no archaeological resources are anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area. Both EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 required the hiring of an archaeologist for project development to ensure that if any cultural resources were unexpectedly discovered during grading or development of the project, potential impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.

Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of SEIR No. 340 also concluded that there is no evidence of Native American human remains in the ARSP area and that adherence to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that a significant impact would not occur. While impacts associated with tribal cultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation given the prior disturbance of the Project site and prior analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, tribal consultation will be conducted for the Project pursuant to applicable State laws including Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18). The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Question a: Would the project require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation.

Water
The analysis of water service impacts in Section 3.10.6, Water Service, of EIR No. 311 concluded the capacity of the existing water supply system would be exceeded, resulting in a significant impact. With implementation of mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. Section 5.15, Water Supply and Infrastructure, of SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would exceed capacities of existing water facilities; however, this impact would be mitigated to less than significant level. Further, the projected water demand associated with buildout of the ARSP would be accommodated through existing and projected supplies.

Implementation of mitigation would ensure water conservation measures would be incorporated into future development to ensure that water supplies remain reliable into the future.

Sewer/Wastewater
Section 3.10.7, Wastewater/Sewer Service, of EIR No. 311 reported that the existing sewer facilities in the area were at capacity and local improvements would be required to accommodate project-related volume increases. Implementation of the recommended improvements in the City’s South-Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study also would be required to accommodate the development of The Disneyland Resort Project in the future. However, the County Sanitation District of Orange County was determined to have adequate treatment plant capacity to serve the project. Implementation of mitigation outlined in EIR No. 311 would reduce all impacts to a level considered less than significant. According to Section 5.16, Sewer, of SEIR No. 340, the sewer treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would not be exceeded by buildout of the ARSP. SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would increase sewage flows in existing sewer lines and trunks serving the area, resulting in DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
54 Environmental Analysis
several sewer lines becoming deficient; however, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, it was determined that buildout of the ARSP evaluated in SEIR No. 340 would increase sewage flows by approximately 323,656 gallons per day (gpd) in the PR District and 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in the C-R District and that these increases in sewage flow would be accommodated by available capacity at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plant No. 1.

Stormwater
Section 3.10.8, Storm Drains, of EIR No. 311 concluded storm drain facilities within the Project site would not be sufficient to handle increased drainage runoff flows. Implementation of mitigation and project design features outlined in EIR No. 311 would reduce impacts to storm drain facilities to a level considered less than significant. According to Section 5.18, Storm Water, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP has the potential to worsen several existing deficiencies in the City’s storm drain system. However, participation in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program would assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies. Additionally, implementation of mitigation would ensure that impacts to regional flood control facilities associated with buildout of the ARSP would be reduced to less than significant levels. As discussed in Section 5.18, Storm Water, of SEIR No. 340, although all new growth within the ARSP area would occur in compliance with identified mitigation, the City has no control over the growth and storm water contributions of areas outside of its jurisdiction. It was determined that any addition of storm water to the regional storm water system may be cumulatively considerable when combined with potential storm water flow increases from surrounding jurisdictions and the potential cumulative impact could be significant and unavoidable if development in the surrounding jurisdictions occurs without upgrades to the storm water infrastructure.

Electricity
Section 3.10.9, Electricity, of EIR No. 311 determined that existing electrical facilities were inadequate to accommodate the increased demand for electricity that development of The Disneyland Resort Project would generate. In addition to implementation of mitigation, a new substation would be required to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. In 2020, a new substation was constructed on Katella Avenue. Additionally, EIR No. 311 determined the project would contribute to a cumulative impact related to electricity consumption. According to Section 5.17, Electricity, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP area would result in an increased demand for electricity. Compliance with the standard requirements and implementation of mitigation would reduce anticipated demand through conservation efforts. It is expected that the existing electrical distribution system and future planned improvements would adequately accommodate the anticipated demand, thus resulting in a less than significant impact with mitigation.

Natural Gas
According to Section 3.10.10, Natural Gas Service, of EIR No. 311, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) would be able to meet the demand for natural gas created by The Disneyland Resort Project. Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Additionally, EIR No. 311 determined the project would contribute to a cumulative impact related to natural gas consumption. According to Section 5.19, Other Utilities, of SEIR No. 340, SCGC indicated that natural gas service to the ARSP can be provided from an existing gas main that is accessible from various locations in the ARSP area. The service would be provided in accordance with the SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
55 Environmental Analysis
Commission. Therefore, the ARSP would be served by existing facilities, and no new systems or substantial alterations would be required.

Telecommunications Facilities
Sections 3.10.11 and 3.10.12, Telephone and Television Service, of EIR No. 311 indicated that Pacific Bell would accommodate all increased demand for telephone services associated with development of The Disneyland Resort Project without disrupting existing service.

Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. EIR No. 311 also indicated cable television service would be accommodated without creating a significant impact. Television reception of residents and businesses without cable television might be impacted by construction of projects within the DRSP. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. AT&T would serve the DRSP area.

According to Section 5.19, Other Utilities, of SEIR No. 340, it was determined that AT&T can provide telephone, digital cable, and high-speed internet services and that the ARSP area can be served by Time Warner Cable with the existing cable resources available to the site. 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. According to SEIR No. 340, the impact related to additional demand for telephone service is less than significant.

The Project has the potential to require new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.10.6, Water Service, of EIR No. 311 determined that because the existing capacity of the water supply system would be exceeded by the maximum day domestic water peak demand of The Disneyland Resort Project, it was considered a significant impact. However, implementation of project design features and mitigation would reduce the impact on the water supply system to a level not considered significant. Section 5.15, Water Supply and Infrastructure, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that project water demand associated with the project would exceed capacities of existing water facilities.

Adherence to the proposed mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Draft SEIR will evaluate impacts associated with implementation of the Project, to confirm sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project. As part of the Draft SEIR, coordination will occur with the City to evaluate the existing water supply and future projected demands as compared to the analysis and mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.

The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
56 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Section 3.10.7, Wastewater/Sewer Service, of EIR No. 311 determined that County Sanitation Districts of Orange County had adequate treatment plant capacity to serve The Disneyland Resort Project. Section 5.16, Sewer, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the project would increase sewage flows by approximately 323,656 gallons per day (gpd) in the PR District and 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in the C-R District. These increases in sewage flow would be accommodated by available capacity at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plant No. 1; impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, adherence to the standard requirements would ensure payment of required fees.

This issue was analyzed and mitigation measures were identified in EIR No. 311, EIR No. 313 and SEIR No. 340. Mitigation measures, including the significant expansion of sewer capacity, were implemented as part of The Disneyland Resort Project analyzed in EIR No. 311 to mitigate for impacts from the full buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project. Nevertheless, as part of the Draft SEIR, the Project’s potential volume of wastewater will be estimated and compared to existing and planned off-site sewer capacities, to determine whether development of Project would exceed such capacities. Consultation with the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) also will occur to determine whether provision of adequate sewer service to the Project would necessitate the construction or expansion of any major sewage treatment or collection facilities. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question d: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. In the analysis of impacts related to solid waste in Section 3.10.3, Solid Waste Disposal Service, EIR No. 311 identified that the Olinda-Alpha landfill had limited available capacity. For this reason, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would create a significant, unavoidable project and cumulative impact, even with implementation of mitigation. According to analysis contained in Section 5.19, Other Utilities, of SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would generate an estimated 109,514 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 19,986 tons of solid waste annually. Buildout of the ARSP would add approximately 19,986 tons of solid waste annually to existing solid waste facilities and capacity, which would impact the landfill system. However, the buildout of the ARSP could be accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County’s landfill capacity. In addition, once the Alpha Olinda Landfill closes in 2030, capacity would exist for buildout of the ARSP in the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill (OC Waste & Recycling 2021). No significant impacts would occur, and no new mitigation is required; however, implementation of mitigation would further ensure that adequate solid waste services are provided, and that solid waste generation would be minimized. The Project has the potential to generate solid waste, which will be evaluated in the Draft SEIR relative to existing and projected landfill capacities as well as solid waste goals. Information related to the existing condition of solid waste services provided in the area will be updated based on correspondence with the City of Anaheim (which maintains an exclusive contract with Republic Waste Services of Southern California LLC [Anaheim Disposal]) and OC Waste and Recycling (which provides the landfill resource for Orange County). The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
57 Environmental Analysis
Question e: Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. In the analysis of impacts related to solid waste, Section 3.10.3, Solid Waste Disposal Service, of EIR No. 311 identified that the Olinda-Alpha landfill had limited available capacity. For this reason, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would create a significant, unavoidable project and cumulative impact, even with implementation of mitigation. Section 5.19, Other Utilities, of SEIR No. 340 concluded that no significant impact would occur related to provision of solid waste service to future projects within the ARSP area; however, implementation of the proposed mitigation would further ensure that adequate solid waste services are provided and that solid waste generation would be minimized.

The Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local agency regulations regarding solid waste. Under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the City is required to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. Local jurisdictions are mandated to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation to recycling. The City implements municipal codes and ordinances that help to reduce the waste source and increase the diversion rate. The City program, Recycle Anaheim, consists of an automated trash collection program and a broader recycling and yard waste collection system. In collaboration with Republic Services, the City’s franchise contractor, the City provides an automated curbside recycling program for solid waste disposal, which uses the three-can automated collection system for trash, commingled recyclable materials, and yard waste. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

3.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Question a: Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The topic of wildfires was not addressed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project site is located in an urbanized location that is not exposed to wildland fires and is entirely outside of a VHFHSZ as identified in the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer using data provided by CALFIRE (2021). Therefore, no impact related to substantial impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question b: Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. The topic of wildfires was not addressed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project site is located in an urbanized location that is not exposed to wildland fires and is entirely outside of a VHFHSZ as identified in the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer using data provided by CALFIRE (2021). Therefore, no impact related to exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
58 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The topic of wildfires was not addressed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project site is located in an urbanized location that is not exposed to wildland fires and is entirely outside of a VHFHSZ as identified in the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer using data provided by CALFIRE (2021). Therefore, no impact related to increased fire risk from installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

Question d: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The topic of wildfires was not addressed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project site is located in an urbanized location that is not exposed to wildland fires and is entirely outside of a VHFHSZ as identified in the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer using data provided by CALFIRE (2021). Therefore, no impact related to increased risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. No further analysis is necessary in the Draft SEIR.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Question a: Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential for significant impacts related to biological, cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to these thresholds in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

Question b: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project has the potential to contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. The Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to this threshold in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
59 Environmental Analysis
Question c: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential for significant impacts related to air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Therefore, the Draft SEIR will evaluate potential impacts related to these thresholds in greater detail, and will identify mitigation measures as necessary.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
60 Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
61 Preparers
SECTION 4.0 PREPARERS
City of Anaheim, Planning and Building Department
Susan Kim, AICP ..................................................................................... Principal Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP ....................................................................... Senior Planner Linda R. Johnson ..................................................................................... Principal Planner Psomas (Environmental Document Preparation)
Jennifer Marks ...................................................................................... Principal-in-Charge Sean Noonan, AICP .................................................................................. Project Manager Tin Cheung ..................................... Air Quality/Energy/Noise/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Charles Cisneros .................................. Cultural/Paleontological/Tribal Cultural Resources Mike Deseo ................................................................................................... GIS/Graphics Danaé Overman ........................................................................................ Technical Editor Sheryl Kristal ............................................................................................. Word Processor DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
62 Preparers
This page intentionally left blank
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
63 References
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Airnav.com. 2021 (June 10, date accessed). Airport Listings. http://airnav.com/airports/us/CA Anaheim, City of. 2021a (June 10, date accessed). Municipal Code. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/overview ———. 2020 (May). Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/7987/Greenhouse-Gas-ReductionPlan?bidId= ———. 2017 (May). 2017 Bicycle Master Plan. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/3398/Bicycle-Master-Plan
———. 2012 (December). Final Environmental Impact Report 340 Amendment No. 14 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C. Anaheim, CA:

City of Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort ———. 2010 (May 18, approved by City Council). Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/1485/CitywideHistoric-Preservation-Plan-?bidId= ———. 2004a (last accessed October 5, 2021). General Plan for the City of Anaheim (City Council Resolution No. 2004-94). Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/712/GeneralPlan ———. 2004b (May). Final Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact No. 330 (SCH #2003041105). Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/712/General-Plan
———. 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
———. 1994a (August). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Draft EIR No. 313 with Addendum.

Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort ———. 1994b (last accessed October 5, 2021). The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.

Anaheim, CA: City of Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort ———. 1994c (last accessed October 5, 2021). The Anaheim Resort Identity Program. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort
———. 1994d (last accessed October 5, 2021). The Anaheim Public Realm Landscape Program.

Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. http://anaheim.net/1009/Anaheim-Resort ———. 1993a (last accessed October 5, 2021). The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/1017/Disneyland-Resort ———. 1993b. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 311 and Mitigation Monitoring Program 0067. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim. https://www.anaheim.net/1017/Disneyland-Resort
DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
64 References
———. 1993c (June). Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map. Anaheim, CA: Anaheim.
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/2473/Maximum-Permitted-StructuralHeight-Map?bidId= California Department of Conservation. 2021a (June 10, date accessed). California Important Farmland Finder. Sacramento, CA: DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ ———.2021b (June 10, date accessed). Mineral Lands Classification mapper. Sacramento, CA:

DOC. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021a (June 10, date accessed). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA: CDFW.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data
———.2021b (June 10, date accessed). Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Sacramento, CA: CDFW. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS California Department of Transportation. 2021a (June 10, date accessed). List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways California Geological Survey (CGS). 2021a (June 10, date accessed). Regulatory Maps Geo Application, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation mapper. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/eqzapp/app/
CAL FIRE. 2021 (June 10, date accessed). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Sacramento, CA:

CAL FIRE. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ California State Parks. 2021 (June 10, date accessed). California Historical Landmarks by County. Sacramento, CA: California State Parks.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387
———. 2021b (June 10, date accessed). National Wetland Inventory. Washington, DC: USFWS. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Department of Toxic Substances Control. (June 10, date accessed). DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Sacramento, CA: DTSC. https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ Google Earth. 2021 (June 10, date accessed). Aerial Imagery of the Project Site and Nearby Vicinity. Mountain View, CA: Google Earth. https://www.google.com/earth/ National Park Service. 2021 (June 10, date accessed). National Register of Historic Places.

Washington, DC: NPS. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8- a2f9-a99909164466
OC Waste & Recycling. 2021 (October 5, access date). Olinda Alpha Landfill. Santa Ana, CA: OC Waste & Recycling. https://oclandfills.com/landfills/active-landfills/olinda-landfill DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
65 References
Orange County Transportation Authority. 2021 (August 11). Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Santa Ana, CA: OCTA. http://www.octa.net/News-and-Resources/OpenData/MPAH-Overview/?terms=%20arterial%20highways%20overview South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008 (December 5). Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar, CA:

SCAQMD. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- (ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021a (June 10, date accessed). Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Washington, DC: USFWS. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html ———. 2021b (June 10, date accessed). National Wetlands Inventory mapper. Washington, DC:

USFWS.

DisneylandForward Initial Study
City of Anaheim
66 References
This page intentionally left blank
From: Linda R. Johnson
To: Linda R. Johnson
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 9:58:27 AM
Attachments: 12-ORA-2021-01809.DisneylandForward.NOP.pdf From: "Miranda, Jude@DOT" <[email protected]>
Date: November 29, 2021 at 5:29:03 PM PST
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Cc: "Shelley, Scott@DOT" <[email protected]>, "Easter, Luisa D@DOT" <[email protected]>, "Jamoralin, Joseph@DOT" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Good evening Ms. Thienprasiddhi,
Please see our comment letter for the proposed Disneyland Forward Project.

Best,
Jude Miranda
Transportation Planner
Caltrans District 12 | Regional-IGR-Transit Planning
1750 East 4th Street Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA. 92705
Office: (657) 328-6229
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
PHONE (657) 328-6000
FAX (657) 328-6522
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district12
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

November 29, 2021
Ms. Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Senior Planner
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92780
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2021080449
12-ORA-2021-01809
I-5
Dear Ms. Thienprasiddhi,
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an environmental Impact Report for the Disneyland Forward project. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.

The project proposes additional flexibility for permitted uses and streamlined review of future Disney projects in the area. Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans is a commenting agency for this project and upon review, we have the following comments:

Transportation Planning:

1. Caltrans will still require sufficient time to review environmental documents for projects that potentially have impacts on the State Highway System. These review period are set by CEQA.

2. Caltrans encourages the evaluation of potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications in order to better manage the transportation network. For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). This reference is available online at:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf Traffic Operations:

3. Please review Caltrans' Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide to analyze project/plan impact or effect on the State Highway System. This reference is available online at:
https://transplanning.onramp.dot.ca.gov/downloads/transplanning/files/suscom mplan/2020-05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf
City of Anaheim
November 29, 2021

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Encroachment Permit

4. Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans’s requirements for work done within State ROW, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans’s Encroachment Permits Manual at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Jude Miranda at (657) 328-66229 or [email protected]
Sincerely,
Luisa Easter for

SCOTT SHELLEY
Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning
District 12

cityofirvine.org
City of Irvine, 1 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 949-724-6000 November 23, 2021
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning & Building Department
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, MS 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 352 and Scoping Meeting for the DisneylandForward Project in the City of Anaheim
Dear Elaine Thienprasiddhi:

Staff is in receipt of the NOP for the DisneylandForward Project in the City of Anaheim.

The proposed project is a request from Disney for flexibility in the location of permitted uses within Disney’s properties in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (DRSP) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (ARSP) areas as well as streamlined review of future Disney projects in these areas.

Staff has no comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or 949-724-6364.

Sincerely,
Justin Equina
Senior Planner
ec: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services
Marika Poynter, Principal Planner
November 29, 2021
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner
City of Anaheim – Planning & Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, MS 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Subject: DisneylandForward Project Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 and Initial Study
Dear Ms. Thienprasiddhi:

Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with the NOP and Initial Study for the DisneylandForward Project (Project).

The following comments are provided for your consideration. • While CEQA now uses vehicle miles traveled to identify transportation impacts, OCTA still requires level of service analysis to monitor Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway System (HS) performance, per the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. Such analysis may be submitted to OCTA separately from any CEQA documents. For more information, please refer to the 2019 CMP Report available here: http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-andStudies/Congestion-Management-Program/Overview/. • Please note that Harbor Boulevard (Blvd) and Katella Avenue (Ave) are part of the CMPHS. Additionally, Harbor Blvd/Katella Ave, Harbor Blvd/Interstate-5 (I-5) Ramps (NB/SB), and Anaheim Blvd-I-5 NB Ramps/Katella Ave intersections are CMP intersections. These roadways and intersections should be analyzed as such for any potential traffic impacts consistent with the Orange County CMP.
• The Initial Study indicates that the Project requires approval of amendments of the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Please note that consistency with the MPAH is a prerequisite for local agencies to be eligible for Measure M2 Net Revenues as well as programs – including the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program. For any potential changes to the Circulation Element in relation to arterials on the MPAH please: initiate an MPAH amendment request with OCTA, coordinate with impacted agencies, and conduct traffic analysis using an OCTA certified model. More information and the MPAH guidelines may be accessed online: http://www.octa.net/News-and-Resources/OpenData/MPAH-Overview/.

Ms. Elaine Thienprasiddhi
November 29, 2021

Page 2 ends

Throughout the development of this project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (714) 560-5907 (via email [email protected]).

Sincerely,
Dan Phu
Environmental Programs Manager
SENT VIA E-MAIL: November 9, 2021
[email protected]
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner
City of Anaheim, Planning and Building Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, MS 162
Anaheim, California 92805
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed DisneylandForward Project
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. Our comments are recommendations on the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send a copy of the Draft Subsequent EIR upon its completion and public release directly to South Coast AQMD as copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded. In addition, please send all appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadsheets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files (not PDF files). Any delays in providing all supporting documentation for our review will require additional review time beyond the end of the comment period.

CEQA Air Quality Analysis
Staff recommends that the Lead Agency use South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website1as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod2land use emissions software, which can estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development and is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

South Coast AQMD has developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds3and localized significance thresholds (LSTs)4to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. The localized analysis can be conducted by either using the LST screening tables or performing dispersion modeling.

The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.

Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of

1 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Handbook and other resources for preparing air quality analyses can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 2 CalEEMod is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 3 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi 2 November 9, 2021
heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips, and hauling trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers and air pollution control devices), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, emissions from the overlapping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.

If the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions from long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5.

In the event that implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD (e.g., uses of stationary equipment including, but is not limited to, emergency generator(s) and fire pump(s)), South Coast AQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the Draft Subsequent EIR. The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the Final Subsequent EIR will be the basis for evaluating the permit under CEQA and imposing permit conditions and limits. Questions on permits should be directed to South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385.

Mitigation Measures
In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts. Any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be analyzed. Several resources to assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project include South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook1, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan6, and Southern California Association of Government’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy7.

South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts from the Proposed Project are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
LS
ORC211028-03
Control Number

5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 6 South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-mar3-035.pdf (starting on page 86). 7 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS can be found at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/PEIR/certified/Exhibit-A_ConnectSoCal_PEIR.pdf.

November 23, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10500
Ms. Thienprasiddhi Page 2

COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
DISNEYLANDFORWARD PROJECT [SCAG NO. IGR10500]

CONSISTENCY WITH CONNECT SOCAL
SCAG provides informational resources to facilitate the consistency of the proposed project with the adopted 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal). For the purpose of determining consistency with CEQA, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with Connect SoCal.

CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
The SCAG Regional Council fully adopted Connect SoCal in September 2020. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS, 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. The long-range visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in Connect SoCal may be pertinent to the proposed project.

These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project. Among the relevant goals of Connect SoCal are the following:

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods Goal #3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Goal #4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Goal #6: Support healthy and equitable communities
Goal #7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network
Goal #8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel Goal #9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options
Goal #10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side-by-side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non-consistency or non-applicability of the goals and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows:

November 23, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10500
Ms. Thienprasiddhi Page 3

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal Analysis
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
etc. etc.

Connect SoCal Strategies
To achieve the goals of Connect SoCal, a wide range of land use and transportation strategies are included in the accompanying twenty (20) technical reports. Of particular note are multiple strategies included in Chapter 3 of Connect SoCal intended to support implementation of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) framed within the context of focusing growth near destinations and mobility options; promoting diverse housing choices; leveraging technology innovations; supporting implementation of sustainability policies; and promoting a Green Region. To view Connect SoCal and the accompanying technical reports, please visit the Connect SoCal webpage.

Connect SoCal builds upon the progress from previous RTP/SCS cycles and continues to focus on integrated, coordinated, and balanced planning for land use and transportation that helps the SCAG region strive towards a more sustainable region, while meeting statutory requirements pertinent to RTP/SCSs. These strategies within the regional context are provided as guidance for lead agencies such as local jurisdictions when the proposed project is under consideration.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH FORECASTS
A key, formative step in projecting future population, households, and employment through 2045 for Connect SoCal was the generation of a forecast of regional and county level growth in collaboration with expert demographers and economists on Southern California. From there, jurisdictional level forecasts were ground-truthed by subregions and local agencies, which helped SCAG identify opportunities and barriers to future development. This forecast helps the region understand, in a very general sense, where we are expected to grow, and allows SCAG to focus attention on areas that are experiencing change and may have increased transportation needs. After a year-long engagement effort with all 197 jurisdictions one-on-one, 82 percent of SCAG’s 197 jurisdictions provided feedback on the forecast of future growth for Connect SoCal. SCAG also sought feedback on potential sustainable growth strategies from a broad range of stakeholder groups – including local jurisdictions, county transportation commissions, other partner agencies, industry groups, community-based organizations, and the general public. Connect SoCal utilizes a bottomup approach in that total projected growth for each jurisdiction reflects feedback received from jurisdiction staff, including city managers, community development/planning directors, and local staff. Growth at the neighborhood level (i.e., transportation analysis zone (TAZ) reflects entitled projects and adheres to current general and specific plan maximum densities as conveyed by jurisdictions (except in cases where entitled projects and development agreements exceed these capacities as calculated by SCAG). Neighborhood level growth projections also feature strategies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from automobiles and light trucks to achieve Southern California’s GHG reduction target, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in accordance with state planning law. Connect SoCal’s Forecasted Development Pattern is utilized for long range modeling purposes and does not supersede actions taken by elected bodies on future development, including entitlements and development agreements. SCAG does not have the authority to implement the plan -- neither through decisions about what type of development is built where, nor what transportation projects are ultimately built, as Connect November 23, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10500
Ms. Thienprasiddhi Page 4
SoCal is adopted at the jurisdictional level. Achieving a sustained regional outcome depends upon informed and intentional local action. To access jurisdictional level growth estimates and forecasts for years 2016 and 2045, please refer to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. The growth forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below.

Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Adopted City of Anaheim Forecasts Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Population 19,517,731 20,821,171 21,443,006 22,503,899 367,550 389,417 400,265 416,789 Households 6,333,458 6,902,821 7,170,110 7,633,451 105,927 110,666 114,472 122,701 Employment 8,695,427 9,303,627 9,566,384 10,048,822 200,992 220,681 230,637 250,544

MITIGATION MEASURES
SCAG staff recommends that you review the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for Connect SoCal for guidance, as appropriate. SCAG’s Regional Council certified the PEIR and adopted the associated Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (FOF/SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on May 7, 2020 and also adopted a PEIR Addendum and amended the MMRP on September 3, 2020 (please see the PEIR webpage and scroll to the bottom of the page for the PEIR Addendum). The PEIR includes a list of project-level performance standards-based mitigation measures that may be considered for adoption and implementation by lead, responsible, or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and feasible. Project-level mitigation measures are within responsibility, authority, and/or jurisdiction of project-implementing agency or other public agency serving as lead agency under CEQA in subsequent project- and site- specific design, CEQA review, and decision-making processes, to meet the performance standards for each of the CEQA resource categories.

