Resolution-PC 2024-004Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352
State Clearinghouse No. 2021100402
DisneylandForward
City of Anaheim
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
March 2024
EXHIBIT C
A-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ................................................................................................... A-1
II. Project Objectives ......................................................................................... A-2
III. Project Description ........................................................................................ A-4
IV. Effects Determined to have No Impact During Scoping Process ................. A-6
A. AESTHETICS................................................................................... A-6
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ....................... A-6
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................... A-7
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................. A-7
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................. A-7
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ............................... A-8
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................... A-8
H. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................ A-8
I. NOISE ............................................................................................... A-8
J. POPULATION AND HOUSING ..................................................... A-8
K. RECREATION ................................................................................. A-9
L. WILDFIRE ....................................................................................... A-9
V. Effects Determined to Have No Impact or Be Less Than Significant
Without Mitigation ........................................................................................ A-9
A. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2) ....................................................... A-9
B. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Threshold 5.10) ............................ A-9
C. POPULATION AND HOUSING (Threshold 5.12) ....................... A-10
D. PUBLIC SERVICES (Threshold 5.13) .......................................... A-10
E. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.15) ................ A-10
VI. Effects Determined to be Potentially Significant Environmental Impact
but Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level .......................................... A-10
A. AESTHETICS (Threshold 5.1) ....................................................... A-10
B. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2) ..................................................... A-20
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.3) .............................. A-28
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.4) ................................. A-31
E. ENERGY (Threshold 5.5) .............................................................. A-35
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Threshold 5.6)...................................... A-47
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (Threshold 5.7) ..................... A-55
A-ii
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Threshold
5.8) .................................................................................................. A-63
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (Threshold 5.9) .......... A-72
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Threshold 5.10) .......................... A-85
K. NOISE (Threshold 5.11) ................................................................. A-88
L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (Threshold 5.13) ...... A-98
M. TRANSPORTATION (Threshold 5.14) ....................................... A-116
N. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5. 15) ............. A-135
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Threshold 5.16) ......... A-139
VII. Environmental Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable
in the Subsequent EIR ............................................................................... A-170
A. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2) ................................................... A-170
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.4) ............................... A-190
C. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (Threshold 5.7) ................... A-196
D. NOISE (Threshold 5.11) ............................................................... A-213
VIII. Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth Inducement, and Other
CEQA Considerations ............................................................................... A-218
A. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ................... A-218
B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.............................................. A-219
IX. Project Alternatives ................................................................................... A-221
A. ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/CONTINUING
DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... A-221
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 – RESTRICT REMOVAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO HISTORIC FEATURES ........ A-222
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 – DEVELOPMENT WITH NO THEME
PARK EAST OVERLAY ............................................................. A-224
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............. A-225
X. Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................... A-227
A-1
EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact in Support of Findings
I. Introduction
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources
Code (PRC) § 21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines),
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, prior to approving a
project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified which
identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project
is approved the public agency must make one or more of the following findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR;
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1
Additionally, a Lead Agency must not approve a project that will have a significant
effect on the environment unless it finds that specific overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects (PRC § 21081(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15093). The Anaheim
City Council has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations to document and
substantiate the reasons to support its action based on the Final Subsequent EIR No.
352 (Final Subsequent EIR) and other information contained in the administrative
record for the DisneylandForward Project (Project).
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081, CEQA Guidelines § 15091 and the City of Anaheim’s
(City) CEQA procedures, the Anaheim City Council hereby makes the following
findings in connection with the Project. These findings are based upon substantial
evidence in the administrative record for these proceedings, both written and oral, the
Final Subsequent EIR for the Project, which includes the Draft Subsequent EIR and
appendices, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR,
and the Corrections and Additions to the Draft Subsequent EIR, as well as staff and
consultants reports presented through the hearing process for the Project. Additionally,
the Anaheim City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) to ensure
compliance during Project implementation and meet all requirements as outlined in
PRC Section 21081.6. The Anaheim City Council finds that the Final Subsequent EIR
reflects the Anaheim City Council’s independent judgement as the Project Lead
Agency, pursuant to PRC Section 21082(c)(3).
1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15091, 15163.
A-2
As the City determined the Project required the preparation of a Subsequent EIR as the
Project’s changes to The Disneyland Resort Project and the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan (ARSP) Project may create new or substantially more severe significant impacts
than those impacts identified in EIR No. 311, Master EIR No. 313 and/or Supplemental
EIR (SEIR) No. 340 (the Prior Project EIRs), these Findings apply the Subsequent EIR
standard under PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
These Findings compare the Project specific conclusion with the conclusions in the
Prior EIRs, and is organized by the three major conclusion sections: Conclusions in
Prior EIRs, Project Specific Conclusion, and Project Conclusion Compared to Previous
EIR Conclusions.
II. Project Objectives
As part of The Disneyland Resort Project analyzed in EIR No. 311, certified by the
City of Anaheim in 1993, the City established objectives for The Disneyland Resort
Project. The objectives set the framework and criteria for the envisioned pattern and
intensity of growth for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP). Many of these
objectives remain applicable to the Project evaluated in the Final Subsequent EIR,
which amends The Disneyland Resort Project, analyzed in EIR No. 311, and the ARSP
Project, analyzed in Master EIR No. 313 and SEIR No. 340, certified by the City of
Anaheim in 1994 and 2012, respectively. EIR No. 311, Master EIR No. 313 and SEIR
No. 340 are referred to as Prior EIRs in these findings.
The underlying purpose of the Project is to allow continued, long-term growth of The
Disneyland Resort Project, approved by the City in 1993, by allowing the movement
of theme park, hotel and other retail, dining and entertainment uses permitted under
The Disneyland Resort Project to Disney Properties within the DRSP and the ARSP to
support a fully integrated, multi-day vacation destination. Another underlying purpose
of the Project is to allow the City to perform administrative reviews of Disney’s
development projects on Disney Properties.
The objectives of the Project are the ongoing implementation of the following
Disneyland Resort Project and ARSP Project objectives which were in place when the
City approved The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project:
The Disneyland Resort Project objectives from EIR No. 311 that remain applicable to
the DisneylandForward Project:
• To reconfirm and enhance Southern California as one of the world’s greatest
tourist destinations;
• To support the ongoing transformation of The Anaheim Resort into a multi-day
destination resort for use by Southern California metropolitan area residents, as
well as visitors from around the world;
• To promote the goals of the Anaheim General Plan by enhancing visitor-serving
commercial uses in the City and to provide a catalyst for the economic and
physical enhancement of Anaheim;
A-3
• To support the buildout of a fully integrated resort that increases visitation
levels and generates an economic base capable of supporting project
components consistent with the objectives of the City;
• To maintain and enhance the economic vitality of the City of Anaheim and
Orange County by providing business and job opportunities associated with the
construction and operation of The Disneyland Resort;
• To enhance The Anaheim Resort by providing a wider range of attractions,
hotel accommodations, restaurants, shopping opportunities, and public parking;
• To accommodate existing and anticipated traffic through implementation of an
innovative transportation and parking plan, including convenient access to
parking facilities from freeways, use of conveyance systems to shuttle visitors
from parking facilities and hotels to area attractions, and provision of pedestrian
walkways throughout The Disneyland Resort;
• To lay a foundation for future economic expansion and minimize environmental
impacts through comprehensive site development guidelines; and
• To develop public/private cooperation and partnership which utilize the private
sector to fund vitally needed improvements in The Anaheim Resort to benefit
the public.
The ARSP Project objectives from SEIR No. 340 that remain applicable to the
DisneylandForward Project:
• To maintain and encourage Anaheim’s position as a nationally recognized
tourist, convention and recreation center;
• To increase sales tax yields and further enhance the economic base of the
community, thereby lessening the tax burden on real property;
• To encourage the development of quality facilities that complement
conventions, family entertainment, and recreation within appropriate areas of
the community; and
• To maintain the integrity of the Commercial Recreation Area (now referred to
as The Anaheim Resort) by permitting only compatible land uses within this
designated area.
Additional objectives of the Disneyland Resort Project include:
• To support the continued reimagination of The Disneyland Resort to meet and
exceed evolving guest expectations for immersive entertainment and
technological advances in theme park and other resort experiences.
• To continue to fulfill the following vision of Walt Disney: “Disneyland will
never be completed…It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination
left in the world”; and
A-4
• To allow the expansion of theme park and parking uses to Disney ARSP
Properties to support the continued success and vitality of The Anaheim Resort,
including The Disneyland Resort.
In 2004, the Anaheim City Council adopted a comprehensive update of its General
Plan, including some updates to the goals, policies and objectives applicable to The
Anaheim Resort. The DRSP and ARSP would continue to implement goals and policies
of the General Plan of the City of Anaheim and, specifically, the goal of the City of
Anaheim to enhance the attraction of tourists and visitors to The Anaheim Resort.
The Project also would generate substantial public revenues and employment
opportunities. Benefits to the local economy would include the creation of direct part-
time and full-time employment positions associated with The Disneyland Resort,
creation of indirect part-time and full-time employment positions associated with The
Disneyland Resort’s supply chains, the labor income associated with these employment
positions, additional economic output in the form of goods and services produced by
The Disneyland Resort, and State and local tax revenue.
III. Project Description
To allow continued, long-term growth of The Disneyland® Resort, Walt Disney Parks
and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (Disney), proposes DisneylandForward (Project), which would
allow the transfer of uses permitted under The Disneyland Resort Project to other areas
of the DRSP and the Disney ARSP Properties (collectively with Disney’s properties in
the DRSP, Disney Property or Disney Properties). These areas are or will be considered
to be part of The Disneyland Resort Project as modified by the DisneylandForward
Project.
The Project would not increase the amount of development square footage or hotel
rooms currently allowed in the DRSP and analyzed in EIR No. 311, which the City
certified in 1993, or the number of hotel rooms currently allowed in the ARSP and
analyzed in SEIR No. 340, which the City certified in 2012. However, the Project
would permit an increase of 4,376 theme park-related parking spaces in the ARSP. The
Project also would provide for future administrative review by the City of Disney’s
development projects on Disney Properties, which would rely on this Final Subsequent
EIR No. 352 in accordance with CEQA standards.
Within The Disneyland Resort, the Project proposes to reallocate allowable land uses
within the Theme Park District (389 acres), the Parking District (57.1 acres), and the
Southeast District (24.7 acres). The former Hotel District would become part of the
Theme Park District and the Future Expansion District would become the Southeast
District. The Project would allow Disney to move a portion of the unused approved
theme park square footage to the existing Hotel District, which would become part of
the new expanded Theme Park District of the DRSP. The Project also would allow
Disney to move a portion of the unused approved theme park square footage to the
existing Future Expansion District, which would become the Southeast District of the
DRSP, and to the proposed Theme Park East and West Overlays of the ARSP.
Under the Project, Disney could develop cumulatively up to 6,850,000 previously
approved square feet of theme park uses in the DRSP, including up to 6,850,000
A-5
previously approved square feet in the expanded Theme Park District if all theme park
square footage were developed in the expanded Theme Park District. Disney could also
develop a portion of this previously approved theme park square footage in the newly
renamed Southeast District (up to 390,000 square feet), in the proposed Theme Park
East Overlay (up to 840,000 square feet), and in the proposed Theme Park West
Overlay (up to 80,000 square feet). If theme park square footage is developed in the
Southeast District and Theme Park East and West Overlays, an equivalent amount of
theme park square footage would be removed from the allotment for the Theme Park
District, such that the maximum theme park square footage would not exceed 6,850,000
square feet.
Similarly, the Project would allow Disney 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, the newly renamed Southeast District. Under the
Project, Disney could develop cumulatively up to 5,600 previously approved hotel
rooms in the DRSP, including a combination of up to 5,600 previously approved hotel
rooms in the expanded Theme Park District if all hotel rooms were developed in the
expanded Theme Park District and up to 1,852 previously approved hotel rooms in the
newly renamed Southeast District.
Disney is not seeking additional square footage for theme park uses or retail
entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms within The Disneyland Resort as part of
this Project. Instead, the Project would allow Disney to move the existing approvals to
other areas governed by the DRSP and ARSP.
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 Theme Park Overlay would allow Disney 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, Disney
could develop up to 840,000 square feet of previously approved theme park uses within
the Theme Park East Overlay and up to 80,000 square feet of previously approved
theme park uses within the Theme Park West Overlay for a cumulative total of up to
920,000 square feet of previously approved theme park uses in these Overlays. The
Anaheim Municipal Code currently allows theme park uses in these Overlay areas with
approval of a conditional use permit.
The Project would create a Parking Overlay within the ARSP for the Disney ARSP
Properties located at 1515 S. Manchester Avenue, 1585 S. Manchester Avenue, 1530
S. Harbor Boulevard, and 333 W. Ball Road. The Project would increase the number
of permitted theme park parking spaces in the Parking Overlay at 333 W. Ball Road,
permitting up to 5,700 parking spaces (this includes 1,324 existing spaces plus 4,376
additional spaces). The Parking Overlay would permit development of the same type
of parking and transportation facilities allowed under Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.114.080 for the East Parking Area of the DRSP Parking District, and the
same type of back-of-house uses, limited retail, and dining and entertainment uses
allowed under Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.114.060 for the Theme Park
District of the DRSP. Parking facilities in the Parking Overlay would be architecturally
A-6
treated through use of terraced structures; landscaped buffers and berms; noise
attenuation louvers along the openings on the lower levels and solid walls with
landscaped planters on the upper levels; and additional landscaping in the setbacks.
Disney could also develop hotel rooms in these Overlays as permitted by the existing
ARSP.
Approval of the Project requires 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 Commercial Recreation (C-R) Overlays, of the DRSP or Hotel Circle
Specific Plan (HCSP).
IV. Effects Determined to have No Impact During Scoping Process
At the onset of the CEQA process, the City determined that a Subsequent EIR would
be required for the Project and an Initial Study was prepared to focus the required
analysis to be carried through to the Subsequent EIR. Through the Initial Study, the
City determined that no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those
disclosed in the Prior EIRs or no impact would occur related to the following topics,
and that no further review would be conducted in the Subsequent EIR. The following
effects were determined to have no impact:
A. AESTHETICS
1. The Project will not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista, thus there is
no impact.
2. The Project will not 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, thus there is no impact.
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. The Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use as the
Project Site and surrounding area developed urban areas and are not mapped
as Farmland, thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract because there is no agricultural zoning or use in
the area and the Project Site is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts,
thus there is no impact.
3. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, thus
there is no impact.
4. Development of the Project will not result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, thus there is no impact.
A-7
5. The Project does not involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, that could result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
land, thus there is no impact.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no impact.
3. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no impact.
4. The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and
thus there is no impact.
5. The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, and thus there
is no impact.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries, and thus there is no impact.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. The Project will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction, and thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related
ground failure, including landslides, and thus there is no impact.
3. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no impact.
4. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no impact.
A-8
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
1. The Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school, and thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not be located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos
Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), and
therefore will not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the Project area, and thus there is no impact.
3. The Project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and
thus there is no impact.
4. The Project will not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and
thus there is no impact.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The Project will not 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 impede or redirect flood flows, and thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
and therefore will not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Thus, there is no impact.
H. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. The Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state, thus
there is no impact.
2. The Project will not 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, thus there is no impact.
I. NOISE
1. The Project will not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or
Fullerton Municipal Airport), and therefore will not expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Thus, there is no
impact.
J. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. The Project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere,
and thus there is no impact.
A-9
K. RECREATION
1. The Project will 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, and thus there is
no impact.
2. The Project will not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment, and thus there is no impact.
L. WILDFIRE
1. The Project will not substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan, and thus there is no impact.
2. The Project will not, 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, and
thus there is no impact.
3. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no
impact.
4. The Project will not 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, and thus there is no
impact.
V. Effects Determined to Have No Impact or Be Less Than Significant
Without Mitigation
The Draft Subsequent EIR found that the Project would have no significant impact or
a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation for the
environmental topic areas listed below.
A. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2)
1. The Project will not result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people; thus there is no
significant impact. (Threshold 5.2d)
2. Impacts related to Air Quality will be less than significant related to carbon
monoxide (CO) hotspots, toxic air contaminants (TACs) and odors, and not
cumulatively considerable. (Cumulative Impacts)
B. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Threshold 5.10)
1. The Project will not physically divide an established community; thus there
is no significant impact. (Threshold 5.10a)
A-10
C. POPULATION AND HOUSING (Threshold 5.12)
1. The Project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(through extension of roads or other infrastructure; thus, there is no
significant impact. (Threshold 5.12a)
2. Impacts related to Population and Housing will be less than significant
related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area
either indirectly or directly, and therefore are not cumulatively
considerable. (Cumulative Impacts)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES (Threshold 5.13)
1. The Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for parks; thus, there is no significant impact. (Threshold 5.13a(iv))
2. Impacts related to Public Services, will be less than significant related to
parks, and therefore are not cumulatively considerable. (Cumulative
Impacts)
E. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.15)
1. The Project will not 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 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), and thus there is no significant
impact. (Threshold 5.15a)
VI. Effects Determined to be Potentially Significant Environmental Impact
but Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level
A. AESTHETICS (Threshold 5.1)
1. Public Views – Construction (Threshold 5.1c)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality during construction activities, as the site is
located in an urbanized area. Although not located in a non-urbanized area, this
threshold also discusses whether the Project would substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings during
construction.
A-11
(a) Findings
The Project would include development and implementation of a Construction Barrier
Plan. The plan would identify the location, height, and composition of barriers needed
to physically screen views of construction activities. The barriers would reduce
visibility of construction areas and activities from public areas, and ensure public views
during construction would be less than significant. Accordingly, the following
mitigation measure imposed upon the Project would mitigate construction impacts
regarding public views to a less than significant level:
MM AES-5: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Barrier
Plan showing the location and types of barriers shall be in place during grading
and construction. Said plan shall provide for all construction areas to be
screened from view in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code
and shall include provision for the type and height of the barriers to be placed
along all construction perimeters prior to the commencement of demolition,
Site preparation or grading, whichever occurs first. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 analyzed construction-related impacts and specifically identified that The
Disneyland Resort Project would cause visual disruption during construction activities.
Despite the use of construction barriers that were identified as PDF 3.8-2, EIR No. 311
found that construction-related impacts related to visual resources and aesthetics were
significant and unavoidable. SEIR No. 340 did not specifically address construction-
related visual impacts.
Project Specific Conclusion
Development of the Project would involve construction activities that would create
visual disruptions to the Project Site. Construction activities are expected to involve
demolition of existing structures, landscaping, hardscape, roadways, and parking areas
and would include construction of new buildings and structures, including parking lots
and structures, hotels, and theme park uses. Due to the size and layout of the Project
Site and existing on- and off-site development, only a portion of future construction-
related activities would be visible from public viewpoints at any point in time, and these
activities would be largely limited to those occurring along the Project Site’s
perimeters. Consistent with the analysis contained in EIR No. 311 and with
implementation of MM AES-5, the Project would include development and
implementation of a Construction Barrier Plan to reduce visibility from public areas.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21071 and as discussed previously, the Project Site is located
in an urbanized area; therefore, the analysis for this threshold focuses on whether the
Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality. The Project would be required to comply with all design guidelines as set forth
in the ARSP, DRSP and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, construction activities
related to Project buildout would not conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality; a less than significant impact would occur with
A-12
mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the City finds that, with the implementation of mitigation, the impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation for
construction. Due to the change in the threshold of significance, which now analyzes
the Project in the context of urbanized areas (discussion of zoning and regulations)
versus non-urbanized areas (discussion of degrading visual character and public
views), the Project would result in reduced impacts when compared with the impact
analysis in EIR No. 311, which identified significant and unavoidable construction-
related visual impacts to adjacent property owners. This impact would be new when
compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which did not classify effects
related to construction-related visual impacts.
2. Public Views – Operations (Threshold 5.1c)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality during operations, as the site is located in
an urbanized area.
(a) Findings
The Project would include design elements including height limits, minimum setbacks,
a landscape palette, architectural elements, and screening for certain uses to ensure the
Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations during operations.
Specifically, the Project would implement mechanical equipment, trash, plumbing and
pipes, and air conditioning screening requirements and a Construction Barrier Plan to
ensure these certain uses would be located out of view of the public, and assess/modify
the landscaped areas to ensure all landscaped features are properly maintained.
Additionally, the Project would require a shade and shadow analysis to demonstrate
that future proposed structures would avoid creating a significant impact on adjacent
land uses. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate
operation impacts regarding public views to a less than significant level:
MM AES-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior
to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall
submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas for
the subject buildings will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent
residential areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-2)
MM AES-4: Prior to final building and zoning inspection or whenever
established; and, on an ongoing basis, the property owner/developer shall
participate in a landscape assessment and maintenance district for the Anaheim
Resort. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-5)
MM AES-5: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, a Construction Barrier
Plan showing the location and types of barriers shall be in place during grading
A-13
and construction. Said plan shall provide for all construction areas to be
screened from view in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code
and shall include provision for the type and height of the barriers to be placed
along all construction perimeters prior to the commencement of demolition,
Site preparation or grading, whichever occurs first. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-2)
MM AES-6: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the proposed Specific
Plan incorporates design guidelines as well as zoning and development standards,
many of which have been designed to reduce the potential visual impacts of the
project and to present a visually integrated resort area, including:
• The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan provides for heavily landscaped
streetscapes and gives the guidelines for trees and shrubs, light fixtures,
benches, monuments, and signs located within the landscaped area.
• The East and West Parking Areas and the hotel parking facilities will
have landscaped setbacks from the public right-of-way and are
restricted in height.
• Rights-of-way will be landscaped to add to the aesthetics of the area.
• The landscape treatments will vary to create distinct places visually.
• The West Parking Area and hotel parking facilities will be terraced back
from Walnut Street with landscaping treatments above 40 feet. In
addition, canopy trees will be planted in a center median on Walnut
Street, and the parkway along the street will be landscaped.
• A coordinated color theme for major street features will be incorporated
into the design.
• The service areas and back-of-house areas will be screened from public
view.
• All rooftop equipment on buildings will be screened as per the Specific
Plan.
• A layered landscape treatment in the setback realm will provide
screening of a 9-14 feet in height sound wall adjacent to the Southwest
Parking Area. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.12-1)
MM AES-7: Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar
pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans
as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent
properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note
indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and
zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for
building permits. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-2)
MM AES-8: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning
facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on
plans as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City
of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-
A-14
occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be
installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-12)
MM AES-9: Prior to issuance of each building permit for theme park uses
within the Theme Park District, the Southeast District, and the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan (ARSP) Theme Park Overlays, plans shall show compliance with
the 360-Degree Architectural Treatment Criteria set forth in the Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan (DRSP) and the ARSP. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-13)
MM AES-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall show that
no shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel or vacation
ownership resort front setback area. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-14)
MM AES-11: Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.1-3)
MM AES-12: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk
barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks. (SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.1-6)
MM AES-13: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter
from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation
systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in
connection with the building permit. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-7)
MM AES-14: Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and
irrigation systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within
an area in which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be
maintained by the property owner/developer, in compliance with City
standards. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-8)
MM AES-15: Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be
replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased
and/or dead. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-9)
MM AES-16: Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property
owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. (SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.1-10)
MM AES-17: Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records
indicate previous payment, the property owner/developer shall pay a fee for
street tree purposes to the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage
in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee
given for City authorized improvements installed by the property
owner/developer. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-11)
A-15
MM AES-18: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and
Building Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed
structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on
adjacent land uses to the maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and
shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating
areas, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or
structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that
normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of
the sunlight hours. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-1)
MM LU-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking facilities, the
property owner/developer shall submit plans detailing the setbacks for the
parking structures and landscaping plans which minimize compatibility impacts
of the parking facilities on surrounding areas, consistent with The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311,
MM 3.2-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 anticipated significant and unavoidable adverse visual impacts 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 PDF 3.12-1, PDF 3.8-1 and PDF 3.8-2, and MM 3.2-1,
MM 3.2-2, and MM 3.12-1 through MM 3.12-5. SEIR No. 340 found that future
development and redevelopment associated with buildout of the ARSP area would
create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts would be less
than significant with implementation of MM 5.1-1 through MM 5.1-14.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site is located in a highly developed and urbanized area and is surrounded
by residential, commercial, hotel, and visitor-serving uses, as well as transportation
facilities. Given that the Project Site is located in an urbanized area, the analysis for
this threshold focuses on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality. The majority of the Project Site is zoned as
DRSP SP 92-1 (The Disneyland Resort) with the Disney ARSP properties zoned as
ARSP SP 92-2 (The Anaheim Resort). Within the DRSP, areas are currently divided
into the following five Districts: Theme Park, Hotel, Parking, and Future Expansion
Districts as well as District A, and governed by the DRSP Zoning and Development
Standards in Chapter 18.114 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Within the ARSP, the
Disney ARSP Properties are within the C-R District (Development Area 1) of the
ARSP, and governed by the ARSP Zoning and Development Standards in Chapter
18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
The Project would allow for development of currently entitled theme park uses within
the existing Hotel District and Future Expansion District of the DRSP and on the
Theme Park Overlays for two of the Disney ARSP Properties. Similarly, the Project
A-16
would allow for currently entitled hotel uses in the existing Theme Park District and
Future Expansion District of the DRSP and on Disney ARSP Properties. 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 Project Site, thus necessitating
amendments to the DRSP and DRSP Zoning and Development Standards and the
ARSP and ARSP Zoning and Development Standards. With approval of the requested
specific plan and zoning amendments, the Project would not conflict with the DRSP,
ARSP or the City’s Zoning Code.
According to the Design Plan of the DRSP and Chapter 18.114 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, specific criteria are set forth to provide guidance in creating and
preserving a unified resort identity. Additionally, the DRSP identifies design concepts
that serve as policies to be implemented for all future development within the area
governed by the DRSP, including providing consistency in landscape, creating large-
scale design elements, enhancing public streets through the inclusion of landscaping,
creating a unique character for different areas within the DRSP, enhancing the Central
Core of The Anaheim Resort with special design standards, prioritizing and
coordinating streetscape improvements to minimize future visual disruption and
intrusion, and implementing specific design criteria for the public realm, the setback
realm, and the private realm. The Disney ARSP Properties within the areas governed
by the ARSP would also be subject to design guidelines set forth in the ARSP and
Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and designated as Commercial-
Recreation District. As such, the City has approved the design guidelines for the ARSP
to improve the visual character of the area.
Structural Height – Future development would be required to comply with maximum
height regulations and setback requirements as set forth in the DRSP and ARSP. As
part of the Project, modifications are proposed to the existing Anaheim Commercial
Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height Map and Chapter 18 Zoning
and Development Standards in support of the Project’s amendments to the DRSP and
ARSP. See Table 5.1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR for a detailed analysis of
modifications to the Anaheim commercial recreation area maximum permitted
structural height map and the DSRP and ASRP zoning and development standards. As
discussed in the table, the proposed modifications would alter the existing visual
character of the Project Site through modifications of maximum structural heights and
setbacks from existing conditions and what was previously approved for the Project
Site; however, these changes would contribute to a more uniform visual appearance of
future development on the Project Site and would implement design elements set forth
in the DRSP and ARSP with the specific intent to minimize visual intrusion to
neighboring properties. These design elements include height limits, minimum
setbacks, a landscape palette, architectural elements, and screening for certain uses.
Therefore, the Project would implement MM AES-1, MM AES-5, MM AES-7,
MM AES-8, and MM AES-10 related to screening or locating certain uses out of view;
MM AES-4, MM AES-12 through MM AES-17, and MM LU-3 related to
landscaping requirements, including trees; MM AES-6 and MM AES-9 related to
architectural elements and visual integration; and MM AES-11 requiring prompt
removal of graffiti.
A-17
Shade and Shadow –A Shade and Shadow Analysis was prepared for the Project and
included as Appendix C to the Draft Subsequent EIR. Consistent with typical shade
and shadow study approaches, the Project’s Shade and Shadow Analysis analyzed both
the existing conditions and the proposed conditions were conducted for the Winter
Solstice (December 21), or the shortest daylight day of a year, and the Summer Solstice
(June 21), or the longest day of the year. Daytime intervals of 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m.,
and 4:00 p.m. were used in the analysis to visually portray morning, mid-day, and late
afternoon shade and shadow conditions within the Project Site and surrounding areas.
The analysis was conducted for all areas that have the potential to impact shade-
sensitive uses, including outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel
swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include
sensitive uses (e.g., residences).
The maximum allowed massing envelopes developed within the model represent a
worst-case scenario in which setbacks, height, and sky exposure plane are portrayed as
maximum volumes, rather than as specific structures, in order to allow for the analysis
of potential shade and shadow implications for the Project. Based on the analysis
presented in the Shade and Shadow Study, the Project has the potential to significantly
impact adjacent land uses, including residential uses to a greater degree under various
future conditions, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of
MM AES-18 would require preparation of a shade and shadow analysis for future
structures demonstrating that the future proposed structure(s) would avoid creating
significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses. A significant shade and
shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas,
hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that
include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight
are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. With
implementation of MM AES-18, this potential impact would be mitigated to a less than
significant level. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the City finds that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impact
will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation for operations.
Due to the change in the threshold of significance, which now analyzes the Project in
the context of urbanized areas (discussion of zoning and regulations) versus non-
urbanized areas (discussion of degrading visual character and public views), the Project
would result in reduced impacts when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No.
311, which identified significant and unavoidable visual impacts to adjacent property
owners. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in
SEIR No. 340 related to degradation of existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings.
A-18
3. Substantial Light or Glare (Threshold 5.1d)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area.
(a) Findings
The Project lighting along the Project Site perimeters would be subject to design
specifications limiting height and light sources to conceal light to the extent feasible,
and focusing exterior building illumination downward to the pedestrian level and
shielded away from residences to ensure the Project would not result in substantial light
or glare. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate
impacts regarding light or glare to a less than significant level:
MM AES-2: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, private streets
within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed
which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as
determined by the Public Utilities Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-5)
MM AES-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit for each parking facility
along Walnut Street; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning
inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the
lighting system for the parking facilities along Walnut Street, Ball Road, Haster
Street and along interior property lines abutting residential neighborhoods. The
systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light
sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent
uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer,
with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this
requirement has been met. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.12-4)
MM AES-19: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the location and
configuration of all lighting fixtures including ground-mounted lighting fixtures
utilized to accent buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian
areas shall be shown on all plans submitted for building permits. All proposed
surface parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum
height of 12 feet adjacent to any residential properties. All lighting fixtures shall
be shielded to direct lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from
adjacent residential property lines. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.1-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 did not specifically analyze impacts related to light or
glare.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site is located within a fully developed area that is subject to nighttime
lighting from existing development and transportation uses in the area. In addition to
A-19
existing development associated with The Disneyland Resort, the surrounding area
includes the Anaheim Convention Center, hotel/motel uses, retail areas, restaurants,
and office buildings, residentials uses, and streets and freeways. All uses contribute to
the night lighting on the Project Site and in the surrounding area. Existing sources of
light include street lights, vehicle headlights, building and security lights, and parking
lot lights. Implementation of the Project would allow for flexibility in the future
development of the Project Site, allowing previously approved hotel, theme park, and
parking uses to be developed throughout the Project Site, thereby potentially
introducing additional sources of light and glare to new areas. However, the Project
would comply with all guidelines and requirements as set forth in the DRSP, the ARSP,
and Chapters 18.114 and 18.116 of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, future
development would comply with required setbacks from property lines and install
layered landscaping intended to provide physical and visual separation and reduction
in direct light intrusion into adjacent off-site uses. Further, lighting along the Project
Site perimeters would be subject to design specifications limiting height and light
sources, and focusing exterior building illumination on the pedestrian level. For these
reasons, with implementation of MM AES-2, MM AES-3 and MM AES-19, the
Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. For the reasons
stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340, neither of which addressed light and glare.
4. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to aesthetics.
(a) Findings
As with the Project, visual changes associated with future cumulative development
would be subject to the applicable design guidelines as set forth in the applicable
specific plan or the Anaheim Municipal Code and, to the extent feasible, impacts would
be mitigated to reduce significant visual impacts. The Project would include a series of
mitigation measures, such as implementation of a Construction Barrier Plan to reduce
visibility from public areas, design elements consistent with zoning regulations to
ensure visual compatibility with existing development, a shade shadow analysis to
demonstrate that future proposed structures would avoid creating a significant visual
impact on adjacent land uses by increased building height, and design specifications
limiting height and light sources to ensure the Project would not result in substantial
light or glare. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project mitigate
impacts related to cumulative aesthetics impacts to a less than significant level:
MM AES-1 through MM AES-19, and MM LU-3 (see above).
A-20
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, the Disneyland Resort Project would contribute to a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to visual impacts to residents
adjacent to parking structures. According to SEIR No. 340, continued implementation
of the ARSP would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
cumulative impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is comprised of the viewshed that
includes the Project Site, the surrounding area, and, due to the lack of substantial
topography and presence of intervening structures, the immediate surrounding areas.
This cumulative analysis is based on the assumption of full General Plan buildout over
the next 30 years, as well as buildout of adjacent jurisdictions in accordance with their
general plans. The City of Anaheim, the Project Site, and adjacent areas have
experienced considerable change and growth, resulting in conversion of previously
under-developed areas to visitor-serving uses with associated aesthetic changes. As
development pursuant to the DRSP and ARSP continues to occur, the surrounding area
would also be subject to redevelopment. As with the Project, visual changes associated
with future cumulative development would be subject to the applicable design
guidelines as set forth in the applicable specific plan or the Anaheim Municipal Code
and, to the extent feasible, impacts would be mitigated to reduce significant visual
impacts. The Project would not result in any significant impacts related to aesthetics
with implementation of identified mitigation measures MM AES-1 through MM AES-
19 and MM LU-3. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact
will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore the
Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. When considered with
other cumulative projects, the Project would result in a reduced cumulative impact
related to aesthetics when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not
new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No.
340.
B. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2)
1. Applicable Air Quality Plan (Threshold 5.2a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
(a) Findings
The Project would include a series of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reduction
measures, such as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program,
A-21
conformance with VMT targets, and facilitating pedestrian opportunities, which would
decrease VMT and transportation fuel use, encourage use of transit and result in a slight
decrease in air pollutant emissions occurring in the operations phase. The following
mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts regarding
potential conflicts with an applicable air quality plan to a less than significant level:
MM AQ-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit associated with a
cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the
Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall submit a site and operations plan for this facility
showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial and dining
services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative total
of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast District
or Theme Park East Overlay, the property owner/developer shall provide cast
financial and dining services within the Southeast District or Theme Park East
Overlay and the Theme Park District to accommodate cast members.
Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall continue
to provide cast financial and dining services in conformance with The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
MM AQ-4: Ongoing during project operation, the following will be achieved:
(1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of the out-of-area
guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG VMT reduction
targets have been met through other means. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-6)
MM AQ-9: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer
will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for all project employees. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.4-8)
MM AQ-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use
parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme
park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking
procedures set forth in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling
engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)
PDF AQ-1: Ongoing during project operation, the project has been designed to
reduce dependence on the private automobile, which will reduce and avoid
many of the traffic-related emissions associated with the existing Disneyland
theme park and Disney California Adventure Park, as well as those normally
associated with hotels and day-use only special event activities and those
associated with development of theme park uses in the Southeast District or
Theme Park East Overlay. Guests will be encouraged to park their cars and
leave them for the duration of their visits, thus eliminating the trips to
restaurants and sightseeing, or entertainment attractions normally associated
with vacation stays. Marketing efforts in Southern California will promote the
A-22
Disneyland Resort as a mini-vacation site for Southland residents. (EIR No.
311, PDF 3.4-2)
PDF AQ-2: Ongoing during project operations, a wide range of entertainment,
lodging, retail and restaurant attractions will be located within the project area
and will be linked by an electrically powered monorail system, pedestrian
ways/guest transportation system to transport visitors from parking facilities to
The Disneyland Resort, and/or pedestrian bridges, walkways and promenades.
Convenient walkway access within the Theme Park District, the Southeast
District and the Theme Park East Overlay and adjacent uses, such as the City
of Anaheim Convention Center, will also facilitate pedestrian trips by non-
project guests who will remain within the project area rather than use
automobiles to travel to restaurants and entertainment outside of the area. (EIR
No. 311, PDF 3.4-3)
PDF AQ-3: Ongoing during project operations, in accordance with
transportation and circulation mitigation measures, The Disneyland Resort
traffic will be accommodated, and existing traffic conditions and circulation
patterns will be improved through implementation of the identified
transportation and parking features, including parking facilities, monorail and
pedestrian way/guest transportation systems and convenient access to parking
facilities from the freeway. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-4)
PDF AQ-4: Prior to issuance of building permits for the East Parking Facility
and ongoing during project operations, The Disneyland Resort Project will
include a special drop-off area on Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way, or
internal or adjacent to the East Parking Area Parking Structure and/or adjacent
ARSP Parking Overlay, or other accessible location, for shuttle buses to help
encourage use of buses by area visitors. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-7)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found that The Disneyland Resort Project was consistent with the 1991
AQMP due to reductions in VMT, implementation of Transportation Demand
Management strategies, negligible effect on housing demand, and air pollutant
emissions that are consistent with the increases addressed in the 1991 AQMP. SEIR
No. 340 also addressed consistency of the ARSP Project with the updated 2007 AQMP
and determined that the ARSP Project would conflict with the 2007 AQMP, thus
resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
Pursuant to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would be
inconsistent with the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993) if it would: (1) create an increase in the
frequency or severity of air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations;
delay attainment of air quality standards; or (2) exceed the assumptions of the AQMP.