From: Jesse Ben-Ron
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward
Date: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:44:21 AM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Ms. Thienprasiddhi,
Hope this email finds you well. As residents of 500 S. Kroeger Anaheim, CA 92805, please see this email expressing our support for the Disneyland Forward Project.Anaheim thrives when Disneyland thrives, and therefore the city must allow Disneyland to modernize to attract more tourists to spend in our city. This further investment in our community by Disney will allow for the strong economic environment that will support the jobs and city services that Anaheim residents rely on.

A project like DisneylandForward is a boon to our community and will create both local and regional jobs. I hope the review process will provide specific details on the economic impacts of such a project and how that will benefit Anaheim and Orange County residents. Thank you for your time and all that you do for the City of Anaheim.
--
Best,
Jesse Ben-Ron, Tiffany Richardson and Debi Fergueson
From: Jennifer Billmire
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NOP Initial Study
Date: Friday, November 5, 2021 4:10:02 PM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hello
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier this week. One of my primary concerns with the Disney expansion is the impact on the neighboring parking. Most areas near the park are permit parking but unfortunately the area in which I live is not. I currently reside at in Anaheim, we are one of the only streets in the area that is not permit parking.

Everyday I see both Disney employees and Guests of the park parking in my neighborhood.

The effect of this is that when I come home from work I have nowhere to park except for off Walnut or Ninth which honestly is a bit of a hike especially in the late hours of the evening.

I have looked into getting the area permit parking but it is a near impossible feat as we are all apartment complexes. This would require me to get all the owners and tenants to sign a petition and then pay the fee to get the paperwork in the queue.

Please take this into consideration.

Thank you
Jennifer Billmire
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: Karen DeSocio
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward Project.

Date: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:44:00 AM
Ms. DeSocio,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study I will consider that your comment is to analyze north and southbound traffic through the Resort area. There will be future opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From: Karen DeSocio
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 11:44 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward Project.

Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Ms. Thienprasiddhi:

Please do not go through with this. I just got the notice. Please. You are going to make getting to Fullerton and La Habra and other points North so much longer to get to and to have to use more gas which is more money. Why are you punishing those of us who live on Orangewood and points East and South for a theme park. This is absurd. They do not need to block our access to the north.

I use Anaheim Blvd every day. It is bad enough can't take Harbor or Katella to get anywhere now you are going to Block Anaheim Blvd? NO WAY. I am going to write the mayor and the governor about this. You never think of the people who live in this city of Anaheim. All you care about is money. Very disappointing.

I am a tele mental health therapist and due to the awful internet because of Disney I have to rent and office and it is in the North Orange County area. I will have to leave earlier and go all the way around Disneyland. Why am I being inconvenienced? I will try and talk to the Mayor and Governor. This is totally unacceptable and completely inconvenient.

Thank you for not going through with DisneylandForward Project.

Sincerely Karen A. DeSocio, LCSW
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: "Jeremy Gillman"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Homeowner on Walnut
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:40:00 AM
Hi Jeremiah,
I'm happy to give you a call today, please let me know a few times that work for you.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Gillman
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Homeowner on Walnut
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hello.

Received a letter for Disneyland Forward.

I own a condo on Cerritos and Walnut. With you request for expansion, is that going to cause any limitations to accessing downtown Disney from the Walnut/Magic Way entrance? That is how my family and friends enter from my home. No longer having that access would not only be a burden for us to visit Disney, but would also make my home less valuable to have to walk all the way around to the Harbor entrance.

Look forward to hearing back from you.

Jeremiah Gillman
Anaheim Ca 92802
Sent from my iPhone

From: "Robert (Red) Harbin"
Date: Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:13 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Preparation - - DisneylandForward Project Hi Elaine,
A voice from the past here.

I do hope this finds you healthy and happy.

I wanted to touch base with you on a number of issues… most notably is the “Notice of Preparation” you and your team are working on for the DisneylandForward project.

Are you available for a quick phone call on the matter? On a separate but related subject - - would you please add me to any mailing list for the DisneylandForward project including any committees, workgroups etc. related to the project. If there are any staff reports or other information available I would be most appreciative if you could help me with that as well.

I am looking forward to talking with you.

Take care,
Red…
From: Linda R. Johnson
To: Linda R. Johnson
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Preparation - - DisneylandForward Project Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 9:47:24 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
EIR Comment Letter 1-2-2017.pdf
From: Robert Harbin
Date: November 30, 2021 at 8:10:21 AM PST
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Notice of Preparation - - DisneylandForward Project Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hi Elaine,
Once again, thank you for your time on the telephone yesterday.

As we discussed, I have attached a copy of our initial concerns relating to the preexisting Environmental Review Documents.

You may recall that we originally submitted this letter back in January 2017.

Upon review, I believe all of the concerns highlighted in this document are still relevant today and should be fully considered as part of your process.

In addition to all of the issues contained in our January 2017 submittal, we remain concerned about maintaining the integrity of Section 18.114.050.060 (and all associated sections) of the Anaheim Municipal Code which specifically provides:
“Adequate provision shall be made for the safe and orderly circulation of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic between the proposed site and all streets and highways and between coordinated facilities, accessways or parking areas on adjacent sites. The proposed development shall not limit or adversely affect the growth and development of adjoining lands or the general area in which it is proposed to be located.”
I single out this particular code section as its provisions where under attack and I believe great care should be taken to prevent any undermining of the section.

I am excited by this new phase of the project and I’m really looking forward to working with you and your colleagues.

Take care,
Red…

David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 3 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
rest, take a quick trip outside the park to buy essential items from local stores (e.g., sunscreen, water), or grab a quick affordable bite to eat. Families traveling with small children, in particular, are appreciative of these conveniences.

Our clients have always envisioned Disneyland’s Main Street U.S.A. as an extension of the City’s local “Main Street” (i.e., Harbor Boulevard), and this partnership has worked well for 70 years. It has allowed Coalition members to provide a diversity of food options and accommodations to Disneyland’s guests, while Disneyland has helped to buoy the local economy, allowing not only our clients to prosper but the thousands of people they employ, most of whom live in local neighborhoods. The City too has benefitted, deriving substantial tax revenues from economic activity on Harbor Boulevard.

The Coalition members had anticipated that this symbiosis would last into the future, given that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Municipal Code both envision Harbor Boulevard as a “high quality pedestrian environment” serving as the core of the Anaheim Resort area. (ARSP, pp. 3-13, 5-2 [stated goal to create “an active street environment for shopping, dining and lodging within walking distance from the theme parks”]; AMC, § 18.116.130.) The equitable distribution of economic benefit also finds voice in the Anaheim Specific Plan, which states the following City objective: “Treat all landowners and users in The Anaheim Resort Area fairly, while recognizing the economic and social needs of the entire City.”3 (SEIR No. 340,
p. 3-1.)
While our clients are not opposed to a comprehensively planned and well-designed proposal that reflects due consideration of the objectives of Disney, other stakeholders (including, among others, our clients and other members of the Coalition) as well as the broader community at large, in undertaking review of the Eastern Gateway Project, we respectfully request that the City consider the Project’s potential to unwind decades of thoughtful land use planning. Moreover, as discussed below, we also request that the City prepare more detailed studies on the Project’s potential to cause significant environmental impacts including, among others, urban decay, aesthetic dissonance, land use incompatibilities, traffic congestion, excessive noise, and air pollution.

The Project’s environmental impacts merit closer scrutiny than what the City has preliminary proposed. The Project’s environmental review is of great importance to our clients, as their hotel guests are considered “sensitive receptors,” meaning they constitute a legally recognized population that is particularly sensitive to noise pollution, air pollution, and other environmental impacts. (See, e.g., SEIR 3 A further objective listed in SEIR No. 340 is to “[p]rovide convenient access to all hotel, restaurant, and retail opportunities in The Anaheim Resort to enhance the areawide tourist experience.” (p. 3-1 [emph. added].) Meanwhile, the intent of the Anaheim Report Specific Plan’s development standards is to “safeguard and enhance property values.” (AMC, § 18.16.010.)
David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 4 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
No. 340, pp. 5.10-6, 5.10-11.) Moreover, given that our clients’ patrons would be located immediately adjacent to all Project-related construction and operations, it is this population that would be maximally exposed to Project impacts.4 And this
population is a large one. On any given day, you will find more than 10,000 guests staying in hotels along Harbor Boulevard, and more than 8,500 local citizens working to service these guests. Meanwhile, as disclosed in CEQA review that the City certified in adopting the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the local neighborhood already endures ongoing significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to air quality, aesthetics, noise, and traffic congestion, making it more sensitive to additional intensities of use and pollution. (SEIR No. 340, p. 1-5; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1123.) In other words, the Project’s potential to exacerbate an already substandard environmental condition presents a serious CEQA concern that warrants further study.

At this time, the City has proposed to address the Eastern Gateway Project’s environmental impacts in an addendum to two sets of environmental studies, which include: (1) the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 311 (“FEIR No. 311) and (2) the Anaheim Specific Plan Master Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (“MEIR No. 313), recently augmented by the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (“SEIR No. 340”). As you may know, an addendum is the least robust document that a public agency may prepare under the CEQA. Based on the documentation that Disney and the City have made available to the public, we believe that preparation of an environmental impact report will be necessary to satisfy CEQA and, accordingly, we respectfully request that the City reevaluate its environmental compliance strategy after conducting a more thorough scoping analysis. To this end, along with all other environmental topic issues required to be evaluated in connection with the Eastern Gateway Project, we ask the City to consider the following issues in any subsequent environmental review:
• The potential for the Project to result in urban decay and significant land use impacts should be studied. As discussed above, the reconfiguration of the Eastern Gateway would dissolve connectivity between Harbor Boulevard and Disneyland, resulting in a pedestrian bridge that completely bypasses our clients’ hotels, shops, and restaurants on Harbor Boulevard. Changes to the physical environment that result from a project’s economic effects, such as blight, are indirect effects that must be analyzed under CEQA. (14 Cal Code Regs, §§ 15064(e), 15131(a).) We also request that the City study the effects of isolating Harbor Boulevard in the context of 4 Other sensitive receptors located within approximately 500 to 1,000 feet include mobile home parks (e.g., the Golden Skies Mobile Home Park, Anaheim RV Park), schools (e.g., the Paul Revere Elementary School), religious institutions (e.g., Iglesia De Cristo Shoffar, New Church Life of California), and youth services facilities (e.g., Western Youth Services, which includes an outdoor sports park), some of which are located on the other side of Interstate 5. Each of these receptors should be addressed in the City’s environmental review of the Project.

David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 5 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
the City’s land use planning, and whether this division of an established community constitutes a significant environmental impact under CEQA. (See Appendix G to CEQA Guidelines [agency should evaluate whether a project physically divides an established community and/or conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, including without limitation specific plans].)
• The Project description must be clarified. An accurate, stable, and finite project description is an indispensable prerequisite to any informative and legally sufficient CEQA document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185; 14 Cal Code Regs, § 15124.) Disney’s development application contains some ambiguities that require clarification and explanation.
o The Project is the “whole of the action,” and the cumulative impact of each of the Project components must be acknowledged and analyzed. The Project consists of at least six different components, including the parking garage, the pedestrian pathway, the pedestrian bridge, the commercial space, the security gateway, and the transportation facility. Some of this construction is associated with the demolition of existing structures (e.g., the pedestrian bridge would replace about 60,000 square feet of hotel and retail space; the relocation of the security area and transportation facility would involve the redevelopment of the existing facilities). While each component may require different land use approvals, they are all components of one Project, and the City should evaluate the combined effects of these components in undertaking environmental review. (14 Cal Code Regs, § 15378.) Further details are provided below.
o The scope of proposed commercial uses is unclear. The Project application materials indicate that commercial space, either along the proposed pedestrian pathway or within the proposed transportation facility, would be permitted. (8/9/2016 Disney Letter to E.

Thienprasiddhi, p. 2.) This commercial space would include, “but is not limited to food and beverage locations and retail kiosks, and/or back of house” square footage. (Id. [emph. added]) This scope is not finite, and leaves the public with no clear idea of what uses the applicant plans to build, nor any idea of how much square footage is envisioned. To the extent that illustrative uses are identified, it is not clear that applicable zoning allows for them. For instance, the Commercial Recreation (“C-R”) Overlay district that encompasses the Project site does not allow general or kiosk retail sales , except if incidental to a hotel or motel use. (AMC, Table 116-C.)
o The scope of the pedestrian bridge is not clear. The applicant envisions connecting the bulk of the Project (i.e., the security, parking, David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 6 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
transportation, and commercial facilities) to the main Disneyland campus by means of a pedestrian bridge, but it is unclear how this pedestrian bridge would look, how it would aesthetically integrate with the surrounding community, and what development standards would apply to it. While the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan did contemplate a pedestrian bridge over Harbor Boulevard, this bridge alignment is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the current proposal, and was governed by specific design guidelines addressing setbacks and other development standards. Meanwhile, the proposed bridge falls within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, which is complementary of, but different from, the neighboring Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Accordingly, it is unclear whether there exist standards or guidelines that would govern the development of the Project’s bridge and, if such standards do exist, how the proposal would satisfy those standards. As an example of the confusion that arises, consider that neither the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan nor its environmental review documents ever mention a pedestrian bridge. If one turns to the plan’s more generic development standards, one finds requirements only for “buildings,” and it is not clear that a “building” would include a pedestrian bridge. Under the municipal code, a “building” is defined as a “permanently located structure having a roof (all forms of vehicles, even if immobilized, are excluded).” (AMC, § 18.92.050.) Meanwhile, City regulations provide that “[b]uildings that front along Harbor Boulevard shall be placed on parcels so that a minimum of 60% of the property frontage is occupied by [a] building; if this is not possible, closely spaced vertical trees shall be planted at the building setback line in order to create a ‘green mass’ .” (AMC, § 18.116.130.080.0803; ARSP, p. 3-13.) Accordingly, it is uncertain how the City would approve the proposed pedestrian bridge while ensuring its frontage and/or tree requirements were met. The City should identify or create development standards that govern construction of the pedestrian bridge, and work with the applicant, the other stakeholders and the community at large to explain how Disney’s proposal satisfies those standards (e.g., with a table showing applicable standards and means of compliance). A clear presentation of allowable heights, setbacks, and other design aspects must occur, and the potentially significant aesthetic impacts of constructing the bridge should be analyzed.
o The relocation and increased size of the Project’s transportation facility should be more clearly identified and assessed. It appears from the Project’s development application that the relocated transportation facility on Manchester Avenue would occupy approximately 360,000 square feet, or 8.3 acres,5
whereas the existing
5 We note that Disney’s Justification of Proof for a conditional use permit, dated August 8, 2016, indicates the transportation facility will occupy approximately seven acres. So that the Project description is clear, we would recommend that the From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: MARGO HOBKIRK
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland forward notice
Date: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:47:00 PM
Hi Margo,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From: MARGO HOBKIRK
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:03 PM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland forward notice
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Just what does this do to or for my timeshare at Peacock Suites? I live in Palm Springs and don't keep up with local happenings in and around Disney Land and my late husband took complete care of this timeshare...so I have come into this with no knowledge of what is planned here. Your response would be so appreciated!
Margo Hobkirk
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 7 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
transportation facility on Harbor Boulevard encompasses approximately 216,000 square feet, or 5.0 acres. This difference in area is one of approximately 66 percent. Accordingly:
Any further CEQA review should articulate how the proposed transportation facility differs in size and scope from the existing facility, both in terms of physical features and operational characteristics.
The City should work with the applicant to provide the public with an idea of how many car and truck trips the proposed transportation facility would be expected to accommodate, now and in the future. The composition of the “fleet” of vehicles that will utilize the transportation facility (e.g., types and sizes of engines) should be identified.
Insofar as buses, shuttles, taxis, and other vehicles would frequent the transportation facility, the City’s analysis should identify the expected distribution of traffic on local roadways and freeways. Disney’s application materials indicate that the “Disneyland Resort EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of locating the
transportation facility under or adjacent to the Pumbaa parking structure” (8/9/2016 Disney Letter to E. Thienprasiddhi, p. 3), but we were unable to locate this analysis. In analyzing the Disneyland Resort EIR, we found only references to a bus and shuttle drop-off facility on Harbor Boulevard where it intersects with Disney Way — i.e., the location where the transportation facility currently exists. (See FEIR NO. 311, pp. 1-21, 3-79, 3-131; DRSP, p. 4-28.) We request that the Project’s environmental review better articulate how previous EIRs contemplated a relocated transportation facility. We also request that the City or applicant point us to the technical studies or modeling in past EIRs that contemplate vehicle trips and emissions associated with a relocated transportation facility. Insofar as the transportation facility would be displacing other uses planned for the Project site (e.g., hotels), the City’s environmental review should discuss the displacement of these uses to other locations and associated impacts. (See ARSP, p. 3-8 [applicable CR Overlay allows for up to 75 hotel rooms per gross acre].) The impacts of displacing land uses are cognizable environmental impacts under CEQA. (See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County

City ask the applicant for detailed site and elevation plans for the reconfigured gateway.

From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: Luci Ibarra
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] NOP - Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352 (Disneyland Forward Project) Date: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:45:00 PM
Hi Luci,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From: Luci Ibarra
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NOP - Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352 (Disneyland Forward Project) Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Good morning, Elaine,
I am writing to secure additional information regarding the proposed improvements to the right-ofway, the extent of construction, and anticipated construction commencement and conclusion dates under the proposed EIR. Specifically, as it may affect property at, and adjacent to, Looking forward to connecting.

Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Luci
________________
Luciralia Ibarra
Vice President of Planning, Land Use, and Government Affairs Caruso
Los Angeles, CA 90036
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: Connie Kim
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Christian Mutual Med-Aid (899 S Disneyland) Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 1:23:00 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From: Connie Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 9:18 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Christian Mutual Med-Aid (899 S Disneyland) Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Ms. Elaine Thienprasiddhi,
The notice was well received.

Our property is located at 899 S. Disneyland; we are non-profit health care sharing ministry and wanted to how the project will affect us in more detail. I am reviewing the plan packet and not sure how it will affect us personally.

I realized that you are busy.

Please contact me at your earliest convivences.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance and for your attention.

Have a blessed day.

David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 8 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
Airport Land Use Comm’n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 383.) Meanwhile, the Project’s environmental review should identify and discuss reasonably foreseeable uses that would exist should Disney demolish the existing transportation facility on Harbor Boulevard. (14 Cal Code Regs, § 15126.) The demolition and reuse of this existing facility should be included as part of the Project, just as the Project contemplates the demolition of a hotel and shop to make space for the proposed pedestrian bridge. (DLR Eastern Gateway Project, Development Application Form Attachment, p. 1.) If the City has learned how Disney plans to redevelop the existing transportation facility, we hereby request that the City provide us with copies of all documents related to this redevelopment. If Disney has not disclosed how it plans to redevelop the site, we request that the City inquire about Disney’s plans so that a proper environmental review can occur.
The City should explain how Project-related traffic would comply with limits set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Specifically, for properties in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area that are “proposed to be developed with permitted and conditionally permitted uses other than hotels/motels with accessory uses, the traffic generation characteristics of said uses shall not exceed those associated with the otherwise permitted hotel/motel (including accessory uses) density .” (AMC, § 18.116.060.010.0102.) Given the 66 percent increase in size of the proposed transportation facility over the existing facility, it is unclear how or whether the applicant can comply with the foregoing limitation.
Regardless of any increases in the size of the transportation facility, a traffic and air quality study should be prepared to analyze the effects of moving the facility approximately 800 feet to the east.6 The
neighborhood surrounding the proposed transportation facility is extremely sensitive. (SEIR No. 340, pp. 1-5, 2-7 [determining that Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area would suffer significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, the noise environment, and traffic congestion.) Meanwhile, not only are substandard environments more sensitive than healthier environments (see Gray, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1123), but the Project site here is located directly adjacent to approximately 25 hotels and motels containing thousands 6 These studies should also evaluate the traffic and air quality effects of construction a transportation facility that is as much as 66 percent larger than the existing transportation facility on Harbor Avenue. Please note, because a projectlevel CEQA analysis is at stake, all air quality analyses, including calculations of cancer and non-cancer disease risks, should be quantified, consistent with protocol developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 9 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
of sensitive receptors (see, e.g., SEIR No. 340, pp. 5.10-6, 5.10-11), and within 1,000 feet of schools, mobile home parks, religious institutions, and a youth service center. With the construction of the Eastern Gateway Project, these sensitive receptors would not only be exposed to traffic and exhaust from Interstate 5 freeway traffic, but also to traffic and exhaust generated by vehicles visiting the Project’s transportation facility and the proposed 75-foot parking structure.

The cumulative impact of the Project, together with other sources of traffic and air pollution, merits close scrutiny.
o The relocation of Disney’s security area should be more clearly identified and assessed. Consistent with the foregoing comments about the proposed transportation facility, the relocation of Disney’s security area would displace other uses planned for the Project site (e.g., hotels), and the City’s environmental review should discuss the displacement of these uses to other locations and associated impacts. (See ARSP, p. 3-8 [applicable C-R Overlay allows for up to 75 hotel rooms per gross acre]; Muzzy Ranch Co., supra, 41 Cal.4th at 383.) Meanwhile, the Project’s environmental review should identify and discuss reasonably foreseeable uses that would exist on the site of the current security area. (14 Cal Code Regs, § 15126.) The demolition and reuse of this existing facility, which looks to encompass about six acres, should be included as part of the Project, just as the Project contemplates the demolition of a hotel and shop to make space for the proposed pedestrian bridge. (DLR Eastern Gateway Project, Development Application Form Attachment, p. 1.) If the City has learned how Disney plans to redevelop the existing security area, we hereby request that the City provide us with copies of all documents related to this redevelopment. If Disney has not disclosed how it plans to redevelop the site, we request that the City inquire about Disney’s plans so that a proper environmental review can occur.
• The public safety impacts of relocating Disney’s security area must be analyzed. The Project would relocate Disney’s security area to an off-site location behind hotels, shops, restaurants, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Asylum Office on Harbor Boulevard, placing an additional 18,500 or more at risk in the event that Disney is targeted for a terrorist attack. While this possibility is unpleasant to contemplate, it is the duty of a public agency to consider and mitigate these risks. To this end, we must insist that the City further consider whether a security area is truly compatible with uses in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (See AMC, Table 116-C [uses not specifically listed in land use regulations are prohibited

From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: Pablo Loblatos
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] DISNEYLAND FORWARD PROJECT
Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:06:00 PM
Pablo,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation- -Initial-Study
If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
-----Original Message-----
From: Pablo Loblatos
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 10:34 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] DISNEYLAND FORWARD PROJECT
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hello,
I’m located at and wasn’t sure if my location was on the map and wanted to know how this affects me.

Thanks
Sent from my iPhone

From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward Scoping
Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 8:29:00 AM
Hi Frances,
I’m glad to hear that communication with Disney has been going well. While they will continue to engage with you, you will also receive notices from the City when the Draft SEIR is available for review and before Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.

As always, please reach out if you have any questions.

Elaine
From:

Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward Scoping
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Elaine,
Just a note to let you know that the Disney Corporation has been very forthcoming with all the proposed Disneyland Forward projects, in particular the one closest to our neighborhood here on West Laster Avenue off Walnut.

To date, we’ve had one Zoom meeting and three face to face meetings with Janice Bachman, Joe Haupt, Carrie Nocella, Karalee Darnell and Tin Chung. All these meetings have been very informative and helpful to the residents and I have relayed much of the information gleaned to many in our neighborhood.

We look forward to project updates as they come available and to continue with our good relationship with our closest neighbors, the Disneyland Resort.

Kindest regards,
Frances Noteboom
Anaheim 92802
David Belmer
January 2, 2017

Page 10 ends

NLC\99999\1022901.5
where they are inconsistent or incompatible with the intended purpose of the Specific Plan].)7

• The Project’s impacts on historical resources should be evaluated.

When the City considered SEIR No. 340 in 2012, there were “numerous structures within the ARSP that [were] nearing the 45-year threshold to be considered for historic designation. (SEIR No. 340, p. 5.4-7.) Accordingly, Mitigation Measure 5.4-3 provides that, “[p]rior to approval of a final site plan for properties that contain a structure over 45 years old,” the property owner had to consult with the City to determine whether any affected structure was historic. (SEIR No. 340, p. 5.4-9.) CEQA also would require that the City evaluate the impacts of a development project on off-site historical structures (e.g., due to damage from vibration, etc.).
• The Project’s noise analysis should be more transparent; to avoid a significant and unavoidable noise impact, additional noise mitigations warrant exploration. As part of its development application, Disney has asked for a variance, allowing it to build a twelve-foot wall in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. The City’s municipal code only allows eight-foot walls in this area. (AMC, § 18.116.100.020.) Disney explains that the twelve-foot wall is a “design feature” that is necessary to “ensure noise from the Project will be less than 60 dbA at the Project’s property lines and [that] the Project will not create a new, significant noise impact or increase the severity of impacts already considered in the Disneyland Resort EIR or in SEIR No. 340.” (8/9/2016 Disney Letter to E. Thienprasiddhi, p. 4.) This information raises a number of issues that merit closer scrutiny. o We respectfully request that the City clarify why the twelve-foot sound qualifies as a design feature, as opposed to a mitigation. (See Lotus v.

Department of Transportation, et al. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645 [court explains how to differentiate between project design feature and mitigation measure].)
o To this end, we request that the City release for public review the Project noise study, which appears to have been prepared by Veneklasen Associates.
o Given it is unclear whether “special circumstances” exist to justify a variance, and that a twelve-foot noise wall may not necessarily muffle noise experienced by sensitive receptors at upper story windows, we request that the City explore feasible, alternative ways to mitigate any 7 If the City has not done so already, it should consult with the federal government about security and other issues affecting operation of the U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services Asylum Office on Harbor Boulevard.