A-23
For the first criterion, the main purpose of an AQMP, which is regularly updated by
the SCAQMD, is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and
State air quality standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants
emitted from the project should not (1) exceed the SCAQMD CEQA air quality
significance thresholds or (2) conflict with or exceed the assumptions used for
preparing growth forecasts in the AQMP. A project with daily emission rates below the
SCAQMD’s established air quality significance thresholds (shown in Table 5.2-4 of
the Draft Subsequent EIR) would have a less than significant effect on regional air
quality. Pollutant emissions from the Project would be less than the SCAQMD
thresholds; therefore, the Project meets the first criterion. Moreover, with
implementation of MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-9, and MM AQ-11 and
PDF AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4, Project impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation, and result in a slight decrease in air pollutant emissions occurring in the
operations phase due to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with
the proposed placement of parking proximate to Interstate 5 (I-5) and use of pedestrian
walkways and trams to transport guests to their destinations within the Project Site.
With respect to the second criterion, the Project was assessed as to whether it would
exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The SCAQMD’s current air quality planning
document is the 2022 AQMP. The Project would allow Disney to move previously
approved theme park, hotel, parking and other uses to other Disney Properties in the
Project Site; no new uses or additional development is proposed beyond development
anticipated in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340. The Project also would incorporate the
latest adopted energy efficiency standards adopted by the State of California. Lastly,
with implementation of MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-9, and MM AQ-11 and PDF
AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4, the Project would result in a slight decrease in VMT and
emissions associated with placement of proposed parking near the I-5 and the use of
pedestrian walkways and trams to move people throughout the Project Site. As such,
the Project would not exceed the assumptions of the 2022 AQMP.
The Project would not increase the frequency or severity of air quality violations; cause
or contribute to new violations; delay attainment of air quality standards or exceed the
assumptions of the 2022 AQMP; therefore, the Project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP and would therefore result in a less than
significant impact with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
2. Criteria Pollutants – Localized Construction Emissions (Threshold 5.2b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
A-24
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard during the
localized construction phase.
(a) Findings
When two or more dust-generating construction projects, which collectively would
disturb 15 acres or more and which would have demolition, excavation, or grading
activity scheduled to occur concurrently, the Project would prepare a Localized
Significance Threshold analysis to determine whether the established Localized
Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, and if so, then
modifications to construction equipment profiles, construction schedules, or additional
pollution reduction measures would be implemented to ensure the Project would not
result in a significant net increase of criteria pollutants. If LST thresholds were
exceeded, the Project would modify construction equipment profiles, schedules or
provide additional pollution reduction measures which would reduce air quality
emissions during construction. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the
Project would mitigate impacts regarding criteria pollutants for localized construction
emissions to a less than significant level:
MM AQ-14: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if two or more dust-
generating construction projects, which collectively will disturb 15 acres or
more and which have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled to
occur concurrently, a Localized Significance Threshold analysis shall be
prepared. If the LST analysis determines that the established Localized
Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, then
modifications to construction equipment profiles, modifications to construction
schedules, or additional pollution reduction measures shall be implemented.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not analyze localized construction phase emissions. SEIR No. 340
found that maximum daily NOx and CO emissions would be below the Localized
Significance Thresholds (LST), however maximum daily estimated PM10 and PM2.5
emissions would exceed the thresholds and indicate a potential for local particulate
matter concentrations in excess of the 24-hour standards at nearby receptors. The PM10
and PM2.5 emissions would occur during grading activities, particularly when
excavating for below-grade facilities and hauling material off-site. SEIR No. 340
concluded this impact regarding localized construction phase emissions of PM10 and
PM2.5 was significant and unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
The construction of the Project would result in air pollutant concentrations local to the
Project Site. Short-term local impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from on-site
emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were examined based on detailed air
pollutant dispersion modeling using the USEPA’s AMS/EPA Regulatory Model
(AERMOD). To provide a conservative analysis of potential exposure of construction-
related air pollutant emissions to offsite uses, the following worst-case assumptions
were included: (1) simultaneous construction of approximately sixteen 500-room hotel
A-25
developments, which includes all remaining 8,301 entitled hotel rooms within a 2-year
construction timeframe; (2) a conservative density input of approximately 277
rooms/acre, consistent with the density of the Disneyland Hotel which has the highest
density of all existing hotels at the Project Site; (3) demolition and site preparation
phases would be required for all hotel developments; and (4) the highest peak-day
emissions would occur at the same time across the approximately 16 hotel
developments.
Emissions from construction equipment were calculated based on offroad engines
complying with Tier 4 offroad engine standards under a mitigated condition and
without Tier 4 offroad engines under an unmitigated condition and assessed based on
the nearest sensitive receptor locations to the analyzed construction areas. Sensitive
receptors include residential areas, parks, schools, and hotels. The analysis also
accounts for dominant wind patterns, or atmospheric processes that disperse a pollutant
emitted by a source (in this case, construction equipment and disturbed soils). A
detailed analysis of the Project related localized daily construction emissions is
presented in Table 5.2-8 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The localized emissions for all
criteria pollutants would not exceed significance thresholds for CO, NO2, PM10 or
PM2.5 at the nearest sensitive receptor locations. The primary source of particulate
emissions is associated with dust and not vehicle exhaust. Dust-intensive construction
phases include demolition, excavation, and grading. These phases tend to be relatively
short in comparison to the total construction phase of individual projects. While the
construction of sixteen 500-room hotels would not exceed LSTs on an average
construction day which is an accepted methodology for modeling LSTs, to ensure that
peak days for multiple concurrent construction projects do not exceed established
LSTs, MM AQ-14 shall be implemented. With MM AQ-14 if two or more dust-
generating construction projects, which collectively would disturb 15 acres or more and
which would have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled to occur
concurrently, a Localized Significance Threshold analysis would be prepared. If the
LST analysis determines that the established Localized Significance Thresholds for
NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, then modifications to construction
equipment profiles, modifications to construction schedules, or additional pollution
reduction measures would be implemented. With implementation of MM AQ-14,
localized impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. For the reasons stated
above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding localized
significance thresholds with mitigation. This impact would be new when compared
with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, as that EIR did not analyze localized
significance thresholds. This impact would not be new and would be reduced when
compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
3. Sensitive Receptors (Threshold 5.2c)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
A-26
(a) Findings
When two or more dust-generating construction projects, which collectively would
disturb 15 acres or more and which would have demolition, excavation, or grading
activity scheduled to occur concurrently, the Project would prepare a Localized
Significance Threshold analysis to determine whether the established Localized
Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, and model
worst-case scenario for the simultaneous construction of all approved hotel rooms
within a two-year period to ensure the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollution concentrations. If LST thresholds were exceeded, the Project
would modify construction equipment profiles, schedules or provide additional
pollution reduction measures which would reduce air quality emissions during
construction. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would
mitigate impacts regarding exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations to a less than significant level:
MM AQ-14: (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort Project would not result in
exceedances of CO standards related to CO Hotspots and impacts related to toxic risk
would be less than significant with mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340,
construction- and operation-related emissions of TACs would be less than significant
with mitigation. Additionally, there would be no potential for a CO hotspot or exposure
of persons to CO in excess of SCAQMD criteria for CO ambient air quality.
Project Specific Conclusion
Construction Emissions Off-site Receptors – The analysis of localized air pollutant
concentrations for the Project demonstrates exposure of off-site receptors to localized
construction emissions would be less than significant with mitigation MM AQ-14
under the modeled worst-case scenario for the simultaneous construction of all
approved hotel rooms within a two-year period. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots – CO ambient air quality standards are currently in a state
of attainment and have not been exceeded for over a decade. The highest measured CO
concentration at the monitoring station is 2.4 ppm for the 1-hour concentration, which
is substantially below the AAQS of 20 ppm. The highest 8-hour measured
concentration is 1.7 ppm, which is also substantially below the AAQS of 9 ppm. With
increasing fuel efficiency associated with the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency
(CAFE) standards and the increased use of electric vehicles, emissions related to
vehicle trips from Project and non-Project related vehicles would likewise result in
emissions that would be less than those occurring today. The Project also would result
in a reduction in annual VMT due to the placement of parking closer to the I-5 thereby
reducing traffic along local roadways. Because CO concentrations from the previously
A-27
analyzed projects would result in less than significant impacts, emissions associated
with roadway vehicles would continue to decrease due to CAFE standards and the
adoption of electric vehicles, measured CO concentrations are a small fraction of the
AAQS, and the Project would not increase trips or VMT, the Project would likewise
not result in CO hotspots and would result in a less than significant impact.
Toxic Air Contaminants (Construction) – The Project’s construction activities
would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-
duty diesel equipment used for demolition, site preparation (e.g., excavation and
grading), paving, building construction, and other miscellaneous activities. To provide
an estimate of potential exposure to TACs, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
was prepared to determine whether local sensitive receptors would be exposed to
excessive acute, chronic and carcinogenic (cancer) risk from construction activities and
is included as Appendix C-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The HRA evaluated air
pollutant emissions associated with diesel exhaust from construction activities
occurring throughout the DRSP and ARSP development areas. A conservative analysis
was undertaken assuming that reductions for exhaust will not occur and the same rates
of exhaust emissions would occur over the entire 20-30-year construction period. The
CARB has enacted emissions reductions for offroad vehicles over the decades which
lead to substantial reductions in air pollutant emissions.
The results of the HRA indicate that the Project would result in construction emissions
that result in a cancer risk of 4 in a million and a chronic hazard index of less than 1.0
at the Maximum Exposed Impacted Residential Receiver (MEIR), which are below the
10 in a million cancer risk threshold and the chronic hazard index of 1.0 adopted by the
SCAQMD. Nearby hotels are not considered a sensitive receptor in regard to long-term
carcinogenic risk which is assessed over a period of years. The MEIR is the most
impacted individual residential receiver by the Project’s construction emissions. Other
analyzed receptors would experience less pollutant exposure and health risks. As such,
health risk impacts from construction of the Project would be under SCAQMD air
quality thresholds for both cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds. Sensitive receptors
near the Project Site would not be exposed to project-related vehicular exhaust that
would result in excessive cancer and noncancer risk. In conclusion, the health risk
impact associated with the Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required.
Toxic Air Contaminants (Operation) – Projects that may be long-term sources of
TACs are generally those with commercial or industrial stationary sources of TAC
emissions, such as manufacturing operations, gasoline stations, or those that attract
multiple sources of diesel engine-driven equipment (e.g., distribution centers, truck
stops, railroad yards, or bus stations). SEIR No. 340The Project would not involve air
pollutant emission sources beyond those analyzed in the previous EIRs and would not
result in development that is located closer to sensitive receptors. As discussed
previously, the development of hotel, parking facilities and theme park attractions
would not involve substantial sources of non-mobile emissions. These uses also would
not involve substantial TAC emissions. The proposed land uses would not emit
substantial levels of air pollution from onsite operations due to the nature of the
activities and consequently would not result in substantial offsite air pollutant exposure.
The Project would also be subject to AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information
A-28
and Assessment Act) which requires stationary sources of emissions to report the types
and quantities of air pollutants. In addition, the Project is also governed under
SCAQMD Rule 1041 which requires risk assessments for certain permits for TACs that
may affect human health. Because the Project would involve reallocation of existing
development approvals, no new or additional TAC emission sources would occur
beyond what was previously analyzed SEIR No. 340, and because the Project is
required to comply with applicable TAC emission limits and controls established by
the SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board, the Project would result in less than
significant impacts related to TACs.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.3)
1. Interference with Wildlife Movement or Native Nursery Sites (Threshold
5.3d)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would include regulations related to native and migratory birds, which are
protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game
Code Section 3503, which 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, and would ensure the Project would not
cause significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds. Specifically, Project
construction activities would occur between August 1st and January 31st to avoid the
bird nesting season, and if construction activities must occur during the bird nesting
season, pre-construction surveys and protocols would be implemented to ensure
protection of nesting birds. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the
Project would mitigate impacts regarding wildlife movement and native nursery sites
to a less than significant level:
MM BIO-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit,
or building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed
schedule for vegetation removal and building demolition activities shall be
submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal
shall take place between August 1 and January 31 to avoid the bird nesting
season. If this is not feasible, the property owner/developer shall implement
MM BIO-2. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.3-2)
A-29
MM BIO-2: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit or
building permit, whichever occurs first, and if Project demolition and/or
vegetation clearing must occur during the bird nesting season (February 1–
July 31), a pre-construction nesting bird survey of structures to be
demolished and/or vegetation to be removed shall be conducted by a
qualified Biologist no more than three days prior to such work occurring. If
the Biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent
to the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work shall be
allowed to proceed. The pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be
updated following any work stoppage of two weeks or longer.
If an active nest of a bird species protected under California Fish and Game
Code or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is identified within or immediately
adjacent to the construction area, and the Biologist determines that the nest
may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, the Biologist
shall delineate an appropriate no-impact buffer zone (at a minimum of 25
feet) around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the
nature of the construction activity. All nests and associated buffers shall be
mapped on the construction plans. The active nest shall be protected until
nesting activity has ended. The following restrictions to clearing and/or
construction activities shall be required until nest(s) are no longer active, as
determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established
within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 25–100 feet
for nesting birds and 300- to 500- feet for nesting raptors), unless otherwise
determined by a qualified Biologist; and (2) access shall be restricted within
the buffer of any active nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified
Biologist. Encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only
be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not
disturb the nest occupants. Once the qualified Biologist has determined that
fledglings have left the nest, there is no evidence of a second nesting
attempt, or the nest has failed, construction can proceed within the buffer
zone. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.3-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found The Disneyland Resort Project would have no impact related to
biological resources. SEIR No. 340 concluded that vegetation removal activities
associated with construction activities in the ARSP would have the potential to impact
nesting birds and raptors, which would result in a significant impact. The City
determined implementation of MM 5.3-1 and MM 5.3-2 regarding nesting birds would
reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Project Specific Conclusion
Wildlife movement corridors facilitate movement of species between large patches of
natural habitat. The Project Site and its surrounding area are located in an urbanized
setting and they do not connect any stands of natural habitat. There are no significant
biological resources within the Project Site. However, consistent with the findings in
A-30
SEIR No. 340, there are trees and other vegetation on the Project Site that would be
removed as part of the Project. This vegetation as well as structures on the Project Site
may be used for nesting by native and migratory birds, which are protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712) and California Fish
and Game Code Section 3503. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It
prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or
offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the
implementing regulations. With implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1
and MM BIO-2, below, potential impacts of the Project would be less than significant.
For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City
finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not
classify effects on nesting birds and raptors, but not new or substantially more severe
when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to biological resources.
(a) Findings
The Project as well as other cumulative projects in the area would be required to comply
with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations relating to biological resources
such as nesting birds that have potential to occur in the developed areas. The Project
would include regulations related to native and migratory birds including pre-
construction surveys and protocols, to ensure the Project would not cause significant
impacts to migratory or nesting birds. The following mitigation measures imposed
upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts regarding nesting birds to a less
than significant level:
MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Biological resources were not evaluated as part of EIR No. 311 and according to the
Initial Study, no significant impacts were identified. According to SEIR No. 340,
implementation of the ARSP was determined to not result in a cumulatively significant
impact to biological resources.
A-31
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site contains no suitable habitat for any special status plant or wildlife
species and no native vegetation types or communities occur. Additionally, the greater
vicinity is an urban, developed environment. The Project as well as other cumulative
projects in the area would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and
local regulations relating to biological resources such a nesting birds that have potential
to occur in the developed areas. Further, the Project and other cumulative projects
would be subject to existing and future enforcement by the appropriate regulatory
agencies. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2,
the Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore would
not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311,
which did not analyze impacts on nesting birds, but not new or substantially more
severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.4)
1. Archaeological Resources (Threshold 5.4b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
(a) Findings
The Project would include an on-site archaeologist to monitor during ground-disturbing
construction activities and develop an archaeological and human remains discovery
protocol in the event artifacts or human remains are uncovered on site, to prevent any
disturbances to the resources. In addition, the Project would conduct tribal consultation
and retain a qualified Native American tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring
during construction-related ground disturbance activities and to recover and catalogue
tribal resources as necessary, to ensure the Project would not create significant
archaeological impacts. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements2
imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts regarding archaeological resources
to a less than significant level:
MM CUL-1: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist
that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
2 A standard requirement is a federal, State, City, or local requirement that is required to be followed or
implemented regardless of a project impact.
A-32
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order
to establish procedures for archaeological monitoring, as well as for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts
are uncovered. Specific monitoring procedures will be established based
on review of site specific conditions, including presence of native soils,
anticipated construction activities, and nature of ground disturbance
including depth of excavation. If artifacts are uncovered and determined
to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration
and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall
be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction
of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during
grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present,
grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the
area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall
be submitted to the Planning and Building Department within ninety
days. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.13-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-1)
MM TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. Prior to the
issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause
excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the property
owner/developer or contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the
form of an executed Agreement to the City of Anaheim Planning and
Building Department that they have retained a qualified Native American
tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring during construction-related
ground disturbance activities and to recover and catalogue tribal resources
as necessary. The tribal monitor shall be from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The agreement shall
include (i) professional qualifications of Native American monitor; (ii)
detailed scope of services to be provided including but not limited to pre-
construction education, observation, evaluation, protection, salvage,
notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final
documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information;
(iv) communication protocols between Contractor and Monitor for
scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v) acknowledgment that if the
tribal monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated in
the agreement, property owner/developer or contractor as designee may
contract with another qualified tribal monitor acceptable to the City. The
selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to City acceptance
based on generally accepted professional qualifications and certifications,
as applicable. The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to
identify that third party tribal monitoring is required during excavation and
grading activities in accordance with the City-approved Agreement.
A-33
Contact information for approved tribal monitor shall be provided by the
contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting.
SR CUL-1: Before and during construction, if human remains are
discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin, and disposition pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 has occurred. (SEIR No 340, SR 5.4-1)
SR TCR-1: Prior to approval of any amendment to the ARSP or the City
of Anaheim General Plan, the project property owner/developer shall
coordinate with the City Planning Department to undergo a solicitation of
Native American consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California
Government Code, Section 65352.3). (SEIR No 340, SR 5.4-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded no impacts to cultural, historic, or prehistoric resources were
expected to occur from development of The Disneyland Resort Project; however, as
discussed above, mitigation was identified which reduced potential impacts on
unanticipated archaeological resources to less than significant levels. SEIR No. 340
found no archaeological resources were anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area;
however, as discussed above, implementation of identified mitigation measures would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Development History Report, prepared by South Environmental, dated August
2023 and included as Appendix E-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, included a review of
all building permits on file with the City of Anaheim and historic aerial photographs
and topographic maps of the Project Site. All seven properties reviewed appear to have
been originally developed as farmland during the late 19th century with development
of the first buildings/structures occurring between the 1950s and 1970s. Similarly, as
indicated in the Historic Resources Technical Report, Disneyland and The Disneyland
Resort have been disturbed over the last sixty years. The Project Site is predominately
developed in its current condition, and the Disney Properties currently containing
parking lots have been developed previously as noted in the South Environmental
report. No known archaeological resources are within the Project Site. Additionally, no
known archaeological resources are within one mile of the Project Site. The result of
the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted by the NAHC was negative.
There is the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources during the
Project’s grading and other ground-disturbing activities, which could result in a
potentially significant impact. Therefore, changes or alternations have been
incorporated into the Project in the form of MM CUL-1, which would reduce the
impact to less than significant. With implementation of MM CUL-1, impacts related
to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources would be reduced to less
than significant. Additionally, although not expected, the Project would comply with
A-34
SR CUL-1 requiring compliance with California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding the treatment
and disposition of human remains. Furthermore, as discussed below in Section M,
Tribal Cultural Resources, in order to minimize potential direct impacts to tribal
cultural resources, compliance with SR TCR-1 requiring Tribal Consultation, and
implementation of MM TCR-1 requiring Native American monitoring during earth-
moving and grading activities in native soil, would provide for appropriate protection
of tribal cultural resources that may be discovered during construction. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in
the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analyses in EIR No. 311
and SEIR No. 340.
2. Cumulative Impacts – Archaeological Resources
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to archaeological resources.
(a) Findings
As with the Project, testing and data recovery is standard practice at the City and is
routinely required of all projects prior to and during grading activities. Despite the site-
specific nature of cultural resources, the mitigation identified for use in the event that
unknown or undocumented resources are discovered, standard mitigation measures and
adherence to State requirements would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts,
such as implementation of an archaeological monitor and Native American tribal
monitor, in addition to discovery protocols, which aim to protect cultural resources
during ground disturbing activities. The following mitigation measures imposed upon
the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to archaeological resources to a
less than significant level:
MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort was not anticipated
to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. According to
SEIR No. 340, despite the site-specific nature of the resources, the mitigation identified
for use in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered would
reduce the significance level of potential cumulative impacts, and anticipated
development within the ARSP area would not contribute to a significant cumulative
impact.
A-35
Project Specific Conclusion
Although the Project—in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current
projects, and probable future projects in the City and the local area—has the potential
to yield archaeological resources, these potential project impacts would require
individual evaluation and mitigation, similar to MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1, as
appropriate. Mitigation with other projects would reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level. As with the Project, testing and data recovery is standard practice
at the City and is routinely required of projects prior to and during grading activities.
Despite the site-specific nature of cultural resources, the mitigation identified for use
in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered, standard
mitigation measures and adherence to State requirements would reduce the potential
for cumulative impacts. As a result, the Project would not have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to archaeological
resources or result in a significant cumulative loss in regional history or prehistory. For
the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds
that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation
regarding archaeological resources, which would not be new or substantially more
severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
E. ENERGY (Threshold 5.5)
1. Wasteful, Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources
(Threshold 5.5a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during construction or operation.
(a) Findings
The Project would include a series of energy, waste, water and transportation reduction
measures to ensure the Project would not result in significant energy consumption during
operations. The Project would implement measures aimed at reducing energy
emissions, such as a TDM Program to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion
and improve air quality during on-going Project operations, compliance with
applicable, energy efficiency requirements to minimize energy consumption from
water, electrical, and natural gas use, and participation in programs such as the
Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) system which minimize VMT emissions and
transportation fuel use. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements
imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts to energy resources to a less than
significant level:
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project
design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy
A-36
savings will also contribute to reduced operation-related air quality impacts.
These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in
building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper
sealing of buildings.
d. Use water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy
used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees
or participate in a joint development daycare center.
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is
demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability
of the equipment current at the time makes this installation
infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use
parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme
park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking
procedures set forth in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel
from idling engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)
MM ENE-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the
energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building
Energy Efficiency Standards current at the time of application by at least 10
percent. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
MM ENE-2: Prior to submittal of plans for electrical system improvements,
any new system improvements (e.g., substation, line connections), if
required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Electric Rates,
Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. Electrical Service Fees
and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the then
current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-2)
MM ENE-3: Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection,
the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs
which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water
heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a
program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.10-2)
MM ENE-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of
A-37
gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed
project to the extent feasible. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.14-2)
MM ENE-5: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property
owner/developer shall incorporate feasible renewable energy generation
measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited
to use of renewable biofuels, solar and small wind turbine sources on new
and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-4)
SR ENE-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for
review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2)
landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in
accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter
10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
SR ENE-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning
Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable
California Green Building Standards. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-2)
MM TRA-8: Transportation Demand Management Program
On-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips
to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of
both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility
Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is
recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR)
goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest
stay of 1.72 days.
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely
which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland
Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will
review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the
Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with
the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing
the effectiveness of these items, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
will select specific programs for implementation.
Objectives of the TDM program are:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by
guests.
• Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
A-38
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort
cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
• Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future
transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for
both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast
and guest trips are described below.
Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will
become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM
program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast
commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the
following:
• Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services may be provided to the cast.
• Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast
members who live in the same geographic areas and who could
rideshare to The Disneyland Resort.
• Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The
Disneyland Resort.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail)
passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite
sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to
The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
• Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided
for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial
incentives will be provided.
• Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local
shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel
to work by means other than the automobile.
• Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be
developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure
bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this
A-39
program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be
provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
• Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to
provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an
automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members
use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would
be able to have personal transportation in the event of special
circumstances.
• Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast
members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting
to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle,
or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member
who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event
of an emergency.
• Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective
employees within 20 miles.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an
incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative
transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest
employee commute trips.
• Work Schedule
o Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work
different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A
thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide
the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus
lessening peak hour congestion.
o Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review
the possibility of developing a "compressed work week"
program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily
shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help
eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be
generated daily by The Disneyland Resort Cast.
o Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members
in a wide variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and
professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at
home. Telecommuting will be encouraged on a limited basis as
operational needs allow.
• Work Environment/Facility Management
o Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a
parking management program that provides incentives to those
A-40
who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant
auto to travel to work.
o Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park
transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to
accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with
adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead
to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast
members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
o Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage
areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient
parking management for cast and guests.
o Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
o Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic
congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
• Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be
integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
o Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit.
Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $300
per month per employee contributions to employees who
vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or
express bus pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides
free OCTA passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for
other transit passes.
o Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast members
may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they
would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and
showers. Cast members may also receive a cash incentive for
reporting a bike or walk commute.
o Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be
offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
o Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of
Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or
vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast
members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction
programs.
• Guests
o Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated to
average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and
incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more
guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and
from The Disneyland Resort. The property owner/developer is
A-41
currently developing a list of potential programs and is working
with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of
convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing
materials for The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-
free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars
are not needed.
o Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary
entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from
moving or parked vehicles.
• Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the
general construction contractors regarding the coordination of
rideshare services for construction employees provided by the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-
15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-
9, and MM 5.14-23)
MM TRA-9: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle
program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort,
including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this
measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
MM UTIL-16: The property owner/developer shall provide Anaheim
Public Utilities Department electrical engineering staff with its forecasted
electric demand and schedules to allow for sufficient lead time for planning,
design, engineering, materials procurement, and construction of new
electrical facilities, if required, to accommodate the Project’s additional or
modified electrical demand. Forecasts must be at least two to five years:
e.g., two years for the construction of up to two line extensions and five
years for the construction of three line extensions or a new substation.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy
efficiency.
Project Specific Conclusion
Construction Energy Use – Project construction would require the use of construction
equipment for grading, hauling and building activities. Construction would also include
the vehicles of construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project Site
and on-road haul trucks for the export of materials from Project Site clearing and
demolition and the export and import of soil for grading.
A-42
Detailed calculations are provided in the CalEEMod construction output files included
in Appendix C of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Natural gas consumption during Project
construction would be minimal or nonexistent since energy use from construction
activities is overwhelmingly powered by gasoline and diesel fuels for offroad and
onroad vehicles. Electricity may be used from electrical outlets or power poles during
construction. The exact amount of electricity to be consumed during construction is
unknown and not included within this estimate. As shown in Table 5.5-1 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the Project would consume a total of 2,436,639 gallons of diesel fuel
and 2,322,854 gallons of gasoline during construction. The Project would transfer
previously approved square footage and hotel rooms to other Disney Properties within
the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project would not create a new impact on energy
consumption during construction.
Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would
not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Offroad diesel regulations also
limit idling which reduces fuel consumption and offroad vehicles are also required to
register with CARB. Furthermore, there are no unusual Project characteristics that
would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient
than comparable equipment at construction sites in other parts of the State. Energy used
in the construction of the Project would enable the development of buildings that meet
the latest energy efficiency standards, as detailed in California’s Title 24 building
standards. Additionally, implementation of the Project would reallocate approved
development square footage throughout the Project Site, and no new uses are proposed.
Therefore, the proposed construction activities associated with the Project would not
result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption and a less than
significant impact would occur.
Operations Phase Energy Use – Energy consumption associated with the operations
phase of the Project consists of electricity for lighting and electronic devices, natural
gas for space heating and cooking needs, and transportation fuels used by employees
and visitors. Electricity and natural gas consumption estimates were calculated by the
CalEEMod model, included in Appendix E of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
MM TRA-8 was incorporated into the model through the inclusion of specific
CAPCOA measures and MM ENE-1 was incorporated into the modeling because the
energy calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future
requirements of MM ENE-1. All other previously approved mitigation measures were
not incorporated into the model, as they are already represented in the energy, waste,
and water inputs. These include MMs ENE-1 through MM ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM
AQ-10 and MM AQ-11, MM TRA-9, MM UTIL-16, and SR ENE-1 through SR
ENE-2. CalEEMod automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction
measures as ‘mitigation’, and therefore, outputs reflect the incorporation of these
reduction measures in the results for ‘mitigated emissions.’
Calculations of transportation-related fuel consumption associated with Project-
generated traffic would be approximately 757,406 gallons of diesel fuel per year and
6,321,685 gallons of gasoline per year, as shown in Table 5.5-2 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR. Fuel consumption calculations under No Project conditions are estimated at
758,568 gallons of diesel fuel per year and 6,331,389 gallons of gasoline per year. The
A-43
Project would result in a slight reduction in fuel consumption compared to the No
Project condition due to the reduction in VMT associated with locating parking
infrastructure closer to the I-5 Freeway. The Project would also continue to use
pedestrian corridors to connect hotel uses with theme park uses to promote pedestrian
rather than automobile trips. As such, the Project would result in a reduction in
transportation energy consumption and a decrease in reliance on fossil fuels.
The Project’s individual development projects would be subject to the applicable
energy standards in effect at the time of such development. The Project would promote
building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency standards (Title
24 and CALGreen). As shown in Table 5.5-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project
would result in natural gas usage of 165,508,413 kilo-British thermal unit (kBTU) per
year for heating needs. Electricity consumed is estimated to be 402,005,865 kilowatts
per year (kWh/yr). These energy estimates are based on an exceedance of 2019 Title
24 standards by 10%, as required by MM ENE-1, which was incorporated into the
CalEEMod model through CAPCOA measure E-1.
The Project would involve development of buildings that comply with the latest energy
efficiency standards adopted by the State of California over the entire development
period, implement practices that result in reductions in VMT and associated fuel use,
and develop pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Additionally, the Project’s energy
consumption, as detailed in Table 5.5-3, Energy from Utilities, of the Draft Subsequent
EIR was quantified under the assumption that 20% of all future parking stalls developed
as part of the Project would contain EV charging, which is consistent with future ICC
Building Code requirements. This quantification conservatively assumes that all EV
chargers would be fully utilized throughout the day, even though it is highly likely that
they would only be utilized intermittently throughout the day as charging would halt
once guests’ vehicles are fully charged.
There are no new net impacts associated with energy as a result of the Project;
consequently, no new mitigation is required. However, mitigation measures that are
already applicable to the Project such as those identified within EIR No. 311 and Draft
Subsequent EIR No 340 would continue to apply. These measures would result in a
reduction of energy consumption with the Project. Accordingly, the Project would not
create a new impact on energy consumption. Further, in addition to regulatory
requirements, the Project would implement a number of energy efficiency measures
detailed in Section 5.5.5, Mitigation Program, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, including
MMs ENE-1 through ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM UTIL-16, MM AQ-10 and
MM AQ-11.
Ultimately, as shown above, the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful and
unnecessary consumption of energy and a less than significant impact with mitigation
would occur. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will
be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-44
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.
2. Conflict with State or Local Energy Plan (Threshold 5.5b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
(a) Findings
The Project would include multiple transit options, a TDM Program to minimize cast
vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality during on-going Project
operations; and participation in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the ART system to
minimize VMT emissions and energy efficiency standards to ensure the Project would
not conflict with any plans related to energy efficiency. The following mitigation
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts to the potential
conflict with a state or local energy plan to a less than significant level:
MM ENE-1, MM TRA-8 and MM TRA-9 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy
efficiency.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would be required to comply with the State of California’s Title 24
Building Standards. The latest building standards incorporate the California Energy
Commission’s building energy efficiency standards which would reduce energy
consumption compared to the existing Title 24 Building Standards. Additionally, the
Project would comply with relevant goals within the General Plan’s Green Element
and the Anaheim Public Utilities’ Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
As detailed in MM TRA-9, the Project would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips
because the Project, as with The Anaheim Resort, is served by the Anaheim Resort
Transportation system, which provides shuttle service access to a variety of Resort
destinations and uses and the Anaheim Amtrak/Metrolink Station. In addition to access
to these transit options, Disney’s current TDM program, detailed in MM TRA-8, also
requires continued provision of bicycle parking and amenities; an online ride-matching
and carpool/vanpool program; guaranteed trip return in the event of a personal
emergency, unplanned business-related activity, or inclement weather for cyclists or
walkers; incentives for using alternative travel modes; flex schedule and
telecommuting; electric vehicle parking and incentives; shuttle services; onsite electric
utility carts, and promotions, marketing, and education of the programs and incentives.
A-45
This would lead to a decrease in overall per capita energy consumption and a reduction
in the reliance on fossil fuel usage.
Additionally, the Project would develop 20% of all future parking stalls as EV charging
stalls, which supports the use of electric vehicles and the State of California’s
Advanced Clean Cars II rule that phases out the sale of fossil fueled cars. EVs also have
greater fuel efficiency as compared to gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles which
promotes energy efficiency. In addition, electricity used by EVs will be supported by
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards which mandates that utilities transition to
60% renewable energy sources by 2030 and 100% renewable energy by the year 2045.
The Project also would comply with MM ENE-1, which would require energy
efficiency of each building to exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-residential Buildings by at least 10 percent.
With implementation of MM ENE-1, MM TRA-8 and MM TRA-9 that related to
Disney’s TDM Program and requiring participation in a clean fuel shuttle program, this
potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City
finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to energy.
(a) Findings
Other projects in the City would also comply with energy efficiency regulations, and
all future proposed projects would be subject to separate impact analyses and subject
to mitigation to reduce potential impacts, as appropriate. In addition, the Project would
comply with the latest State of California Title 24 energy efficiency standards through
implementation of mitigation to reduce on-site energy use, would provide infill
development close to mass transit to limit reliance on individual vehicles, would
provide local employment opportunities which would decrease VMT and
transportation fuel use, and would promote pedestrian-oriented development to
complementary commercial uses and proximity to theme parks to ensure the Project
would not create a significant energy impact, as outlined in further detail above. The
following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts
related to Energy to a less than significant level:
MM AQ-10, MM AQ-11, MM ENE-1 through MM ENE-5, MM TRA-8,
MM TRA-9, and MM UTIL-16 (see above).
A-46
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed impacts related to energy
efficiency.
Project Specific Conclusion
The federal and State governments have enacted legislation to improve energy
efficiency in vehicles, equipment, and appliances; to reduce vehicle miles traveled; and
to develop alternative fuels or energy sources. Utility companies are also increasing
their renewable energy sources to meet the RPS mandates. California’s renewable
energy commitments also support a recent increasing trend in the purchase of electric
and hydrogen fueled vehicles.
As stated under Threshold 5.5-1, on-site energy use would be reduced through
compliance with Title 24 Building Standards and detailed in MM ENE-1 and MM
UTIL-16 and other energy conservation programs and policies. Thus, the Project
would not result in inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Transportation energy use would decrease with implementation of the Project.
Transportation fuels are anticipated to transition from gasoline and diesel to electricity
with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20, which bans the sale of new
gasoline fueled vehicles by the year 2035. Continued electrification of transportation
would result in a reduction in fossil fuel use (diesel and gasoline) and an integration of
electricity generation progressively fueled by carbon neutral renewable sources. As
such, it is anticipated that cumulative transportation energy usage occurring in the near
future and at Project buildout would continue to be progressively more efficient and
less reliant on fossil fuels.
As older appliances, equipment, and vehicles are replaced with newer energy efficient
ones, total energy use is expected to decrease over time. All future proposed projects
would be subject to separate impact analyses and would be subject to mitigation to
reduce potential impacts, as appropriate. Thus, energy use from the Project and
cumulative projects would not represent a substantial demand for energy with
mitigation and would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary energy use.
In addition, as stated under Threshold 5.5-2, because the Project would comply with
the latest State of California energy efficiency standards through implementation of
mitigation, would provide infill development close to mass transit, would provide local
employment opportunities which would decrease VMT and transportation fuel use, and
would promote pedestrian-oriented development to complementary commercial uses
and proximity to theme parks, in compliance with MM ENE-1 through MM ENE-5,
MM TRA-8, MM TRA-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-11 and MM UTIL-16, the Project
would not conflict with or obstruct a State or the City of Anaheim plan, the APU’s
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, or policy for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City
A-47
finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the energy impacts will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311
and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed energy efficiency.
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Threshold 5.6)
1. Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Shaking (Thresholds 5.6a(i) and
5.6a(ii))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking.