From: Jeremy Schnaible
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward Project
Date: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:36:33 PM
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Do not give permission to move forward with this, please.

Sent from the future.

Jeremy Schnaible
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To:

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward
Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:28:00 PM
Neil,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From:

Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 7:40 PM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disneyland Forward
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Hi there,
Just received the letter outlining the “Disneyland Forward” plan.

Just one thought, it really is very light on information. We live in Garden Grove at Chapman and Haster, so right on the boundary of this project, but there is no real detail of how it will impact our daily life.

We have lived at this location since 1992 and frankly over the years Disney has not been a particular good neighbor. Of course, I’m certain the Garden Grove City council are very happy with any growth because they gain from it by osmosis, but we, the residents, not so much.

We are surrounded by restaurants we can’t get into, stores we can’t afford, traffic that gets worse every day, and generally the feeling that our neighboring city really wants to change its name to “Disneyheim”
So how do we find out what will really happen to our neighborhood, and see how yet another local area will be “Disneyfied”, and turned over to tourists.

Regards,
Neil Storer
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
To: Trangđài Glassey-Trầnguyễn
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] objection to the DisneylandForward Project Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:27:00 PM
Trangdai and Oliver,
Thank you for your email. The letter you received is a Notice of Preparation. The purpose of the notice is to request input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information that should be included in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Detailed information about the project is included in the Initial Study, available at the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/40211/Notice-of-Preparation--Initial-Study If you would like to provide a comment as to what should be studied in the environmental analysis, please send me an email. In approximately 14 to 18 months, there will be opportunities to comment on the merits of the proposed project and whether or not it should be approved. If you received the Notice of Preparation, you will also receive a notice when the draft environmental document is available for public review and before the City considers the proposed project.

Elaine Thienprasiddhi, AICP
Senior Planner
Anaheim Planning and Building Department
E-mail [email protected]
Phone (714) 765-4568
From: Trangđài Glassey-Trầnguyễn
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 11:57 AM
To: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] objection to the DisneylandForward Project Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.

Dear Elaine:

We are writing in objection to the DisneylandForward Project, which will create additional environmental, social, and logistical problems for local residents.

Best,
Trangdai & Olivier Glassey-Tranguyen

Appendix B-1
Shade and Shadow Study

Appendix B-2
Height Map

Appendix C-1
Model Inputs

2019 (kWh)
Disneyland Park 108191000
California Adventure 76011000
Total 184202000
Projected kWh
1 stall/yr. 4927.99
Theme Park Electricity
Parking Electricity
2019 (therms)
Disneyland Park 1214000
California Adventure 635000
Total 1849000
Theme Park Natural Gas
2019 (gallons)
Disneyland Park 368015000
California Adventure 252403000
Total 620418000
Theme Park Water
2019 (tons)
Landfill 20592
Diversion* 26602
Total 47194
Diversion rate 56%
Theme Park Landfill Diversion
*Diversion includes waste minimization,
recycling, waste‐to‐energy but does not
include diversion of tires and cooking oil
which are required to be diverted.

Combustion Engine Equipment Used on Typical Themed Project (5 Acre Site) Phase Equipment Quanity
Site Clearing & Demolition (Assuming an existing site with Structures) 8 Track Excavator/Backhoe 3
Skid Steer Loader 1
Rubber Tired Front End Loader 1
Dump Trucks 4
Water Truck 1
Grading 6
Track Excavator/Backhoe 1
Skid Steer Loader 2
Rubber Tired Front End Loader 2
Off Road Dump Trucks 1
Track Dozer (Medium) 1
Water Truck 1
Vibratory Roller 1
Civil Utilities 20
Track Excavator/Backhoe 2
Skid Steer Loader 2
Rubber Tired Front End Loader 3
Dump Trucks 0
Plate Compactor 2
Pipe Truck 2
Curb & Paving 6
Curb Machine 1
Skid Steer Loader 2
Rubber Tired Front End Loader 1
Dump Trucks 3
Paving Machine 1
Roller 1
Grader 1
Structure - Deep Foundations (Pile) 8
Mobile Track Crane 1
Concrete Pump / Generator 1
Skid Steer Loader 1
RT Telescoping Forklift (10K) 1
Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure 24
Mobile Track Crane ‐ Ride Box 2
Mobile Track Crane ‐ Attraction 1
Skid Steer Loader 1
High Reach Aerial Lifts 4
RT Telescoping Forklift (10K) 2
Welders 5
Dewatering Pump 1
Rubber Tired Front End Loader 1
Track Excavator/Backhoe 1
Duration (Weeks)
Enclosure & Roofing 20
Hydro RT Mobile Crane 2
High Reach Aerial Lifts 4
RT Telescoping Forklift (10K) 2
Finishes & General Equipment 80
RT Telescoping Forklift (10K) 6
High Reach Aerial Lifts 4
Sweeper/Scrubber 1
Area Development (Hardscape & Landscape) 28
Skid Steer 2
RT Telescoping Forklift (10K) 2
Mini Excavator/Backhoe 2
Plate Compactor 2
Rubber Tired RT Mobile Crane 1
Appendix C-2
CalEEMod Calculations

500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
1 / 30
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
2 / 30

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
3 / 30

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
4 / 30

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
5 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 500 Room Hotel (No Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Hotel 500 Room 16.7 350,000 0.00 — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
6 / 30

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 3.25 3.25 — 0.49 0.49 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.39 3.75 3.28 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 518
Demolition — — — — — 0.49 0.49 — 0.07 0.07 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
8 / 30
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.68 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 85.7
Demolition — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 196 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 5.47 2.32 0.03 0.05 1.09 1.14 0.05 0.30 0.36 4,470 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 29.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.83 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.05 674 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 112

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 5,314
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
9 / 30
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 7.74 7.74— 3.95 3.95—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60— 1.60 1.47— 1.47 5,314
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 7.74 7.74— 3.95 3.95—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.96 2.71 < 0.005 0.13— 0.13 0.12— 0.12 437
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.64 0.64— 0.32 0.32—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.54 0.49 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 72.3
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.12 0.12— 0.06 0.06—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 241 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.98 58.2 25.4 0.31 0.58 12.0 12.6 0.58 3.36 3.95 49,409 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
10 / 30
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 228 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.93 60.4 25.6 0.31 0.58 12.0 12.6 0.58 3.36 3.95 49,332 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 5.01 2.10 0.03 0.05 0.98 1.02 0.05 0.27 0.32 4,057 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.92 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 672

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.66 3.66 — 1.44 1.44 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
11 / 30
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 2.82 2.48 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 544
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.51 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 90.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 275 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.98 58.2 25.4 0.31 0.58 12.0 12.6 0.58 3.36 3.95 49,409 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 5.01 2.10 0.03 0.05 0.98 1.02 0.05 0.27 0.32 4,057 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.92 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 672 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
12 / 30

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.55 5.31 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 975
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.83 0.97 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 161
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.54 0.58 8.84 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 2,022 Vendor 0.05 1.98 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 1,942 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
13 / 30
Worker 0.54 0.65 7.62 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 1,918 Vendor 0.05 2.06 1.01 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 1,938 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.26 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.18 0.18 789 Vendor 0.02 0.84 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 786 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 131 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 130 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 4.35 5.44 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 1,003
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
14 / 30
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.79 0.99 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 166
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.51 8.23 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 1,980 Vendor 0.05 1.90 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 1,912 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.58 7.12 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 1,879 Vendor 0.05 1.97 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 1,908 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.24 3.10 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.19 0.19 795 Vendor 0.02 0.83 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.06 0.06 796 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 132 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 132 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
15 / 30
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 1,517
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 83.1
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 13.8 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 202 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
16 / 30
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.77 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings
162 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.34 Architectural
Coatings

8.89 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.22 Architectural
Coatings

1.62 — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
17 / 30
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 396 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
18 / 30
Daily, Winter — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
19 / 30
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 3/15/2024 5.00 55.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/16/2024 4/26/2024 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 4/27/2024 6/7/2024 5.00 30.0 —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
20 / 30
Building Construction Building Construction 6/8/2024 8/1/2025 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 8/2/2025 8/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/30/2025 9/26/2025 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
21 / 30
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 60.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 662 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 662 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 147 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
22 / 30
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 29.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 525,000 175,000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
23 / 30
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,200 —
Site Preparation — 158,929 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — 158,929 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Hotel 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2025 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
24 / 30
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft. 500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
25 / 30
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
26 / 30
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 50.5
AQ-PM 79.8
AQ-DPM 97.7
Drinking Water 57.1
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 58.0
Toxic Releases 90.4
Traffic 88.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
27 / 30
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 36.1
Cardio-vascular 15.2
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
28 / 30
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 69.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 0.1
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 76.4
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
29 / 30
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 4.5
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 61.9
Other Indices—
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 0.0
500 Room Hotel (No Project) Detailed Report, 9/11/2023
30 / 30

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) —
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Tier 4 engines to be used for construction.

Land Use Building sf adjusted to account for an average 700sf hotel room.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Data provided by applicant Construction: Architectural Coatings MM AQ-7
Construction: Construction Phases Data based on similar project within Project site 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
1 / 44
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
2 / 44

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
3 / 44

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
4 / 44

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
5 / 44

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
6 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 500 Room Hotel (Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.18

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 163 151 82.2 0.67 2.62 28.0 30.6 2.50 8.23 10.7 105,710 Mit. 162 136 87.4 0.67 1.35 28.0 29.3 1.35 8.23 9.58 105,710 % Reduced < 0.5% 10% -6% — 48% — 4% 46% — 11% —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.46 155 82.5 0.67 2.62 28.0 30.6 2.50 8.23 10.7 105,543 Mit. 2.74 140 87.7 0.67 1.35 28.0 29.3 1.35 8.23 9.58 105,543 % Reduced 50% 10% -6% — 48% — 4% 46% — 11% —
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.52 24.2 21.3 0.08 0.64 4.12 4.76 0.59 1.08 1.67 12,968 Mit. 9.24 20.2 22.0 0.08 0.22 4.12 4.34 0.21 1.08 1.29 12,968 % Reduced 3% 16% -3% — 65% — 9% 65% — 23% —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 4.42 3.88 0.01 0.12 0.75 0.87 0.11 0.20 0.30 2,147 Mit. 1.69 3.69 4.02 0.01 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.20 0.24 2,147 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
8 / 44
% Reduced 3% 16% -3% — 65% — 9% 65% — 23% —

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.83 136 87.4 0.67 1.35 28.0 29.3 1.35 8.23 9.58 105,710 2025 162 11.9 24.0 0.04 0.13 2.41 2.54 0.13 0.59 0.71 6,298 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
9 / 44
Daily - Winter — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
2024 2.74 140 87.7 0.67 1.35 28.0 29.3 1.35 8.23 9.58 105,543 2025 0.98 12.1 22.9 0.04 0.13 2.41 2.54 0.13 0.59 0.71 6,193 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.80 20.2 22.0 0.08 0.22 4.12 4.34 0.21 1.08 1.29 12,968 2025 9.24 4.51 8.53 0.01 0.05 0.83 0.88 0.05 0.20 0.25 2,204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.15 3.69 4.02 0.01 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.20 0.24 2,147 2025 1.69 0.82 1.56 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 365

3. Construction Emissions Details

2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 3.25 3.25 — 0.49 0.49 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.39 3.75 3.28 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 518
Demolition — — — — — 0.49 0.49 — 0.07 0.07 —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
10 / 44
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.68 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 85.7
Demolition — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.08 5.47 2.32 0.03 0.05 1.09 1.14 0.05 0.30 0.36 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.01 0.83 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.05 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
11 / 44
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 11.9 18.2 0.03 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 3.25 3.25 — 0.49 0.49 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 1.79 2.74 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 518
Demolition — — — — — 0.49 0.49 — 0.07 0.07 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.33 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 85.7
Demolition — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.08 5.47 2.32 0.03 0.05 1.09 1.14 0.05 0.30 0.36 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.01 0.83 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.05 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
12 / 44
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.73 3.73 — 1.45 1.45 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.73 3.73 — 1.45 1.45 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 2.82 2.48 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 544
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.31 0.31 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
13 / 44
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.51 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 90.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 1.96 116 50.8 0.61 1.17 24.0 25.1 1.17 6.72 7.89 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 1.87 121 51.3 0.61 1.17 24.0 25.1 1.17 6.72 7.89 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.16 10.0 4.19 0.05 0.10 1.95 2.05 0.10 0.55 0.64 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.03 1.83 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.37 0.02 0.10 0.12 —

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
14 / 44
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 19.4 35.3 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.73 3.73 — 1.45 1.45 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 19.4 35.3 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.73 3.73 — 1.45 1.45 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 1.60 2.91 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 544
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.31 0.31 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.29 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 90.1 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
15 / 44
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 1.96 116 50.8 0.61 1.17 24.0 25.1 1.17 6.72 7.89 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 1.87 121 51.3 0.61 1.17 24.0 25.1 1.17 6.72 7.89 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.16 10.0 4.19 0.05 0.10 1.95 2.05 0.10 0.55 0.64 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.03 1.83 0.77 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.37 0.02 0.10 0.12 —

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
16 / 44
Daily, Winter———————————
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50— 0.50 0.46— 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 5.47 6.39 0.01 0.24— 0.24 0.22— 0.22 1,172
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 1.00 1.17 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 194
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.54 0.58 8.84 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45— Vendor 0.05 1.98 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.54 0.65 7.62 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45— Vendor 0.05 2.06 1.01 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 0.26 0.31 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.22 0.22— Vendor 0.02 1.01 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.07— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04— 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
17 / 44
Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 9.54 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 9.54 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 4.65 7.23 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 1,172
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.85 1.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 194
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.54 0.58 8.84 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 1.98 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
18 / 44
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.54 0.65 7.62 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 2.06 1.01 0.01 0.03 0.49 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.31 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.22 0.22 — Vendor 0.02 1.01 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.07 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.18 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
19 / 44
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 3.50 4.36 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 805
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.64 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 133
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.51 8.23 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 1.90 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.58 7.12 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 1.97 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.19 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.15 0.15 — Vendor 0.02 0.67 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
20 / 44

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 9.53 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 9.53 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 3.19 4.96 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 805
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.58 0.91 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 133
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.51 8.23 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 1.90 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
21 / 44
Worker 0.52 0.58 7.12 0.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.45 0.45 — Vendor 0.05 1.97 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.19 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.00 0.15 0.15 — Vendor 0.02 0.67 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 1,517
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 83.1
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
22 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 13.8 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
23 / 44
Off-Road 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,517 Equipment
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.39 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 83.1 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 13.8 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
24 / 44
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings
162 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.34 Architectural
Coatings

8.89 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.22 Architectural
Coatings

1.62 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
25 / 44
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings
162 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
26 / 44
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.34 Architectural
Coatings

1.62 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
27 / 44

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
29 / 44
— — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
30 / 44
Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
31 / 44

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 3/15/2024 5.00 55.0 —
Grading Grading 3/16/2024 4/26/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/27/2024 6/20/2025 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 6/21/2025 7/18/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/19/2025 8/15/2025 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
32 / 44
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
33 / 44
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 60.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 1,324 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 147 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
34 / 44
Architectural Coating Worker 29.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 60.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 1,324 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 147 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 57.4 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
35 / 44
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 29.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,200 —
Grading — 317,857 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
36 / 44

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Hotel 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2025 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
37 / 44

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
38 / 44
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
39 / 44
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 50.5
AQ-PM 79.8
AQ-DPM 97.7
Drinking Water 57.1
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 58.0
Toxic Releases 90.4
Traffic 88.5
Effect Indicators —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
40 / 44
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 36.1
Cardio-vascular 15.2
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
41 / 44
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 69.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
42 / 44
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 0.1
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 76.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 4.5
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 61.9
500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
43 / 44
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Tier 4 engines to be used for construction.

Land Use Building sf adjusted to account for an average 700sf hotel room.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Data provided by applicant 500 Room Hotel (Project) Detailed Report, 8/24/2023
44 / 44
Construction: Architectural Coatings MM AQ-7
Construction: Construction Phases Data based on similar project within Project site 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 1 / 43
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 2 / 43

3.13. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.15. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.17. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.19. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.21. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.23. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.25. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

3.27. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 3 / 43

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 4 / 43

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 5 / 43

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.16

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Recreational

5.00 User Defined Unit 5.00 217,800 0.00 — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 6 / 43

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.66 35.2 32.1 0.05 1.52 1.19 1.81 1.40 0.29 1.47 5,481 2025 12.6 65.1 76.3 0.13 2.33 2.27 4.60 2.15 0.55 2.69 15,689 2026 6.46 11.0 15.5 0.02 0.26 0.48 0.73 0.24 0.11 0.35 2,320 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 7 / 43
Daily - Winter — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
2024 14.9 86.6 99.4 0.17 3.31 3.77 7.09 3.03 0.91 3.95 21,500 2025 14.3 80.0 96.2 0.17 2.88 3.77 6.66 2.65 0.91 3.56 21,398 2026 6.46 11.0 15.2 0.02 0.26 0.48 0.73 0.24 0.11 0.35 2,295 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.60 26.3 28.1 0.05 1.07 0.78 1.85 0.99 0.19 1.17 5,660 2025 6.33 22.8 28.1 0.05 0.77 0.95 1.72 0.71 0.23 0.94 5,580 2026 1.53 2.60 3.62 < 0.005 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.08 545 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.66 4.80 5.14 0.01 0.20 0.14 0.34 0.18 0.03 0.21 937 2025 1.16 4.16 5.13 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.13 0.04 0.17 924 2026 0.28 0.47 0.66 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 90.2

3. Construction Emissions Details

0.57 5.01 6.41 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 917
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 8 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.55 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 101
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 16.6 Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 9 / 43
Onsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.01 29.4 26.3 0.04 1.27— 1.27 1.17— 1.17 4,696
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.52 5.06 4.52 0.01 0.22— 0.22 0.20— 0.20 809
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.92 0.83 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 134
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 10 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.5. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.77 26.2 24.4 0.04 1.10 — 1.10 1.01 — 1.01 4,695
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.77 26.2 24.4 0.04 1.10 — 1.10 1.01 — 1.01 4,695
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 11 / 43
Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.66 6.25 5.83 0.01 0.26— 0.26 0.24— 0.24 1,121
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.14 1.06 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04 186
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 12 / 43
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.18 10.0 13.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 2,131
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.18 10.0 13.8 0.02 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 2,131
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.82 1.14 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 175
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 13 / 43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.15 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 29.0
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.66 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 14 / 43
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.03 27.9 29.5 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 5,939
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 4.04 4.27 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 860
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.74 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 142
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.40 4.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.28 0.63 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 15 / 43
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 26.1 29.3 0.06 0.93 — 0.93 0.85 — 0.85 5,939
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 26.1 29.3 0.06 0.93 — 0.93 0.85 — 0.85 5,939
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.68 6.24 6.99 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 1,418
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.14 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 235
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.32 5.12 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 16 / 43
Vendor 0.03 1.18 0.59 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.13. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 14.4 16.1 0.03 0.63 — 0.63 0.58 — 0.58 3,459
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 17 / 43
Off-Road 0.21 2.08 2.33 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 501 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.38 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 82.9
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.40 4.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.28 0.63 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.15. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 18 / 43
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.34 13.2 16.0 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 3,459
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 1.71 2.06 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 447
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.31 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 74.0
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 19 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.17. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.26 11.5 15.0 0.02 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 2,344
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.26 11.5 15.0 0.02 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 2,344
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.95 1.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 193
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 31.9
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 20 / 43
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.19. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.47 11.4 13.8 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 1,836
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 21 / 43
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 1.64 1.99 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 266
Architectural
Coatings

0.73 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.30 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 44.0
Architectural
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.16 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 22 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.21. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.36 11.1 13.6 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.36 11.1 13.6 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.97 7.91 9.72 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 1,312
Architectural
Coatings

3.61 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.44 1.77 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 217
Architectural
Coatings

0.66 — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 23 / 43
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.14 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.10 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.23. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.29 10.8 13.5 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,836
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 24 / 43
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.29 10.8 13.5 0.02 0.26— 0.26 0.24— 0.24 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.57 3.21 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.06— 0.06 435
Architectural
Coatings

1.20——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.47 0.59 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 72.0
Architectural
Coatings

0.22——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.12 0.13 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 25 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.25. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.57 35.1 30.7 0.05 1.52 — 1.52 1.40 — 1.40 4,993
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.98 9.62 8.42 0.01 0.42 — 0.42 0.38 — 0.38 1,368
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.76 1.54 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 226
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 26 / 43
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.27. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 6.10 6.03 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 27 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 6.10 6.03 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.67 0.66 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 159
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.3 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 28 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 30 / 43
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition and Site
Preperation
Demolition 1/1/2024 2/23/2024 5.00 40.0 —
Area Development Site Preparation 10/5/2024 5/2/2025 5.00 140 — Grading Grading 2/24/2024 4/5/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Structure - Foundations and
Vertical Structure
Building Construction 10/19/2024 5/2/2025 5.00 140 —
Enclosure and Roofing Building Construction 10/19/2024 3/7/2025 5.00 100 — Curb and Paving Paving 8/24/2024 10/4/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Finishes Architectural Coating 10/19/2024 5/1/2026 5.00 400 — Civil Utilities Trenching 4/6/2024 8/23/2024 5.00 100 — Structure - Deep
Foundations
Trenching 8/24/2024 10/18/2024 5.00 40.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition and Site
Preperation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition and Site
Preperation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Demolition and Site
Preperation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 31 / 43
Area Development Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Area Development Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Area Development Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Area Development Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Area Development Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Cranes Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Welders Diesel Average 5.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Enclosure and Roofing Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Enclosure and Roofing Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Enclosure and Roofing Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 32 / 43
Curb and Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Curb and Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Curb and Paving Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Curb and Paving Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Finishes Forklifts Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Finishes Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Finishes Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Civil Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Civil Utilities Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Civil Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Civil Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition and Site Preperation — — — —
Demolition and Site Preperation Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition and Site Preperation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition and Site Preperation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 33 / 43
Demolition and Site Preperation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 41.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Civil Utilities————
Civil Utilities Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Civil Utilities Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Civil Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Civil Utilities Onsite truck—— HHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
————
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing————
Enclosure and Roofing Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Enclosure and Roofing Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Curb and Paving————
Curb and Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Curb and Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 34 / 43
Curb and Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Curb and Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Area Development — — — —
Area Development Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Area Development Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Area Development Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Area Development Onsite truck — — HHDT
Finishes — — — —
Finishes Worker 36.6 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Finishes Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Finishes Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Finishes Onsite truck — — HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations — — — —
Structure - Deep Foundations Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Structure - Deep Foundations Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Finishes 0.00 0.00 326,700 108,900 —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 35 / 43

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition and Site Preperation 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Area Development — — 0.00 0.00 —
Grading 10,000 — 15.0 0.00 —
Curb and Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2025 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2026 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 36 / 43

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 37 / 43
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 38 / 43
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 50.5
AQ-PM 79.8
AQ-DPM 97.7
Drinking Water 57.1
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 58.0
Toxic Releases 90.4
Traffic 88.5
Effect Indicators —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 39 / 43
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 36.1
Cardio-vascular 15.2
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 40 / 43
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 69.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 41 / 43
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 0.1
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 76.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 4.5
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 61.9
5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 42 / 43
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Data provided by applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Data provided by applicant Construction: Off-Road Equipment Data provided by applicant 5 Acre Theme Park (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 43 / 43
Construction: Architectural Coatings MM AQ-7
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
1 / 73
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition and Site Preperation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition and Site Preperation (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Area Development (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Area Development (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Area Development (2025) - Unmitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
2 / 73

3.6. Area Development (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2024) - Unmitigated

3.10. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2024) - Mitigated

3.11. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Enclosure and Roofing (2024) - Unmitigated

3.14. Enclosure and Roofing (2024) - Mitigated

3.15. Enclosure and Roofing (2025) - Unmitigated

3.16. Enclosure and Roofing (2025) - Mitigated

3.17. Curb and Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.18. Curb and Paving (2024) - Mitigated

3.19. Finishes (2024) - Unmitigated

3.20. Finishes (2024) - Mitigated

3.21. Finishes (2025) - Unmitigated

3.22. Finishes (2025) - Mitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
3 / 73

3.23. Finishes (2026) - Unmitigated

3.24. Finishes (2026) - Mitigated

3.25. Civil Utilities (2024) - Unmitigated

3.26. Civil Utilities (2024) - Mitigated

3.27. Structure - Deep Foundations (2024) - Unmitigated

3.28. Structure - Deep Foundations (2024) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
4 / 73

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
5 / 73

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
6 / 73

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
7 / 73

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 5 Acre Theme Park (Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.18

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Recreational

5.00 User Defined Unit 5.00 217,800 0.00 — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
8 / 73

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.6 65.1 76.3 0.13 2.33 2.27 4.60 2.15 0.55 2.69 15,689 Mit. 7.39 56.7 82.2 0.13 1.09 2.27 3.36 1.02 0.55 1.56 15,701 % Reduced 41% 13% -8% 3% 53% — 27% 53% — 42% > -0.5%
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 14.9 86.6 99.4 0.17 3.31 3.77 7.09 3.03 0.91 3.95 21,500 Mit. 8.22 69.4 107 0.17 1.18 3.77 4.95 1.09 0.91 2.00 21,505 % Reduced 45% 20% -8% 2% 64% — 30% 64% — 49% > -0.5%
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.33 26.3 28.1 0.05 1.07 0.95 1.85 0.99 0.23 1.17 5,660 Mit. 4.46 22.1 29.8 0.05 0.47 0.95 1.42 0.43 0.23 0.66 5,648 % Reduced 30% 16% -6% 2% 57% — 23% 56% — 44% < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.16 4.80 5.14 0.01 0.20 0.17 0.34 0.18 0.04 0.21 937 Mit. 0.81 4.03 5.43 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.04 0.12 935 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
9 / 73
% Reduced 30% 16% -6% 2% 57% — 23% 56% — 44% < 0.5%