(a) Findings
The Project would require review and approval of appropriate geotechnical reports to
ensure the site is designed in accordance with engineering, fire, seismic, and safety
design recommendations which would prevent/reduce damage in the event of seismic
shaking. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate
potential impacts related to earthquake fault zones and seismic shaking to a less than
significant level:
MM GEO-1: Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division, for review and approval a thorough soils
and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading
and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. The
report shall comply with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.6-1)
MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation
design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer,
based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer. (EIR No. 311, MM
3.6-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-1)
MM GEO-3: Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer
to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for
review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation
excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the
footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-2)
A-48
MM GEO-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building
Department, Building Services Division for review and approval showing
that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and
designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California
Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-4;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-3)
MM GEO-5: Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in
areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans
that all grading operations shall be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-6)
SR GEO-1: Ongoing during grading activities, all grading operations will
be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17,
Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the
California Building Code. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.5-1)
MM PS-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department as being in conformance
with the California Fire Code. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-12)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that the potential for damage from ground-shaking would not
be unusually severe compared to general conditions in Southern California and would
be less than significant with mitigation. Similarly, ground rupture from fault movement
was not expected and buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project would be in
compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act. SEIR No. 340 found that
impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant
and concluded that, while the ARSP area would be exposed to seismic ground shaking,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region in the
influence area of several fault systems. However, the Project Site does not occur within
the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the State of California in the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS 2021). Consistent with the findings
of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, impacts related to exposure of people or structures
to seismic-related hazards would be potentially significant. Future development
associated with the Project would comply with SR GEO-1 requiring all grading
operations to be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title
17, Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the CBC (City
of Anaheim 2022). As such, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause
A-49
substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong
seismic ground shaking. Additionally, potential impacts associated with exposure to
these hazards would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of
the following mitigation measures: MM GEO-1 requiring the property
owner/developer to submit for review and approval a thorough soils and geological
report for the area to be graded; MM PS-10 requiring the property owner/developer to
coordinate emergency evacuation training with the Fire Department for hotel staff and
cast members; and MMs GEO-2 through MM GEO-5 requiring adherence to
measures requiring detailed foundation design, adherence to seismic standards, and
preparation of a report to analyze foundation excavations. For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
2. Soil Erosion and Loss of Topsoil (Threshold 5.6b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil.
(a) Findings
The Project would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), compliance with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and standard erosion control
practices to prevent run-off, provide long-term operation and maintenance
requirements for treatment control, and minimize construction impacts related to
erosion. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate
potential impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil to a less than significant
level:
SR HWQ-1: Development projects that will result in soil disturbance of
one (1) or more acres of land shall comply with the State’s Construction
General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and implementing a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of preliminary or
precise grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide the
City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB
by providing a copy of the NOI invoice and the assigned Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) No. for the project. The SWPPP shall include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net
sediment load increase in storm water discharges relative to preconstruction
levels and shall prohibit during the construction period discharges of storm
water or non-storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an
exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin
Plan. The BMPs shall address erosion control, sediment control, wind
A-50
erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste
management and materials pollution control during all phases of
construction, including a sampling and analysis plan for sediment and non-
visible storm water pollutants. The property owner/developer shall be
responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.8-1)
SR HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of the precise grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs)
for review and approval by the Public Works, Development Services. The
WQMP shall identify permanent site design, source control and treatment
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to
control predictable pollutant runoff. The WQMP shall also describe the
long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control
BMPs and the mechanism for funding the BMPs. The WQMP shall be
recorded against the property to ensure long-term compliance. (SEIR
No. 340, SR 5.8-2)
MM GEO-6: Ongoing during grading activities, the property
owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes
and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Department, Building Services Division. (SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.5-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, the potential for erosion was not significant; however,
potential short-term impacts to the storm drains from silt in the runoff from the site
would be less than significant with mitigation. SEIR No. 340 concluded that impacts
related to erosion or loss of topsoil during demolition and/or construction activities
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project has the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil during
construction and operations. Project construction would expose soils on the Project
Site, which could result in increased soil erosion and the loss of topsoil if not
implemented consistent with regulatory requirements. All construction activities must
be conducted in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
(Order No 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), adopted by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on July 17, 2012. In compliance with the NPDES
permit for the Disney Properties, erosion potential during construction of the Project
would be managed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented on the
Project Site as part of a SWPPP during construction activities in accordance with
NPDES requirements. Compliance with SR HWQ-1 and SR HWQ-2, detailed in
Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, requiring
preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP and compliance with the NPDES, and
A-51
implementation of MM GEO-6 related to erosion control standard practices would
minimize construction impacts from continued development on the Project Site through
implementation of BMPs.
Also, once built, the Project may result in a minor increase in impervious surface
coverage on the Project Site, which could lead to erosion and loss of topsoil if
stormwater is not conveyed and dissipated appropriately. The Disneyland Resort
Master Water Quality Management Plan (Master WQMP) was prepared for The
Disneyland Resort Project by LaRoc Environmental (2014) and included as Appendix
H-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, covers the Disney Properties, and would be
applicable to the Project. The Master WQMP describes structural source control BMPs
to achieve long-term water quality protection from potential degradation by the Project.
With implementation of a SWPPP during construction as well as construction and
maintenance of the BMPs specified in Master WQMP for The Disneyland Resort,
impacts related to erosion would be less than significant with mitigation. For the
reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that,
with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
3. Expansive Soils (Threshold 5.6d)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would require the property owner/developer to submit for review and
approval geotechnical reports with appropriate geotechnical recommendations to
ensure the site is designed in accordance with engineering and safety design
recommendations which would prevent/reduce damage in the event expansive soils
occur. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project mitigate potential
impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level:
MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-6 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly address the topic of expansive soils within The Disneyland
Resort. As noted in SEIR No. 340, expansive soils are known to exist in the ARSP area;
however, impacts were less than significant with mitigation.
A-52
Project Specific Conclusion
Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases; the
shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. According to EIR No
330 prepared for the Anaheim General Plan Update, expansive soils in the City range
from low to high in expansion potential; therefore, there is potential for expansive soils
be encountered on the Project Site. To mitigate potential impacts, the Project would
include the implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-6 requiring the
property owner/developer to submit for review and approval geotechnical reports with
recommendations. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not
address expansive soils. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe
when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
4. Paleontological Resources (Threshold 5.6f)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
(a) Findings
The Project would require the retention qualified paleontologist prior to the initiation
of grading activities which would provide proper discovery protocol and ensure the
Project would not destroy any paleontological resources during construction. The
following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential
impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level:
MM GEO-7: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist
meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards that has
been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in
order to establish procedures for paleontological monitoring, as well
as for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially
significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If fossils are
uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological monitor
shall administer appropriate actions based on SVP protocols3.
3 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), Guidelines from the Ethics Education Committee for
Collecting, Documenting and Curating Fossils (last updated 2021). https://vertpaleo.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-from-the-Ethics-Education-Committee.pdf (accessed August
18, 2023).
A-53
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process
shall be reposited in an appropriate educational or research
institution. Preparation, storage and curation shall be funded by the
property owner/developer.
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the
direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered
during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not
present, grading shall be diverted around the discovery by a buffer
of at least 50 feet. Construction shall not resume until the
paleontological monitor has given the order to proceed in that
location once a determination on the significance of the fossil
discovery has been made.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens
shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the
paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be
submitted. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.13-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found that potential impacts related to prehistoric resources would be less
than significant with mitigation. SEIR No. 340 also concluded that impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
A paleontological records search and literature review was conducted by Dr. Samuel
A. McLeod at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, dated June 10,
2021 and included as Appendix F of the Draft Subsequent EIR, which indicates there
are no fossil localities that lie directly within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project
would not impact known paleontological resources; however, there are Rancholabrean
fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits (fossil-bearing unit Qyf)
that occur in the Project Site, either at the surface or at depth.
All data considered, the Project would not impact known paleontological resources;
however, surface sediments at and surrounding the Project Site consist of Alluvium
(Pleistocene) to unanticipated formations (Pleistocene, silty sandstones; sandy silt shot
through with caliche. These sediments have high paleontological sensitivity due to their
older age and fossils recorded from these units in other locations within the County).
Deep excavation that involves disturbance of native soils could result in the disturbance
and/or destruction of paleontological resources that may be present in deeper
Pleistocene alluvial deposits that underlie the Project Site. Due to the potential to
impact unanticipated fossil discoveries, potential impacts associated with construction
would be significant. However, implementation of MM GEO-7 requiring the retention
of a qualified paleontologist prior to the initiation of grading activities would reduce
this potential impact to a less than significant level. For the reasons stated above and
A-54
as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to geology and soils.
(a) Findings
The Project and any other development projects would be required to comply with the
applicable State and local agency grading manuals and ordinances. As with the Project,
future development would also be required to have site-specific geotechnical
investigations to identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide
recommendations for engineering design and construction to ensure the structural
integrity of the proposed development and prevent/reduce potential geological hazards
on-site. The Project would require a geotechnical report, compliance with applicable
seismic design criteria in the CBC and the City’s grading regulations, and retention of
a qualified paleontologist to ensure proper discovery protocol during construction
activities, which would result in less than significant geology and soils impact. The
following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts
related to geology and soils to a less than significant level:
MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-7 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311 geologic and seismic impacts associated with
implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project in association with surrounding
development were not considered cumulatively significant with implementation of
mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP was determined
to not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to geotechnical and soil
resources.
Project Specific Conclusion
Geology and soils impacts are generally site-specific and there is typically little, if any,
cumulative relationship between the development of a project and development within
a larger cumulative area (e.g., city-wide development). However, while development
of the Project and future development in the City may expose more persons to seismic
hazards, compliance with all requirements and standards for seismic activity would
reduce the potential impacts.
A-55
The Project and any other development projects would be required to comply with the
applicable State and local agency grading manuals and ordinances. As with the Project,
future development would also be required to have site-specific geotechnical
investigations to identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and provide
recommendations for engineering design and construction to ensure the structural
integrity of proposed development. These recommendations would be incorporated
into project design. Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the
applicable geotechnical investigation would prevent cumulatively significant hazards
associated with seismic conditions, unstable soils, lateral spreading, liquefaction, soil
collapse, expansive soil, soil erosion, and other geologic issues. Therefore, the Project’s
contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable and the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact with
implementation of MM GEO-1 through MM GEO-6 and compliance with applicable
seismic design criteria in the CBC and the City’s grading regulations.
It is likely that most, if not all, of the cumulative projects would result in native ground
disturbance that could encounter and affect paleontological resources. During each
projects’ entitlement process, it is the responsibility of the CEQA Lead Agency
reviewing each of the cumulative projects to identify potentially significant impacts,
including potential paleontological resource impacts, and to require mitigation
measures if needed, such as paleontological resources if appropriate; therefore, the
Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and the Project would
not create a significant cumulative impact with implementation of MM GEO-7. For
the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds
that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (Threshold 5.7)
1. Conflict with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Plan, Policy or Regulation
(Threshold 5.7b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas
emissions.
(a) Findings
The Project would include TDM strategies and other energy efficiency and
conservation measures which would minimize energy usage and VMT, and reduce
vehicle emissions and traffic congestion to ensure the Project would not conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation governing GHGs. The following mitigation
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts regarding
A-56
potential conflicts with an applicable GHG plan, policy or regulation to a less than
significant level:
MM AQ-4: Ongoing during project operation, the following will be
achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of
the out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG
VMT reduction targets have been met through other means. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.4-6)
MM AQ-8: Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the east and west
public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District;
ongoing during project operation, all public day-use parking facilities, not
including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a
crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility
level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West
public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District
will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist
speed parking procedures:
1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic
flows on each facility level.
2. Speed ramps which will take cars directly to the level that has
available spaces, thus eliminating circulation movement and time
involved with hunting for a space. The speed parking striping and
procedures currently used at the Disneyland theme park parking lot
will be adapted to use within the parking structures and will be
designed to safely park 60 cars per minute. (Refer to The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.)
3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and
enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a
standard garage, which tends to slow drivers. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.4-5)
MM AQ-9: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer
will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for all project employees. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.4-8)
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project
design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy
savings will also contribute to reduced operation-related air quality impacts.
These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
A-57
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in
building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper
sealing of buildings.
d. Use water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy
used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees
or participate in a joint development daycare center.
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is
demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability
of the equipment current at the time makes this installation
infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use
parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme
park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking
procedures set forth in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel
from idling engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)
MM TRA-8: Transportation Demand Management Program
On-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips
to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of
both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility
Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is
recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR)
goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest
stay of 1.72 days.
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely
which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland
Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will
review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the
Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with
the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing
the effectiveness of these items, Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. will
select specific programs for implementation.
Objectives of the TDM program are:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by
guests.
• Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
A-58
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort
cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
• Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future
transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for
both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast
and guest trips are described below.
Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will
become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM
program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast
commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the
following:
• Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services may be provided to the cast.
• Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast
members who live in the same geographic areas and who could
rideshare to The Disneyland Resort.
• Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The
Disneyland Resort.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail)
passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite
sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to
The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
• Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided
for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial
incentives will be provided.
• Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local
shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel
to work by means other than the automobile.
• Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be
developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure
bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this
A-59
program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be
provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
• Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to
provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an
automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members
use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would
be able to have personal transportation in the event of special
circumstances.
• Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast
members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting
to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle,
or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member
who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event
of an emergency.
• Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective
employees within 20 miles.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an
incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative
transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest
employee commute trips.
• Work Schedule
o Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work
different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A
thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide
the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus
lessening peak hour congestion.
o Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review
the possibility of developing a "compressed work week"
program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily
shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help
eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be
generated daily by The Disneyland Resort Cast.
o Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members
in a wide variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and
professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at
home. Telecommuting will be encouraged on a limited basis as
operational needs allow.
• Work Environment/Facility Management
o Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a
parking management program that provides incentives to those
who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant
auto to travel to work.
A-60
o Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park
transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to
accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with
adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead
to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast
members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
o Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage
areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient
parking management for cast and guests.
o Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
o Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic
congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
• Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be
integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
o Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit.
Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $300 per
month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or
use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus
pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA
passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit
passes.
o Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast members
may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they
would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and
showers. Cast members may also receive a cash incentive for
reporting a bike or walk commute.
o Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be
offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
o Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of
Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or
vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast
members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction
programs.
• Guests
o Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated to
average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and
incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more
guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and
from The Disneyland Resort. The property owner/developer is
currently developing a list of potential programs and is working
with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of
convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing
A-61
materials for The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-
free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars
are not needed.
o Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary
entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from
moving or parked vehicles.
• Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the
general construction contractors regarding the coordination of
rideshare services for construction employees provided by the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-
15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-
9, and MM 5.14-23)
MM TRA-9: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle
program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort,
including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this
measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required
in 1993. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would not conflict with
applicable plans, policies or regulations; however, the magnitude of the increase in
GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact regarding
GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
There are numerous State plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions including AB 32, which aims to reduce GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 20204 and the 2022 Scoping Plan, which aims to implement the
reduction target of adopted under SB 32 and seeks to reduce GHG emissions through
a number of measures. Those that are applicable to the Project include the development
of pedestrian infrastructure which promotes non-automobile transportation options,
mass transit promotion from integration of shuttles with hotels, energy efficient
buildings, reduction of VMT by providing local employment opportunities, supporting
California’s EV mandate by providing EV chargers, onsite employee EV usage, onsite
cafeterias, support for renewable energy generation, Transportation Demand
Management measures, as well as other energy efficiency and conservation measures.
The Project would develop integrated theme park and hotel uses which intertwine these
4 The initial target date of 2020 has passed, but remains the initial target of AB 32 and is followed-
up by other identified targets so remains relevant.
A-62
uses with interesting and vibrant thematic features that would promote pedestrian travel
from the Project’s different land uses. In addition, the Project would locate parking
closer to the I-5 which would reduce the VMT and associated GHG emissions. Disney
would continue its existing practice of transporting guests from parking facilities by
tram or shuttle where appropriate. This is consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s goal
of using public transit, promoting nonvehicular forms of transportation, and reduction
in traffic congestion which reduces air pollutant emissions. Thus, the Project is
consistent with AB 32 and the associated Scoping Plan.
Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB
1493) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard are being implemented at the statewide level;
therefore, compliance at the Specific Plan level is not addressed. Therefore, the Project
does not conflict with those plans and regulations.
At a regional level, SCAG has adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which centers on maintaining
and better managing the existing transportation network while expanding mobility
choices. The components applicable to the Project include Complete Streets and Transit
Backbone. The Complete Streets component seeks to increase mobility choices, reduce
traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and meet greenhouse gas reduction targets by
creating streets that are safe and inviting to all roadway users. The Project seeks to
increase pedestrian activity and travel through the integration of uses along travel
corridors from hotels and theme parks. This would reduce the need for vehicular travel
and emissions from automobile exhaust and would indirectly reduce vehicle exhaust
associated with congestion along local roadways near the Project Site. Project
implementation would also reduce VMT related to Project design, TDM, and providing
local employment opportunities. The Project would also be consistent with the goals
within the Transit Backbone component of the Plan’s Core Vision which seeks to
expand the transit network and foster development in transit-oriented communities to
meet the Plan’s mobility and sustainability goals while continuing to grow the regional
economy. The Project is supported by a variety of transit opportunities. These transit
opportunities include but are not limited to ridesharing, vanpooling, transit passes,
commuter bus, shuttle services, bicycling, Guaranteed Ride Home, and Target
Reduction of Longest Commute Trip, in addition to financial incentives offered by The
Disneyland Resort TDM program.
The Green Element of the City’s General Plan describes the goals to reduce emissions,
and the Project’s implementation of TDM strategies through implementation of MM
AQ-4, MM AQ-8, MM AQ-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-11, MM TRA-8, and MM
TRA-9 would reduce regional VMT to a less than significant level; therefore, with this
mitigation the Project would be consistent with the goals outlined in the City of
Anaheim’s General Plan Green Element. Implementation of these measures would
reduce construction-worker vehicle miles as well, further reducing the impact.
Additionally, the purpose of the Project is to provide flexibility in land use planning
such that integration of hotel and theme park uses enhances pedestrian travel. The
Project supports the City’s Green Element by enhancing pedestrian travel which would
reduce vehicle trip generation and, vehicular traffic and exhaust emissions along local
roadways, and utilize land planning and urban design for mixed-uses through the
integration of hotel and theme park uses, while providing pedestrian amenities.
A-63
Encouragement of pedestrian travel would reduce both air pollutant and GHG
emissions from vehicle trips as well as emissions related to roadway congestion.
Because the Project is consistent with the emission reduction goals and legislation
established by both the City and the State of California, the Project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of State, regional, or local agencies with
implementation of mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not
address GHG emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe
when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Threshold 5.8)
1. Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 5.8a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
(a) Findings
The Project would be subject to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations,
including Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the City and CalOSHA
requirements, proper transport, use, storage, and disposal according to applicable local,
State, and/or federal regulations, and implementation of standard requirements which
would govern the use and handling of these common hazardous materials and ensure
the Project would not result in significant hazardous impacts during construction and
operations. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements imposed
upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts regarding the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials to a less than significant level:
SR HAZ-1: Ongoing during Project construction, all construction
activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and
installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with all
CalOSHA standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect
worker health and safety. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-1)
SR HAZ-2: Ongoing during Project implementation, the removal and
disposal of any lead-based paint (LBP) encountered on site during Project
implementation shall be performed by an LBP Abatement Contractor that
is licensed and registered in California pursuant to California Code of
Regulations Title 17. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-2)
SR HAZ-3: Ongoing during Project construction and operations, activities
at the Project Site shall comply with existing federal, State, and local
regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and
transport. All on-site generated waste that meets hazardous waste criteria
A-64
shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with
the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and in a manner to the
satisfaction of the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), as
applicable.
All transport and transfer of hazardous materials shall be performed by a
licensed hazardous waste hauler in compliance with all applicable State and
federal requirements, including U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations under Title 49 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and
Title 40, Section 263 (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) standards; and Division of Occupational Safety
and Healthy (Cal/OSHA) standards. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.7-3)
SR HAZ-4: Ongoing during Project construction and operations, all
construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing
facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in
compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 1403 requiring a survey for and proper abatement of asbestos-
containing materials prior to construction.
MM HAZ-2: Ongoing during demolition and construction, in the event that
hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation
or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the
identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and
disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous
Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter
6.5), according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code,
Title 30, Chapter 22. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-10; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-6)
MM HAZ- 5: Prior to the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs),
the property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous
Materials Management section of the Fire Department for removal of such
tanks. During removal of the underground storage tank, a representative
from the Hazardous Materials Section (HMS) of the Fire Department shall
be onsite to direct soil sampling. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-3; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.7-2)
MM HAZ-6: Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of
surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage
tanks (USTs), conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall
be overseen by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB) and witnessed by Anaheim Fire Department/Hazardous
Material Management Section (HMS). Information on subsurface
contamination from an underground storage tank shall be provided to the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a
copy to Planning & Building. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-4; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.7-3)
A-65
MM HAZ-7: Prior to issuance of each demolition permit, a hazardous
building material survey shall be conducted to verify the absence of
hazardous building materials and, if needed, future abatement by a
California-licensed contractor, and/or removal and disposal in accordance
with federal, state, and local transportation and disposal regulations.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that impacts associated with the potential release of hazardous
materials would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with
implementation of mitigation, which required expansion of compliance efforts for the
utilization of hazardous materials. During preparation of the Initial Study for SEIR No.
340, the City determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and no further analysis of this
issue was presented in SEIR No. 340.
Project Specific Conclusion
Construction – Project construction activities would involve the use and handling of
common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, or other
liquids associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. The
on-site temporary handling, storage, and usage of these materials would be subject to
applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, including Best Management
Practices (BMPs) required by the City and CalOSHA requirements, as specified in
SR HAZ-1. Any hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would
be transported, used, stored, and disposed of according to applicable local, State, and/or
federal regulations, as specified in SR HAZ-2, SR HAZ-3, and SR HAZ-4. With
implementation of these standard requirements and MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-5, MM
HAZ-6, and MM HAZ-7, construction impacts related to this threshold would be
reduced to less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that all reasonable and feasible mitigation
measures will be implemented and will mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.
Operations – Similar to the existing conditions within the Project Site, Project
operations would involve transport, storage, and handling of materials such as
commercial cleansers, solvents, and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints,
and landscape fertilizers/pesticides. The Project Site would continue to include on-site
gasoline fueling stations associated with back-of-house uses, generators, and utilities.
The Project proposes to continue to operate similar to existing and approved conditions.
All anticipated future uses would be similar to existing uses, and potential impacts
associated with the handling, transport, and use of hazardous materials would be
reduced to less than significant levels through continued compliance with existing
federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal,
and transport as outlined in SR HAZ-3. For the reasons stated above and as discussed
in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-66
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact
analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous
materials into the environment would occur.
2. Release of Hazardous Materials (Threshold 5.8b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would be subject to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations,
including BMPs required by the City and CalOSHA requirements, proper transport,
use, storage, and disposal according to applicable local, State, and/or federal
regulations, require proper abatement of asbestos containing materials, require a
hazardous building material survey be conducted to verify the absence of hazardous
building materials and, if needed, future abatement by a California-licensed contractor,
and/or removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state, and local transportation
and disposal regulations to ensure the Project would not result in release of hazards into
the environment during construction and operations. The following mitigation
measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential
impacts regarding the potential release of hazardous materials to a less than significant
level:
MM HAZ-1: Prior to any relocation of transformers that may contain PCBs
which are being moved or relocated as part of project development, the
transformers shall be tested by the property owner/developer for PCBs.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-8)
MM HAZ-3: Prior to approval of a grading plan or issuance of a demolition
permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared pursuant to current
ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments to identify
potential threats to human health and the environment for review by the
City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site
assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be
implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), as appropriate. The ESA shall details procedures that
shall be taken if a previously unknown underground storage tank (UST) or
other unknown hazardous materials or waste is discovered onsite. The ESA
shall outline where hazardous materials may be found, types of hazardous
materials anticipated, how to screen for them, and what to do in the event
they are identified. The ESA shall identify the party responsible for the
screening, and training requirements for those responsible for undertaking
A-67
the screening effort. The ESA shall specify requirements for reporting,
handling, staging, disposal, and recordkeeping. The ESA shall also identify
contingencies in the event that significant contamination is identified that is
1) above regulatory thresholds and 2) cannot be removed/ remediated by
proposed construction. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-
4 and MM 5.7-7)
MM HAZ-4: Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit, whichever
occurs first, in areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by
underground storage tanks (USTs), or other hazardous materials or waste,
and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation
or grading; the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a
qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known,
or the presence of, cryptic tanks using geophysical methods that include the
potential use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) or similar technologies to
determine no abandoned USTs are present. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-2;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-1)
MM HAZ-2, MM HAZ-5 through MM HAZ-7 and SR HAZ-1 through
SR-HAZ-4 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Section 4.11, Hazardous Materials, of EIR No. 311 concluded that impacts associated
with the potential release of hazardous materials would be reduced to a level considered
less than significant with implementation of mitigation, which required expansion of
compliance efforts for the utilization of hazardous materials. During preparation of the
Initial Study for SEIR No. 340, the City of Anaheim determined that the proposed
project would not have a significant impact related to the release of hazardous materials
into the environment and no further analysis of this issue was presented in SEIR No.
340.
Project Specific Conclusion
Construction – Project construction activities would involve the use and handling of
common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, or other
liquids associated with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. The
on-site temporary handling, storage, and usage of these materials would be subject to
applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, including BMPs required by the City
and CalOSHA requirements, as specified in SR HAZ-1. Any hazardous materials used
or encountered during construction would be transported, used, stored, and disposed of
according to applicable local, State, and/or federal regulations, as specified in SR
HAZ-2 and SR HAZ-3.
Demolition of the buildings could expose construction personnel to ACMs and LBP,
given the age of some buildings, unless proper precautions are taken to minimize risk
of exposure. Future demolition of structures would be subject to South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403, which requires a survey for and
A-68
proper abatement of asbestos-containing materials prior to construction (SR HAZ-4).
No other hazardous material surveys are required under federal, state, or local law.
Additional hazardous building materials that are still used today may include mercury
switches in thermometers and electrical equipment, and other universal wastes (such as
batteries and fluorescent light bulbs). Therefore, a potential impact related to unknown
hazardous wastes may occur. The Project would implement MM HAZ-1,
MM HAZ-2, and MM HAZ-7, requiring a hazardous building material survey be
conducted to verify the absence of hazardous building materials and, if needed, future
abatement by a California-licensed contractor, and/or removal and disposal in
accordance with federal, state, and local transportation and disposal regulations. Any
hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would be transported,
used, stored, and disposed of according to applicable local, State, and/or federal
regulations, as specified in SR HAZ-2 through SR HAZ-3. With implementation of
these standard requirements and mitigation measures, construction impacts related to
this threshold would be reduced to less than significant. For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations – Similar to the existing conditions within the Project Site, during
operation of the Project, there would be a limited amount of on-site handling of
materials such as commercial cleansers, solvents, and other janitorial or industrial-use
materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides. While these materials are
technically labeled as “hazardous”, these materials are common in most land uses.
Impacts associated with the handling, transport, and use of such materials would be
reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with existing federal, State,
and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport
as outlined in SR HAZ-3.
Due to the nature of the Project, there is a potential for discovery of unknown hazardous
materials or waste, including previously unknown USTs. The discovery of these
materials may result in a significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous
materials into the environment. MMs HAZ-3 and HAZ-7 would be implemented as
part of the Project, which requires submittal of a plan, or a Phase I ESA detailing the
procedures to be taken if hazardous materials or hazardous waste is encountered. MMs
HAZ-4 through MM HAZ-6 would be implemented requiring investigation, including
potential subsurface investigation and sampling, of the presence of cryptic tanks for
any Project activities near former service stations and/or other areas with known USTs
that have not yet been removed. As specified in MM HAZ-5, a permit would be
obtained for the removal of any USTs and City staff would be on-site to direct soil
sampling during any such removal of USTs. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be increased when compared with the impact
A-69
analysis in SEIR No. 340, which found no impact related to the release of hazardous
materials into the environment would occur.
3. Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
(Threshold 5.8d)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would require submittal of a plan or a Phase I ESA detailing the procedures
to be taken if hazardous materials or hazardous waste is encountered, require
investigation of the presence of cryptic tanks for any Project activities near former
service stations and/or other areas with known USTs that have not yet been removed
and require a permit for the removal of any USTs. City staff would be on-site to direct
soil sampling during any such removal of USTs to ensure the Project would not create
a significant hazard to the public. The following mitigation measure imposed upon the
Project would mitigate impacts regarding hazardous material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 to a less than significant level:
MM HAZ-3 through MM HAZ-7 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than
significant with implementation of mitigation, based on review of available hazardous
materials sites at that time. Mitigation included compliance with applicable local
regulatory requirements as well as measures related to specific hazardous materials
sites. SEIR No. 340 concluded impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
According to a review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor
mapper and the State Water Board GeoTracker database, there are no parcels within
the Project Site that are listed on the Cortese list compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.
The EDR Area /Corridor Report prepared for the Project identifies a number of sites
on and off the Project Site where hazardous materials and substances are stored and
used, as well as the locations of sites where hazardous materials and substances were
released. A detailed list of all the included sites is available in Section 5.8 of the
Subsequent EIR. A majority of the hazardous material sites listed and identified within
the Project Site are instances of historic events including leaks or isolated releases of
hazardous materials, or existing or historic generators of hazardous wastes that have no
reported violations. Although no open cases are identified which would directly impact
A-70
future development associated with the Project, there is potential that contaminated soil
could pose a significant impact if encountered during Project construction.
Additionally, due to the nature of the Project, there is a potential for discovery of
unknown hazardous materials or waste, including previously unknown USTs. The
discovery of these materials may result in a significant impact related to accidental
release of hazardous materials into the environment. MMs HAZ-3 and MM HAZ-7
would be implemented as part of the Project, which require submittal of a plan or a
Phase I ESA detailing the procedures to be taken if hazardous materials or hazardous
waste is encountered. MMs HAZ-4 through MM HAZ-6 would be implemented
requiring investigation, including potential subsurface investigation and sampling, of
the presence of cryptic tanks for any Project activities near former service stations
and/or other areas with known USTs that have not yet been removed. As specified in
MM HAZ-5, a permit would be obtained for the removal of any USTs and City staff
would be on-site to direct soil sampling during any such removal of USTs. For the
reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that,
with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
4. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to hazardous materials.
(a) Findings
Similar to the Project, other cumulative projects within the City would be required to
undergo individual environmental review, including review of potential impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials that are applicable to that particular development
site and proposed use. If lead and asbestos are found to be present in buildings planned
for demolition or renovation by cumulative projects, these conditions would require
appropriate mitigation to include implementation of standard regulatory conditions and
remedial action of contaminated sites. It is assumed that all cumulative projects would
be required to comply with all applicable local, State and federal codes and regulations,
as well as applicable BMPs, related to the treatment, handling, and disposal of each
hazardous material. The Project would implement applicable hazardous materials
measures as mentioned above. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the
Project would mitigate cumulative impacts regarding hazardous materials to a less than
significant level:
MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7 (see above).
A-71
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that, with compliance with federal and State regulations
regarding the treatment and storage of potentially hazardous materials, no significant
cumulative impacts would occur. According to SEIR No. 340, hazards would be limited
to the site itself and would not contribute to hazardous conditions in a larger cumulative
study area; therefore, buildout of the ARSP would not contribute to any significant
cumulative hazardous materials impacts.
Project Specific Conclusion
Cumulative projects within the Project vicinity would have the potential to expose
future area residents, employees, and visitors to hazardous materials through
redevelopment of sites and structures that may be contaminated from either historic or
ongoing uses. The severity of potential hazards for individual projects would depend
upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated
with individual sites. Therefore, similar to the Project, other cumulative projects within
the City would be required to undergo individual environmental review, including
review of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are
applicable to that particular development site and proposed use. If lead and asbestos
are found to be present in buildings planned for demolition or renovation by cumulative
projects, these conditions would require appropriate mitigation to include
implementation of standard regulatory conditions and remedial action of contaminated
sites. It is assumed that all cumulative projects would be required to comply with all
applicable local, State and federal codes and regulations, as well as applicable BMPs,
related to the treatment, handling, and disposal of each hazardous material. Further,
because restrictions on development or remediation requirements would be applied in
the event that hazardous materials or waste posed a risk to safety, it is anticipated that
cumulative impacts from exposure to hazards or hazardous materials or waste would
be less than significant. Additionally, land use changes anticipated to occur under the
Project would facilitate the safe removal of potentially hazardous building materials
and the cleanup of contaminated properties, thus reducing the level of risk on a
particular site in the nearby vicinity and within the Project area as a whole, compared
to existing conditions. With implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-7, the
Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact regarding hazards and
hazardous materials. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
A-72
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (Threshold 5.9)
1. Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements (Threshold 5.9a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality.
(a) Findings
The Project would require preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP and compliance with
the NPDES to minimize construction impacts from continued development on the
Project Site through implementation of BMPs that would reduce construction-related
pollutants, in addition to compliance with applicable standard regulations and
ordinances during operations to ensure less than significant water quality impacts. The
following mitigation measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project
would mitigate potential impacts regarding water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-1: Development projects that will result in soil disturbance of
one (1) or more acres of land shall comply with the State’s Construction
General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and implementing a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of preliminary or
precise grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide the
City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB
by providing a copy of the NOI invoice and the assigned Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) No. for the project. The SWPPP shall include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net
sediment load increase in storm water discharges relative to preconstruction
levels and shall prohibit during the construction period discharges of storm
water or non-storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an
exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin
Plan. The BMPs shall address erosion control, sediment control, wind
erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste
management and materials pollution control during all phases of
construction, including a sampling and analysis plan for sediment and non-
visible storm water pollutants. The property owner/developer shall be
responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.8-1)
SR HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of the precise grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs)
for review and approval by the Public Works, Development Services. The
WQMP shall identify permanent site design, source control and treatment
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to
control predictable pollutant runoff. The WQMP shall also describe the
long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control
BMPs and the mechanism for funding the BMPs. The WQMP shall be
A-73
recorded against the property to ensure long-term compliance. (SEIR No.
340, SR 5.8-2)
SR HWQ-4: Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the City’s
NPDES Ordinance, which provides regulations to comply with the CWA,
the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s
NPDES permit. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants
into the storm water; regulates illicit connections to the storm drain system;
requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual
sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water; and requires local discharge
permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system. (SEIR
No. 340, SR 5.8-4)
SR HWQ-5: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the property
owner/developer of individual developments shall provide written proof to
the Public Works Department, Development Services Division of a water
quality certification and/or waste discharge requirement (WDR) as well as
a plan for compliance with the discharge prohibitions, TMDLs, and various
programs of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB implements
the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin through the
through issuance of individual WDRs; discharge prohibitions; water quality
certifications; programs for salt management, non-point sources, and storm
water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as necessary.
(SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8-5)
MM HWQ-1: Ongoing during Project operations, the property
owner/developer shall comply with the Master Drainage and Runoff
Management Plan (MDRMP) and shall submit updates as required for new
grading for review and approval by the City Engineer. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.7-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-1)
MM HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an
Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an
irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.
Additionally:
a. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in
accordance with Anaheim’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance and
Guidelines including:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
A-74
6. Grading design plan.
b. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for
monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an irrigation
engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the Specific Plan).
The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the
infiltration of local soils and that the application of fertilizers and
pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies.
c. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be consistent
with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require that the
Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the Maximum
Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the landscape irrigation
system include water-conserving features such as low-flow irrigation
heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing
controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving
equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that
they will function properly with reclaimed water, if it should become
available. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4)
MM HWQ-3: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all
paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including, but not limited
to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using
water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a
periodic basis if allowed in the property owner/developer’s NPDES permit
and allowable based on drought restrictions. Nightly washdown shall be
allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary
working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the property
owner/developer’s and City's NPDES permit. Flushing debris, residue, and
sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the property
owner/developer’s NPDES requirements. Property owner/developer agrees
that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the
City's NPDES permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-3)
MM HWQ-4: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-
Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback
Realm Areas), the property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of
Substantial Completion, as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been
installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.7-5)
MM HWQ-5: Ongoing during grading operations, the property
owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable
codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-2)
MM HWQ-6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more
than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage
under the NPDES Statewide Stormwater Permit for General Construction
Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of
A-75
attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-3; SEIR No. 340, MM
5.8-2)
MM HWQ-8: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the
property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape
architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation
systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and
irrigation plans. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would
increase contaminants leaving the site; however, implementation of regulatory
requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. SEIR No. 340
concluded that implementation of the project would result in short-term construction-
related and long-term operational water quality impacts. These impacts would be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of proposed
mitigation and compliance with standard requirements.
Project Specific Conclusion
Short-Term Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts – Continued
development of the Project would include a variety of commercial, entertainment, and
visitor-serving uses, such as theme park uses, hotels, restaurants, retail uses, parking
facilities, and other uses allowed under the DRSP and ARSP. Storm water runoff from
individual construction sites could contain pollutants such as soils and sediments that
are released during grading and excavation activities and petroleum-related pollutants
due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. The storm water runoff
would flow into the storm drain inlets in the DRSP and ARSP areas and would
eventually be discharged into the Pacific Ocean at Anaheim Bay, Sunset
Bay/Huntington Harbor, and/or Bolsa Bay.
Projects with construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land are required
to obtain an NPDES permit from the SWRCB, Division of Water Quality, and requires
a SWPPP, which must include BMPs to reduce water quality impacts. Compliance with
SR HWQ-1, SR HWQ-2, SR HWQ-4 and SR HWQ-5 requiring preparation of a
SWPPP and WQMP and compliance with the NPDES would minimize construction
impacts from continued development on the Project Site through implementation of
BMPs that would reduce construction-related pollutants. Implementation of these
requirements would ensure that any impacts to downstream waters resulting from
construction activities associated with the Project Site would be less than significant.
In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, the
California Building Code and grading permit requirements include elements that also
require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction. Full
compliance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations and implementation of
MM HWQ-6 would reduce water quality impacts associated with construction of the
Project to less than significant with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as
A-76
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Operational Water Quality – According to the Master WQMP prepared
for The Disneyland Resort, which covers all Disney Properties, potential pollutants that
could be generated by maximum buildout of the Project Site could include, but are not
limited to, bacteria/viruses, metals, nutrients, pesticides, toxic organic compounds,
suspended solids/sediments, trash and debris, and oil and grease. The following
structural source control BMPs would achieve long-term water quality enhancement
through proposed drainage and treatment systems: providing storm drain stenciling and
signage; design of outdoor hazardous material storage areas; trash enclosures; efficient
irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and
source control; and incorporating requirements applicable to individual priority project
categories (from NPDES Permit required by SR HWQ-2). Non-structural BMPs (also
identified in the Master WQMP), including education for property owners, tenants, and
occupants; activity restrictions; and BMP maintenance would reduce pollutant loading
into storm water runoff. According to the Master WQMP, all future development and
redevelopment projects are required to be evaluated on a project-specific level and
through final design project WWMPs to be based on the Preliminary Project WQMP.
Therefore, with compliance with the recommendations set forth in the Disneyland
Resort Master WQMP, potential impacts related to storm water would be less than
significant.
Future development associated with the Project would also need to comply with the
City’s NPDES Ordinance, required by SR HWQ-4, which prohibits the discharges of
certain pollutants into the storm water, regulates illicit connections to the storm drain
system; requires implementation of permanent BMPs; and requires local discharge
permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system.
The Santa Ana RWQCB requires industrial projects and land uses that generate storm
water or discharges that can directly affect water courses/water bodies to obtain
individual WDRs and/or water quality certifications, as provided in the standard
requirements. Compliance with WDR conditions of approval and a water quality
certification, required by SR HWQ-5, would prevent the violation of water quality
standards.
Compliance with the standard requirements and implementation of mitigation
measures MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-5 and MM HWQ-8, including
preparation of WQMPs for future development associated with the Project, and
involving issuance of grading permits, implementation of water quality BMPs
identified in those WQMPs, and compliance with erosion control measures associated
with irrigation plans would ensure that future Project development would result in less
than significant construction and operational water quality impacts with
implementation of mitigation.
As a future option, the City of Anaheim has developed a voluntary Stormwater Credit
Program intended to provide public and private projects the opportunity to purchase
stormwater to allow for offsite treatment rather than treating stormwater on-site. If
Disney chooses credits to participate in this future program, such off-site treatment also
would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant levels with mitigation. For
A-77
the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds
that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
2. Groundwater Supplies and Recharge (Threshold 5.9b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
(a) Findings
The Project would include preparation of WQMPs and implementation of BMPs to
ensure groundwater is recharged, in addition to installation of reclaimed water lines
onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation and other purposes
to reduce impacts related to the increase in groundwater pumping and to ensure less
than significant groundwater impacts. The following mitigation measures imposed
upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts to the groundwater supplies and
recharge to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-2 (see above)
MM HWQ-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit, to reduce the
project's demand on potable water, the property owner/developer shall
install water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape
irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available. (EIR No.
311, PDF 3.7-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found that The Disneyland Resort Project would require extraction of
supply from the groundwater basin, however, implementation of conservation
measures including PDF 3.7-1 regarding use of reclaimed water, would ensure a
significant impact would not occur. SEIR No. 340 concluded that excavation and
grading activities for future development according to the ARSP would not result in
direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources. However, buildout within the
C-R and PR Districts would result in an increase in long-term demand for domestic
water, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities that would be less than
significant with mitigation.
A-78
Project Specific Conclusion
Excavation and grading activities for future development are not expected to be deep
enough to affect the underlying groundwater resources. Thus, no direct impacts to the
underlying groundwater resources would occur during Project construction.
The Project has the potential to result in increased impervious surfaces within the
Project Site, which has the potential to decrease groundwater recharge. However, future
development projects within the Project Site would be required to prepare WQMPs and
to implement BMPs specified therein, as required by SR HWQ-2, which would ensure
that groundwater is recharged even with these developments. Therefore, the increase
in impervious surface coverage would not impede sustainable management of the
groundwater basin.
The City of Anaheim provides water services to the City, including the Project Site,
using water sources from the local aquifer, and imported water from the Metropolitan
Water District (MWD) of Southern California. Project implementation would result in
an increase in long-term demand for potable and reclaimed water to be used for
domestic purposes, landscape irrigation, and maintenance activities. This increased
water demand may lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. Implementation of
MM HWQ-7 would help to reduce this impact through installation of reclaimed water
lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation and other
purposes, if and when it becomes available.
A replenishment assessment fee is levied on cities in accordance with the Orange
County Water District Act for the amount of groundwater extracted, and this fee is used
by OCWD for various groundwater replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft
of local groundwater resources occurs. In accordance with the Orange County Water
District Act, the City pays the OCWD a replenishment assessment for the amount of
groundwater extracted. This assessment is used by the OCWD for various groundwater
replenishment programs to ensure that no overdraft of local groundwater resources
occurs. Thus, with implementation of mitigation measures, water demand from Project
implementation would not deplete local groundwater resources and would result in a
less than significant impact with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
3. Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site (Threshold 5.9c(i))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
A-79
stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
(a) Findings
The Project would include appropriate drainage and storm water improvements to
reduce potential for erosion and siltation during operations and implement irrigation
planning and control measures to ensure less than significant erosion impacts. The
following mitigation measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project
would mitigate potential impacts regarding erosion or siltation on- or off-site to a less
than significant level:
SR HWQ-1 and SR HWQ-2, MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-4, MM HWQ-5
(see above)
MM HWQ-8: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the
property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape
architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation
systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and
irrigation plans. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-4)
MM GEO-6: Ongoing during grading activities, the property
owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes
and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and
Building Department, Building Services Division. (SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.5-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found that grading activities associated with The Disneyland Resort would
have the potential to result in erosion and runoff from the site; however, due to the
topography of the site and with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact was
found to be less than significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded that implementation of the
project would result in site specific changes to drainage patterns on development sites
but would not adversely impact regional hydrology or drainage flows in the
surrounding area. Potential increases in impervious surfaces could increase runoff rates
and volumes, while reducing potential for soil erosion. These impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project has the potential to result in erosion and siltation during construction.
Development and implementation of a SWPPP, as required by SR HWQ-1, for
development that occurs pursuant to the Project would ensure potential effects related
to erosion and siltation during construction are reduced to less than significant levels.
Also, appropriate drainage and storm water improvements, as required by SR HWQ-2,
would be incorporated into future development of the Project, which would reduce the
potential for erosion and siltation during Project operations. Implementation of
A-80
mitigation measures MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-4, MM HWQ-5, and MM HWQ-8
related to irrigation planning and controls and MM GEO-6 related to erosion control
plans would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. For the reasons
stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
4. Surface Runoff and Stormwater Capacity Exceedance (Thresholds 5.9c(ii)
and 5.9c(iii))
These thresholds analyze whether the Project would 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
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite; or create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
(a) Findings
The Project would require engineering plans as well as drainage studies and PWQMPs
to ensure that storm water runoff from the Project Site would not increase the risk of
flooding or exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems, payment of all fees
associated with storm drain funding and implementation of site-specific storm drain
improvements to prevent localized flooding. The following mitigation measures and
standard requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential impacts
regarding surface runoff and stormwater capacity to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-1, SR MWQ-2, SR MWQ-4, and MM HWQ-1 (see above)
SR HWQ-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Disney ARSP
Properties, the property owner/developer shall pay the Storm Drain Impact
Fees which would go toward future storm drain improvements within The
Anaheim Resort area and South Central City area. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.8-3)
MM HWQ-9: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer,
and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-6)
A-81
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that despite stormwater runoff increases related to the
development of The Disneyland Resort Project, compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and implementation of
best management practices (BMPs) would reduce any impacts to groundwater and
surface hydrology to less than significant levels with mitigation. SEIR No. 340
concluded that implementation of the ARSP Project may increase runoff volumes and
rates to exacerbate existing deficiencies, potentially leading to localized street flooding.
Implementation of proposed mitigation and compliance with standard requirements
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Project Specific Conclusion
Future development of the Project has the potential to increase impervious surfaces
within the Project Site, which could increase runoff volumes and rates, resulting in a
potentially significant impact related to on- or off-site flooding and storm drain
capacity. However, the City requires that individual developments provide engineering
plans as well as drainage studies and PWQMPs, as required by SR HWQ-1, SR HWQ-
2 and SR HWQ-4, specifying methods to convey, retain, and treat storm water, which
would ensure that storm water runoff from the Project Site would not increase the risk
of flooding or exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. As required by
SR HWQ-3, Disney is responsible for payment of all required fees associated with
funding of storm drain improvements, including construction of necessary
improvements to the off-site storm drain system, when it develops the Disney ARSP
Properties. Therefore, with implementation of site-specific storm drain improvements
for the Project and MMs HWQ-1 and MM HWQ-9, impacts related to deficiencies in
the off-site storm drainage system serving the Project Site and preventing localized
flooding would be less than significant with mitigation. In addition, any storm drain,
sewer, and street improvement plans would be designed and constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
A-82
5. Conflict with Water Quality Control or Groundwater Management Plan
(Threshold 5.9e)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan.
(a) Findings
The Project would comply with the Construction General Permit, including the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to avoid pollutant discharge during
construction and require structural and non-structural BMPs during operations to treat
identified pollutants of concern. Additionally, as the Project is constructed, the
pollutants generated during Project operations would be treated using the BMPs
identified in the WQMPs to treat identified pollutants of concern, therefore, the Project
would not be a source of significant pollutants for downstream water bodies and ensure
the Project would not conflict with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan. The following
mitigation measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project would
mitigate potential impacts regarding potential conflicts with water quality control or a
groundwater management plan to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-1 and MM HWQ-3 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort Project would
increase contaminants leaving the site; however, implementation of regulatory
requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Similarly, SEIR No.
340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP Project would be subject to mitigation to
reduce potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater quality, and impacts
were found to be less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Santa Ana RWQCB prepares and maintains the Water Quality Control Plan for the
Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan sets water quality standards in the
Santa Ana River Basin by establishing beneficial uses for specific water bodies and
designating numerical and narrative water quality objectives. Pollutant discharge
during construction would be avoided through compliance with the Construction
General Permit, including the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, as required
by SR HWQ-1 and through implementation of SR HWQ-1. The Project would not
conflict with the water quality standards outlined in the Basin Plan with implementation
of MM HWQ-3 requiring structural and non-structural BMPs, including those that are
already in use throughout the Project Site such as retention ponds, control devices,
secondary containment structures, and treatment. As the Project is constructed, the
Project, pollutants generated during Project operations would be treated using the
BMPs identified in the WQMPs to treat identified pollutants of concern, therefore, the
A-83
Project would not be a source of significant pollutants for downstream water bodies
and the Project would thereby not conflict with the Basin Plan.
OCWD has adopted a Groundwater Management Plan for the sustainable management
of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Master WQMP includes general storm
water BMPs intended to minimize pollutant exposure to rain water and storm water,
including specific recommendations for treatment technologies that allow for water
capture and groundwater recharge via infiltration units. Further, the Project would
continue treatment BMPs involving use of pervious pavement, infiltration basins,
detention basins, vegetated swales, and landscaped areas. With continued
implementation of the BMPs identified in the Master WQMP, the Project would not
interfere with any of the water supply monitoring efforts or infiltration areas outlined
in the Groundwater Management Plan, nor would the Project impact any of the
recharge facilities, groundwater replenishment processes, or seawater intrusion and
barrier management activities that are listed in the plan. For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
6. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to hydrology and water quality.
(a) Findings
Similar to the Project, future development would be subject to the NPDES General
Construction Permit requirements for implementation of individual SWPPPs (if larger
than one acre), which outline erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control,
tracking control, non-storm water management and waste management, and materials
pollution control BMPs; require payment of applicable fees to protect local
groundwater resources and prevent groundwater overdraft; and continued compliance
with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s requirements for the water quality certifications and/or
WDRs and discharge prohibitions, which would also prevent long-term storm water
quality impacts. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements
imposed upon the Project mitigate cumulative impacts related to Hydrology and Water
Quality to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-1 through SR HWQ-4, MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-9, MM
GEO-6 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
A-84
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that new development associated with The Disneyland Resort
and cumulative projects would increase the potential of stormwater runoff transporting
surface water quality contaminants into the storm drain system; however, compliance
with mitigation measures, including compliance with NPDES requirements, would
reduce impacts to less than significant levels. According to SEIR No. 340, with
implementation of standard requirements and the proposed mitigation measures,
buildout of the ARSP would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
The cumulative study area with regard to hydrology and water quality includes the
entire Orange County Groundwater Basin and its tributary waterways. Future
development of the Project, in conjunction with the existing development and planned
development in the City of Anaheim, may result in a cumulatively considerable impact
to surface water runoff due to construction activities in the area and post-development
runoff. All construction projects larger than one acre would be subject to the NPDES
General Construction Permit requirements for implementation of individual SWPPPs,
which outline erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, tracking control,
non-storm water management and waste management, and materials pollution control
BMPs. Additionally, new development and significant redevelopment projects are
required to prepare and implement WQMPs for long-term implementation and
maintenance of source-control, site design, and treatment-control BMPs to ensure
compliance with water quality goals and compliance with the City’s NPDES
Ordinance. Thus, pollutants generated by the Project and cumulative projects in the
basin would be reduced through compliance with identified standard requirements (SR
HWQ-1 through SR HWQ-4) during construction activities and in the long-term.
Compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s requirements for the water quality
certifications and/or WDRs and discharge prohibitions would also prevent long-term
storm water quality impacts.
Payment of the replenishment assessment to the OCWD by the City and all other
agencies that extract groundwater in the Coastal Plain would allow the OCWD to
continue its programs to protect groundwater resources and to recharge the local
aquifers in order to prevent overdraft.
With regard to the existing storm drain system, and as previously discussed, Disney is
responsible for payment of all required fees associated with funding of storm drain
improvements, including construction of necessary improvements to the off-site storm
drain system, when it develops the Disney ARSP Properties pursuant to SR HWQ-3.
Therefore, Disney’s continued compliance with these requirements would ensure
adequate storm drainage infrastructure is constructed or provided to serve existing and
future developments and significant cumulative impacts would not occur.
With implementation of MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-9, the Project would result
in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. For
the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds
that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level.
A-85
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Threshold 5.10)
1. Conflict with Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation (Threshold 5.10b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would ensure consistency with the DRSP and ARSP plans and would not
change the underlying tourist-character of these specific plan areas to prevent conflict
with existing land use plan, policy or regulation. The Project would be consistent with
all building setbacks, height standards, landscaping requirements, and design
guidelines, as outlined by the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan, and the City of Anaheim General Plan. The following mitigation
measures and project design features imposed upon the Project would mitigate potential
impacts regarding potential conflicts with a land use plan, policy or regulation to a less
than significant level:
MM LU-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, building plans shall
be submitted by the property owner/developer and will be reviewed for
consistency with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and The Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311, MM 3.1-2)
MM LU-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the proposed project
shall be implemented based on the guidelines and standards in The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which includes zoning and development
standards, design guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan. All development
proposals within The Disneyland Resort must be consistent with The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the
City of Anaheim General Plan. (EIR No 311, PDF 3.1-1)
MM LU-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking facilities,
the property owner/developer shall submit plans detailing the setbacks for
the parking structures and landscaping plans which minimize compatibility
impacts of the parking facilities on surrounding areas, consistent with The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.
(EIR No 311, MM 3.2-2)
PDF LU-1: Prior to approval of issuance of each building permit, property
owner/developer shall submit documentation that project design features
are in compliance with all building setbacks, height standards, landscaping
requirements, and design guidelines as specified in The Disneyland Resort
A-86
Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No 311, PDF
3.2-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would be consistent with
all land use plans and policies as modified by The Disneyland Resort Project. EIR No.
311 also concluded that a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use
incompatibilities between residential areas on the west side of Walnut Street and the
proposed public parking and hotel parking facilities on the east side of Walnut Street
would occur. Additionally, it concluded that development of the Future Expansion
District would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the adjacency of
residential uses and development of uses other than parking facilities. In SEIR No. 340,
the City concluded the ARSP Project would be consistent with the respective goals and
policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents, and no significant
impacts would occur.
Project Specific Conclusion
Implementation of the Project would allow for continued development of the currently
entitled uses and would allow the ability to transfer previously approved uses to other
Disney Properties within the Project Site. A detailed analysis of the consistency of these
land use-related actions with existing regional and local plans (including applicable
goals and policies) is provided in Section 5.10 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, and
includes applicability with plans such as Connect SoCal, Master Plan of Arterial
Highways, Orange County Congestion Management Plan, the City of Anaheim General
Plan, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the
Bicycle Master Plan. Given that the Project involves the ability to transfer previously
approved uses to Disney Properties in the Project Site, the Project would not change
the underlying tourist-oriented character of these specific plan areas. Implementation
of MM LU-1 through MM LU-3 would reduce the impact related to consistency to
less than significant with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in
the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340, which did
not require mitigation.
A-87
2. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to land use and planning.
(a) Findings
Similar to the Project, future development within the City is required to comply with
the adopted land use standards, policies, and ordinances set forth in both the General
Plan and the Municipal Code. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General
Plan goals and policies, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and regional planning programs,
and would implement development standards and design guidelines as set forth in the
DRSP and ARSP to minimize impacts between residential and non-residential uses and
ensure the Project would not create significant cumulative land use impacts. The
following mitigation measures and project design feature imposed upon the Project
would mitigate cumulative impacts regarding potential conflicts with a land use plan,
policy or regulation to a less than significant level:
MM LU-1 through MM LU-3 and PDF LU-1 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort was found to
contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to land use
compatibility due to the proximity of Commercial Recreation uses, as proposed in EIR
No. 311, and residential development. According to SEIR No. 340, continued
development of the ARSP would not cause any significant adverse cumulative growth
impacts related to land use.
Project Specific Conclusion
Within the City of Anaheim, recent development actions have continued the ongoing
trend of redevelopment of underdeveloped areas. However, previously approved and
future development within the City is required to comply with the adopted land use
standards, policies, and ordinances set forth in both the General Plan and the Municipal
Code. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies,
the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and regional planning programs, as modified by the
Project. Furthermore, the Project would implement development standards and design
guidelines as set forth in the DRSP and ARSP to minimize impacts between residential
and non-residential uses, in compliance with MM LU-1 through MM LU-3. Similar
design guidelines would be required for cumulative projects to minimize potential land
use incompatibilities for future; therefore, the Project would not contribute to a
significant cumulative impact. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-88
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in to EIR No.
311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with
the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
K. NOISE (Threshold 5.11)
1. Operational Noise (Threshold 5.11a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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 during operations.
(a) Findings
The Project would include noise barrier measures to create acoustical separation, noise
monitoring to provide protection to nearby sensitive receptors, setbacks, noise
muffling, firework regulations, pyrotechnical permits, and additional noise reduction
measures to ensure the Project would not result in significant noise impacts during
operations. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would
mitigate operational noise to a less than significant level:
MM NOI-1: Ongoing during project operation, the property
owner/developer shall obtain pyrotechnic permits on an annual basis.
Material additions or modifications to firework shoots shall require a
separate permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-2)
MM NOI-2: Ongoing during project operations, lower noise-producing
fireworks displays will be used at Disney California Adventure to minimize
noise from 11:00 p.m. fireworks shows to meet the noise levels in the City
of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.5-1)
MM NOI-3: No aerial fireworks show shall be allowed west of Disneyland
Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District or the
ARSP) Theme Park Overlays. Prior to the commencement of any show in
these areas that includes fireworks that are non-explosive (i.e., stage
pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation
less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!), the property owner/developer shall present a
noise study to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate that
noise levels from the fireworks would meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound
Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and would not create a noise
increase greater than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise
sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.
MM NOI-6: Ongoing during construction and project operations, engine
noise from sweeping equipment used in the parking facilities and any hotel
parking facilities adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled. Sweeping
operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be
A-89
performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level
measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-7; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-7)
MM NOI-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit, to be implemented
prior to final building and zoning inspections, for structures that are adjacent
to residential areas or other sensitive uses, the property owner/developer
shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building
Department to demonstrate that noise levels from mechanical ventilation
units, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise
sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 DBA Sound Pressure Levels
standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 3
dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor,
whichever is more restrictive. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-8; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.10-3 and MM 5.10-10)
MM NOI-15: Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall present area development plans if part of a new
theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction to the
Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any development of
theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland
Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays includes
30-foot-tall buildings or structures between the property line near
residential or other noise sensitive land uses and the proposed theme park
land or theme park attraction. If a noise barrier is provided, such as a ride
façade, the material used shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25
pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC)
rating of 25.
MM NOI-16: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall pay all reasonable costs associated with noise
monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified
acoustical consultant or engineer under the direction of the Planning
Department to ensure that The Disneyland Resort ongoing operations do
not exceed 60 dBA at any point on the property line between the hours of
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. If the monitoring finds that
the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, modifications to the ongoing
operations, such as adjustments to volume at the source or orientation of
speakers, shall be commenced immediately to bring the sound level below
the 60 dBA requirement with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to
confirm compliance. Monitoring shall be conducted as follows:
a. Ongoing: Semi-annually on a random basis for a three (3) day period.
b. During the first five (5) years of operation of theme park uses in the
expanded Theme Park District west of Disneyland Drive, the Southeast
District, and/or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays: Four (4) times a year
on a random basis for a three (3) day period.
A-90
c. In response to a noise complaint, at the City’s discretion: For a three (3)
day period at the location of the noise exceedance.
MM NOI-20: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a parking structure,
the property owner/developer will submit plans to the Planning and
Building Department indicating noise from the parking structure will be
reduced by the provision of convenient access to the parking structure,
sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), and the use of textured deck
surfaces to reduce tire squealing.
MM NOI-21: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall present plans to the Planning and Building
Department to demonstrate development of theme park uses in the
expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast
District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays shall include installation and
maintenance of at least 12-foot-tall noise barriers along the property line to
reduce back-of-house noise, such as vehicle pass-bys and truck deliveries
with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a
minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25.
MM NOI-22: Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if
part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park
attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive),
the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning
and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Indoor) and Family
(Indoor) attractions shall be located no less than 200 feet from the center of
the ride or attraction to noise-sensitive receptors and shall include a 30-foot-
high building or a 30-foot high noise barrier between the attraction and the
property line near noise-sensitive receptors, provided a 30-foot-high
building or 30-foot-high noise barrier shall not be required if the proposed
ride or attraction is located within an enclosed building or structure. The
planning of each attraction shall take into account any openings or outdoor
areas of the attractions and directionally orient the openings away from
noise-sensitive receptors and towards the center of the new theme park
development.
MM NOI-23: Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if
part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park
attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive),
the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning
and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Outdoor), rides taller
than 50 feet, Parades and Large Shows shall be located:
1. For 1st to 3rd Offsite Floor Receptors: No less than 550 feet from the
center of the ride to any noise-sensitive receptor and shall include a 30-
A-91
foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier between the attraction
and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors.
2. For 4th Floor Offsite Receptors and above (i.e., no shielding from 30-
foot buildings/barriers): No less than 1100 feet between the center of the
ride and any noise-sensitive receptor. If the distance of 1100 feet cannot
be met, an indoor rollercoaster shall be considered. If a distance less
than 1100 feet is considered with exposure to 4th Floor receptors, the
distance to noise-sensitive receptors and layout shall be reviewed by a
certified acoustical consultant or engineer prior to finalizing the site
plan. In general, the entire full height of the ride shall include a solid
barrier shielding it from any noise-sensitive receptors. The material used
for the barrier shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per
square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating
of 25.
MM NOI-24: Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if
part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park
attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive),
the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning
and Building Department to demonstrate any Family (Outdoor), Round and
Small Show attractions shall be located at least 400 feet from sensitive
receptors and include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier
between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that implementation of mitigation would reduce any potential
noise impacts from parking facilities, fireworks and the proposed amphitheater in the
second theme park to a level considered less than significant. Traffic-related noise
impacts were within the limits of the Noise Ordinance and therefore would be
considered less than significant. SEIR No. 340 concluded that impacts regarding
operational noise would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
mitigation measures.
Project Specific Conclusion
Future Operational Noise Levels – Without implementation of mitigation, operation
of theme park uses adjacent to property lines would exceed noise levels permitted under
the City’s Noise Ordinance and would create a significant impact. However, the
potential impact is heavily dependent on the orientation and design elements of the
theme park uses, including but not limited to the layout of “Lands” or areas, buildings,
barriers, facades, and all respective heights associated with them. The 3-D acoustical
model and subsequent noise contours allowed the development of mitigation measures
to reduce noise to less than significant.
A-92
Existing source levels were categorically modeled using Predictor software to predict
future noise levels from multiple scenarios and combinations of theme park operations
within the expanded Theme Park District and the Southeast District/Theme Park East
Overlay. Noise-sensitive receptors have been identified consistent with EIR No. 311
and SEIR No. 340, which include residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
auditoriums, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, amphitheaters, and parks.
Attractions, lands, events, or parking operations from each category were modeled at
different locations within the expanded Theme Park District and the Southeast
District/Theme Park East Overlay, and the Parking Overlay at the northeast corner of
Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard closest to off-site residential areas and hotels, and the
results of various modeling scenarios were assessed at multiple property line locations
in the direction of the noise-sensitive receivers. Noise-sensitive receptors (R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5 and R6) are identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 5.11-20 and Exhibits
5.11-5 through 5.11-7 for each location, which have been selected since they are in the
closest proximity to the Project Site and contain sensitive uses (i.e., residential, hotels).
Based on observations and review of existing “Lands” within Disneyland and Disney
California Adventure theme parks, without the implementation of mitigation measures,
operation of the Project would create potentially significant noise impacts on the noise-
sensitive receivers if theme park attractions with elevated noise levels were operated
near the property line. Accordingly, the model assumed that either solid buildings for
interior portions of rides or solid barriers (i.e., ride/“Land” facades or similar) would
surround each “Land” and would act as an acoustical barrier between the center of the
“Land” where guests congregate and the property line. This would be consistent with
MM NOI-22 through MM NOI-24, and MM NOI-15 wherein ride buildings or
facades can be strategically utilized as noise barriers. Back-of-house areas also
typically would border the property line, which would be consistent with Disney’s
existing lands throughout the Disneyland Resort. To create an acoustical separation
between the back-of-house areas and the property line, a minimum 12-foot-tall barrier
(greater height where already existing) was assumed around the resort boundary to
minimize noise impacts at the property line. Specific details regarding the construction
of the barrier are found in MM NOI-21.
As an assessment of potential worst-case scenarios of noise levels at property line
locations, operations from typical park events that include a mixture of elements were
assumed in the noise model to occur simultaneously and were assessed at the closest
possible distance to a given property line. Where the Noise Study identified modeled
noise levels exceeding 60 dBA, the future ambient noise without the Project was
compared to the noise level with implementation of the Project to determine whether
the impact was less than 3 dB with the Project’s operational noise, which is more
stringent than the City’s Noise Ordinance. For additional protection to nearby sensitive
receptors, MM NOI-16 specifies requirements for noise monitoring consistent with a
new theme park development. These sound monitoring requirements have been
incorporated as a mitigation measure consistent with the previously adopted language.
As shown in additional detail in Table 5.11-5 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the noise
contours at sensitive receptors did not noticeably change when applying iterations of
potential future development of the proposed land use with the Project and were
consistent with the previous noise contours.
A-93
For example, the noise contours at sensitive receptors for the Expanded Theme
Park/Theme Park West Overlay model along Walnut Avenue with current operational
sources without a representative development of the Project resulted in levels from 60
to 67 dBA, unrelated to theme park activities and primarily the result of traffic noise.
The contours at sensitive receptors did not noticeably change when applying iterations
of potential future development of the proposed land use with the and were consistent
with the previous noise contours. The lack of change or movement of the noise contours
indicates that the noise levels are staying generally consistent with the ambient noise
levels without the Project, which are primarily controlled by traffic noise in the area
and are changing less than the significance threshold of 3 dBA. This demonstrates
implementation of the Project would not significantly raise the overall noise levels.
Similar results are seen for the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay and Parking
Overlay Northeast Corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. Specific to the Parking
Overlay, the model of the parking structure utilizes design elements consistent with the
existing Mickey & Friends and Pixar Pals parking structures and MM NOI-20, with
sound louvers, barriers at each level, and tiering of each level of the parking structure.
A setback from the property lines has also been included. Further, compliance with
MM NOI-6 will require engine noise from sweeping equipment to be muffled. Finally,
compliance with MM NOI-7 will require plans for structures adjacent to residential
areas or other sensitive uses to demonstrate noise levels from loading docks, trash
compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s
noise ordinance level of 60 dBA at the property line.
Although the acoustical model demonstrates the impact of future operational noise of
the Project to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures
proposed, noise monitoring by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer is included
as part of MM NOI-16. If the monitoring finds that the operations exceed the City’s
Noise Ordinance, then modifications to the ongoing operations, such as lowering the
volume of amplified audio, would be commenced immediately to bring the sound level
into compliance.
Additionally, in compliance with MM NOI-3, aerial fireworks shows would not occur
west of Disneyland Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District
or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays. Additionally, any fireworks that are non-explosive
(i.e., stage pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation
less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!), would be required to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound
Pressure Levels standard at the property line. Further, in compliance with MM NOI-1
and MM NOI-2, Disney would continue to obtain pyrotechnic permits on an annual
basis and use lower noise-producing fireworks displays at Disney California Adventure
to minimize noise from 11 p.m. fireworks shows.
Future operational noise would be reduced to less than significant levels with
mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR,
the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Future Traffic Noise Levels – Traffic from I-5 and the main arterials within The
Anaheim Resort is the primary source of ambient noise in the general area of the Project
Site. As part of the Project’s Noise Study, measurements were collected on select
A-94
roadways surrounding the Project Site, and future noise levels related to traffic were
calculated based on data in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The existing and future noise
levels (predicted to the year 2045) and the change in levels related to traffic have been
calculated based on the full buildout of the DRSP and ARSP.
Results are shown in further detail in Table 5.11-6 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, which
shows that all changes in levels result in a less than significant impact relative to the
1.5 dBA CNEL or 3 dBA CNEL thresholds. Regardless of the threshold used,
calculations for all roadways resulted in less than a 1.5 dBA CNEL increase. Therefore,
the overall noise level increase of future traffic with implementation of the Project
would be less than both 1.5 dBA CNEL for roads with higher traffic volumes or 3 dBA
CNEL for roads with lesser traffic volumes, and would not be significant based on the
future noise levels reported to 2045. A less than significant impact regarding traffic
noise would occur.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding operational noise
with implementation of mitigation. This impact would not be new or substantially more
severe when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
2. Groundbourne Vibration (Threshold 5.11b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
(a) Findings
The Project would prohibit the operation of specific construction equipment within 25
feet of any residential structure, require preparation of a vibration and noise technical
study if pile driving and/or blasting are anticipated during construction and prevent any
impact driven piles in conjunction with construction of parking structures to ensure the
Project would not create excessive groundbourne vibration. The following mitigation
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate groundbourne vibration to a less
than significant level:
MM NOI-13, MM NOI-14, and MM NOI-19 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not address groundborne vibration or groundborne noise impacts.
SEIR No. 340 concluded that construction activities related to future development
projects within the ARSP area have the potential to generate vibration and
groundbourne vibration impacts. Implementation of proposed mitigation would reduce
these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Project construction would
generate vibration and groundborne vibration impacts. The impacts potentially affect
the same surrounding sensitive uses discussed above regarding noise.
A-95
Project Specific Conclusion
As defined by Caltrans, the threshold for structural vibration damage to non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings is 0.2 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration sources, which
include machines and traffic. Below this level, there is virtually no risk of building
damage. Caltrans also defines the threshold for distinct perceptibility of vibration in
humans as caused by transient events, which is 0.24 in/sec PPV.
Construction vibration levels from equipment operating more than 25 feet from a
residential structure would be at or below the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold. The operation
of equipment such as vibratory rollers and clam shovel drops at a distance of 25 feet
would be just barely above the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold, requiring a distance of 26 feet
to be below the threshold. Therefore, since the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure (MM NOI-13) would prohibit the operation of such equipment
within 25 feet of any existing residential structure, the mitigation would reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Vibration data and vibration propagation calculations indicate that construction
equipment vibration levels would be below the 0.24 in/sec PPV level of distinct
perceptibility when heavy construction equipment is operating at distances greater than
25 feet from the nearest residential structure. Given that vibration levels dissipate
rapidly with distance and that nearly all sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project are
located more than 25 feet away from the Project property lines, residential land uses
are not expected to be subject to distinctly perceptible vibration levels over extended
periods of time. The only exception would be the single-story residential structures at
the northeast corner located in R3 near calculation point 8 and the two-story motel to
the north located in R4 of the Southeast District/Theme Park Overlay. Vibration-
inducing within 25 feet or less to the property line would be prohibited for these
locations. Therefore, construction in the Project area would have the potential to cause
vibration levels that would be noticeable at residential receivers for short periods, but
would not be considered to be a significant impact.
Pile driving and rock blasting would have the potential to generate higher vibration
levels than discussed above, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of MM NOI-13 would prevent the operation of clam shovel drops or
vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home. While not anticipated to occur
with the Project, implementation of MM NOI-14 would require preparation of a
technical study to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts if pile
driving and/or blasting are anticipated during the construction on Disney ARSP
Properties. MM NOI-19 would prohibit the use of impact driven piles in the
construction of the DRSP Parking District East Parking Area. This mitigation would
reduce potential vibration impacts to nearby structures and persons to a less than
significant level. Potential mitigation may include using non-explosive rock removal
methods and low-impact pile driving methods. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-96
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation related to
vibration. This impact is new when compared to EIR No. 311, which did not analyze
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would not be new or
substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
3. Cumulative Impacts – Operational Noise
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to operational noise.
(a) Findings
Future development would comply with the City’s noise ordinance during operations.
The Project would implement a series of noise reduction measures during operations,
such as barrier measures to create acoustical separation, noise monitoring to provide
protection to nearby sensitive receptors, setbacks, noise muffling, firework regulations,
pyrotechnical permits, and additional noise reduction measures to ensure less than
significant operational noise impacts. The following mitigation measures imposed
upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to operational noise to a
less than significant level:
MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-3, MM NOI- 6, MM NOI-7, MM NOI-
16, MM NOI-15, MM NOI-20 through MM NOI-24 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded for long-term noise impacts related to traffic, development of
The Disneyland Resort would contribute to cumulative noise impacts; however, due to
the construction of soundwalls or other mitigation for other projects, particularly the I-
5 corridor construction, cumulative impacts were identified to be less than significant.
SEIR No. 340 concluded that impacts related to operational traffic noise would not
contribute to a cumulative significant impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would result in ongoing operational noise impacts, which would be
mitigated to less than significant levels through MMs NOI-1 through MM NOI-7;
MM NOI-9; MM NOI-11; and MM NOI-15 through MM NOI-16. Cumulative
development projects would be required to evaluate their cumulative contributions to
operational noise and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures, which would
help to ensure that cumulative noise impacts of the Project and cumulative projects
would be less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-97
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation
related to operational noise. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe
when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
4. Cumulative Impacts – Groundbourne Vibration
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to groundbourne vibration.
(a) Findings
Cumulative development projects, similar to the Project, would be required to evaluate
their cumulative contributions to operational noise and to incorporate appropriate
mitigation measures, which would help to ensure that cumulative noise impacts of the
Project and cumulative projects would be less than significant. The Project would
implement a series of groundbourne vibration reduction measures, such as prohibiting
the operation of specific construction equipment within 25 feet of any residential
structure, and requiring preparation of a vibration and noise technical study if pile
driving and/or blasting are anticipated during construction to ensure less than
significant noise impacts. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project
would mitigate cumulative impacts related to groundbourne vibration to a less than
significant level:
MM NOI-14, MM NOI-13, MM NOI-19 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that residents within 100 feet of construction areas would be
exposed to construction noise between 69 and 73 dBA when grading occurs; however,
due to the short-term nature of construction noise this would not represent a significant
cumulative impact. SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would reduce vibratory impacts to less than significant levels through
implementation of MM NOI-13 and MM NOI-14. As these mitigation measures are
required by SEIR No. 340 for any projects in the ARSP, other nearby cumulative
projects would be required to conduct their own noise and vibration analyses and
prepare appropriate vibratory mitigation measures for any cumulative projects that
require the use of pile driving, blasting, and/or other construction methods that would
produce high levels of vibration. Therefore, less than significant short-term, cumulative
vibratory impacts are anticipated to result from the Project in combination with other
cumulative projects. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-98
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation
related to vibration. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311, which did not analyze groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared
with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (Threshold 5.13)
1. Adverse Physical Impacts to Existing Fire Protection Facilities (Threshold
5.13a(i))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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
fire protection services.