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.66 35.2 32.1 0.05 1.52 1.19 1.81 1.40 0.29 1.47 5,481 2025 12.6 65.1 76.3 0.13 2.33 2.27 4.60 2.15 0.55 2.69 15,689 2026 6.46 11.0 15.5 0.02 0.26 0.48 0.73 0.24 0.11 0.35 2,320 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 14.9 86.6 99.4 0.17 3.31 3.77 7.09 3.03 0.91 3.95 21,500 2025 14.3 80.0 96.2 0.17 2.88 3.77 6.66 2.65 0.91 3.56 21,398 2026 6.46 11.0 15.2 0.02 0.26 0.48 0.73 0.24 0.11 0.35 2,295 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.60 26.3 28.1 0.05 1.07 0.78 1.85 0.99 0.19 1.17 5,660 2025 6.33 22.8 28.1 0.05 0.77 0.95 1.72 0.71 0.23 0.94 5,580 2026 1.53 2.60 3.62 < 0.005 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.08 545 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.66 4.80 5.14 0.01 0.20 0.14 0.34 0.18 0.03 0.21 937 2025 1.16 4.16 5.13 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.13 0.04 0.17 924 2026 0.28 0.47 0.66 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 90.2

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
10 / 73
Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.74 15.4 27.4 0.05 0.29 1.19 1.49 0.27 0.29 0.56 5,481 2025 7.39 56.7 82.2 0.13 1.09 2.27 3.36 1.02 0.55 1.56 15,701 2026 5.46 14.6 15.0 0.02 0.41 0.48 0.89 0.38 0.11 0.49 2,355 Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 8.22 69.4 107 0.17 1.18 3.77 4.95 1.09 0.91 2.00 21,505 2025 8.18 69.2 106 0.17 1.16 3.77 4.94 1.09 0.91 2.00 21,406 2026 5.46 14.6 14.7 0.02 0.41 0.48 0.89 0.38 0.11 0.49 2,331 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.55 17.9 28.3 0.05 0.32 0.78 1.09 0.29 0.19 0.48 5,648 2025 4.46 22.1 29.8 0.04 0.47 0.95 1.42 0.43 0.23 0.66 5,599 2026 1.29 3.45 3.49 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.12 554 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.28 3.26 5.16 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.03 0.09 935 2025 0.81 4.03 5.43 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.26 0.08 0.04 0.12 927 2026 0.24 0.63 0.64 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 91.6

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition and Site Preperation (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
11 / 73
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 5.01 6.41 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 917
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 16.6 Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
12 / 73
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.2. Demolition and Site Preperation (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 6.50 6.42 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 924
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.71 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 101
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 16.8 Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
13 / 73
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.3. Area Development (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.01 29.4 26.3 0.04 1.27 — 1.27 1.17 — 1.17 4,696
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.52 5.06 4.52 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 809
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
14 / 73
Dust From — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Material
Movement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.92 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 134
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.4. Area Development (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
15 / 73
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 14.2 24.8 0.04 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 4,673
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 2.44 4.27 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 805
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.44 0.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 133 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
16 / 73
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.5. Area Development (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.77 26.2 24.4 0.04 1.10 — 1.10 1.01 — 1.01 4,695
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
17 / 73
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.14 1.06 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.04— 0.04 186
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
18 / 73
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.6. Area Development (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 14.2 24.8 0.04 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 4,673
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 3.38 5.92 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 1,116
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
19 / 73
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.62 1.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 185
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.7. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
20 / 73
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.82 1.14 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 175
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.15 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 29.0
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
21 / 73
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.66 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.8. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.52 9.63 14.3 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 2,131
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
22 / 73
Dust From — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 —
Material
Movement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.52 9.63 14.3 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 2,131
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.79 1.18 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 175
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.14 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 29.0 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.66 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
23 / 73
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.9. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.03 27.9 29.5 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 5,939
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 4.04 4.27 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 860
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
24 / 73
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.74 0.78 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 142
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.40 4.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.28 0.63 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.10. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
25 / 73
Off-Road
Equipment

0.86 26.3 35.4 0.06 0.50 — 0.50 0.47 — 0.47 5,935
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 3.81 5.12 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 860
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.70 0.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 142
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.40 4.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.28 0.63 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2025) - Unmitigated 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
26 / 73
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 26.1 29.3 0.06 0.93 — 0.93 0.85 — 0.85 5,939
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.68 6.24 6.99 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 1,418
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.14 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 235
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.32 5.12 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.18 0.59 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
27 / 73
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.12. Structure - Foundations and Vertical Structure (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.86 26.3 35.4 0.06 0.50 — 0.50 0.47 — 0.47 5,938
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.86 26.3 35.4 0.06 0.50 — 0.50 0.47 — 0.47 5,938
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 6.29 8.44 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 1,418
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
28 / 73
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.15 1.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 235
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.32 5.12 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.18 0.59 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.01 0.30 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.13. Enclosure and Roofing (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
29 / 73
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 14.4 16.1 0.03 0.63 — 0.63 0.58 — 0.58 3,459
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 2.08 2.33 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 501
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.14. Enclosure and Roofing (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 10.8 20.0 0.03 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 3,455
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 1.56 2.90 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 500
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.29 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 82.8 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.40 4.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.28 0.63 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
31 / 73
Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.15. Enclosure and Roofing (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.34 13.2 16.0 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 3,459
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 1.71 2.06 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 447
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.31 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 74.0
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
32 / 73
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.16. Enclosure and Roofing (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.45 10.8 20.0 0.03 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 3,455
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 1.40 2.58 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 446
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
33 / 73
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.25 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 73.9 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32 0.36 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.28 0.28 — Vendor 0.03 1.23 0.60 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.17. Curb and Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.26 11.5 15.0 0.02 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 2,344
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
34 / 73
Paving 0.00——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.26 11.5 15.0 0.02 0.60— 0.60 0.55— 0.55 2,344
Paving 0.00——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.95 1.24 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 193
Paving 0.00——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 31.9
Paving 0.00——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
35 / 73
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.18. Curb and Paving (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 10.6 16.4 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 2,344
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 10.6 16.4 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 2,344
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.87 1.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 193
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
36 / 73
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.16 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 31.9 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.19. Finishes (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
37 / 73
Onsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.47 11.4 13.8 0.02 0.35— 0.35 0.32— 0.32 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 1.64 1.99 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 266
Architectural
Coatings

0.73——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.30 0.36 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 44.0
Architectural
Coatings

0.13——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.13 0.16 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
38 / 73
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.20. Finishes (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 14.5 13.0 0.02 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 1,872
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 2.09 1.89 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 271
Architectural
Coatings

0.73 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.38 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 44.9
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
39 / 73
Architectural
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.16 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.21. Finishes (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.36 11.1 13.6 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,836
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
40 / 73
Architectural 5.05——————————
Coatings
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.36 11.1 13.6 0.02 0.30— 0.30 0.27— 0.27 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.97 7.91 9.72 0.01 0.21— 0.21 0.19— 0.19 1,312
Architectural
Coatings

3.61——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.44 1.77 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 217
Architectural
Coatings

0.66——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.13 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.13 0.14 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
41 / 73
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.10 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.22. Finishes (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 14.5 13.0 0.02 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 1,872
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 14.5 13.0 0.02 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 1,872
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
42 / 73
Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 10.3 9.31 0.01 0.30— 0.30 0.27— 0.27 1,337
Architectural
Coatings

3.61——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.88 1.70 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 221
Architectural
Coatings

0.66——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.13 0.13 2.05 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.13 0.14 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 0.09 0.10 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
43 / 73
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.23. Finishes (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.29 10.8 13.5 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.29 10.8 13.5 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 1,836
Architectural
Coatings

5.05 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.57 3.21 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 435
Architectural
Coatings

1.20 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.47 0.59 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 72.0
Architectural
Coatings

0.22 — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
44 / 73
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.13 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.24. Finishes (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 14.5 13.0 0.02 0.41 — 0.41 0.38 — 0.38 1,872
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
45 / 73
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 14.5 13.0 0.02 0.41— 0.41 0.38— 0.38 1,872
Architectural
Coatings

5.05——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 3.42 3.08 < 0.005 0.10— 0.10 0.09— 0.09 443
Architectural
Coatings

1.20——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.62 0.56 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 73.4
Architectural
Coatings

0.22——————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.12 0.13 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.11 0.11— 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
46 / 73
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.25. Civil Utilities (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.98 9.62 8.42 0.01 0.42 — 0.42 0.38 — 0.38 1,368
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.76 1.54 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 226
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
47 / 73
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.26. Civil Utilities (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.66 15.3 26.0 0.05 0.26 — 0.26 0.25 — 0.25 4,944
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
48 / 73
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 4.18 7.13 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,355
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.76 1.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 224
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.09 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.27. Structure - Deep Foundations (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
49 / 73
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 6.10 6.03 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 6.10 6.03 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.67 0.66 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 159
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.3 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
50 / 73
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.28. Structure - Deep Foundations (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 4.73 7.99 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 4.73 7.99 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,449
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.52 0.88 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 159
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.09 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.3 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
51 / 73
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
52 / 73
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
53 / 73
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
54 / 73
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
55 / 73
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition and Site
Preperation
Demolition 1/1/2024 2/23/2024 5.00 40.0 —
Area Development Site Preparation 10/5/2024 5/2/2025 5.00 140 — Grading Grading 2/24/2024 4/5/2024 5.00 30.0 —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
56 / 73
Structure - Foundations and
Vertical Structure
Building Construction 10/19/2024 5/2/2025 5.00 140 —
Enclosure and Roofing Building Construction 10/19/2024 3/7/2025 5.00 100 — Curb and Paving Paving 8/24/2024 10/4/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Finishes Architectural Coating 10/19/2024 5/1/2026 5.00 400 — Civil Utilities Trenching 4/6/2024 8/23/2024 5.00 100 — Structure - Deep
Foundations
Trenching 8/24/2024 10/18/2024 5.00 40.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition and Site
Preperation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition and Site
Preperation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Demolition and Site
Preperation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Area Development Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Area Development Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Area Development Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Area Development Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Area Development Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
57 / 73
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Cranes Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Welders Diesel Average 5.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Enclosure and Roofing Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Enclosure and Roofing Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Enclosure and Roofing Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42 Curb and Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Curb and Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Curb and Paving Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Curb and Paving Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Finishes Forklifts Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Finishes Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Finishes Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Civil Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Civil Utilities Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
58 / 73
Civil Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Civil Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition and Site
Preperation
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition and Site
Preperation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Demolition and Site
Preperation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Area Development Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Area Development Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Area Development Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Area Development Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Area Development Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
59 / 73
Grading Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 5.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Structure - Foundations
and Vertical Structure
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Enclosure and Roofing Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.29 Enclosure and Roofing Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Enclosure and Roofing Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42 Curb and Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Curb and Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Curb and Paving Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Curb and Paving Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Curb and Paving Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Finishes Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 6.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Finishes Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Finishes Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Civil Utilities Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
60 / 73
Civil Utilities Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Civil Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Civil Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Structure - Deep
Foundations
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Structure - Deep
Foundations
Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition and Site Preperation — — — —
Demolition and Site Preperation Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition and Site Preperation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition and Site Preperation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition and Site Preperation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 41.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Civil Utilities — — — —
Civil Utilities Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Civil Utilities Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
61 / 73
Civil Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Civil Utilities Onsite truck—— HHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
————
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing————
Enclosure and Roofing Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Enclosure and Roofing Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Curb and Paving————
Curb and Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Curb and Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Curb and Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Curb and Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Area Development————
Area Development Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Area Development Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Area Development Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Area Development Onsite truck—— HHDT
Finishes————
Finishes Worker 36.6 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
62 / 73
Finishes Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Finishes Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Finishes Onsite truck — — HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations — — — —
Structure - Deep Foundations Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Structure - Deep Foundations Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition and Site Preperation — — — —
Demolition and Site Preperation Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition and Site Preperation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition and Site Preperation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition and Site Preperation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 41.7 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Civil Utilities — — — —
Civil Utilities Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Civil Utilities Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Civil Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Civil Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
63 / 73
Structure - Foundations and Vertical————
Structure
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Foundations and Vertical
Structure
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing————
Enclosure and Roofing Worker 91.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Enclosure and Roofing Vendor 35.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Enclosure and Roofing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Curb and Paving————
Curb and Paving Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Curb and Paving Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Curb and Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Curb and Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Area Development————
Area Development Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Area Development Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Area Development Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Area Development Onsite truck—— HHDT
Finishes————
Finishes Worker 36.6 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Finishes Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Finishes Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
64 / 73
Finishes Onsite truck — — HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations — — — —
Structure - Deep Foundations Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Structure - Deep Foundations Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Structure - Deep Foundations Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0%