(a) Findings
The Project would include construction of an additional fire substation, and fire and
safety measures, which would address requirements related to fire hydrants, emergency
access, emergency fire equipment, hazardous materials, building sprinklers, fire safety
building specifications, fire flow pressure and storage, and visible emergency contact
information to minimize demands on fire and safety services. Additionally, fees would
be paid to fund staffing, equipment and facilities as needed to serve the demand for fire
protection services. The following mitigation measures and Project design feature
imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts to fire protection facilities to a less
than significant level:
MM PS-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit for development in the
ARSP Parking and Theme Park Overlays, the property owner/developer shall
pay all applicable fire fees in the amount then in effect and in accordance with
the City-adopted Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact
Fee Program (initially established through City Council Resolution No. 95R-
73). Alternatively, the City and the Property Owner/Developer may enter into
alternative financing arrangements. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-8; SEIR No.
340, MM 5.12-9 and SR 5.12-1)
MM PS-2: Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required, by the
property owner/developer. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-2; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.12-5)
MM PS-3: Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to ensure that
service to the site is in accordance with the Fire Department service
requirements. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-6)
A-99
MM PS-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan which shall
include detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment,
fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire
Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing
facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational
with required fire flow. A construction plan providing a complete timeline
and construction goals shall be provided and approved by the Fire
Department for all new construction projects. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-4;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-11)
MM PS-5: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior
to each final building and zoning inspection, plans shall indicate that all
buildings shall have sprinklers installed by property owner/developer, to
include all open and closed parking structures, exclusive of one-story
detached accessory buildings of less than 120 square feet in floor area, and
free standing shade structures that are open on at least two sides to sufficiently
prevent the accumulation of smoke and hot gases. Additionally, alternatives
to automatic sprinkler systems (e.g., self-contained water mist systems) that
provide an equivalent level of fire protection may be approved for other
buildings on a case-by-case basis upon review and approval by the Fire
Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-7)
MM PS-6: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted
to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire
Department Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full minimum
width of 26 feet for all designated fire access roads.
b. All fire access roads, bridges and underground structures to be used for
Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department
vehicles weighing 78,000 pounds.
c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies (hydrants)
are required at the entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when
determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area
and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property
owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the
hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are
to be a maximum of 300 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water
system. Flow rates for all structures shall be a minimum of 1,500 gallons
per minute.
f. Fire access roads shall be provided with vertical and horizontal clearance
in compliance with Fire Department standards. Any changes to
emergency vehicle access roads shall be included in the overall
emergency vehicle access plans for the Resort area, and maintained by
A-100
property owner/developer. The Fire Code Official shall review all
proposed changes and determine whether to approve any deviations from
these standards.
g. Temporary structure regardless of type of construction shall be
considered temporary if at a location for less than 6 months. Other than
pre-fabricated construction trailers, structures that are at a location for
more than 6 months shall be provided with a fire suppression system
and/or fire notification/life safety systems applicable to the use of the
structure.
h. Integrated Safety Systems (ISS) testing as designed by the property
owner/developer or an updated equivalent shall be required for all
attractions on an annual basis. The property owner/developer shall
provide advance notice to the Fire Department to coordinate witnessing
of such testing at the Fire Code Official’s discretion. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.10.1-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-8)
MM PS-7: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development
Agreement between the City and Disney, the property owner/developer shall
enter into a Fire Operations Agreement with the City of Anaheim to pay or
cause to be paid its fair share of the funding to address the Operations and
Community Risk Reduction staffing needs to maintain adequate levels of
service of response and ongoing fire inspection of the Project and in the
Anaheim Resort. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-7)
MM PS-8: Prior to approval of street improvement plans and water
improvement plans, the water supply system shall be designed by the
property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage
for the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire
Department requirements. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-9; SEIR No. 340, MM
5.12-6)
MM PS-9: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel, the
property owner/developer shall submit an emergency evacuation response
plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require
posted notices in all hotel rooms on emergency evacuation procedures and
incorporate ongoing emergency evacuation training for hotel staff to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-5 and
MM 3.6-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-4)
MM PS-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department as being in conformance
with the California Fire Code. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-12)
MM PS-11: Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site,
an all-weather fire access road shall be provided from the roadway system
to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required
by the Fire Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the
approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate
A-101
emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire
Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must
meet the requirements noted in the Anaheim Municipal Code and in
accordance with City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.12-13)
MM PS-12: Prior to approval of building plans, the property
owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department that all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates
shall be equipped with “knox box” devices as required and approved by the
Fire Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-14)
MM PS-13: Prior to approval of on-site water plans, unless each
commercial building is initially connected to separate fire services, an
unsubordinated covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be
recorded prohibiting any individual sale of buildings until separate fire
services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale. (SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.12-15)
MM PS-14: Prior to the issuance of construction permits associated with
development of over 10,000 sf within the Theme Park District or as
otherwise specified in the Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., the property
owner/developer shall locate and design a Fire Substation within the Theme
Park District, in a location approved by the Fire Chief. The Substation shall
meet the below minimum criteria, and is subject to the review and approval
of the Fire Chief:
1. Designated parking stalls, for a medic truck, ambulance, medic golf
cart, and 2 staff vehicles
2. Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line (services for cable, wifi)
3. Two offices with two workstations each
4. Breakroom/kitchen type area
5. Day room able to accommodate up to 8 personnel (4 paramedics, 2
ambulance, 2 Community Risk Reduction)
6. Restrooms with showers/locker rooms
MM PS-15: Prior to issuance of building permits for any structure greater
than 75 feet tall, the property owner/developer shall conduct an analysis to
determine if the structure would interfere with the Emergency Radio
Response Communication (ERRC) System signal. If warranted based on
the analysis, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
installation of new or relocated equipment.
PDF PS-1: Ongoing during project operation, the existing services and
capabilities of the Disneyland Fire Department shall be maintained for the
DisneylandForward Project Site. Existing services include preconstruction
checks, pre-investigation of fires and alarms, preplanning for fires and
A-102
evacuations, fire prevention program activities, and monitoring of
pyrotechnics and special effects. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.1-1)
MM HAZ-2: Ongoing during demolition and construction, in the event that
hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation
or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the
identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and
disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous
Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter
6.5), according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code,
Title 30, Chapter 22. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-10; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-6)
MM HAZ-3: Prior to approval of a grading plan or issuance of a demolition
permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared pursuant to current
ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments to identify
potential threats to human health and the environment for review by the
City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site
assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be
implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County
Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), as appropriate. The ESA shall detail procedures that shall
be taken if a previously unknown underground storage tank (UST) or other
unknown hazardous materials or waste is discovered onsite. The ESA shall
outline where hazardous materials may be found, types of hazardous
materials anticipated, how to screen for them, and what to do in the event
they are identified. The ESA shall identify the party responsible for the
screening, and training requirements for those responsible for undertaking
the screening effort. The ESA shall specify requirements for reporting,
handling, staging, disposal, and recordkeeping. The ESA shall also identify
contingencies in the event that significant contamination is identified that is
1) above regulatory thresholds and 2) cannot be removed/remediated by
proposed construction. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-5; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.7-4 and MM 5.7-7)
MM HAZ-4: Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit, whichever
occurs first, in areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by
underground storage tanks (USTs), or other hazardous materials or waste,
and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation
or grading; the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a
qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known,
or the presence of, cryptic tanks using geophysical methods that include the
potential use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) or similar technologies to
determine no abandoned USTs are present. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-2;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.7-1)
MM HAZ-5: Prior to the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs),
the property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous
Materials Management section of the Fire Department for removal of such
A-103
tanks. During removal of the underground storage tank, a representative
from the Hazardous Materials Section (HMS) of the Fire Department shall
be onsite to direct soil sampling. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-3; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.7-2)
MM HAZ-6: Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of
surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage
tanks (USTs), conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall
be overseen by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB) and witnessed by Anaheim Fire Department/Hazardous
Material Management Section (HMS). Information on subsurface
contamination from an underground storage tank shall be provided to the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a
copy to Planning & Building. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.11-4; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.7-3)
MM NOI-1: Ongoing during project operation, the property
owner/developer shall obtain pyrotechnic permits on an annual basis.
Material additions or modifications to firework shoots shall require a
separate permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.5-2)
MM UTIL-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply
planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to
the review and final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division and Fire Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would result in a less than
significant impact related to fire protection services with implementation of mitigation.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would create additional demand for
fire and/or emergency rescue services; however, adherence to standard requirements
and implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site is served by the AF&R for fire protection services. Implementation of
the Project would allow the transfer of previously approved uses to Disney Properties
in the Project Site. No new uses are proposed, however, allowable uses would have the
potential to occur in different locations and configurations within the Project Site.
These changes have the potential to alter existing access routes and the anticipated
density of development in certain areas. According to AF&R, the Project would result
in an additional demand for personnel, including one Community Risk Reduction
Officer to handle construction related activities and one to handle all annual inspection,
integrated systems testing, and permitting, as well as facilities to house the additional
personnel. Implementation of MM PS-14, which requires construction of a substation
in the Theme Park District, would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Additionally, fees have been paid for fire services as required by the MMP for The
A-104
Disneyland Resort Project to fund staffing, equipment and facilities as needed to serve
the demand for fire protection services. As part of this Project and through
implementation of MM PS-7, Disney and the City would enter into a Fire Operations
Agreement to replace the existing Paramedic Agreement and to cover all Disney
Properties in the Project Site. Disney would be responsible for continued payment of
fees. Further, consistent with existing conditions, AF&R has dedicated personnel under
contract to the Disneyland Resort, and would continue to do so in the future.
Additionally, implementation of MM PS-1 through MM PS-15, MM HAZ-2 through
MM HAZ-6, MM NOI-1, MM UTIL-3, and PDF PS-1 would further ensure adequate
fire and safety services are provided and would minimize demand on fire and safety
services. These mitigation measures address requirements related to fire hydrants,
emergency access, emergency fire equipment, hazardous materials, building sprinklers,
fire safety building specifications, fire flow pressure and storage, and visible
emergency contact information. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation related to fire
protection services. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when
compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
2. Adverse Physical Impacts to Existing Police Protection Facilities
(Threshold 5.13a(ii))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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
police protection services.
(a) Findings
The Project would include payment of applicable police protection fees to fund staffing,
equipment and facilities as needed to serve the demand for police protection services;
implement safety measures related to private security officers and surveillance, safety
measures for parking structures, and anti-gang and substance abuse educational
programs to ensure the Project would not result in significant police protection service
impacts. The following mitigation measures and project design feature imposed upon
the Project would mitigate impacts to police protection facilities to a less than
significant level:
MM PS-16: Prior to issuance of each applicable building permit, the
property owner/developer shall pay all applicable police protection fees in
the amount then in effect. Alternatively, the City and the property
owner/developer may enter into alternative financing arrangements.
A-105
MM PS-17: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
operator of the public parking facilities shall provide an adequate staff of
private security officers for patrol and surveillance of the facilities. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.2-2)
MM PS-18: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for
DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development
Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts U.S., Inc., the property owner/developer shall enter into Police
Operations Agreement with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid
its fair share of the funding for police personnel and equipment necessary
to meet the service need of the Anaheim Resort as determined by the Chief
of Police. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.2-3)
MM PS-19: Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking structures,
the Police Department shall review the safety measures incorporated into
the building plans for the parking structures within the DisneylandForward
Project Site to be submitted by the property owner/developer. The security
measures shall include the following or other substitute security measures
as may be approved by the Police Department:
• Immediate access in priority criminal cases, where an urgent need
or demand exists and time is of the essence.
• Closed circuit television surveillance and recording equipment or
other adequate security measures reviewed and approved by the
Police Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.2-5; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.12-2)
MM PS-20: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall continue to provide anti-gang, human
trafficking, child exploitation and substance abuse educational programs
which are currently provided for park security cast members. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.10.2-6)
MM PS-21: Ongoing during operations, the Disneyland Security
Department shall be maintained to provide equivalent levels of service to
the entire Disneyland Resort. These services will include initial response,
investigation, and report writing. Entry points to the theme parks will be
patrolled by the Disneyland Security Department. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.10.2-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-3)
MM PS-22: Prior to issuance of each building permit for a hotel, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and
approval by the Chief of Police, or their designee, for safety, accessibility,
crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and
operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the
project design including the concept of crime prevention through
environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and
A-106
lighting of parking structures and parking areas). (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-
1)
MM PS-23: Prior to issuance of each building permit for or including a
parking lot and/or parking structure, the project design shall include parking
lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and
egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Police Department. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.12-4)
MM PS-24: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development
Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
U.S., Inc., the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Police
Department to construct and maintain a Substation in the Theme Park District
which meets the following minimum criteria:
• Designated parking stalls, including EV charging stations, for
approximately 4-6 EV, 15-20 regular spaces
• Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line
• Minimum of two private offices
• Conference/briefing room
• Interview room
• Kitchen
• Breakroom
• Locker rooms with showers, restrooms, and lockers
• Enclosed bicycle storage for at least 12 bicycles
• Equipment storage (size equivalent to two offices)
The location and facility components are subject to the review and
approval of the Chief of Police. A designee of the Chief of Police shall
be included in the initial design phase of the Substation, and shall be
regularly consulted during design and construction. Any subsequent
modification or relocation to either facility is subject to the review and
approval of the Chief of Police.
MM PS-25: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for development
of over 10,000 sf in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay or
as otherwise determined in the Development Agreement between the City
of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with the Police Department to construct
and maintain a Satellite Office in the Southeast District or the Theme Park
East Overlay which meets the following minimum criteria:
A-107
• Designated parking stalls, including 2 -4 EV charging stations, 6 - 8
regular spaces
• Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line
• Breakroom
• Conference/briefing room
• Interview room
• Restrooms
• Enclosed bicycle storage for at least 6 bicycles
The location and facility components are subject to the review and
approval of the Chief of Police. A designee of the Chief of Police shall
be included in the initial design phase of the Satellite Office, and shall be
regularly consulted during design and construction. Any subsequent
modification or relocation to either facility is subject to the review and
approval of the Chief of Police.
PDF PS-2: Ongoing during project operation, the property
owner/developer shall continue to provide and expand its Court Liaison
program to meet the needs of the Disneyland Resort. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.10.2-3)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would result in a less than
significant impact related to police protection services with implementation of
mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would create additional
demand for police services, however, implementation of mitigation would reduce
impacts to less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site is served by the Anaheim Police Department (APD). Implementation
of the Project may increase the demand for police protection services. Implementation
of the Project would reallocate previously approved uses among Disney Properties in
the Project Site. No new uses are proposed; therefore, the demand on police protection
services would be consistent with what was previously analyzed in EIR No. 311 and
SEIR No. 340. According to Anaheim Police, the Project would result in additional
demand requiring new facilities, potential for expanding current facilities, additional
staffing, and additional equipment. Implementation of MM PS-24 and MM PS-25,
which require construction of a Police Substation in the Theme Park District and a
Satellite Office in the Southeast District or the Theme Park East Overlay, all of which
are within the defined development footprint for the DisneylandForward Project as
evaluated throughout this Draft Subsequent EIR, would reduce this impact to less than
significant. Additionally, fees have been paid for police services as required by the
MMP for The Disneyland Resort Project to fund staffing, equipment and facilities as
A-108
needed to serve the demand for police protection services. As part of this Project,
Disney and the City would enter into a Police Operations Agreement to replace the
existing Agreement and to cover all Disney Properties in the Project Site. Therefore,
implementation of MM PS-16, which requires payment of all applicable police
protection fees, would reduce impacts related to provision of new or altered facilities
to maintain service ratios to less than significant.
Additionally, implementation of MM PS-16 through MM PS-25 and PDF PS-2 would
further ensure adequate police protection are provided and would minimize demand on
police services. These mitigation measures address requirements related to private
security officers and surveillance; safety measures for parking structures; and anti-gang
and substance abuse educational programs. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation related to fire
protection services. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when
compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
3. Adverse Physical Impacts to Existing School Facilities (Threshold
5.13a(iii))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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
school facilities.
(a) Findings
The Project would include payment of school impact fees intended to fund staffing,
equipment and facilities as needed to serve the demand for schools and continue to
provide educational community programs to ensure the Project would not cause
significant school facility impacts. The following mitigation measures imposed upon
the Project would mitigate impacts to school facilities to a less than significant level:
MM PS-26: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall provide proof that school impact fees have been paid
consistent with State statute. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.5-2; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.12-17)
PDF PS-3: Ongoing during project operations, the Disneyland Resort has
developed and/or engaged in a series of educational programs in
cooperation with the local community and regional agencies and
organizations, designed to enhance and complement the educational
A-109
opportunities and experiences for the youth. The 10 educational programs
that are currently supported by the Disneyland Resort are indicated below:
1. Anaheim Union High School District’s Anaheim’s Innovative
Mentoring Experience (AIME) program
2. Big Brothers & Big Sisters of Orange County’s Workplace Mentoring
Program at Anaheim Union High School District
3. United Way’s Youth Career Connections and Speakers Bureaus at the
Anaheim Union High School District
4. Anaheim Family YMCA Avanza Program
5. Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance’s ROOTED
Career Development Program at Anaheim Union High School District
6. Hola Readers at Anaheim Elementary School District
7. Anaheim Elementary School District’s Broadway Bound: Empowering
Young Performers in Anaheim
8. Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Anaheim-Cypress gEARed Up for the
Future
9. School Support Programs Girls Inc.’s Girls Meet the Workforce/Project
Accelerate
10. CIF Champion Celebration Girl Scouts of Orange County’s Career
Exploration Program – Dreams to Reality
The property owner/developer will continue these programs and/or
substitute similar programs of equal importance. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.10.5-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would not result in any
direct impacts on local school districts. However, EIR No. 311 identified significant
and unavoidable indirect impacts related to school enrollment due to over-capacity
situations in the Anaheim Union High School District and the Anaheim City School
District. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would generate new
school-aged students, however, implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to
less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project does not involve the construction of new dwelling units. Additionally,
development of the Project would not increase square footage that has already been
entitled. Therefore, direct impacts on the AESD or the AUHSD are not expected to
occur as a result of the Project. However, development of the Project could produce an
indirect impact, increasing population in the City by approximately 6,079 related to
new employees choosing to relocate to the City of Anaheim. This indirect increase in
A-110
population has the potential to indirectly increase the number of school-aged children
served by AESD and AUHSD. Although not required under State law, Disney entered
into an agreement with the AESD, formerly known as the Anaheim City School
District, for early payment of the fees for buildout of The Disneyland Resort Project.
However, impacts to AUHSD would be potentially significant. Implementation of
MM PS-26 requires payment of school impact fees intended to fund staffing,
equipment and facilities as needed to serve the demand for schools; therefore, no
additional fees are required to minimize impacts on schools. With payment of the
required fees, less than significant impacts related to schools would occur.
Additionally, with implementation of PDF PS-3, Disney would 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. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation related to
schools. This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR
No. 311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared
with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
4. Adverse Physical Impacts to Existing Library Facilities (Threshold
5.13a(v))
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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
other public facilities including library facilities.
(a) Findings
The Project would require payment of developer fees intended to fund staffing,
resources, and facilities as needed to serve the demand for library services for all
approved entitlements to ensure the Project would not significantly impact library
facilities. The following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project would mitigate
impacts to library facilities to a less than significant level:
MM PS-27: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for development in
the ARSP Parking and Theme Park Overlays, with the exception of theme
park square footage transferred from the DRSP, the property
owner/developer shall comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section
17.08.385, Public Library Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees
Required. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-19)
A-111
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not analyze impacts to other public facilities such as library services.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would introduce new borrowers to
the Anaheim Public Library service area, however, implementation of mitigation would
reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
Anaheim residents and visitors that use library services online, whether from their
personal residence or a hotel, affects the availability of online resources because of the
limited number of licenses. With additional users to serve, the Project would reduce
the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service
space. Therefore, in order to maintain current per capita levels and licensing
agreements, the City would need to provide additional physical and virtual resources
to the Anaheim library system. The Anaheim Municipal Code Section 17.08.385,
Public Library Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required, specifies that
developer fees shall be deposited in a public library services fund. This fund shall be
used for the construction, equipping, and supplying of said services, as set forth in the
public library services plan. Implementation of MM PS-27 requires payment of
developer fees, intended to fund staffing, resources, and facilities as needed to serve
the demand for library services for all approved entitlements; therefore, no additional
fees are required to minimize impacts on library resources and services. With payment
of required fees, a less than significant impact would occur. For the reasons stated
above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not
address impacts to other public facilities such as library services. This impact would
not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in
SEIR No. 340.
5. Cumulative Impacts – Fire Facilities
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to fire facilities.
(a) Findings
As previously stated, the Project would be required to construct and maintain a
substation and enter into a Fire Operations Agreement to address future staffing needs,
which would help meet the needs for the anticipated increase in demand for fire
services, in addition to the other fire protection measures which would address
requirements related to fire hydrants, emergency access, emergency fire equipment,
A-112
hazardous materials, building sprinklers, fire safety building specifications, fire flow
pressure and storage, and visible emergency contact information. The following
mitigation measures and Project design feature imposed upon the Project would
mitigate cumulative impacts related to fire facilities to a less than significant level:
MM PS-1 through MM PS-15, MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-6, MM
NOI-1, MM UTIL-3, and PDF PS-1 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact related to fire protection services with implementation
of mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP and reasonably
foreseeable projects within the vicinity of the ARSP and Disneyland Resort, would
result in an increased cumulative demand for recreational amenities; however,
cumulative impacts of Project development would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of fire protection services is defined
as the service territory for the AF&R. The City is undergoing continuous development
and redevelopment. While the contribution of these projects to area growth is largely
reflected in population and housing estimates and has been considered in long-range
planning efforts undertaken by agencies, the Project’s modifications as discussed
previously in addition to future development within the AF&R service area have the
potential to create significant impacts related to need for additional resources to serve
the Project and cumulative development. However, the Project would be required to
construct and maintain a Substation within the DisneylandForward Project site and
enter into a Fire Operations Agreement to address future staffing needs according to
MM PS-14 and MM PS-7, respectively, which would help meet the anticipated
increased demand for fire services. Therefore, implementation of these and all other
applicable mitigation measures noted would reduce the Project’s contribution to a
cumulative impact to less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This
impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
6. Cumulative Impacts – Police Facilities
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to police facilities.
A-113
(a) Findings
The Project would be required to construct and maintain a substation and satellite office
to help meet the anticipated increased demand for police protection services as a result
of the Project, in addition to safety measures related to private security officers and
surveillance, safety measures for parking structures, and anti-gang and substance abuse
educational programs. The following mitigation measures and Project design feature
imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to police facilities
to a less than significant level:
MM PS-16 through MM PS-25, PDF PS-2 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that The Disneyland Resort Project would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact related to police protection services with implementation
of mitigation. According to SEIR No. 340, demand for police protection services
associated with buildout of the ARSP would not result in or contribute to any
significant cumulative impact to police protection services; however, compliance with
the proposed mitigation would further ensure adequate police protection services are
provided and would minimize demand on police protection services.
Project Specific Conclusion
The geographic area for cumulative analysis of police protection services is defined as
the service territory for the Police Department. The City is undergoing continuous
development and redevelopment. While the contribution of these projects to area
growth is largely reflected in population and housing estimates and has been considered
in long-range planning efforts undertaken by agencies, the Project’s modifications as
discussed previously in addition to future development within the Police Department’s
service area have the potential to create significant impacts related to need for
additional resources to serve the Project and cumulative development. However, the
Project would be required to construct and maintain a Substation within the Theme
Park District and a Satellite Office in the Southeast District/Theme Park East Overlay
according to MM PS-24 and MM PS-25, respectively, which would help meet the
anticipated increased demand for police protection services. Therefore, implementation
of these and all other applicable mitigation measures noted would reduce the Project’s
contribution to a cumulative impact to a less than significant level. For the reasons
stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This
impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
A-114
7. Cumulative Impacts – School Facilities
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to school facilities.
(a) Findings
The Project would require payment of school impact fees which would help offset the
demand for school facilities in the area. The following mitigation measure and Project
design feature imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to
school facilities to a less than significant level:
MM PS-26, PDF PS-3 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined The Disneyland Resort Project would have a less than
significant direct impact on schools, but identified a significant and unavoidable
indirect impact related to school enrollment due to over-capacity situations in the
Anaheim Union High School District and the Anaheim City School District. According
to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in an increased student population;
however, all new growth would occur in compliance with applicable goals and policies
of the City’s General Plan and standard requirements such as SB 50. Therefore,
potential impacts related to schools would be less than significant and would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Project Specific Conclusion
Future development under the Project could result in increased student population,
which when considered in combination with future cumulative development within the
AESD and AUHSD boundaries, has the potential to represent a significant impact
related to the adequacy of school facilities and resources, and additional facilities and
resources may be required. However, all new growth associated with the Project as well
as cumulative projects would occur in compliance with applicable goals and policies
of the City’s General Plan and standard requirements such as payment of fees pursuant
to SB 50. As previously discussed, Disney entered into an agreement with the AESD,
formerly known as the Anaheim City School District, for early payment of the fees for
buildout of the Disneyland Resort Project. Additionally, with implementation of MM
PS-26 which requires payment of school impact fees, potential project-level impacts to
AUHSD related to Project implementation would be reduced to less than significant
levels. Therefore, payment of the required fees would also reduce the Project’s
contribution to a cumulative impact to a less than significant level. For the reasons
stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
A-115
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This
impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
8. Cumulative Impacts – Library Facilities
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to library facilities.
(a) Findings
The Project would require payment of developer fees which would help offset the
demand for library facilities in the area. The following mitigation measure imposed
upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to library facilities to a less
than significant level:
MM PS-27 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not analyze potential cumulative impacts to other public facilities such
as library services. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would
incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts. However, potential cumulative
impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
Implementation of the Project would affect the provision of library services, which
when considered in combination with future cumulative development within the City
limits, has the potential to represent a significant impact related to library services. All
future development projects, including the Project, would be required to assess
potential impacts to library services and mitigate such impacts through the payment of
fees as detailed in the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 17.08.385, Public Library
Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required. These fees would fund purchase
of additional resources or construction of physical improvements. Therefore, with
implementation of MM PS-27 which requires payment of developer fees, potential
project-level library impacts related to Project implementation would be reduced to less
than significant levels. Therefore, payment of the required fees would also reduce the
Project’s contribution to a cumulative impact to a less than significant level. For the
reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that,
with implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced to a less
than significant level.
A-116
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation. This
impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which
did not address other public services, including library services. This impact would not
be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR
No. 340.
M. TRANSPORTATION (Threshold 5.14)
1. Conflict with Transportation Program, Plan or Policy (Threshold 5.14a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
(a) Findings
The Project would include implementation of measures aimed specifically at reducing
VMT, including right of way and in-lieu contributions to the City for bicycle facilities,
encouraging the use of transit options to reduce reliance on individual vehicles,
developing alternative pedestrian infrastructure to encourage pedestrian use and reduce
VMT, and providing overall improvements to existing roadway systems, parking and
access to ensure transportation impacts would be less than significant. The following
mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to
conflict with an applicable transportation program, plan or policy to a less than
significant level:
MM TRA-1: Ongoing during project development and operations, the
property owner/developer shall implement the improvements and pay in
lieu fees described in Table 19 (Recommended Intersection Improvements)
and Table 20 (Other Transportation Improvements) of the Operational
Traffic Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project (Gibson 2023), as set
forth in Appendix J-2 of Subsequent EIR No. 352, within the time frames
described in those tables. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, any
remaining applicable Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Transportation
Impact and Improvement Fees (Fees) relating to the building permit site
shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in the
amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of
issuance of the building permit, except to the extent such fees may have
been previously paid or satisfied pursuant to one or more separate
agreements between Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. and the City
of Anaheim relating to The Disneyland Resort Project or The
DisneylandForward Project. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-2)
MM TRA-2: Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance
of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise
established in Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. or as approved pursuant to a
Discretionary Exemption to establish the timing of Street and Other Right-
A-117
of-Way Dedications and Improvements (Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.40.060 Dedications and Improvements), the property owner/developer
shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements),
including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway
right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation
Element of the Anaheim General Plan. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.3-3B; SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.14-3)
MM TRA-3: Prior to demolition of an existing Disneyland Resort
parking lot, replacement parking for the existing parking spaces
removed will be constructed or secured.
Access Improvements and Public Parking Facilities Included in Project
Design (Exhibit 4.3.1b – Interstate 5-West Street/Disneyland Drive
Interchange (Showing Entrance to West Parking Facility) and
Exhibit 4.3.1c – Interstate 5/Katella Interchange (Showing Entrance to
East Parking Facility).
Public Parking Facilities. New public parking facilities will be constructed
at opposite sides of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area to receive
traffic from the I-5. Ongoing during project operation, a minimum of 24,500
guest and cast parking spaces will be provided. The West Parking Area is
oriented to receive southbound I-5 traffic, and the parking facilities in the
East Parking Area and adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay will be oriented to
receive northbound I-5 traffic. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-1)
MM TRA-4: To be shown on street improvement plans; to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the east
and west parking structures/facilities.
Improved Access. Access roads leading up to the parking facilities shall
be sized to accommodate traffic at peak hours, thereby substantially
reducing the likelihood of backups onto City streets and freeway ramps,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
No cast or guest access or egress will occur from Walnut Street. (EIR
No. 311, PDF 3.3-2)
MM TRA-5: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for both the
east and west parking structures,
Speed Parking. Building plans shall show direct ramps to each level of
the East and West Parking Area facilities to minimize internal circulation
within the garages and accommodate the project's "speed parking"
operation. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-3)
MM TRA-6: To be shown on street improvement plans; to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning inspection for each
parking structure and/or facility,
A-118
Conveyance Systems. In addition to an extensive network of landscaped
pedestrian thoroughfares, conveyance systems will transport Disneyland
Resort guests around The Anaheim Resort. Guest transportation systems
will move guests from the parking facilities to the Theme Park District.
The monorail/guest transportation systems shall move guests within the
Theme Park District. Future connections may also be provided to the
Southeast District. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-4)
MM TRA-7: To be shown on street improvement plans; to be implemented
prior to final building and zoning inspections for the second theme park for
Phase II; and if pursued, to be implemented prior to final building and
zoning inspections for the East Parking Area or adjacent ARSP Parking
Overlay parking structure(s) or other accessible location in Phase IV.
Theme Park Drop-Off Area. To provide access to the attractions in the
Specific Plan area to people staying outside of The Disneyland Resort area,
a bus and shuttle drop-off area will be located adjacent to Harbor Boulevard
north of Disney Way as shown on Exhibit 4.4.2a of the Specific Plan; or, in
Phase IV, the facility may be located adjacent or internal to the East Parking
Area or the adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay Parking Structure(s), or other
accessible location in the Theme Park Districts. The types of vehicles served
at this facility may include public and private passenger shuttles and buses.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-20)
MM TRA-8: Transportation Demand Management Program
On-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips
to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of
both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility
Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is
recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR)
goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest
stay of 1.72 days.
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely
which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland
Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will
review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the
Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with
the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing
the effectiveness of these items, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
will select specific programs for implementation.
Objectives of the TDM program are:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by
guests.
A-119
• Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort
cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
• Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future
transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for
both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
• Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for
cast and guest trips are described below.
Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will
become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM program
strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast commute options
would be examined, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services may be provided to the cast.
• Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast
members who live in the same geographic areas and who could
rideshare to The Disneyland Resort.
• Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The
Disneyland Resort.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail)
passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite
sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to
The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
• Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided
for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial
incentives will be provided.
• Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local
shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel
to work by means other than the automobile.
• Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be
developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure
bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this
A-120
program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be
provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
• Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to
provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an
automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members
use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would
be able to have personal transportation in the event of special
circumstances.
• Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast
members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting
to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle,
or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member
who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event
of an emergency.
• Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective
employees within 20 miles.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an
incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative
transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest
employee commute trips.
• Work Schedule
o Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work
different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A
thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide
the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus
lessening peak hour congestion.
o Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review
the possibility of developing a "compressed work week"
program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily
shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help
eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be
generated daily by The Disneyland Resort Cast.
o Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members
in a wide variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and
professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at
home. Telecommuting will be encouraged on a limited basis as
operational needs allow.
• Work Environment/Facility Management
o Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a
parking management program that provides incentives to those
who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant
auto to travel to work.
A-121
o Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park
transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to
accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with
adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead
to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast
members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
o Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage
areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient
parking management for cast and guests.
o Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
o Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic
congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
• Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be
integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
o Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit.
Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $300 per
month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or
use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus
pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA
passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit
passes.
o Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast members
may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they
would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and
showers. Cast members may also receive a cash incentive for
reporting a bike or walk commute.
o Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be
offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
o Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of
Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or
vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast
members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction
programs.
• Guests
o Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated to
average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and
incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more
guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and
from The Disneyland Resort. The property owner/developer is
currently developing a list of potential programs and is working
with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of
convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing
A-122
materials for The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-
free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars
are not needed.
o Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary
entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from
moving or parked vehicles.
• Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the general
construction contractors regarding the coordination of rideshare services for
construction employees provided by the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-
6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-9, and MM 5.14-23)
MM TRA-9: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle
program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort,
including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this
measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
MM TRA-10: Ongoing during construction, if Anaheim Police Department
or Anaheim TMC personnel are required to provide temporary traffic
control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on
a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such
services. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-11; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-7)
MM TRA-11: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer will establish an onsite public information office (which
is conveniently and accessibly located) where construction scheduling and
phasing information will be available to the public. The public information
office shall be open during construction hours. A telephone "hotline" will
be provided to the community to allow members of the public to call the
office with questions or comments during business hours. At least one
liaison officer will be staffed at the office. The liaison officer shall be
available to answer questions from the public and shall coordinate with the
City of Anaheim, other public agencies, and major developers in the area
regarding the coordination of construction activities and infrastructure
improvements. The City shall be provided with a monthly summary of the
calls received and follow-up actions. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-12)
MM TRA-12: Prior to issuance of each building permit for The Disneyland
Resort or, any other timing specifically provided in this measure, the
property owner/developer shall submit a Traffic Mitigation and
Construction Phasing and Control Plan. To the extent needed, as determined
by the Public Works Department, the Traffic Mitigation and Construction
Phasing and Control Plan shall identify the following:
A-123
a. A Construction Staging Area Plan showing the location and size of
the construction staging area. The Plan shall also show how the
staging area will be screened from view in compliance with the City
of Anaheim Municipal Code. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-1)
MM TRA-13: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
grading and construction, a Truck Route Plan identifying truck routes along
arterials, avoiding residential areas to the extent feasible and in compliance
with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. The Plan shall show
conformance with the external noise limits for construction between 7 p.m.
and 7 a.m. The Plan shall also prohibit construction traffic on residential
streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to
ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel
on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on
the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of
truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and
construction signage at appropriate locations. The Truck Route Plan shall
provide for monitoring of street conditions and potential repairing and/or
repaving by property owner/developer after completion of construction as
required by the City Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-3)
MM TRA-14: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
grading and construction, a Construction Traffic Management Plan which
includes mechanisms to reduce construction-related traffic congestion
which shall be implemented during grading and construction, including, but
not limited to, the following:
1. Configure construction parking to minimize onsite and offsite traffic
interference.
2. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes.
3. Provide flagpersons to guide traffic, as determined in the plan. (EIR
No. 311, PDF 3.8-4)
MM TRA-15: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
construction, a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew vehicles shall be
prepared to reduce potential vehicle trips on the road and identify parking
locations for construction employees and equipment. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.8-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 generally addressed this threshold through consistency analyses contained
in Section 3.1, Land Use-Related Plans and Policies, and concluded buildout of The
Disneyland Resort Project would result in less than significant impacts related to
A-124
Transportation Planning Programs. SEIR No. 340 found a significant and unavoidable
impact based on the LOS analysis used at the time, and which is no longer an applicable
threshold for transportation analyses.
Project Specific Conclusion
A project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy if it were
generally consistent with and would not obstruct implementation of that program, plan,
ordinance, or policy. The following programs, plans, policies, and ordinances were
reviewed including the California Senate Bill 743; Connect SoCal; Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways; Orange County Congestion Management Program;
General Plan Circulation Element; Bicycle Master Plan; Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan; and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. A detailed consistency analysis with each
applicable program, plan, policy and ordinance is included in Section 5.14 –
Transportation/Traffic. Overall, implementation of specific mitigation measures which
support implementation of new and improvement to existing roadway systems,
parking, and access would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Further,
implementation of MM TRA-1 through MM TRA-15 would reduce impacts to less
than significant levels. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be reduced when compared with the analysis in
SEIR No. 340, which focused on the LOS analysis methodology.
2. Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)
(Threshold 5.14b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
(a) Findings
The Project would include parking facilities design, a guest transportation system,
theme park drop-off areas, continued implementation of the existing TDM program
with trip reduction features to minimize cast vehicle trips, and support for existing
transit programs to encourage alternative modes of transportation and overall reduce
VMT. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate
impacts regarding a potential conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b) to a less than significant level:
A-125
MM TRA-3 and MM TRA-6 through MM TRA-9 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
Neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 addressed impacts related to conflicting or
being inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Project Specific Conclusion
Four scenarios were run in OCTAM (Baseline no Project, Baseline plus Project,
Cumulative no Project, and Cumulative plus Project). VMT was calculated in two ways
(the total VMT by TAZ used in Criteria 1 and the link-based VMT used in Criteria 2),
and it was calculated for multiple geographic areas (County-wide and for the specific
Project TAZs for Criteria 1 and Citywide for Criteria 2). The “no Project” scenarios
were run without modifications to OCTAM and the “plus Project” scenarios included
changes resulting from the Project.
Table 5.14-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR summarizes the results of the VMT analysis
using the OD Method and application of Criteria 1, prior to mitigation. The Project-
generated VMT per MSP is 23.7 miles under baseline conditions and 25.1 miles under
cumulative conditions. In both analysis periods, the Project- generated VMT per MSP
would exceed the threshold of significance. Therefore, prior to mitigation, the Project
would result in a significant impact with respect to VMT under Criteria 1. As shown,
the Project VMT impact would exceed the threshold by approximately 7.2 percent
under baseline conditions and 4.6 percent under cumulative conditions. Accordingly,
mitigation is required to reduce the VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds.
Table 5.14-2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR summarizes the results of the VMT analysis
using the Boundary Method and application of Criteria 2, prior to mitigation. With the
Project, the City-wide VMT per MSP would increase to 11.55 miles under baseline
conditions and decrease to 11.39 miles under cumulative conditions. Therefore, prior
to mitigation, the Project would result in a significant impact with respect to VMT
under Criteria 2 under baseline conditions because the Citywide VMT per MSP would
increase by approximately 0.3 percent. Accordingly, mitigation is required to reduce
the VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds.
As mitigation for the Project’s significant impact with respect to VMT, Disney would
continue to operate its TDM program and continue to support local transit and mobility
in the manner summarized above. These TDM measures employed by Disney have the
potential, on their own, to reduce VMT by more than 7.2 percent. In addition, Disney
annually reports to the SCAQMD on the effectiveness of its TDM program for cast
members at The Disneyland Resort. Based on the continued operation of Disney’s
robust TDM program and design features within The Disneyland Resort, it is estimated
that VMT would be reduced by at least 10 percent compared to a scenario in which
those programs and features were not provided. This is supported by the estimates of
TDM effectiveness from Table 5.14-3 as shown in the Subsequent EIR and whether or
not including any effects of those measures not quantified by the CAPCOA Handbook.
A-126
VMT analysis after mitigation under Criteria 1 shows with the 10 percent reduction in
Project-related VMT, the baseline Project VMT per MSP would be reduced to 21.2
miles, which is less than the baseline impact threshold of 22.1 miles. The cumulative
Project VMT per MSP would be reduced to 22.4 miles, which is less than the
cumulative impact threshold of 24.9 miles. Therefore, the identified VMT
impact under Criteria 1 would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
VMT analysis after mitigation under Criteria 2 the 10 percent reduction in Project-
related VMT would reduce the Citywide VMT per MSP to 11.31 miles under baseline
conditions, which is less than the baseline impact threshold of 11.52 miles. Therefore,
the identified VMT impact under Criteria 2 would also be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Overall, the Project’s VMT analysis found that the Project would generate VMT in
exceedance of the City’s thresholds of significance for VMT. Therefore, prior to
mitigation, the Project would result in a significant impact related to VMT. With
implementation of MM TRA-3, MM TRA-6, MM TRA-7, MM TRA-8, and MM
TRA-9, which include parking facilities design, a guest transportation system, theme
park drop-off areas, continued implementation of Disney’s existing TDM program, and
support for existing transit programs, the Project’s impact related to VMT would be
reduced to less than significant levels. For the reasons stated above and as discussed
in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340, neither of which addressed CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
3. Incompatible Uses of Geometric Design Feature (Threshold 5.14c)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses.
(a) Findings
The Project would provide improved access, parking, drop off areas, and transportation
features to prevent hazardous conditions due to geometric configurations and ensure
the Project would not create an incompatible use. All proposed improvements and
features of the Project would be designed and developed in compliance with City
standards from the Building Division, Public Works, and the Fire & Rescue
Department and would be reviewed and approved by City staff. The following
mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts regarding
potential hazards related to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses to a less
than significant level:
A-127
MM TRA-4, MM TRA-5, MM TRA-12 through MM TRA-14 (see
above)
MM TRA-16: Prior to approval of each building permit, a Traffic
Management Plan for phasing of roadway improvements, specifying the
sequencing of construction to do the following:
1. Coordinate scheduling with other planned construction in the area.
2. Coordinate scheduling with other infrastructure improvements to
allow them to be facilitated efficiently during roadway
improvements, such as sewer, storm drain, and water line
improvements.
3. Outline procedures for any required traffic detours during
construction, including provision of tour bus stops.
4. Phase each roadway improvement to allow access to all existing
businesses/residential areas. In some instances this will require lane-
by-lane renovation, temporary bypass roads, or traffic reroutes.
5. Employ vertical shoring as often as possible. This will minimize the
amount of road surface that will be disturbed at a given location.
6. Sequence the construction of each roadway improvement to
minimize disruption to residents and businesses.
7. Establish offsite parking and staging areas, where practical and
possible, to minimize the impact to existing level of service on
adjacent roadways. These offsite parking and staging areas will
allow a dispersion of traffic flow to noncritical areas and will
encourage bussing of construction workers from the offsite areas to
the construction sites.
8. Identify how the project improvement construction schedules and
haul routes will be coordinated with other areawide improvements.
The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of
Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC), the Anaheim
Convention Center and area hotels to ensure continued operations
of these facilities, as well as the continued operation of The
Disneyland Resort. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-6 and PDF 3.8-8)
MM TRA-17: Ongoing during project construction, the property
owner/developer shall submit a quarterly update report showing
construction activities for the upcoming quarter which shall include traffic
mitigation and control planning and construction scheduling. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.8-9)
MM TRA-18: Prior to approval of each grading plan the property
owner/developer shall show how the project will be in compliance with the
Traffic Mitigation and Construction Phasing and Control Plan. (EIR No.
311, PDF 3.8-11)
A-128
MM TRA-19: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location
of any proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any
driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular
traffic on the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform
to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.14-12)
MM TRA-20: Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans shall show
that all driveways shall be constructed with a minimum fifteen (15) foot
radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-13)
MM TRA-21: Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map
approval, whichever occurs first, security in the form of a bond, certificate
of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the satisfactory completion of all engineering requirements of the
City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water
facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities and
other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance
with the specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as may be
modified by the City Engineer. Installation of said improvements shall
occur prior to final building and zoning inspections. (SEIR No. 340, MM
5.14-14)
MM TRA-22: Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map, the
following Street Design Elements shall be shown on each tentative tract or
parcel map:
a. Street cross-sections, including dimensions, labels, circulation
designation (i.e., Resort Secondary) and whether public or private.
b. Street grades and vertical alignment.
c. Horizontal alignment, including radii, and cul-de-sac radii. (SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.14-10)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly address impacts related to hazards. According to
Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, in SEIR No. 340, buildout of the
ARSP would not result in a significant impact related to increasing hazards; a detailed
analysis was not prepared.
A-129
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would have many access points spread throughout the Project Site,
including to and from arterial streets such as Ball Road, Disneyland Drive, Katella
Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, and Haster Street. As discussed in the Operation Traffic
Analysis, Appendix J-2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the existing driveway on Haster
Street to the Southeast District would be equipped with a traffic signal, subject to a
technical study proving the signal would meet warrants, as would the intersection of
Manchester Avenue/Clementine Street and Alro Way. Additionally, the Project would
develop new transportation infrastructure including internal roadways, pedestrian
bridges, and, potentially, vehicular flyovers (e.g., to provide direct access to the DRSP
Parking District East Parking Area from Disney Way). These access points and
infrastructure improvements have not been designed in detail, but such features were
originally contemplated in EIR No. 311 and continue to be proposed as features of the
Project.
All proposed improvements and features of the Project would be designed and
developed in compliance with City standards from the Building Division, Public
Works, and the Fire & Rescue Department and would be reviewed and approved by
City staff. The designs would not result in hazardous conditions due to geometric
configuration. The Project is a destination resort with retail, dining, entertainment,
theme park, and hotel uses and is located in a specially designated resort district within
the City and, therefore, it is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Implementation of MMs TRA-4, MM TRA-5, MM TRA-12, MM TRA-13, MM
TRA-14, MM TRA-16, MM TRA-17, MM TRA-18, MM TRA-19, MM TRA-20,
MM TRA-21, and MM TRA-22 would reduce potential impacts related to increased
hazards due to geometric designs or incompatible adjacent land uses to less than
significant with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
4. Inadequate Emergency Access (Threshold 5.14d)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in inadequate emergency
access.
(a) Findings
The Project would include use of Anaheim Police Department of TMC personnel
during construction to provide temporary traffic control services and other applicable
safety measures, such as submittal of a fire access plan and emergency evacuation plan
to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to Project implementation, and
A-130
provision of an all-weather fire access road to and on the construction site and for fire
hydrants at all times, which would ensure the Project would not result in inadequate
emergency access. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would
mitigate impacts regarding potential inadequate emergency access to a less than
significant level:
MM TRA-10 (see above)
MM PS-3: Prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to ensure that
service to the site is in accordance with the Fire Department service
requirements. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-6)
MM PS-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan which shall
include detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment,
fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire
Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing
facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational
with required fire flow. A construction plan providing a complete timeline
and construction goals shall be provided and approved by the Fire
Department for all new construction projects. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-4;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-11)
MM PS-6: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted
to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire
Department Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full minimum
width of 26 feet for all designated fire access roads.
b. All fire access roads, bridges and underground structures to be used for
Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department
vehicles weighing 78,000 pounds.
c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies (hydrants)
are required at the entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when
determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area
and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property
owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the
hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are
to be a maximum of 300 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water
system. Flow rates for all structures shall be a minimum of 1,500 gallons
per minute.
f. Fire access roads shall be provided with vertical and horizontal clearance
in compliance with Fire Department standards. Any changes to
emergency vehicle access roads shall be included in the overall
A-131
emergency vehicle access plans for the Resort area, and maintained by
property owner/developer. The Fire Code Official shall review all
proposed changes and determine whether to approve any deviations from
these standards.
g. Temporary structure regardless of type of construction shall be
considered temporary if at a location for less than 6 months. Other than
pre-fabricated construction trailers, structures that are at a location for
more than 6 months shall be provided with a fire suppression system
and/or fire notification/life safety systems applicable to the use of the
structure.
h. Integrated Safety Systems (ISS) testing as designed by the property
owner/developer or an updated equivalent shall be required for all
attractions on an annual basis. The property owner/developer shall
provide advance notice to the Fire Department to coordinate witnessing
of such testing at the Fire Code Official’s discretion. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.10.1-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-8)
MM PS-7: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development
Agreement between the City and Disney, the property owner/developer shall
enter into a Fire Operations Agreement with the City of Anaheim to pay or
cause to be paid its fair share of the funding to address the Operations and
Community Risk Reduction staffing needs to maintain adequate levels of
service of response and ongoing fire inspection of the Project and in the
Anaheim Resort. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.1-7)
MM PS-9: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel, the
property owner/developer shall submit an emergency evacuation response
plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require
posted notices in all hotel rooms on emergency evacuation procedures and
incorporate ongoing emergency evacuation training for hotel staff to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.6-5 and
MM 3.6-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.5-4)
MM PS-11: Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site,
an all-weather fire access road shall be provided from the roadway system
to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required
by the Fire Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the
approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate
emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire
Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must
meet the requirements noted in the Anaheim Municipal Code and in
accordance with City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.12-13)
MM PS-12: Prior to approval of building plans, the property
owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the
Fire Department that all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates
A-132
shall be equipped with “knox box” devices as required and approved by the
Fire Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-14)
MM PS-19: Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking structures,
the Police Department shall review the safety measures incorporated into
the building plans for the parking structures within the DisneylandForward
Project Site to be submitted by the property owner/developer. The security
measures shall include the following or other substitute security measures
as may be approved by the Police Department:
• Immediate access in priority criminal cases, where an urgent need or
demand exists and time is of the essence.
• Closed circuit television surveillance and recording equipment or other
adequate security measures reviewed and approved by the Police
Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.2-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.12-2)
MM PS-20: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall continue to provide anti-gang, human
trafficking, child exploitation and substance abuse educational programs
which are currently provided for park security cast members. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.10.2-6)
MM PS-22: Prior to issuance of each building permit for a hotel, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and
approval by the Chief of Police, or their designee, for safety, accessibility,
crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and
operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the
project design including the concept of crime prevention through
environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and
lighting of parking structures and parking areas). (SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.12-1)
MM PS-23: Prior to issuance of each building permit for or including a
parking lot and/or parking structure, the project design shall include parking
lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and
egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Police Department. (SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.12-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly addressed impacts related to emergency access. According
to Section 2.4.2, Effects Found Not to be Significant, in SEIR No. 340, buildout of the
ARSP would not result in a significant impact related to inadequate emergency access;
a detailed analysis was not prepared.
A-133
Project Specific Conclusion
All Project access points and infrastructure improvements would be designed and
developed in compliance with City standards from the Planning and Building, Public
Works, and the Fire & Rescue Departments. All designated fire lanes would meet
requirements and would be reviewed and approved by the Fire & Rescue Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Project’s closure of Magic Way to public through traffic would not impede
emergency access. Emergency vehicle access to uses within The Disneyland Resort
would be maintained to the satisfaction of the City, including emergency vehicle access
at Magic Way. Temporary construction activities are not expected to result in the full
closure of any public streets and, thus, public routes for emergency response would be
maintained during construction to the satisfaction of the City. As discussed in Section
5.13, Public Services, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, development of the Project would
allow for future development of land uses in different locations and configurations
within the Project Site, which has the potential to alter existing access routes. However,
implementation of MM TRA-10 regarding use of Anaheim Police Department or
Anaheim TMC personnel during construction and MM PS-3, MM PS-4, MM PS-6,
MM PS-7, MM PS-9, MM PS-20, MM PS-11, MM PS-12, MM PS-19, MM PS-22,
and MM PS-23 would address potential impacts related to emergency access, reducing
potential impacts to less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed
in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level..
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to transportation.
(a) Findings
As stated above, the Project would include VMT reduction measures such as right of
way and in-lieu contributions for bicycle facilities, encouraging the use of transit
options to reduce reliance on individual vehicles, developing alternative pedestrian
infrastructure to encourage pedestrian use and reduce VMT, and providing overall
improvements to existing roadway systems, parking and access. The Project also would
implement traffic reduction measures and safety reduction measures such as providing
a temporary traffic control services, submittal of a fire access plan and emergency
evacuation plan to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to Project
implementation, and provision of an all-weather fire access road to and on the
construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, to ensure the Project would not result
in cumulatively considerable transportation impacts. The following mitigation
A-134
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to
transportation to a less than significant level:
MM TRA-1 through MM TRA-22, MM PS-3, MM PS-4, MM PS-6,
MM PS-7, MM PS-9, MM PS-11, MM PS-12, MM PS-19, MM PS-20,
MM PS-22, and MM PS-23 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would not result in significant
cumulative impacts on intersections, street segments, freeways, or freeway ramps with
implementation of mitigation. Additionally, EIR No. 311 identified a less than
significant impact related to plan incompatibilities and a beneficial cumulative effect
associated with transit services. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP
would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to
operation of several area intersections, arterial roadways, and freeway ramps, mainlines
and weaving areas. However, EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340 used an LOS analysis
and not the VMT analysis now required by CEQA.
Project Specific Conclusion
In addition to potential Project-specific impacts, the Project must be reviewed in
combination with nearby development projects to determine if there may be a
cumulatively significant impact resulting from inconsistency with a particular program,
plan, policy, or ordinance. There are a number of proposed, approved, or under-
construction development projects within the Project area, most of which are hotels.
Each of the other developments considered in this cumulative analysis of consistency
with programs, plans, policies, and ordinances was, or would be, separately reviewed
and approved by the City, including a check for their consistency with applicable
policies. Considered cumulatively, the addition of new hotels within the ARSP
provides more capacity for Disney theme park guests to stay within walking distance
of The Disneyland Resort. Most of the hotels are on ATN routes that provide service
directly to the East Esplanade. Therefore, the addition of new hotels and related
amenities (i.e., in-hotel retail and restaurant space) within the Project area would help
to reduce auto trips to and from The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties,
supporting many of the programs, plans, policies, and ordinances summarized above.
The Project’s effect on cumulative conditions is limited because it does not
substantially change land use or public facilities plans compared to the current DRSP
and ARSP, as outlined in Threshold 5.14a. As discussed in Threshold 5.14b, the VMT
analysis includes analysis of cumulative conditions, and determined the Project, with
implementation of mitigation, would not create a cumulatively considerable impact.
Further, the Project’s effect on traffic circulation including hazards and incompatible
uses (Threshold 5.14c), and emergency access (Threshold 5.14d) is limited because,
even with potential development of theme park space in the Theme Park Overlays,
theme park guest parking would still be concentrated at the West Parking Area and East
Parking Area, as in the current DRSP. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation
measures, MM TRA-1 through MM TRA-22 and MM PS-3, MM PS-4, MM PS-6,
A-135
MM PS-7, MM PS-9, MM PS-20, MM PS-11, MM PS-12, MM PS-19, MM PS-22,
and MM PS-23, detailed above, the Project, together with nearby development
projects, would not create inconsistencies nor result in cumulative impacts with respect
to the identified programs, plans, policies, and ordinances. For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the cumulative impacts related to Transportation will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
Because neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 evaluated impacts related to VMT
which is a key component in the analysis presented above, this impact would be new
when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
N. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5. 15)
1. Tribal Cultural Resources (Threshold 5.15b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would include a discovery protocol for the unanticipated discovery of
archaeological resources and provide measures to ensure appropriate protection of
tribal cultural resources and human remains discovered during construction. The
following mitigation measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project
would mitigate impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant
level:
SR TCR-1 : Prior to approval of any amendment to the ARSP or the City
of Anaheim General Plan, the project property owner/developer shall
coordinate with the City Planning Department to undergo a solicitation of
Native American consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California
Government Code, Section 65352.3). (SEIR No 340, SR 5.4-2)
MM TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. Prior to the
issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause
excavation to depths greater than current foundations, the property
owner/developer or contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the
form of an executed Agreement to the City of Anaheim Planning and
A-136
Building Department that they have retained a qualified Native American
tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring during construction-related
ground disturbance activities and to recover and catalogue tribal resources
as necessary. The tribal monitor shall be from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The agreement shall
include (i) professional qualifications of Native American monitor;
(ii) detailed scope of services to be provided including but not limited to
pre-construction education, observation, evaluation, protection, salvage,
notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final
documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information;
(iv) communication protocols between Contractor and Monitor for
scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v) acknowledgment that if the
tribal monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated in
the agreement, property owner/developer or contractor as designee may
contract with another qualified tribal monitor acceptable to the City. The
selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to City acceptance
based on generally accepted professional qualifications and certifications,
as applicable. The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to
identify that third party tribal monitoring is required during excavation and
grading activities in accordance with the City-approved Agreement.
Contact information for approved tribal monitor shall be provided by the
contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting.
SR CUL-1: Before and during construction, if human remains are
discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin, and disposition pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 has occurred. (SEIR No 340, SR 5.4-1)
MM CUL-1: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist
that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in
order to establish procedures for archaeological monitoring, as well
as for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant
artifacts are uncovered. Specific monitoring procedures will be
established based on review of site specific conditions, including
presence of native soils, anticipated construction activities, and nature
of ground disturbance including depth of excavation. If artifacts are
uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological
observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the
property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process
shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the
direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered
A-137
during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not
present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor
can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens
shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department within
ninety days. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.13-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
As previously discussed, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed
impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
Project Specific Conclusion
Based on the South Environmental Development History Report for
DisneylandForward, the HRG Report (Appendix D-2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR), the
information available through the record searches at the SCCIC (Appendix D-3 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR) and the NAHC, and the long-term past development and use of
the Project Site for visitor-serving uses, there is no information available that indicates
there are significant tribal resources on the Project Site that would be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1.
However, pursuant to state law and SR TCR-1, the City of Anaheim notified the tribes
that previously notified the City of a desire to be consulted with regarding projects on
the Project Site.
Based on coordination conducted prior to release of the Draft Subsequent EIR for
public review on September 14, 2023, Native American representatives have not
provided documentation indicating there are known cultural resources that are
significant to a California Native American tribe on the Project Site. Notwithstanding
the current lack of evidence of known resources on the Project Site, this portion of
Orange County was inhabited by Native American tribes. Although there is no
documentation from the SCCIC or the NAHC of archaeological resources important to
Native Americans having been identified near the Project Site, there is always the
possibility that undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural
resources, may be present below the surface in native sediments. To minimize the
potential direct impacts, a mitigation measure has been included requiring Native
American monitoring during earth-moving and grading activities at depths greater than
current foundations. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1 would address
unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources, and MM TCR-1 would provide
for appropriate protection of tribal cultural resources that may be discovered during
construction. Additionally, the Project would comply with SR CUL-1 regarding
discovery of any human remains. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant
with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will
be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-138
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340, neither of which addressed tribal cultural resources.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to tribal cultural resources.
(a) Findings
Despite the site-specific nature of cultural resources, the mitigation identified for use
in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered, standard
mitigation measures and adherence to State requirements would reduce the potential
for cumulative impacts, such as implementation of an archaeological and Native
American tribal monitor, in addition to discovery protocols, which aim to protect tribal
cultural resources during ground disturbing activities. The following mitigation
measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate
cumulative impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources to a less than significant level:
MM TCR-1, MM CUL-1, SR TCR-1 and SR CUL-1 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
As previously discussed, neither EIR No. 311 nor SEIR No. 340 directly addressed
impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
Project Specific Conclusion
Although tribal cultural resources are site-specific with regard to any given resource
(e.g., resources of important cultural value to Native Americans), impacts may be
considered cumulative simply because they relate to the loss of tribal cultural resources
in general over time throughout the region. There are no tribal cultural resources listed
or determined eligible for listing, on the national, State, or local register of historical
resources on the Project Site. However, should buried resources be identified, ground
disturbance within native sediment could lead to the accelerated degradation of
previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Mitigation can reduce potential impacts
to a less than significant level. As with the Project, testing and data recovery is standard
practice in the City and is routinely required of projects prior to and during grading
activities. Despite the site-specific nature of cultural resources, the mitigation identified
for tribal cultural resources monitoring, standard mitigation measures and adherence to
State requirements would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. As a result, with
implementation of MM TCR-1 and MM CUL-1, the Project would not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to
tribal cultural resources. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
A-139
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would be new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311
and SEIR No. 340, neither of which addressed tribal cultural resources.
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Threshold 5.16)
1. Water Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This impact analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
(a) Findings
The Project would include implementation of water conservation measures, water audit
for landscape irrigation systems, water supply planning coordination with the Public
Utilities Department, use of pressure reducing valves, installation of water meter and
backflow equipment, installation of separate landscape water meters, installation of
water supply system improvements and landscape irrigation systems designed to
minimize surface runoff and overwatering to reduce impacts on water facilities. The
following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts
related to water facilities to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, among the water
conservation measures to be shown on plans and implemented by the
property owner/developer within the Specific Plan area include the
following:
• Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system.
• Use of waterway re-circulation systems.
• Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush
toilets and urinals.
• Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains.
• Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it
becomes available.
• Continuation of the existing cooling tower recirculation system.
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and
automatic systems which use moisture sensors.
• Low-flow shower heads in hotels.
• Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and
other water-using appliances.
A-140
• Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates
are lowest.
• Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding
water conservation.
• Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever
feasible.
• Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the use of water for
washdown of exterior areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.6-2; SEIR No.
340, MM 5.15-1)
MM UTIL-2: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the
property owner/developer shall submit a certified water audit for landscape
irrigation systems except for areas within the Theme Parks. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.10.6-3)
MM UTIL-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply
planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to
the review and final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division and Fire Department. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-2)
MM UTIL-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure
greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or
less by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property
owner/developer’s service. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-3)
MM UTIL-5: Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall specifically
show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large
water system equipment will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public
Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, aboveground and behind
the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all public streets
and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final
building and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment
and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division,
in accordance with the building permit plans. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-5)
MM UTIL-6: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate
water meter shall be installed for landscape water on all projects where the
landscape area exceeds 1,000 square feet for non-residential uses in
accordance with Ordinance No. 6160. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-7)
MM UTIL-7: Ongoing during project development and operations, the
property owner/developer shall implement the following required
improvements to the water supply system, in accordance with Anaheim’s
Water Rates, Rules and Regulations, Water Services Administrative
Procedures and Design Guidelines (APDG), and Water Services Standard
Specifications (WSSS), within the timeframes described below or as further
determined by the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division.
A-141
The cost of all Main Extensions, Main Enlargements, abandonments,
relocations, and easements documents shall be paid for by the property
owner/developer of the properties served by these mains in accordance with
Rule 15A.
• In the Theme Park District, west of Disneyland Drive, all new fire water
connections, including but not limited to, those that would serve, private
fire hydrants, in The Disneyland Resort shall be made to water mains
served by the 335 Pressure Zone. Specifically, no new fire water
connections are permissible on existing water mains in Walnut Street or
Magic Way. Any new fire connections for buildings adjacent to these
mains shall connect to the 20-inch water main in Disneyland Drive.
• The Southeast District shall be served by at least two points of
connection with internal looping.
o Any new water service connections along Harbor Boulevard shall
require the construction of a 12-inch water main from Convention
Way intersection to a point approximately 400-ft north of the
intersection.
o Any new connection to the existing water main in Clementine
Street, north of Orangewood Avenue, shall require replacement of
the existing 8-inch water main with a new 12-inch water main.
• Abandon the existing 12-inch water main within the Esplanade between
Harbor Boulevard and Disneyland Drive. This work shall be completed
concurrently with any proposed improvements along Disneyland Drive
or Harbor Boulevard.
• New easements may be required where public water infrastructure are
located within private property through abandonment(s) of a public
right-of-way. Such easements shall limit improvements that impact
access for operation and maintenance of existing facilities.
Alternatively, the property owner/developer may abandon and/or
relocate existing public water infrastructure provided the property
owner/developer prepares an analysis to determine any associated and
appropriate improvements due to the work. The property
owner/developer shall submit the analysis and any associated
improvement plans to the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division for review and approval.
• Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall
submit hydraulic analyses to determine the adequacy of existing and
proposed facilities if required by the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division.
MM HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an
Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an
A-142
irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.
Additionally:
d. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in
accordance with Anaheim’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance and
Guidelines including:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. Grading design plan.
e. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for
monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an irrigation
engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the Specific Plan).
The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the
infiltration of local soils and that the application of fertilizers and
pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies.
f. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be consistent
with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require that the
Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the Maximum
Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the landscape irrigation
system include water-conserving features such as low-flow irrigation
heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing
controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving
equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that
they will function properly with reclaimed water, if it should become
available. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 determined that water demand associated with The Disneyland Resort
would exceed the capacity of the existing water system; implementation of identified
project design features and mitigation measures related to improvements to the water
system and water conservation measures would reduce impacts on the water supply
system to less than significant. According to SEIR No. 340, water demand associated
with buildout of the ARSP would exceed capacities of existing water facilities, but
implementation of proposed mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
A-143
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, is
currently served by an existing water system that is owned and maintained by the City
of Anaheim. Disney has constructed all requested improvements related to
development of The Disneyland Resort, and this infrastructure would be protected in
place during future development associated with the Project. No additional square
footage for theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are
proposed within the Project Site as part of this Project. Because no additional
development is proposed, no new demand is anticipated. Future development related
to the Project would require on-site construction of new, relocated, or expanded water
mains to serve development. The Project would implement mitigation measures to
reduce impacts on water facilities, including the following: MM UTIL-1
(implementation of water conservation measures), MM UTIL-2 (water audit for
landscape irrigation systems), MM UTIL-3 (water supply planning coordination with
the Public Utilities Department), MM UTIL-4 (use of pressure reducing valves),
MM UTIL-5 (installation of water meter and backflow equipment), MM UTIL-6
(installation of separate landscape water meters), MM UTIL-7 (installation of water
supply system improvements), and MM HWQ-2 (landscape irrigation systems
designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering). For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
2. Wastewater Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
(a) Findings
The Project would establish requirements for project-specific sewer preparation and
construction upgrades or payment of applicable sewer impact fees to ensure the Project
would not result in a significant wastewater facility impact. The following mitigation
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to wastewater
facilities to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-8: Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for any new hotel
development within the Theme Park District that proposes a portion or the
entirety of the hotel project’s sewer flow to discharge to the City sewer
system on Harbor Boulevard, north of Katella Avenue, the property
owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by
the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer
Study shall evaluate whether there is adequate capacity in the Harbor
A-144
Boulevard sewer system to accept the flow from the proposed new hotel
use. The Sewer Study shall determine whether the proposed hotel project
would create a deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the
downstream City sewer system. If the Sewer Study shows there would be
deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream sewer
system, the Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades.
If a sewer system upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall
be responsible for the design and construction of the upgrade to the sewer
system and all associated improvements [collectively, “Sewer
Improvements”]. The City-identified and approved cost of the Sewer
Improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for
the hotel project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and
acceptance by the City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the
related sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of
any Building Permit for the hotel project and the sewer improvement plans
shall identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer
Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed
prior to final building and zoning inspections for the hotel. If no sewer
system upgrade is required, the developer shall be required to pay the
applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085, with
applicable credits applied for sewer flows from existing uses to be removed.
MM UTIL-9: Prior to issuance of a plumbing permit resulting in a
cumulative flow of more than 50 gpm peak in the Theme Park District
resulting in redirected existing sewer flows that currently do not flow to
Harbor Boulevard to instead flow to Harbor Boulevard via non-gravity flow
(e.g. lift station, force main, ejector pump, etc.), the property
owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by
the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer
Study shall evaluate whether there is adequate capacity in the Harbor
Boulevard sewer system to accept the proposed redirected flow. The Sewer
Study shall determine whether the proposed redirected flow would create a
deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream City
sewer system. If the Sewer Study shows there would be deficiency in the
Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream sewer system, the
Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades. If a sewer
system upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for the design and construction of the upgrade to the sewer
system and all associated improvements [collectively, “Sewer
Improvements”]. The City-identified and approved cost of the Sewer
Improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for
the hotel project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and
acceptance by the City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the
related sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of
any Building Permit for the hotel project and the sewer improvement plans
shall identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer
Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed
prior to final building and zoning inspections for the hotel. If no sewer
system upgrade is required, the developer shall be required to pay the
A-145
applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085, with
applicable credits applied for sewer flows from existing uses to be removed.
MM UTIL-10: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for
development of over 10,000 sf in the Southeast District or Theme Park East
Overlay, the property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for
review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property
owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate whether the total sewer
flow proposed to the Katella Avenue sewer system, east of Harbor
Boulevard, for development authorized by the DisneylandForward project
for the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District does not exceed a peak
flow of 285 gpm. And that the total sewer flow proposed to be directed to
the Harbor Boulevard sewer system, south of Katella Avenue, for
development authorized by the DisneylandForward project for the Theme
Park East Overlay/Southeast District does not exceed a peak flow of 2,000
gpm (total allowable development within Theme Park East
Overlay/Southeast District). If the projected sewer effluent flow exceeds
these stipulated amounts for either the Katella Avenue or Harbor Boulevard
sewer system, the Sewer Study shall determine whether the development
project creates a deficiency in the Katella Avenue sewer system, east of
Harbor Boulevard, or the Harbor Boulevard sewer system, south of Katella
Avenue, sewer collections systems and the downstream City sewer system.
Should a deficiency be created, the Sewer Study shall identify the required
sewer system upgrades and improvements (“Sewer Improvements”). If
Sewer Improvements are required, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for the design and construction of the Sewer Improvements. The
City-identified and approved cost of the sewer improvements may be
credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the development
project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the
City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the sewer improvement
plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for
development in the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District and shall
identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer
Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed
prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for development within
the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District. If no improvement is
required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer impact
fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085.
MM UTIL-11: Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for any new hotel
development within the Parking Overlay (between Harbor Boulevard and
Manchester Avenue), the property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer
Study for review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property
owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate the sewer flow from the
hotel(s) directed to Clementine Street and ultimately Katella Avenue. Sewer
improvements required to address deficiencies in the sewer systems in
Clementine Street and/or Katella Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, shall
be the sole responsibility of the property owner/developer (“Clementine and
Katella Sewer Improvements”). Should a deficiency be created, the Sewer
A-146
Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades and improvements.
If a sewer system upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall
be responsible for the design and construction of the Clementine and Katella
Sewer Improvements and all associated improvements. The City-identified
cost of the Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements may be credited
toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the hotel project(s) upon
completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the City. The
design of the Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements and the sewer
improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building
Permit for the hotel project(s) and identify all associated improvements
required for the required for the Sewer Improvements. Construction of
sewer improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for the first hotel development. If no improvement
is required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer
impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, projected wastewater (also referred to as sewer) flows from
The Disneyland Resort would exceed available capacity; however, the proposed
improvements to the system would accommodate the project and a significant impact
would not occur. According to SEIR No. 340, build out of the ARSP would increase
sewage flows in existing sewer lines and trunks serving the area, resulting in several
sewer lines becoming deficient. Implementation of mitigation would reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, is
currently served by an existing sewer system that is owned and maintained by the City
of Anaheim. Disney has constructed all requested improvements related to
development of The Disneyland Resort, and this infrastructure would be protected in
place during future development associated with the Project. The Project would allow
Disney to move previously approved uses to other Disney Properties governed by the
DRSP and ARSP.
In order to provide a full analysis of the DisneylandForward Project and capture the
Project’s proposed flexibility in future development, the Sewer Study analyzed two
potential development scenarios both tributary to the Katella sewer system. Scenario 1,
Current Approved Disney Full Buildout, represents development of uses under current
entitlements, which represents the worst case for the Katella North pipeline. Using the
adjusted flow factors, Scenario 1 identified a sewer flow increase of 2.69 mgd or 1,865
gallons per minute (gpm). Scenario 2, DisneylandForward Full Buildout, represents
DisneylandForward buildout in which maximum development is placed in the
Southeast District and Theme Park East Overlay. This scenario represents the worst
case for the Katella South pipeline. Using the adjusted flow factors, Scenario 2
identified a sewer flow increase of 2.784 mgd or 1,934 gpm. For either Scenario, the
Sewer Study identified segments along Katella Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard to
A-147
9th Street with a greater than 0.75 d/D ratio and necessitating sewer improvements to
accommodate the increase in flow for buildout of the Project.
MM UTIL-8 through MM UTIL-11 establish requirements for project-specific sewer
study preparation and construction of upgrades or payment of applicable sewer impact
fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085. Implementation of these mitigation measures in
addition to compliance with the terms identified in the Development Agreement related
to cost sharing for future improvements would reduce impacts to sewer system capacity
to less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
3. Stormwater Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded stormwater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
(a) Findings
The Project would include engineering plans as well as drainage studies and
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans, specifying methods to convey, retain,
and treat storm water, which would ensure that storm water runoff from the Project Site
would not exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. In addition, the Project
would include payment of all site-specific drainage fees, payment of the City’s Master
Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement Fees, and incorporating
stormwater runoff mitigation measures in building plans to ensure stormwater impacts
would be less than significant. The following mitigation measures and standard
requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to stormwater
facilities to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ -1: Development projects that will result in soil disturbance of
one (1) or more acres of land shall comply with the State’s Construction
General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and implementing a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Prior to the issuance of preliminary or
precise grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide the
City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB
by providing a copy of the NOI invoice and the assigned Waste Discharger
Identification (WDID) No. for the project. The SWPPP shall include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net
sediment load increase in storm water discharges relative to preconstruction
levels and shall prohibit during the construction period discharges of storm
water or non-storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an
A-148
exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin
Plan. The BMPs shall address erosion control, sediment control, wind
erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste
management and materials pollution control during all phases of
construction, including a sampling and analysis plan for sediment and non-
visible storm water pollutants. The property owner/developer shall be
responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.8-1)
SR HWQ -2: Prior to issuance of the precise grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs)
for review and approval by the Public Works, Development Services. The
WQMP shall identify permanent site design, source control and treatment
control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to
control predictable pollutant runoff. The WQMP shall also describe the
long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control
BMPs and the mechanism for funding the BMPs. The WQMP shall be
recorded against the property to ensure long-term compliance. (SEIR No.
340, SR 5.8-2)
SR HWQ-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Disney ARSP
Properties, the property owner/developer shall pay the Storm Drain Impact
Fees which would go toward future storm drain improvements within The
Anaheim Resort area and South Central City area. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.8 3)
SR HWQ-4: Ongoing during Project construction and operations, Chapter
10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the City’s NPDES Ordinance,
which provides regulations to comply with the CWA, the California
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s NPDES permit.