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
66 / 73
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
67 / 73
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
68 / 73
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 50.5
AQ-PM 79.8
AQ-DPM 97.7
Drinking Water 57.1
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 58.0
Toxic Releases 90.4
Traffic 88.5
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
69 / 73
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 36.1
Cardio-vascular 15.2
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
70 / 73
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 69.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
71 / 73
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 0.1
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 76.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 4.5
Traffic Density 0.0
5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
72 / 73
Traffic Access 61.9
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Data provided by applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Data provided by applicant 5 Acre Theme Park (Project) Detailed Report, 8/25/2023
73 / 73
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Data provided by applicant Construction: Architectural Coatings MM AQ-7
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 1 / 34
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 2 / 34

3.13. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.15. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 3 / 34

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 4 / 34

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 5 / 34

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.16

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
5,000 Space 45.0 2,000,000 0.00 — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 6 / 34

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.59 39.7 69.3 0.10 1.64 13.8 14.4 1.51 4.21 5.71 25,055 2025 4.40 24.2 65.5 0.10 0.51 13.8 14.3 0.47 3.35 3.82 24,647 2026 4.12 22.9 62.5 0.10 0.45 13.8 14.2 0.42 3.35 3.77 24,257 2027 18.8 22.0 59.5 0.10 0.41 13.8 14.2 0.38 3.35 3.73 23,853 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 7 / 34
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.57 39.8 62.4 0.10 1.64 13.8 14.4 1.51 4.21 5.71 24,439 2025 4.37 25.0 59.2 0.10 0.51 13.8 14.3 0.47 3.35 3.82 24,044 2026 4.11 23.7 56.5 0.10 0.45 13.8 14.2 0.42 3.35 3.77 23,671 2027 18.8 22.5 53.8 0.10 0.41 13.8 14.2 0.38 3.35 3.73 23,283 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.72 21.4 30.9 0.05 0.76 5.42 6.18 0.68 1.60 2.29 9,657 2025 3.10 17.9 43.6 0.07 0.36 9.73 10.1 0.34 2.36 2.70 17,297 2026 2.93 17.0 41.4 0.07 0.32 9.73 10.1 0.30 2.36 2.67 17,026 2027 4.41 8.46 20.3 0.03 0.18 4.65 4.83 0.16 1.13 1.29 7,980 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.50 3.90 5.63 0.01 0.14 0.99 1.13 0.12 0.29 0.42 1,599 2025 0.57 3.27 7.96 0.01 0.07 1.78 1.84 0.06 0.43 0.49 2,864 2026 0.53 3.10 7.56 0.01 0.06 1.78 1.84 0.06 0.43 0.49 2,819 2027 0.80 1.54 3.70 0.01 0.03 0.85 0.88 0.03 0.21 0.24 1,321

3. Construction Emissions Details

2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 3,437
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 8 / 34
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 3.41 2.98 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 471
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.62 0.54 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 77.9
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 9 / 34

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 5,314
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.65 36.0 32.9 0.05 1.60 — 1.60 1.47 — 1.47 5,314
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.96 2.71 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 437
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.63 0.63 — 0.32 0.32 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.54 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 72.3
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 10 / 34
Dust From — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.06 0.06 —
Material
Movement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.66 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 11 / 34
Daily, Summer———————————
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45— 1.45 1.33— 1.33 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 3.59 3.59— 1.42 1.42—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.72 7.05 6.20 0.01 0.30— 0.30 0.27— 0.27 1,360
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.74 0.74— 0.29 0.29—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 1.29 1.13 < 0.005 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 225
Dust From
Material
Movement
————— 0.13 0.13— 0.05 0.05—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 0.07 0.08 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06— Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 12 / 34
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.34 3.21 3.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 687
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 13 / 34
Off-Road 0.06 0.59 0.68 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 114 Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 3.09 3.30 50.5 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57 — Vendor 0.30 11.3 5.65 0.07 0.15 2.80 2.95 0.07 0.77 0.85 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 3.09 3.69 43.5 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57 — Vendor 0.28 11.8 5.77 0.07 0.15 2.80 2.95 0.07 0.77 0.85 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.88 1.05 13.1 0.00 0.00 3.10 3.10 0.00 0.73 0.73 — Vendor 0.08 3.38 1.63 0.02 0.04 0.79 0.84 0.02 0.22 0.24 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.19 2.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — Vendor 0.01 0.62 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43— 0.43 0.40— 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43— 0.43 0.40— 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 7.46 9.31 0.02 0.31— 0.31 0.28— 0.28 1,719
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.36 1.70 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05 285
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 2.98 2.92 47.0 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57— Vendor 0.29 10.9 5.40 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 2.96 3.31 40.7 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57— Vendor 0.28 11.3 5.53 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 2.09 2.35 30.4 0.00 0.00 7.75 7.75 0.00 1.82 1.82— Vendor 0.20 8.12 3.90 0.05 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.55 0.60— 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 15 / 34
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.43 5.54 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 0.33 0.33 — Vendor 0.04 1.48 0.71 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.10 0.11 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 1,718
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 284
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 16 / 34
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.83 2.56 44.3 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57 — Vendor 0.22 10.5 5.24 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.83 2.94 38.2 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57 — Vendor 0.20 10.9 5.36 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.01 2.10 28.4 0.00 0.00 7.75 7.75 0.00 1.82 1.82 — Vendor 0.15 7.83 3.78 0.05 0.05 1.98 2.04 0.05 0.55 0.60 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.38 5.17 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 0.33 0.33 — Vendor 0.03 1.43 0.69 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.10 0.11 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.13. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 17 / 34
Daily, Winter———————————
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.32 2.96 4.08 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.10— 0.10 758
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.54 0.74 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 125
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Offsite ———————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
———————————
Worker 2.40 2.52 41.5 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57— Vendor 0.21 10.1 5.00 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Daily, Winter
(Max)
———————————
Worker 2.38 2.57 35.7 0.00 0.00 11.0 11.0 0.00 2.57 2.57— Vendor 0.20 10.5 5.11 0.07 0.07 2.80 2.88 0.07 0.77 0.85— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Average Daily ———————————
Worker 0.75 0.91 11.7 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.80 0.80— Vendor 0.07 3.33 1.59 0.02 0.02 0.87 0.90 0.02 0.24 0.27— Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— Annual ———————————
Worker 0.14 0.17 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.15 0.15— 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 18 / 34
Vendor 0.01 0.61 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.15. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 1,516
Paving 2.14 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 1.05 1.50 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 228
Paving 0.32 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.19 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 37.8
Paving 0.06 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 19 / 34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 134
Architectural
Coatings

18.2 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 134
Architectural
Coatings

18.2 — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 20 / 34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.13 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 20.2 Architectural
Coatings

2.74 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.34 Architectural
Coatings

0.50 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.48 0.50 8.31 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.51 0.51 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.48 0.51 7.14 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.51 0.51 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 21 / 34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 23 / 34
Removed — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 3/11/2024 5.00 50.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/12/2024 4/23/2024 5.00 30.0 — Grading Grading 4/24/2024 8/7/2024 5.00 75.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/8/2024 6/10/2027 5.00 740 — Paving Paving 6/11/2027 8/27/2027 5.00 55.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/28/2027 11/13/2027 5.00 55.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 24 / 34
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 25 / 34
Site Preparation Hauling 41.7 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 840 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 328 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 168 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 26 / 34

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation 10,000 — 45.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 225 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.0

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 45.0 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 27 / 34
2024 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2025 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2026 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01
2027 0.00 1,040 0.09 0.01

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 28 / 34
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 50.5
AQ-PM 79.8
AQ-DPM 97.7
Drinking Water 57.1
Lead Risk Housing —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 30 / 34
Pesticides 58.0
Toxic Releases 90.4
Traffic 88.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 2.07
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 22.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 36.1
Cardio-vascular 15.2
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 31 / 34
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 69.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 32 / 34
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 0.1
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 76.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 33 / 34
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 4.5
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 61.9
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
5000 Stall Parking Structure (No Project) Detailed Report, 8/9/2023 34 / 34
Screen Justification
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Tier 4 Engines to be used for construction.

Construction: Architectural Coatings MM AQ-7
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 1 / 43
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 2 / 43

3.6. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 3 / 43

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 4 / 43

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 5 / 43

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 6 / 43

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.2
Location 1313 Disneyland Dr, Anaheim, CA 92802, USA
County Orange
City Anaheim
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5815
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.18

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
5,000 Space 10.7 632,150 0.00 — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 7 / 43

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 50.3 15.8 30.9 0.05 0.54 4.36 4.90 0.48 1.06 1.54 9,565 Mit. 50.2 14.2 32.6 0.05 0.17 4.36 4.52 0.14 1.06 1.20 9,565 % Reduced < 0.5% 11% -6% — 69% — 8% 72% — 22% —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.65 38.2 32.8 0.08 1.48 4.61 6.09 1.37 1.70 3.07 9,986 Mit. 1.48 23.3 38.0 0.08 0.22 4.61 4.83 0.21 1.70 1.91 9,986 % Reduced 59% 39% -16% — 85% — 21% 84% — 38% —
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.40 13.8 20.9 0.04 0.49 2.88 3.37 0.44 0.75 1.19 6,462 Mit. 3.19 10.9 22.1 0.04 0.13 2.88 3.00 0.11 0.75 0.85 6,462 % Reduced 6% 21% -6% — 75% — 11% 76% — 28% —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.62 2.52 3.81 0.01 0.09 0.52 0.61 0.08 0.14 0.22 1,070 Mit. 0.58 1.99 4.04 0.01 0.02 0.52 0.55 0.02 0.14 0.16 1,070 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 8 / 43
% Reduced 6% 21% -6% — 75% — 11% 76% — 28% —

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.49 14.2 32.6 0.05 0.17 4.36 4.52 0.14 1.06 1.20 9,565 2025 50.2 13.9 31.4 0.05 0.14 4.36 4.50 0.14 1.06 1.19 9,436 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 9 / 43
Daily - Winter — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
2024 1.48 23.3 38.0 0.08 0.22 4.61 4.83 0.21 1.70 1.91 9,986 2025 1.44 14.1 29.4 0.05 0.14 4.36 4.50 0.14 1.06 1.19 9,245 Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.96 10.9 22.1 0.04 0.13 2.88 3.00 0.11 0.75 0.85 6,462 2025 3.19 3.93 8.16 0.01 0.04 1.10 1.14 0.04 0.27 0.31 2,414 Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.17 1.99 4.04 0.01 0.02 0.52 0.55 0.02 0.14 0.16 1,070 2025 0.58 0.72 1.49 < 0.005 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.06 400

3. Construction Emissions Details

2.62 24.9 21.7 0.03 1.06 — 1.06 0.98 — 0.98 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.36 1.19 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 188
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 10 / 43
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.25 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 31.2
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 11 / 43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 11.9 18.2 0.03 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 3,437
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.65 1.00 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 188
Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 31.2 Demolition — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 12 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.52 34.3 30.2 0.06 1.45 — 1.45 1.33 — 1.33 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.43 1.43 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 2.82 2.48 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 544
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.51 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 90.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 13 / 43
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 19.4 35.3 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 6,621
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.43 1.43 —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 14 / 43
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 1.60 2.91 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 544
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.29 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 90.1 Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.06 3.80 1.61 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.79 0.04 0.21 0.25 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 0.32 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 15 / 43
Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

1.20 11.2 13.1 0.02 0.50 — 0.50 0.46 — 0.46 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 6.48 7.57 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.26 — 0.26 1,389
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 1.18 1.38 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 230
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.98 1.04 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.58 1.79 0.02 0.05 0.89 0.93 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 16 / 43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.98 1.17 13.8 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.72 1.83 0.02 0.05 0.89 0.93 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.67 8.34 0.00 0.00 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.46 0.46 — Vendor 0.05 2.16 1.04 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.08 — Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

0.42 9.54 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 17 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 5.51 8.56 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,389
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.00 1.56 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 230
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.98 1.04 16.0 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.58 1.79 0.02 0.05 0.89 0.93 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.98 1.17 13.8 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.72 1.83 0.02 0.05 0.89 0.93 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.67 8.34 0.00 0.00 1.98 1.98 0.00 0.46 0.46 — Vendor 0.05 2.16 1.04 0.01 0.03 0.51 0.53 0.01 0.14 0.15 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.08 — Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 18 / 43
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.28 2.55 3.19 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 589
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.47 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 97.4
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.94 0.92 14.9 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.43 1.71 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.91 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.94 1.05 12.9 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.57 1.75 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.91 0.02 0.24 0.27 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 19 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.25 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.20 — Vendor 0.02 0.88 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

0.42 9.53 14.8 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 2.33 3.63 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 589
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 20 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.43 0.66 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 97.4
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.94 0.92 14.9 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.43 1.71 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.91 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.94 1.05 12.9 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 0.00 0.81 0.81 — Vendor 0.09 3.57 1.75 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.91 0.02 0.24 0.27 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.25 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.20 — Vendor 0.02 0.88 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 1,517
Paving 1.40 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 83.1
Paving 0.08 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 22 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,517
Paving 1.40 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.39 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 83.1 Paving 0.08 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 13.8 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 5000 Stall Parking Structure (Project) Detailed Report, 8/28/2023 23 / 43
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

Anaheim City CouncilApril 16, 2024

Anaheim City Council
April 16, 2024