This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm
water; regulates illicit connections to the storm drain system; requires
development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to
reduce pollutants in the storm water; and requires local discharge permits
for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.8-4)
MM UTIL-12: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of
a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property
owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains
and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in
mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as
follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval
by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or
redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the
property owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to
participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to
A-149
provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm
frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm
frequency.
b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the
current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property
owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the
impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a
grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the
improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the
South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required
to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master
Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm
drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to
protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency prior to
acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or
final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure,
whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer
shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as
determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits,
reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing
the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm
drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be
submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for
review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout
of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support
calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction
estimates. (MM 3.11.8-2 and PDF 3.10.8-1; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.18-1)
MM UTIL-13: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall
require that building plans indicate that new developments will minimize
stormwater and urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design
features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other
strategies. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.18-3)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would result in an increase in storm
water runoff due to an increase in impervious surface area, which would exceed
available storm drain capacities. However, the proposed improvements to the system
would accommodate the project and a significant impact would not occur. According
to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP may worsen several existing deficiencies within
the City’s storm drain system, resulting in significant impacts. However, the property
owner/developer for each future development project would be required to participate
in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee)
Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies.
A-150
Additionally, implementation of the proposed mitigation would ensure that impacts to
regional flood control facilities would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, is
currently served by an existing storm drain system that is owned and maintained by the
City of Anaheim. Disney has constructed all requested improvements related to
development of The Disneyland Resort, and this infrastructure would be protected in
place during future development associated with the Project.
The Disneyland Resort has successfully implemented various initiatives that go beyond
compliance with federal, State and local environmental rules and regulations.
Specifically, Disney worked with the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to
develop a process for storing water instead of releasing it to the ocean through storm
drains. Additionally, because all required improvements have been constructed to serve
The Disneyland Resort as analyzed in EIR No. 311 and the Disney ARSP Properties as
analyzed in SEIR No. 340, upgrades to the existing infrastructure system are not
anticipated, and would not be required to implement the Project.
However, although the overall amount of future development associated with the
Project would remain unchanged, the Project has the potential to increase impervious
surfaces within different areas of the Project Site, which could increase runoff volumes
and rates to certain facilities. The City requires that individual developments provide
engineering plans as well as drainage studies and Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plans, as required by SR HWQ-1, SR HWQ-2 and SR HWQ-4,
specifying methods to convey, retain, and treat storm water, which would ensure that
storm water runoff from the Project Site would not exceed the capacity of downstream
drainage systems. As required by SR HWQ-3, Disney is responsible for payment of
all required fees associated with funding of storm drain improvements including
construction of necessary improvements to the off-site storm drain system. Therefore,
with implementation of site-specific storm drain improvements the Project would not
result in impacts related to deficiencies in the off-site storm drainage system serving
the Project Site and preventing localized flooding. Any on-site storm drain would be
designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer). The Project would
implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts on storm water facilities, including
the following: MM UTIL-12 (payment of the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and
related Infrastructure Improvement Fee) and MM UTIL-13 (incorporating stormwater
runoff mitigation measures in building plans). Impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation would be required. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in
the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
A-151
4. Electricity Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded electricity facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
(a) Findings
The Project would include compliance with related energy requirements,
implementation of energy-saving measures, tied renewable energy generation
measures, providing forecasted electricity demand to City and payment of City fees to
ensure electricity impacts would be less than significant The following mitigation
measures and standard requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts
related to electricity facilities to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-14: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, in order to
conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall comply with the California
Energy Code (Title 10), which may include the following:
• Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts at the
Anaheim Public Utilities Community and Sustainability Division
for assistance with energy-conservation design features.
• Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems, connected if
feasible to a computerized central energy management system, and
meeting all control, scheduling and load efficiency requirements of
the California Energy Code (Title 24, Building Efficiency
Standards).
• Use of electric high-efficiency (NEMA) motors intended to
conserve energy.
• While recognizing the unique lighting apparatus required for some
theme park uses, use of motion sensing lightswitch devices and
light-emitting diode (LED) energy-efficiency lighting fixtures for
indoor and outdoor lighting when feasible, T8 lamps, metal hallide
and/or high-pressure sodium (HID) lamps.
• Incorporation of electric vehicle chargers into parking structures.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.9-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-1)
MM UTIL-15: Prior to issuance of a building permit, if the property
owner/developer incorporates grid-tied renewable energy generation
systems into the project, they shall comply with the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department’s most recent Interconnection Guidelines. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.17-4)
MM UTIL-16: Two to five years prior to energizing new switching
stations, the property owner/developer shall provide Anaheim Public
Utilities Department electrical engineering staff with its forecasted electric
demand and schedules to allow for sufficient lead time for planning, design,
A-152
engineering, materials procurement, and construction of new electrical
facilities, if required, to accommodate the Project’s additional or modified
electrical demand. Forecasts must be at least two to five years: e.g., two
years for the construction of up to two line extensions and five years for the
construction of three line extensions or a new substation.
MM ENE-2: Prior to submittal of plans for electrical system
improvements, any new system improvements (e.g., substation, line
connections), if required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s
Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications.
Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in
accordance with the then current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and
Electrical Specifications. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-3; SEIR No. 340,
MM5.17-2)
SR UTIL-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Director/Planning
Services Manager that all sewage and wastewater disposal into the sewer
system shall comply with OCSD’s Wastewater Discharge Regulations,
including the procurement of the necessary permits by food service
establishments that would be developed in the ARSP area. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.16-1)
SR UTIL-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide proof of payment to the Planning
Director/Planning Services Manager for a sanitary sewer service charge to
OCSD. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.16-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort Project would increase demand for
electricity, requiring improvements to existing electrical facilities, including a new
electrical substation. Additionally, the project required relocation of transmission lines.
EIR No. 311 found that implementation of project design features and mitigation
measures would result in a less than significant impact. According to SEIR No. 340,
build out of the ARSP and expansion of the Convention Center would result in
increased demand for electricity. Compliance with the standard requirements and
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce anticipated demand
through conservation efforts. It was 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.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would allow Disney to move previously approved theme park, hotel,
parking and other uses to other Disney Properties governed by the DRSP and ARSP;
no additional square footage for theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or
additional hotel rooms are proposed as part of this Project. Because no additional
A-153
development is proposed and with implementation of the initiatives and commitment
to reaching the sustainability and energy efficiency goals discussed below, no new
change to the overall expected electricity demand is anticipated. However, the Project
would result in increased electricity demand on several Disney Properties that are
currently operated as surface parking lots. The Project would increase electricity
demand in the Theme Park District west of Disneyland Drive, the Southeast District,
the Theme Park West Overlay, the Theme Park East Overlay, and the Parking Overlays
if developed with Project uses.
Project demand for electricity for operation of the remaining entitlements under The
Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project for the Disney Properties would be
402,005,865 kWh/yr. The information provided by Disney reflects the increased
demand for electricity for theme park attractions, which today include more
computerized animation than in 1993, when the City certified EIR No. 311, as well as
the increased electric energy efficiency incorporated into theme park and Resort
operations since 1993.
Construction activities associated with these facilities would be within the physical
impact area identified for the Project and evaluated throughout this Draft Subsequent
EIR. All required switching stations, line extensions and service connections would be
conducted in compliance with the City’s Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations. No
additional impacts associated with construction of on-site transmission lines or
connections to existing facilities would occur. Additionally, The Disneyland Resort has
successfully implemented various initiatives that go beyond compliance with federal,
State and local environmental rules and regulations.
With compliance with the standard requirements SR UTIL-2 and SR UTIL-3
requiring compliance with Title 24 standards and California Green Building Standards,
it is expected that the existing electrical distribution system and future planned
improvements would adequately accommodate the anticipated demand. The Project
also would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts on electricity, including
the following: MM UTIL-14 (implementation of energy-saving measures), MM
UTIL-15 (grid-tied renewable energy generation measures), MM UTIL-26 (providing
forecasted electricity demand to City); and MM ENE-2 (payment of City fees). With
compliance with the standard requirements and mitigation measures, the Project’s
impact would be less than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in
the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
5. Natural Gas Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
A-154
(a) Findings
The Project would include implementation of natural gas demand reduction measures
to demonstrate energy efficiency and compliance with State Energy Conservation
standards to assist in selection of the most energy-efficient water heaters and furnace,
and ensure impacts related to natural gas would be less than significant. The following
mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to natural
gas facilities to a less than significant level:
MM ENE-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the
energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building
Energy Efficiency Standards current at the time of application by at least 10
percent. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-2 and MM 3.10.10-1; SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.17-1 and MM 5.17-3)
MM ENE-3: Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection,
the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs
which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water
heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a
program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.10-2)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would increase demand for natural
gas, requiring improvements to existing SCG system and no significant impacts were
identified. According to SEIR No. 340, no impact would occur related to provision of
natural gas service to future projects within the ARSP area.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, are
currently served by existing natural gas infrastructure that is owned and maintained by
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), and this infrastructure would be protected
in place during future development associated with the Project. No additional square
footage for theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are
proposed as part of this Project. Because no additional development is proposed, no
new demand is anticipated. Additionally, because all required improvements have been
constructed to serve The Disneyland Resort as analyzed in EIR No. 311 and the Disney
ARSP Properties as analyzed in SEIR No. 340, upgrades to the existing infrastructure
system are not anticipated, and would not be required to implement the Project. The
service would be provided in accordance with the SCGC’s policies and extension rules
on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. The Project also would
implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts on electricity, including MM ENE-3
(implementation of natural gas demand reduction measures) and MM ENE-1
(compliance with State Energy Conservation standards). Therefore, the Project would
have a less than significant impact with mitigation. For the reasons stated above and as
A-155
discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of
mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in
SEIR No. 340.
6. Telecommunication Facilities (Threshold 5.16-1)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would require or result in the construction
of new or expanded telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects.
(a) Findings
The Project would include installation of a signal booster or relay system on the roof
of the tallest project building to restore broadcast television reception to its original
condition if the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project would create a
significant impact on broadcast television reception at local residences to ensure less
than significant impacts related to telecommunications. The following mitigation
measure imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to
telecommunications facilities to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-22: Ongoing during project operation, if the City of Anaheim
determines that the proposed project creates a significant impact on
broadcast television reception at local residences, the property
owner/developer shall install a signal booster or relay system on the roof of
the tallest project building to restore broadcast television reception to its
original condition as soon as practicable. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.12-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would increase demand for
telephone and fiber optics service; however, any upgrading would be provided by the
service providers; no significant impacts were identified. According to SEIR No. 340,
no impact would occur related to provision of telephone service to future projects
within the ARSP area.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, is
currently served by existing telephone, digital cable, and high-speed internet
infrastructure, and this infrastructure would be protected in place during future
development associated with the Project. No additional square footage for theme park
uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are proposed as part of this
A-156
Project. No additional development is proposed beyond what was evaluated in EIR No.
311 for The Disneyland Resort and SEIR No. 340 for the Disney ARSP Properties.
Facilities needed to connect the Project to the existing telecommunications systems
may include new conduit, fiber and copper facilities. Anaheim Fire uses the Emergency
Radio Response Communication (ERRC) System throughout the Project Site to
establish and enhance radio communications for emergency communication. As future
development associated with the DisneylandForward Project occurs, new buildings and
structures may shadow existing ERRC structures, potentially disrupting the ERRC
system. Implementation of MM UTIL-22 installation of a signal booster or relay
system on the roof of the tallest project building to restore broadcast television
reception to its original condition if the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed
project would create a significant impact on broadcast television reception at local
residences. These improvements would be implemented in accordance with applicable
State and local regulations. Therefore, the impact related to additional demand for
telecommunications facilities would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City
finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in EIR No. 311. This impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in
SEIR No. 340.
7. Sufficient Water Supplies (Threshold 5.16-2)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years.
(a) Findings
The Project would require compliance with applicable regulations such as the City’s
Water Conservation Ordinance, implementation of water conservation measures, water
audit for landscape irrigation systems, water supply planning coordination with the
Public Utilities Department, use of pressure reducing valves, installation of water meter
and backflow equipment and installation of separate landscape water meters to reduce
water usage related to the Project and ensure less than significant water supply impacts.
The following mitigation measures and standard requirement imposed upon the Project
would mitigate impacts related to sufficient water supplies to a less than significant
level:
MM UTIL-1 through MM UTIL-6 (see above)
SR UTIL-1: Prior to the issue of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for
review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2)
landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in
A-157
accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter
10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, it was determined that water demand associated with The
Disneyland Resort would increase and require improvements to the existing water
system, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of identified project design
features and mitigation measures related to improvements to the water system,
including new wells and/or additional MWD connections, and water conservation
measures would reduce impacts on the water supply system to levels not considered
significant. According to SEIR No. 340, water demand associated with buildout of the
ARSP would be accommodated through existing and projected supplies. Impacts
would be less than significant; however, implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures would ensure water conservation measures are incorporated into the design
and into each phase of the proposed development to ensure that water supplies remain
reliable into the future.
Project Specific Conclusion
Unit water use factors were developed to estimate water demand for future Project
development based on the FY 2019 consumption by use type and existing development
per Project phasing, as detailed further in Table 5.16-7 and 5.16-8 in the Draft
Subsequent EIR.
City water demands were developed and projected in the City’s 2020 UWMP. The
City’s total water use in FY 2020 was 56,912 AF, an 8.3 percent decrease from FY
2015 water use reported in the previous 2015 UWMP. The demand for the Project area
existing land use (2,656 AFY) was included in the 2020 UWMP reported and projected
water demand estimates. The net new water demand for the Project of 3,826 AFY was
also assumed to be included in the 2020 UWMP demand forecast as previously
approved development as part of the DRSP and ARSP. Other proposed development
within the City was evaluated in the WSA to confirm that sufficient growth was
accounted for in the UWMP for the combined development. Based on this analysis, the
City water demand as estimated in the 2020 UWMP included sufficient increased
demand to account for the combined proposed development in the Project area and
other areas within the City. The demand increase from the Project in FY 2045 is
projected to be 6.0 percent of the total demand estimated for the City. The City is
projected to have sufficient imported and groundwater supplies to meet normal year,
single-dry year, and multiple-dry year conditions.
Estimated buildout water supply requirement for the Project is projected to be 4,012
AFY. This is approximately 6.0 percent of the total City supply requirement estimated
for FY 2045 in the City’s 2020 UWMP.
Based on the findings of the WSA and with Project compliance with SR UTIL-1 and
continued implementation of these initiatives, the Project would comply the City’s
Water Conservation Ordinance and impacts related to water supply would be less than
A-158
significant. Therefore, the City is projected to have sufficient imported and
groundwater supplies to meet normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year
conditions including new Project demands and new demands from other planned
development within the planning period because: (1) Metropolitan has projected supply
surpluses for each of these conditions and (2) the City can increase groundwater
production consistent with their available well capacity, if needed.
The Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts on water
supply, including: MM UTIL-1 (implementation of water conservation measures),
MM UTIL-2 (water audit for landscape irrigation systems), MM UTIL-3 (water
supply planning coordination with the Public Utilities Department), MM UTIL-4 (use
of pressure reducing valves), MM UTIL-5 (installation of water meter and backflow
equipment), and MM UTIL-6 (installation of separate landscape water meters). As a
result, impacts related to water facilities would be less than significant with mitigation.
For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City
finds that that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
8. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Threshold 5.16-3)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would require compliance with the OCSD wastewater discharge
requirements and payment of all applicable fees related to sanitary sewer and capital
facilities connections to OCSD, in addition to payment of applicable fees and
construction of improvements to wastewater treatment facilities to ensure adequate
capacity in sewer pipelines serving the Project site. The following mitigation measures
and standard requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to
wastewater treatment capacity to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-8 and MM UTIL-11 (see above)
SR UTIL-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Planning Director/Planning
Services Manager that all sewage and wastewater disposal into the sewer
system shall comply with OCSD’s Wastewater Discharge Regulations,
including the procurement of the necessary permits by food service
establishments that would be developed in the ARSP area. (SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.16-1)
A-159
SR UTIL-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide proof of payment to the Planning
Director/Planning Services Manager for a sanitary sewer service charge to
OCSD. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.16-2)
SR UTIL-4: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall provide proof of payment to the Planning & Building
Director or their designee for a capital facilities connection charge to
OCSD. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.16-3)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, although the project would increase
wastewater (sewer) flows, it was determined that County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County would have adequate treatment plant capacity to serve The Disneyland Resort
Project as well as development of the Disney-owned properties in the ARSP. EIR No.
311 identified a less than significant impact. According to SEIR No. 340, adherence to
standard requirements would ensure payment of required fees. SEIR No. 340 identified
a less than significant impact with mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project would allow Disney to move previously approved uses to other Disney
Properties governed by the DRSP and ARSP; no additional square footage for theme
park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are proposed as part of
the Project. Although the overall amount of future development associated with the
Project would remain unchanged, the Project has the potential to increase wastewater
flows in different areas of the Project Site, resulting in a potentially significant impact
related to regional sewer capacity. However, the Project would be required to comply
with SR UTIL-2, SR UTIL-3, and SR UTIL-4 requiring compliance with OCSD
wastewater discharge requirements and payment of all applicable fees related to
sanitary sewer and capital facilities connections to OCSD. Therefore, Disney would be
responsible for payment of all required fees associated with funding utility
improvements, including fees related to the construction of improvements to the
wastewater treatment facilities. The Project would also be required to implement MM
UTIL-8 through MM UTIL-11 to ensure adequate capacity in sewer pipelines serving
the Project Site. Therefore, with payment of all required fees and implementation of
mitigation, impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities would be reduced to less
than significant. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent
EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will
be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
A-160
9. Solid Waste (Threshold 5.16-4)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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.
(a) Findings
The Project would include implementation of solid waste minimization measures,
showing trash and recyclable receptacles on plans, installing trash and recyclable
receptacles and annual reports to the City to reduce solid waste entering the landfill
system and to ensure less than significant impacts pertaining to solid waste. The
following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts
related to solid waste to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-17 through MM UTIL-20 and MM UTIL-22 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would increase the amount of solid
waste generated and, because of limited landfill capacity, the impact related to solid
waste generation in excess of standards and capacity was identified as significant and
unavoidable. According to SEIR No. 340, 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.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project Site, including The Disneyland Resort and Disney ARSP Properties, is
currently served by landfill facilities that are owned and maintained by OC Waste and
Recycling. The Disneyland Resort has successfully implemented various initiatives
that go beyond compliance with federal, State and local environmental rules and
regulations. The Project would allow Disney to move previously approved uses to other
Disney Properties governed by the DRSP and ARSP; no additional square footage for
theme park uses or retail entertainment uses or additional hotel rooms are proposed as
part of this Project. Because no additional development is proposed and with
implementation of the initiatives and commitment to reaching the goals identified
above, no new change to the expected solid waste generation is anticipated.
The Orange County solid waste landfill system would have the ability to serve the
Project with solid waste landfill capacity. The County of Orange maintains 15-years of
countywide solid waste landfill capacity, as required by AB 939. According to OC
Waste and Recycling, the Project would primarily be served by the Olinda-Alpha
Landfill in Brea, which has a remaining capacity of 14.47 million cubic yards (mcy).
Depending on the location, solid waste may also be disposed of at the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. which has a remaining capacity of 161.88 mcy.
Additionally, the Olinda-Alpha Landfill has an estimated closure date of 2036 and
A-161
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill has an estimated closure date of 2053. Buildout of the
Project could be accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County’s landfill
capacity; therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
The Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts on solid
waste, including: MM UTIL-17 (implementation of a solid waste management plan),
MM UTIL-18 (implementation of solid waste minimization measures), MM UTIL-19
(showing trash and recyclable receptacles on plans), MM UTIL-20 (installing trash
and recyclable receptacles), and MM UTIL-21 (annual reports to the City). As a result,
with implementation of mitigation, the Project would have a less than significant
impact. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the
City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
10. Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations (Threshold 5.16-5)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would comply with Federal, State, and
local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate measures such as implementation of a solid waste
management plan, implementation of solid waste minimization measures, showing
trash and recyclable receptacles on plans installing trash and recyclable receptacles,
and annual reports to the City to help meet the solid waste goals and ensure the Project
would not conflict with any solid waste statutes or regulations. The following
mitigation measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate impacts related to solid
waste statutes and regulations to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-17 through MM UTIL-21 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would implement strategies to
comply with management and reduction statutes and regulations; however, because of
limited landfill capacity the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable.
According to SEIR No. 340, 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 were
provided and that solid waste generation would be minimized.
A-162
Project Specific Conclusion
Based on coordination with OC Waste & Recycling, the OC Landfill System would be
able to accommodate solid waste generation related to Project buildout. 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 divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation to
recycling. Additionally, under SB 1838, the State Organics Law, includes targets for a
75 percent reduction in compost materials disposed in landfills by 2025 and reduction
of at least 20 percent of edible food currently disposed for human consumption by 2025.
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 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. Additionally, the City of Anaheim requires that all materials
generated from construction activities be recycled to meet the 65 percent diversion rate
from the landfill system. The Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce
potential impacts on solid waste, including: MM UTIL-17 (implementation of a solid
waste management plan), MM UTIL-18 (implementation of solid waste minimization
measures), MM UTIL-19 (showing trash and recyclable receptacles on plans), MM
UTIL-20 (installing trash and recyclable receptacles), and MM UTIL-21 (annual
reports to the City). As a result, with implementation of mitigation, the Project would
have a less than significant impact. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. This impact
would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact
would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact analysis
in SEIR No. 340.
11. Cumulative Impacts – Water
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to water.
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate water conservation measures, water audit for landscape
irrigation systems, water supply planning coordination with the Public Utilities
Department, use of pressure reducing valves, installation of water meter and backflow
equipment, installation of separate landscape water meters, installation of water supply
system improvements and landscape irrigation systems designed to minimize surface
runoff and overwatering to reduce impacts on water facilities and prevent impacts to
water supply and capacity. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the
A-163
Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to water to a less than significant
level:
MM UTIL-1 through MM UTIL-7 and MM HWQ-2 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, with implementation of required mitigation, The
Disneyland Resort Project would not contribute to a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact related to water supply or water with implementation of mitigation.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts to water supply and infrastructure with adherence to the proposed
mitigation measures.
Project Specific Conclusion
The estimated buildout water supply requirement for the Project is projected to be 4,012
AFY. This is approximately 6.0 percent of the total City supply requirement estimated
for 2045 in the City’s 2020 UWMP. The WSA indicates that the City would have
adequate water supplies to meet demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry
years to 2045. Because the WSA included a review of known projects served by the
City the Project would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact
on water supplies. Additionally, the Project would be served by existing water
infrastructure and would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact
on water facilities. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
cumulative impact regarding water will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
12. Cumulative Impacts – Wastewater
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to wastewater.
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate wastewater measures, including a project-specific sewer
preparation and construction upgrades or payment of applicable sewer impact fees to
prevent impacts to wastewater facilities and capacity. The following mitigation
measures imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to
wastewater to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-8 through MM UTIL-11 (see above)
A-164
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort would increase
sewer flows however, with construction of improvements identified in EIR No. 311
and implementation of mitigation by developers in the area on a fair share basis, a
significant cumulative impact would not occur. According to SEIR No. 340,
cumulative impacts on sewer services associated with buildout of the ARSP and
potential future projects would be less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
For the buildout alternatives, potential future capacity constraints may exist in certain
areas based on specific location and timing of Project flows and other future flows. As
discussed previously, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels
with implementation of MMs UTIL-8, UTIL-9, UTIL-10, and UTIL-11 and
compliance with the terms identified in the Development Agreement related to cost
sharing for future improvements. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures,
the cumulative impact regarding wastewater will be reduced to a less than significant
level..
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
13. Cumulative Impacts – Stormwater
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to stormwater.
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate stormwater measures, such as drainage studies and
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plans, specifying methods to convey, retain,
and treat storm water, which would ensure that storm water runoff from the Project Site
would not exceed the capacity of downstream drainage systems. In addition, the Project
would include payment of all site-specific drainage fees, payment of the City’s Master
Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement Fees, and incorporating
stormwater runoff mitigation measures in building plans to prevent impacts to
stormwater facilities and capacity. The following mitigation measures and standard
requirements imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to
stormwater to a less than significant level:
SR HWQ-1 through SR HWQ-4 AND MM UTIL-12 and MM UTIL-
13 (see above)
A-165
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, implementation of improvements recommended in the EIR
No. 311 and in the City’s Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area would
reduce potential cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. According to SEIR
No. 340, all new growth within the ARSP area would occur in compliance with
mitigation measures; however, the City has no control over the growth and storm water
contributions of areas outside of its jurisdiction. 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. Therefore,
mitigation of these impacts would be outside of the City’s jurisdiction, and the potential
cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
The cumulative study area for storm drains includes the public storm drain system
within the City of Anaheim as well as tributary systems beyond the City’s limits. The
Project and other new development anticipated would result in changes to on-site land
uses, including development of surface parking areas with hotel and theme park uses.
Although the overall amount of future development associated with the Project would
remain unchanged, the Project has the potential to increase impervious surfaces within
different areas of the Project Site, which could increase runoff volumes and rates to
certain facilities. However, Disney has paid all required fees associated with funding
utility improvements, including fees related to the construction of improvements to the
storm drainage system, therefore, impacts would be less than significant assuming
compliance with standard requirements. All other future development in the cumulative
study area would also be responsible to convey, retain, and treat storm water as well as
ensure payment of storm drain impact fees to fund the construction of improvements
to the storm drainage system within cumulative study area. For the reasons stated above
and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation
of mitigation measures, the cumulative impact regarding stormwater will be reduced to
a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311. This impact would be reduced when compared with
the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
14. Cumulative Impacts – Electricity
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to electricity.
A-166
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate electricity efficiency measures including compliance
with related energy requirements, implementation of energy-saving measures, grid-tied
renewable energy generation measures, providing forecasted electricity demand to City
and payment of City fees to ensure electrical capacity and electricity impacts would be
less than significant. The following mitigation measures imposed upon the Project
would mitigate cumulative impacts related to electricity to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-14, MM UTIL-15, MM UTIL-16 and MM ENE-2 (see
above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, with implementation of required mitigation The Disneyland
Resort Project would not contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact
related to electricity. According to SEIR No. 340, the City would be able to serve the
ARSP at full buildout while maintaining existing and planned services within its
respective service areas, and all projects would be required to comply with State and
local regulations related to energy conservation. Therefore, buildout of the ARSP
would not have a cumulative impact related to electricity.
Project Specific Conclusion
Electricity would be provided by the City on demand, consistent with the City’s
Electric Rates, Rules, and Regulations. The Project and other new development in the
service area would result in increased demand for electricity and an increased demand
on the existing distribution system. Future development of the Project would be
required to coordinate with the City to implement necessary upgrades to existing
facilities or construction of new facilities to accommodate the anticipated demand,
including the construction of up to 12 new switch stations within the Project Site.
Additionally, on-site energy use would be reduced through compliance with Title 24,
the CalGreen Code, and other energy conservation programs and policies. Cumulative
projects in the County would also comply with the same regulations. For the reasons
stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the cumulative impact regarding electricity
will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
15. Cumulative Impacts – Natural Gas
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to natural gas.
A-167
Findings
The Project would incorporate natural gas reduction measures including energy
efficiency measures and compliance with State Energy Conservation standards to assist
in selection of the most energy-efficient water heaters and furnace, and to prevent
impacts to natural gas facilities and capacity. The following mitigation measures
imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to natural gas to
a less than significant level:
MM ENE-1 and MM ENE-3 (see above)
(a) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, with implementation of required mitigation, The
Disneyland Resort Project would not contribute to a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact related to natural gas. According to SEIR No. 340, adequate capacity
was identified to serve buildout of the ARSP and additional development within the SCG
service area would comply with Title 24; therefore, it was concluded that the ARSP
contribution to cumulative natural gas impacts would be considered less than significant.
Project Specific Conclusion
Natural gas service would be provided by SCG on demand, consistent with CPUC
requirements. The Project and other new development in the service area would result
in increased demand for natural gas and an increased demand on the existing
distribution system. Future development of the Project would be required to coordinate
with SCG to implement necessary upgrades to existing facilities or construction of new
facilities to accommodate the anticipated demand. Additionally, on-site energy use
would be reduced through compliance with Title 24, the CalGreen Code, and other
energy conservation programs and policies. Cumulative projects in the County would
also comply with the same regulations. For the reasons stated above and as discussed
in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation
measures, the cumulative impact regarding natural gas will be reduced to a less than
significant level..
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
16. Cumulative Impacts – Solid Waste
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to solid waste.
A-168
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate solid waste reduction measures, such as showing trash
and recyclable receptacles on plans, installing trash and recyclable receptacles and
annual reports to the City to reduce solid waste entering the landfill system to prevent
impacts to solid waste facilities and capacity. The following mitigation measures
imposed upon the Project would mitigate cumulative impacts related to solid waste to
a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-17 through MM UTIL-22 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort Project would contribute to a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to solid waste. According to
SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would not create demands for solid waste services
that exceed the capabilities of the County’s waste management system. Consequently,
buildout of the ARSP would not have a significant cumulative contribution to solid
waste impacts.
Project Specific Conclusion
Solid waste collection services are provided on demand by private haulers, and
cumulative impacts on their services would occur from future development in their
service area. Available landfill capacity is expected to decrease over time with future
growth and development in Orange County. Waste reduction and recycling programs
and regulations are expected to reduce this demand and extend the life of existing
landfills. Also, CalRecycle is responsible for administering and monitoring State solid
waste reduction initiatives, and individual jurisdiction’s ability to meet these
requirements. It is assumed that the role of CalRecycle would continue in the future.
Based on the available capacity of landfills in the region and the fact that no new
demand beyond what was previously evaluated as part of The Disneyland Resort
Project and the ARSP Project, the Project would not contribute considerably to a
significant cumulative impact to landfill capacity or solid waste regulations. For the
reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City finds that,
with implementation of mitigation measures, the cumulative impact regarding solid
waste will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would be reduced when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No.
311. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with
the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
A-169
17. Cumulative Impacts – Telecommunications
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to telecommunications.
(a) Findings
The Project would incorporate telecommunications connection measures, including
installation of a signal booster on the roof of the tallest project building to restore
broadcast television reception to prevent impacts to telecommunications facilities and
capacity. The following mitigation measure imposed upon the Project would mitigate
cumulative impacts related to telecommunications to a less than significant level:
MM UTIL-22 (see above)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, with implementation of required mitigation, The
Disneyland Resort project would not contribute to a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact related to telecommunications. According to SEIR No. 340, the
ARSP and surrounding areas, including future development, would continue to be
served by existing infrastructure; buildout of the ARSP would not result in a significant
contribution to cumulative impacts; and mitigation measures were not required.
Project Specific Conclusion
The cumulative study area for telecommunications is inclusive of numerous
telecommunications providers’ service areas. Future growth and development in the
region would generate additional demand for telecommunication services. As with the
Project, all future projects in the area would be responsible for connection to existing
facilities and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to
telecommunications. For the reasons stated above and as discussed in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the City finds that, with implementation of mitigation measures, the
cumulative impact regarding telecommunications will be reduced to a less than
significant level..
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with mitigation.
This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the
impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
A-170
VII. Environmental Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable in
the Subsequent EIR
A. AIR QUALITY (Threshold 5.2)
1. Criteria Pollutants – Regional Construction Emissions (Threshold 5.2b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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 during
regional construction.
(a) Findings
While mitigation measures would reduce construction emissions for VOCs,
development of the Project would continue to exceed established thresholds for NOx
and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As such, although mitigation
measures would reduce the emissions, there are no other feasible mitigation measures
to further reduce the impact to less than significant. Even with implementation of
mitigation measures and standard requirements, the Project would exceed thresholds
for regional construction emissions and thus the Project would have a significant and
unavoidable impact. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements
would apply to the Project and would assist in reducing regional construction
emissions:
SR AQ-1: Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide written
evidence of compliance to the Planning Director or Planning Services
Manager that all construction activities shall comply with SCAQMD Rules
402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing short-term air pollutant
emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be
a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403)
requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control
measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This
requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications.
(SEIR No. 340, SR 5.2-1)
SR AQ-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and
coatings are utilized in the design and construction of all buildings in
compliance with SCAQMD regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1113.
This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications.
The property owner/developer shall also submit an architectural coating
schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from
architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day
averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each
coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit
surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property
A-171
owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from
architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate;
b. Use solvent based coatings, where they are necessary. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.4-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-2, SR 5.2-2)
MM AQ-1: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and
implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified
stationary sources. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning
Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-5)
MM AQ-2: Ongoing during operation of The Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to
reduce emissions:
a. To the extent practicable, schedule goods movements for off-peak
traffic hours.
b. Use clean fuel for attraction rides and other uses, as practicable.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-1)
MM AQ-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit associated with a
cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the
Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall submit a site and operations plan for this
facility showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial
and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan.
Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative
total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast
District or Theme Park East Overlay, the property owner/developer shall
provide cast financial and dining services within the Southeast District or
Theme Park East Overlay and the Theme Park District to accommodate cast
members.
Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall
continue to provide cast financial and dining services in conformance with
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-4)
MM AQ-4: Ongoing during project operation, the following will be
achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of
the out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG
VMT reduction targets have been met through other means. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.4-6)
A-172
MM AQ-5: Ongoing during construction, the following measures will be
followed by the property owner/developer to reduce air quality impacts:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust
palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving
operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with
the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of
chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed
and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as
practicable.
b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities
(such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every
two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved.
c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil
binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles.
d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any
spilled export material at least twice a day to assist in minimizing
fugitive dust; and haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of
material exported from the project site occur.
e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept
onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions
associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the
project site.
f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall either
be covered prior to entering public streets or shall comply with the
vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California
Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. This California
Vehicle Code section stipulates that the load, where it contacts the
sides, front and back of the cargo container area, remain six inches
from the upper edge of the container area, and that the load does not
extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo
container area.
g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt
on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and
staging areas.
h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.
i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water
and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
j. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per
hour or less.
k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during second stage smog alerts.
A-173
l. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust
impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD
Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction.
m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors,
scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel
generators rather than temporary power generators, where
practicable.
o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly
tuned.
p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.
q. Should demolition, grading, or, excavation activities of two or more
projects within any portion of the Project site occur concurrently, air
quality monitoring shall be conducted each day that demolition and
grading/excavation activities occur concurrently; monitoring shall
be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and ensure
that PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations shall not exceed the
established regulatory limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-3)
MM AQ-6: Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan)
and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property
owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The
plans shall include identification of offsite locations for material export
from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options
may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor,
sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared
landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property
owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt
or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use
in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-4)
MM AQ-7: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer
shall implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings
and asphalt usage:
a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate.
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that
minimize solvent emissions.
c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.8-6)
MM AQ-8: Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the east and west
public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District;
A-174
ongoing during project operation, all public day-use parking facilities, not
including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a
crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility
level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West
public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District
will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist
speed parking procedures:
1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic
flows on each facility level.
2. Speed ramps which will take cars directly to the level that has
available spaces, thus eliminating circulation movement and time
involved with hunting for a space. The speed parking striping and
procedures currently used at the Disneyland theme park parking lot
will be adapted to use within the parking structures and will be
designed to safely park 60 cars per minute. (Refer to The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.)
3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and
enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a
standard garage, which tends to slow drivers. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.4-5)
MM AQ-9: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer
will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for all project employees. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.4-8)
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project
design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy
savings will also contribute to reduced operation-related air quality impacts.
These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in
building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper
sealing of buildings.
d. Use water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy
used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees
or participate in a joint development daycare center.
A-175
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is
demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability
of the equipment current at the time makes this installation
infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use
parking facilities, the public parking facilities, which may be used for theme
park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking
procedures set forth in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel
from idling engines. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-2)
MM AQ-13: During construction activities, for all offroad engines that are
diesel and above 50 brake horsepower, the contractor shall use engines that
comply with USEPA Tier 4 offroad engine standards.
MM ENE-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the
energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building
Energy Efficiency Standards current at the time of application by at least 10
percent.. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
MM TRA-8: Transportation Demand Management Program
On-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips
to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of
both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility
Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is
recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR)
goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest
stay of 1.72 days.
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely
which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland
Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will
review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the
Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with
the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing
the effectiveness of these items, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
will select specific programs for implementation.
Objectives of the TDM program are:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes
by guests.
• Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
A-176
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland
Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
• Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future
transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel)
for both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast
and guest trips are described below.
Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will
become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM
program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast
commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the
following:
• Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services may be provided to the cast.
• Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast
members who live in the same geographic areas and who could
rideshare to The Disneyland Resort.
• Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The
Disneyland Resort.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter
rail) passes may be promoted through financial assistance and
onsite sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus
services to The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
• Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be
provided for cast members who choose to use this service.
Financial incentives will be provided.
• Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living
in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a
local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members
to travel to work by means other than the automobile.
• Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be
developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members.
Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as
part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area
A-177
would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these
options.
• Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed
to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than
an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast
members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring
that they would be able to have personal transportation in the
event of special circumstances.
• Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide
cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of
commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi,
rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies
during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the
concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be
stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.
• Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective
employees within 20 miles.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an
incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative
transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of
longest employee commute trips.
• Work Schedule
o Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work
different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation.
A thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to
provide the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel
times, thus lessening peak hour congestion.
o Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may
review the possibility of developing a "compressed work
week" program, which provides for fewer work days but
longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This
program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days
that would otherwise be generated daily by The Disneyland
Resort Cast.
o Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast
members in a wide variety of jobs including clerical,
administrative and professional roles. Sometimes that work
can be completed at home. Telecommuting will be
encouraged on a limited basis as operational needs allow.
• Work Environment/Facility Management
o Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may
develop a parking management program that provides
A-178
incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other
than single-occupant auto to travel to work.
o Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park
transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to
accommodate new employees and to explore relationships
with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts
can lead to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort
cast members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
o Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage
areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient
parking management for cast and guests.
o Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
o Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak
traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
• Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be
integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
o Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public
Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for
up to $300 per month per employee contributions to
employees who vanpool or use public transit (including
commuter rail and/or express bus pools). In addition, The
Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA passes and a 75%
subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit passes.
o Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast
members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling
to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks,
lockers, and showers. Cast members may also receive a cash
incentive for reporting a bike or walk commute.
o Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be
offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
o Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion
of Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks
and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit
other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip
reduction programs.
• Guests
o Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated
to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional
programs and incentives could and will be provided to
encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and
other modes of travel to and from The Disneyland Resort.
A-179
The property owner/developer is currently developing a list
of potential programs and is working with the City of
Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of convenient linkages
to other modes of transportation. Marketing materials for
The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-free" zone
with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not
needed.
o Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary
entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage
from moving or parked vehicles.
• Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the
general construction contractors regarding the coordination of
rideshare services for construction employees provided by the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-
15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-
9, and MM 5.14-23)
MM TRA-9: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle
program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort,
including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this
measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, regional construction emissions associated with The
Disneyland Resort Project would exceed thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10,
resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. According to SEIR No. 340, VOC
and NOx emissions would exceed the maximum daily threshold; however,
implementation of mitigation would reduce construction emissions to below thresholds
of significance. However, as it could not be demonstrated at the Specific Plan level that
the cumulative construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds, SEIR No. 340 found the cumulative impact was significant and
unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
Air pollutant emissions would occur from construction equipment exhaust; fugitive dust
from demolition and site grading; exhaust from trucks hauling demolition debris, soil,
and materials and from vehicles trips by construction workers; and VOCs from painting
and asphalt paving operations. Project construction rules such as SCAQMD Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust (SR AQ-1), which requires watering of active grading areas, have been
incorporated into the Project and are included in the emissions calculations.
A-180
Project construction activities are those associated with the construction of the
remaining 8,301 hotel rooms previously approved for the Project Site. A worst-case
approach of assuming simultaneous construction of all 8,301 hotel rooms was modeled.
Though the simultaneous development of all hotel rooms would not occur, the
modeling provides a incredibly conservative analysis of potential construction impacts
and less intensive actual development scenarios would have less impacts than analyzed
in the Draft Subsequent EIR.
A detailed analysis of the mitigated and unmitigated average daily regional
construction emissions is available in Tables 5.2-6 and 5.2-7 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR. Mitigated Project emissions account for the implementation of MM AQ-13,
which requires use of Tier 4 offroad construction engines, to minimize emissions
during the development of the Project.
While the net average daily emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5
would be less than significant, consistent with the analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR
No. 340, maximum development associated with the Project would continue to exceed
established thresholds for VOC and NOx for Daily Regional Construction Emissions.
The Project would be subject to SR AQ-1 requiring compliance with SCAQMD Rules
402 and 403 related to dust and air pollution emissions nuisances. Additionally,
implementation of SR AQ-2 would require the property owner/developer to submit
evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and
construction of all buildings in compliance with SCAQMD regulations, including
SCAQMD Rule 1113. This would ensure that daily net VOC emissions would not
exceed 75 lbs/day. While this would reduce construction emissions for VOCs to less
than significant with mitigation, development of The Disneyland Resort, including the
DisneylandForward Project, would continue to exceed established thresholds for NOx
and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, previous mitigation measures would continue to be applicable to the
Project and are identified in the Mitigation Program (MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-11,
MM ENE-1, and MM TRA-8, and MM TRA-9). These measures would result in a
reduction of emissions under both the Project and No Project condition. Relevant
mitigation measures implemented with the DisneylandForward Project to reduce
impacts associated with other environmental topics have been identified in the
Mitigation Program; implementation of these measures would continue to reduce air
quality emissions of the underlying projects analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No.
340 as amended by the DisneylandForward Project.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding regional
construction emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe and
would be consistent with impact analyses in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340
2. Criteria Pollutants – Operation (Threshold 5.2b)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
A-181
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard during
operation.
(a) Findings
The Project’s net operational emissions would be below the established thresholds
under the Project condition due to the reduction in VMT and associated emissions.
However, maximum development associated with The Disneyland Resort would
continue to exceed established thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for
daily operational emissions and result in a significant and unavoidable impact even
with implementation of mitigation measures. The overall Disneyland Resort Project
would continue to have significant and unavoidable operational emissions, and there
are no other feasible mitigation measures to further reduce the impacts to less than
significant. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation measures and standard
requirements, the Project would exceed thresholds for operational emissions and thus
the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. The following mitigation
measures and standard requirements would apply to the Project and would assist in
reducing operational emissions:
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-4, MM AQ-6, MM AQ-9 through MM
AQ-10, MM AQ-14, MM ENE-1, MM TRA-8 and MM TRA-9 (see
above).
MM ENE-2: Prior to submittal of plans for electrical system improvements,
any new system improvements (e.g., substation, line connections), if
required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Electric Rates,
Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. Electrical Service Fees
and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the then
current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-2)
MM ENE-3: Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection,
the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs
which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water
heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a
program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.10-2)
MM ENE-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of
gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed
project to the extent feasible. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.14-2)
MM ENE-5: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property
owner/developer shall incorporate feasible renewable energy generation
measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited
to use of renewable biofuels, solar and small wind turbine sources on new
A-182
and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-4)
SR ENE-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for
review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2)
landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in
accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter
10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
SR ENE-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning
Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable
California Green Building Standards. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-2)
PDF ENE-1: Ongoing during project development and operation, the
project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining
and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort
character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend
their length of stay; thus, incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are
expected to be reduced. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-1)
MM HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an
Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an
irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.
Additionally:
a. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in
accordance with Anaheim’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance
and Guidelines including:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. Grading design plan.
b. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for
monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the
Specific Plan). The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not
exceed the infiltration of local soils and that the application of
fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of
frequencies.
A-183
c. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be
consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require
that the Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the
landscape irrigation system include water-conserving features such
as low-flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling
equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture
sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all
irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function
properly with reclaimed water, if it should become available. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4)
MM HWQ-3: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all
paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including, but not limited
to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using
water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a
periodic basis if allowed in the property owner/developer’s NPDES permit
and allowable based on drought restrictions. Nightly washdown shall be
allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary
working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the property
owner/developer’s and City's NPDES permit. Flushing debris, residue, and
sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the property
owner/developer’s NPDES requirements. Property owner/developer agrees
that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the
City's NPDES permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-3)
MM HWQ-4: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-
Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback
Realm Areas), the property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of
Substantial Completion, as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been
installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-5)
MM HWQ-5: Ongoing during grading operations, the property
owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable
codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-2)
MM HWQ-6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more
than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage
under the NPDES Statewide Stormwater Permit for General Construction
Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of
attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-3; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.8-2)
MM HWQ-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit, to reduce the
project's demand on potable water, the property owner/developer shall
install water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape
A-184
irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available. (EIR No.
311, PDF 3.7-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-5)
PDF POP-1: Ongoing during project operations, The Walt Disney
Company will recruit workers who are already a part of the resident work
force in the region. Implementation of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
will further efforts in offering employment opportunities at various
socioeconomic levels. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.9-1)
MM TRA-15: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
construction, a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew vehicles shall be
prepared to reduce potential vehicle trips on the road and identify parking
locations for construction employees and equipment. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.8-5)
MM TRA-16: Prior to approval of each building permit, a Traffic
Management Plan for phasing of roadway improvements, specifying the
sequencing of construction to do the following:
1. Coordinate scheduling with other planned construction in the area.
2. Coordinate scheduling with other infrastructure improvements to
allow them to be facilitated efficiently during roadway
improvements, such as sewer, storm drain, and water line
improvements.
3. Outline procedures for any required traffic detours during
construction, including provision of tour bus stops.
4. Phase each roadway improvement to allow access to all existing
businesses/residential areas. In some instances this will require lane-
by-lane renovation, temporary bypass roads, or traffic reroutes.
5. Employ vertical shoring as often as possible. This will minimize the
amount of road surface that will be disturbed at a given location.
6. Sequence the construction of each roadway improvement to
minimize disruption to residents and businesses.
7. Establish offsite parking and staging areas, where practical and
possible, to minimize the impact to existing level of service on
adjacent roadways. These offsite parking and staging areas will
allow a dispersion of traffic flow to noncritical areas and will
encourage bussing of construction workers from the offsite areas to
the construction sites.
8. Identify how the project improvement construction schedules and
haul routes will be coordinated with other areawide improvements.
The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of
Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC), the Anaheim
Convention Center and area hotels to ensure continued operations
A-185
of these facilities, as well as the continued operation of The
Disneyland Resort. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-6 and PDF 3.8-8)
MM TRA-19: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location
of any proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any
driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular
traffic on the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform
to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.14-12)
MM UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, among the water
conservation measures to be shown on plans and implemented by the
property owner/developer within the Specific Plan area include the
following:
• Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system.
• Use of waterway re-circulation systems.
• Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush
toilets and urinals.
• Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains.
• Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it
becomes available.
• Continuation of the existing cooling tower recirculation system.
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and
automatic systems which use moisture sensors.
• Low-flow shower heads in hotels.
• Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and
other water-using appliances.
• Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates
are lowest.
• Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding
water conservation.
• Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever
feasible.
• Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the use of water for
washdown of exterior areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.6-2; SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.15-1)
MM UTIL-14: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, in order to
conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall comply with the California
Energy Code (Title 10), which may include the following:
A-186
• Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts at the
Anaheim Public Utilities Community and Sustainability Division
for assistance with energy-conservation design features.
• Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems, connected if
feasible to a computerized central energy management system, and
meeting all control, scheduling and load efficiency requirements of
the California Energy Code (Title 24, Building Efficiency
Standards).
• Use of electric high-efficiency (NEMA) motors intended to
conserve energy.
• While recognizing the unique lighting apparatus required for some
theme park uses, use of motion sensing lightswitch devices and
light-emitting diode (LED) energy-efficiency lighting fixtures for
indoor and outdoor lighting when feasible, T8 lamps, metal hallide
and/or high-pressure sodium (HID) lamps.
• Incorporation of electric vehicle chargers into parking structures.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.9-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-1)
MM UTIL-17: Ongoing during theme park operations and prior to final
building and zoning inspections of new theme park development, the
property owner/developer shall implement a solid waste management plan
which has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to
ensure that the project plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 related to
reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989,
as administered by the City of Anaheim, and the County’s and City’s
Integrated Waste Management Plans. Implementation of said plan shall
commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by
the Street and Sanitation Division and may include the following plan
components:
a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State, and City regulations for
hazardous material disposal.
d. Continuing participation in the City of Anaheim’s voluntary
“Recycle Anaheim,” program or other substitute program as may be
developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989
(AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid
waste reduction programs at the Disneyland Resort, including:
• Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient
locations for sorting and recycling bins.
A-187
• Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially from retail areas) by
providing adequate space and centralized locations for collections
and baling.
• Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by
providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
• Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever
feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of
trips required for collection.
• Prohibition of curbside pick-up within The Disneyland Resort. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.3-2 and MM 3.10.3-3; SEIR No. 340,
MM 5.19-1)
MM UTIL-18: Ongoing during project operation, the existing solid waste
recycling and waste minimization practices at The Disneyland Resort shall
be expanded as feasible to serve new development in The Disneyland
Resort. Existing practices include:
• Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and
packaging.
• Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.
• Collection of office paper for recycling.
• Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
• Collection of glass, plastic, kitchen grease, laser printer, toner,
cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.3-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-2)
MM UTIL-20: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the
installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high
traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining
establishments. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-4)
MM UTIL-21: Ongoing during project operation, upon City request and no
less than annually or more than semi-annually, the property
owner/developer shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director or
Planning Services Manager a consolidated Construction Waste
Management Report for all development projects on Disney Properties
demonstrating that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and
demolition debris has been recycled or salvaged, or has otherwise complied
with the City’s waste diversion program, which Report shall identify the
A-188
materials diverted from disposal and whether the materials have been sorted
on site or co-mingled. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, operations would result in significant impacts related to
ROG, NOx and CO emissions and the impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in significant impacts
related to VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions; while implementation of
mitigation would reduce emissions levels, concentrations would continue to exceed
thresholds of significance. SEIR No. 340 found that long-term operational emissions
of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
Operational emissions are comprised of area, energy, and mobile source emissions at
full buildout of the Project. Area and energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod
assumptions for the specific land uses and size and include landscape maintenance
equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings used for routine
maintenance. Energy emissions are from natural gas and electricity consumption. The
calculation of operations phase emissions is based on the remaining development
approvals for the Project Site with an assumed conservative buildout year of 2045.
These operational emissions are conservative since the proposed land uses may not
actually be built out until a date later than 2045. Land use details are included in the
CalEEMod data included in Appendix C-1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
Operational emissions were calculated, as shown in Table 5.2-11 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR. MM TRA-8 was incorporated into the model through the inclusion
of CAPCOA measures T-3, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-32, T-34, T-35, and T-
39, because the VMT calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the
existing and future Disney TDM Program. Similarly, MM ENE-1 was incorporated
into the modeling for the entirety of the Project scenario and for the ARSP portions of
the No Project scenarios, with the incorporation of CAPCOA measure E-1, because the
energy calculations used in CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future
requirements of MM ENE-1.
All other previously approved mitigation measures noted in the Mitigation Program
were not incorporated into the model, as they are already represented in the energy,
waste, and water inputs for both the No Project and Project scenarios. These include
MM AQ-1, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-6, MM AQ-8, MM AQ-9,
MM AQ-10, MM AQ-13, and MM AQ-14, PDF AQ-4, MM ENE-1 through MM
ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-7, PDF POP-1, MM TRA-9, MM
TRA-15, MM TRA-16, and MM TRA-19, and MM UTIL 1, MM UTIL-14, MM
UTIL-17, MM UTIL-18, MM UTIL-20, and MM UTIL-21 and SR ENE-1 through
SR ENE-3. CalEEMod automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA
reduction measures as ‘mitigation’, and therefore, outputs reflect the incorporation of
these reduction measures in the results for ‘mitigated emissions’. However, as the
incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures is reflective of the existing Disneyland
A-189
TDM program (MM TRA-8) and existing requirements set forth by MM ENE-1, these
measures should be reflected in the unmitigated net daily operational emissions for both
the Project and No Project scenarios.
The Project’s net operational emissions would be below the established thresholds
under the Project condition due to the reduction in VMT and associated emissions.
However, consistent with the analysis in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, maximum
development associated with The Disneyland Resort would continue to exceed
established thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 for daily operational
emissions and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. While the incremental
changes associated with the DisneylandForward Project would not result in significant
air quality impacts when considered independently of the underlying Disneyland
Resort Project, when considered with the overall Disneyland Resort Project and the
ARSP Project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational
emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. This impact would be new for PM10
and PM 2.5 when compared to the impact analysis in EIR No. 311. This impact would
not be new or substantially more severe than the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
3. Cumulative Impact – Criteria Pollutant Concentrations During
Construction and Operations
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to criteria pollutant concentration during construction and operations.
(a) Findings
Implementation of standard requirements and proposed mitigation measures would
reduce construction emissions and operational vehicle emissions, but emissions would
potentially still exceed thresholds; therefore, cumulative construction and operational
emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Project would
result in a significant construction and operations air quality impact as detailed in the
analysis of Threshold 5.2b, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact. As such, there are no other feasible mitigation measure to reduce
the impacts to less than significant. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation
measures and standard requirements, the Project would exceed thresholds for
cumulative construction and operational air pollutant emissions and thus the Project
would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. The following mitigation
measures and standard requirements would apply to the Project:
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-11, MM AQ-13, MM AQ-14, MM ENE-1
through MM ENE-5, SR ENE-1 through SR ENE-3, PDF ENE-1, MM
HWQ-2 through MM HWQ-7, PDF POP-1, MM TRA-8, MM TRA-9,
MM TRA-15, MM TRA-16, MM TRA-19, MM UTIL-1, MM UTIL-14,
MM UTIL-17, MM UTIL-18, MM UTIL-20, MM UTIL-21 (see above).
A-190
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, The Disneyland Resort would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact related to construction and operational air quality and
a less than significant cumulative impact related to local CO emissions. According to
SEIR No. 340, implementation of standard requirements and proposed mitigation
measures would reduce construction emissions and operational vehicle emissions, but
emissions would potentially still exceed thresholds; therefore, cumulative construction
and operational emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project Specific Conclusion
Air quality is generally a regional issue, determined by geography and meteorology.
The region of interest for the Project is the SoCAB. The USEPA and CARB use the
monitored air pollutant concentrations in the SoCAB as the basis for attainment
designations. Application of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds provides an
analysis of the Project’s individual impact on regional nonattainment pollutants. The
analysis concluded that construction and operations-related impacts would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact.
With respect to determining the significance of the Project’s contribution, the
SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational
emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or
thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by
multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project’s
potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance
criteria as those for project-specific impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds
established for an individual project, it is considered to be cumulatively considerable
and consequently would result in a significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the
SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less than
significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those
pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. Because the Project would result
in a significant construction and operations air quality impact, the Project would result
in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to
air pollutant concentrations during construction and operations. This impact would not
be new or substantially more severe and would be consistent with the impact analyses
in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Threshold 5.4)
1. Historic Resources (Threshold 4.5a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
A-191
(a) Findings
Due to the duration of the Project and the need to maintain the ability of Disney to
modify Disneyland, the Project could result in significant adverse impacts to both the
district overall, the three individually eligible features within the potential historic
district boundary, and the potentially individually eligible Pope House, which could
not be mitigated through mitigation measures. As such, there are no other feasible
mitigation measure to reduce the impacts to less than significant, and therefore, even
with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to historic resources. The following mitigation measures
would apply to the Project:
MM CUL-2: For properties within the ARSP, prior to approval of building,
grading or demolition permits, whichever occurs first, for properties that
contain a structure over 45 years old, property owners/developers shall
submit to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division,
documentation to verify the presence/absence of historic resources. On
properties where resources are identified, such documentation in accordance
with HABS standards shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a
monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on
the recommendations of a qualified specialist. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.4-3)
MM CUL-3: Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building
permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required
documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services
Division: If an individual development project within the potential
Disneyland Theme Park Historic District proposes to substantially alter or
demolish a contributing feature to the potential Disneyland Theme Park
Historic District as identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report
attached as Appendix E-2 to Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352, that
contributing feature shall be documented in the outline format as specified
in the HABS History Guidelines,5 and photographed according to the HABS
Photography Guidelines,6. The documentation shall be prepared by a
historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Historic Preservation Professional Standards in the relevant discipline.
Digital copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the Anaheim
Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division for storage
with Heritage Services, and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives.
MM CUL-4: Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building
permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall be
responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required
documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services
5 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HABS History Guidelines, updated
January 2020, https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/HABS/HABSHistoryGuidelines.pdf (accessed
March 15, 2023).
6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HABS Photography Guidelines, updated
June 2015, https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines.pdf (accessed March 15, 2023).
A-192
Division: If any of the individually designated or potentially eligible
features or buildings within the theme park, as identified in the Historic
Resources Technical Report attached as Appendix E-2 to the Draft
Subsequent EIR No. 352, are proposed for substantial alteration or
demolition, that feature or building shall be documented individually in the
outline format as specified in the HABS History Guidelines, and
photographed according to the HABS Photography Guidelines. The
documentation shall be prepared by a historian or architectural historian
who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional
Standards in the relevant discipline. Digital copies of the documentation
shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services Division for storage with the Heritage Services Division,
and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives.
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that no impacts to historical resources were expected to occur
from development of The Disneyland Resort Project. SEIR No. 340 determined that no
designated historical resources existed within the ARSP area; however, as discussed
above, mitigation was identified to preclude any impacts to unknown historical
resources. Given the passage of time and the new historic resource designations in and
around the Project Site since approval of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, the Draft
Subsequent EIR conducted a new analysis of historic resources.
Project Specific Conclusion
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 Potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District –The Historic Resources
Technical Report prepared for this Project, which is attached as Appendix E-2 of the
Draft Subsequent EIR, analyzed whether Disneyland should be treated as a historical
resource for purposes of CEQA. Based on research of the development history of the
area; a review of the relevant contexts associated with the establishment of Disneyland
in Anaheim in 1955; and an evaluation of the existing conditions, the Historic
Resources Technical Report identified a potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic
District, that appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for
its establishment as the earliest and most influential theme park in the United States;
for its association with Walt Disney and his original vision for the park; and for its
design characteristics. Based on its significant contributions to commercial and
recreational development in the United States after World War II, the potential
Disneyland Theme Park Historic District appears eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A, the CRHR under Criterion 1,
and for designation as a City Historic District under Criterion 1. Disneyland represents
a unique and influential example of them park property type as envisioned and
established by Walt Disney. The potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District
A-193
appears eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C, the CRHR under Criterion
3, and for designation as a City Historic District under Criterion 3. Therefore, for
purposes of environmental review of the Project, the potential Disneyland Theme Park
Historic District is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
The Pope House – The Pope House, an existing single-family residence that was
relocated to the theme park in 1955 to serve as the home of Owen and Dolly Pope, has
been identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report as potentially individually
eligible for local designation as the first building at the theme park. In 2016, it was
relocated to the northwest corner of the back-of-house area next to Ball Road and is no
longer within the boundary of the potential historic district. The Pope House is a
remnant example of the original development of Disneyland, and due to Disneyland’s
unique significance to the growth and development of Anaheim after World War II, the
Pope House strongly represents a significant event in local history and appears to meet
the eligibility standards for listing as a Historically Significant Structure under Local
Criterion 1. Therefore, for purposes of environmental review of the Project, the Pope
House is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Disneyland Railroad
Depot – Further, since approval of The Disneyland Resort Project in 1993, the Hungry
Bear Restaurant, the Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Main Street Railroad Depot, all
located within Disneyland, were formally determined eligible for listing in the National
Register as part of review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and therefore are listed in the California Register by consensus. In 2019, the Hungry
Bear Restaurant was identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for
“its associated with the second phase of renovation and expansion of Disneyland in the
1970s” and under Criterion C as “a good example of Rustic/Theme Park style
architecture”. In 2019, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride was identified as eligible for
listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as “part of the overall general development of
the Disneyland Park in the first phase of renovation and expansion on the 1960s”, and
under Criterion C as “a good example of the French Quarter New Orleans/Theme Park
architectural style”. In 2005, the Disneyland Railroad Depot was identified as eligible
for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, and C because it “appears eligible for
association with significant events and persons as well as significance related to
architecture and engineering within the amusement park property type”. The evaluation
noted that the Depot is a “contributor to a potential National Register historic district.”
For each of these three attractions, SHPO concurred with the evaluation and each was
assigned a status code of 2S2, which is defined as “Individual property determined to
be eligible for National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in
the California Register.” These three attractions are therefore historical resources as
defined by CEQA.
Other Historical Resources – There is the potential that there are historical resources
located outside the boundary of Disneyland but within the wider DRSP and ARSP areas
which had not been identified at the time of the previous studies. This includes the
Disneyland Hotel, originally established in 1955 specifically to serve visitors to the
park. However, the original hotel buildings were demolished in 1999; therefore, the
Disneyland Hotel is not eligible for historic designation at the federal, state, or local
levels and is not considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.
A-194
The Historic Resources Technical Report confirmed that the Anaheim Convention
Center was listed in the California Register by consensus, making it a historical
resource as defined by CEQA. It was determined that there would not be potential
impacts resulting from the Project to the Anaheim Convention Center, as. the Project
features within the DRSP and at the Disney ARSP Properties would not materially
impair the Anaheim Convention Center such that it would no longer convey its historic
significance. Further, Project features within the larger ARSP area or DRSP area
outside of the boundary of Disneyland would not result in significant impacts to the
potential historic district.
There are no specific plans outlined by the Project that would result in substantial
changes within the boundary of the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District
and formal historic designation of this district is not proposed as part of this Project;
however, because of the duration of the Project and the need to maintain the ability of
Disney to modify Disneyland, the Project could result in significant adverse impacts to
both the district overall, the three individually eligible features within the potential
historic district boundary, and the potentially individually eligible Pope House, which
could not be mitigated through mitigation measures. These potential future changes
could include the removal of contributing features and attractions, changes to
circulation patterns and the potential for new park ingress/egress, required updates for
accessibility or to accommodate new technology, and changes necessitated by new
Disney creative content. Therefore, the Project could have a significant and
unavoidable effect on historical resources under CEQA even with implementation of
MM CUL-3 and MM CUL-4, which would document the history and existing features
and spaces of the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, the individually
eligible Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Disneyland Railroad
Depot, and the individually eligible Pope House. For other work involving buildings
45 years or older in the ARSP, MM CUL-2 would reduce other impacts to potential
historic resources to less than significant levels.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on historical
resources. This impact is new when compared with the impact analyses in EIR No. 311
and SEIR No. 340.
2. Cumulative Impacts – Historic Resources
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to historic resources.
(a) Findings
Due to the duration of the Project and the need to maintain the ability of Disney to
modify Disneyland, the Project could result in significant adverse impacts to both the
district overall, the three individually eligible features within the potential historic
district boundary, and the potentially individually eligible Pope House, which could
not be mitigated through mitigation measures. Given the potentially considerable
contribution to a cumulative impact, the Project would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative impact on historic resources. As such, there are no other
A-195
feasible mitigation measure to reduce the impacts to less than significant, and therefore,
even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in
significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to historic resources. The
following mitigation measures would apply to the Project:
MM CUL-2 through MM CUL-4 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
According to EIR No. 311, development of The Disneyland Resort was not anticipated
to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. According to
SEIR No. 340, despite the site-specific nature of the resources, the mitigation identified
for use in the event that unknown or undocumented resources are discovered would
reduce the significance level of potential cumulative impacts, and anticipated
development within the ARSP area would not contribute to a significant cumulative
impact. Additionally, build out of the ARSP would not contribute to a cumulative
impact to historic resources, and a less than significant cumulative impact would occur
with implementation of the proposed mitigation.
Project Specific Conclusion
Development of related projects can affect historical resources if such projects
adversely alter and/or demolish historical resources that may be interrelated, such as
historical resources that are part of a historic district or historical resources that are
significant within the same historic context, and the Project’s contribution to the impact
would be cumulatively considerable. A significant cumulative impact associated with
a project and related projects would occur if the impact would render a historical
resource no longer eligible for historic listing or designation.
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, MM CUL-2 through MM CUL-4,
the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources.
Given the potentially considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, the Project
would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on historic resources.
There also is the potential for a cumulatively considerable impact to the Anaheim
Convention Center as a result of individually minor but potentially collectively
significant implementation of the Project over time. However, even if the maximum
allowable new uses as identified by the Project were completed, the Anaheim
Convention Center would continue to convey its historic significance. No aspect of the
Project, individually or collectively, would result in alteration or demolition of the
Anaheim Convention Center or its important physical characteristics. New construction
proposed by the Project would be located across Katella Avenue, a distance of over
100 feet from the historical resource and would be subject to the design review
constraints adopted in the DRSP, which would ensure cohesive development within the
area. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to the Anaheim Convention Center as a
result of the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.
A-196
The potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District would retain the features and
design characteristics that convey its historic significance, and it would not be
materially impaired as a result of potential changes outside of the historic district
boundary. The Project would not result in indirect impacts to the potential Disneyland
Historic District as a result of new construction or other proposed changes in the DRSP
or ARSP areas outside of the potential historic district boundary. Further, because there
is no potential for indirect impacts due to the nature and significance of the potential
Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, changes proposed by the Project outside of
the district boundary would not be cumulatively considerable.
In summary, given the potentially considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on
historic resources with the Project’s potential modifications to the potential Disneyland
Theme Park Historic District, the three individually eligible historic resources, and the
Pope House, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact related to historic resources.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to
historic resources, which would be new when compared with the impact analyses in
EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
C. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (Threshold 5.7)
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Threshold 5.7a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
(a) Findings
Development of the Project would continue to involve integration of theme park and
hotel uses which promotes pedestrian travel, use of pedestrian bridges and bicycle
infrastructure, and continued use of mass transit from shuttles and light rail, and a
would implement a variety of other key sustainability features. Although the net change
related to the Project would not result in significant GHG emissions, when considered
with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP Project, of
which the DisneylandForward Project is an amendment, total GHG impacts would be
significant and unavoidable. As such, there are no other feasible mitigation measures
to reduce the impacts to less than significant, and even with implementation of
mitigation measures, standard requirements, and project design features, the Project
would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to greenhouse
gas emissions. The following mitigation measures and standard requirements would
apply to the Project:
MM AQ-1: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and
implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified
A-197
stationary sources. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning
Department. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-5)
MM AQ-2: Ongoing during operation of The Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to
reduce emissions:
a. To the extent practicable, schedule goods movements for off-peak
traffic hours.
b. Use clean fuel for attraction rides and other uses, as practicable.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-1)
MM AQ-3: Prior to issuance of the first building permit associated with a
cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of for theme park development in
the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, whichever occurs first,
the property owner/developer shall submit a site and operations plan for this
facility showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial
and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan.
Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative
total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast
District or Theme Park East Overlay, the property owner/developer shall
provide cast financial and dining services within the Southeast District or
Theme Park East Overlay and the Theme Park District to accommodate cast
members.
Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall
continue to provide cast financial and dining services in conformance with
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.4-4)
MM AQ-4: Ongoing during project operation, the following will be
achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of
the out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG
VMT reduction targets have been met through other means. (EIR No. 311,
MM 3.4-6)
MM AQ-6: Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan)
and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property
owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The
plans shall include identification of offsite locations for material export
from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options
may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor,
sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared
landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property
owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt
or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use
in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-5; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-4)
A-198
MM AQ-9: Ongoing during project operation, the property
owner/developer will implement a comprehensive and aggressive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all project
employees. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-8)
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project
design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy
savings will also contribute to reduced operation-related air quality impacts.
These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in
building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper
sealing of buildings.
d. Use water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy
used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees
or participate in a joint development daycare center.
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is
demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability
of the equipment current at the time makes this installation
infeasible. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.4-6; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.2-6)
MM AQ-14: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if two or more dust-
generating construction projects, which collectively will disturb 15 acres or
more and which have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled
to occur concurrently, a Localized Significance Threshold analysis shall be
prepared. If the LST analysis determines that the established Localized
Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded,
then modifications to construction equipment profiles, modifications to
construction schedules, or additional pollution reduction measures shall be
implemented.
MM ENE-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the
energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building
Energy Efficiency Standards current at the time of application by at least 10
percent. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-2 and MM 3.10.10-1; SEIR No. 340,
SR 5.17-1 and MM 5.17-3)
MM ENE-2: Prior to submittal of plans for electrical system
improvements, any new system improvements (e.g., substation, line
connections), if required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s
Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications.
A-199
Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in
accordance with the then current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and
Electrical Specifications. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.9-3; SEIR No. 340, MM
5.17-2)
MM ENE-3: Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection,
the Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs
which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water
heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a
program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies.
(EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.10-2)
MM ENE-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of
gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed
project to the extent feasible. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.14-2)
MM ENE-5: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property
owner/developer shall incorporate feasible renewable energy generation
measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited
to use of renewable biofuels, solar and small wind turbine sources on new
and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas.
(SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-4)
SR ENE-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for
review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and
(2) landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in
accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter
10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.15-1)
SR ENE-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning
Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable
California Green Building Standards. (SEIR No. 340, SR 5.17-2)
PDF ENE-1: Ongoing during project development and operation, the
project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining
and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort
character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend
their length of stay; thus, incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are
expected to be reduced. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.14-1)
MM HWQ-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an
Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a
maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an
A-200
irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.
Additionally:
a. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed
landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in
accordance with Anaheim’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance
and Guidelines including:
1. Project Information
2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals.
3. Soil management report or specifications.
4. Landscape design plan.
5. Irrigation design plan.
6. Grading design plan.
b. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for
monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the
Specific Plan). The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not
exceed the infiltration of local soils and that the application of
fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of
frequencies.
c. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be
consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require
that the Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the
Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the
landscape irrigation system include water-conserving features such
as low-flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling
equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture
sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all
irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function
properly with reclaimed water, if it should become available. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.7-3; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.15-4)
MM HWQ-3: Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort, the
property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all
paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including, but not limited
to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using
water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a
periodic basis if allowed in the property owner/developer’s NPDES permit
and allowable based on drought restrictions. Nightly washdown shall be
allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary
working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the property
owner/developer's and City's NPDES permit. Flushing debris, residue, and
sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the property
owner/developer’s NPDES requirements. Property owner/developer agrees
that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the
City's NPDES permit. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.7-4; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-3)
A-201
MM HWQ-4: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-
Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback
Realm Areas), the property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of
Substantial Completion, as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been
installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.7-5)
MM HWQ-5: Ongoing during grading operations, the property
owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable
codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-2)
MM HWQ-6: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more
than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage
under the NPDES Statewide Stormwater Permit for General Construction
Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of
attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-3; SEIR No. 340, MM
5.8-2)
MM HWQ-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit, to reduce the
project's demand on potable water, the property owner/developer shall
install water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape
irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available. (EIR No.
311, PDF 3.7-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.8-5)
PDF POP-1: Ongoing during project operations, The Walt Disney
Company will recruit workers who are already a part of the resident work
force in the region. Implementation of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
will further efforts in offering employment opportunities at various
socioeconomic levels. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.9-1)
MM TRA-8: Transportation Demand Management Program
On-going during project operation, the need to minimize cast vehicle trips
to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of
both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility
Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is
recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR)
goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest
stay of 1.72 days.
At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely
which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland
Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will
review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the
Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with
A-202
the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing
the effectiveness of these items, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
will select specific programs for implementation.
Objectives of the TDM program are:
• Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by
guests.
• Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target.
• Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort
cast, to reduce project-generated trips.
• Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future
transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for
both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests.
Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast
and guest trips are described below.
Cast
Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will
become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM
program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast
commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the
following:
• Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other
services may be provided to the cast.
• Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast
members who live in the same geographic areas and who could
rideshare to The Disneyland Resort.
• Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in
proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the
purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The
Disneyland Resort.
• Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and
Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter
rail) passes may be promoted through financial assistance and
onsite sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus
services to The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region.
• Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands
throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be
A-203
provided for cast members who choose to use this service.
Financial incentives will be provided.
• Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living
in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a
local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members
to travel to work by means other than the automobile.
• Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be
developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members.
Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as
part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area
would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these
options.
• Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed
to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than
an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency,
medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast
members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring
that they would be able to have personal transportation in the
event of special circumstances.
• Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide
cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of
commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi,
rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event of emergencies
during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the
concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be
stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency.
• Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective
employees within 20 miles.
• Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an
incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative
transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of
longest employee commute trips.
• Work Schedule
o Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work
different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation.
A thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to
provide the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel
times, thus lessening peak hour congestion.
o Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may
review the possibility of developing a "compressed work
week" program, which provides for fewer work days but
longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This
program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days
that would otherwise be generated daily by The Disneyland
Resort Cast.
A-204
o Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast
members in a wide variety of jobs including clerical,
administrative and professional roles. Sometimes that work
can be completed at home. Telecommuting will be
encouraged on a limited basis as operational needs allow.
• Work Environment/Facility Management
o Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may
develop a parking management program that provides
incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other
than single-occupant auto to travel to work.
o Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park
transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to
accommodate new employees and to explore relationships
with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts
can lead to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort
cast members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
o Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage
areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient
parking management for cast and guests.
o Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and
shuttles may be provided.
o Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak
traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable.
• Financial Incentives
In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be
integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as:
o Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public
Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for
up to $300 per month per employee contributions to
employees who vanpool or use public transit (including
commuter rail and/or express bus pools). In addition, The
Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA passes and a 75%
subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit passes.
o Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast
members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling
to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks,
lockers, and showers. Cast members may also receive a cash
incentive for reporting a bike or walk commute.
o Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be
offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work.
o Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion
of Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks
and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit
A-205
other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip
reduction programs.
• Guests
o Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated
to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional
programs and incentives could and will be provided to
encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and
other modes of travel to and from The Disneyland Resort.
The property owner/developer is currently developing a list
of potential programs and is working with the City of
Anaheim and OCTA on the provision of convenient linkages
to other modes of transportation. Marketing materials for
The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-free" zone
with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not
needed.
o Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary
entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage
from moving or parked vehicles.
• Construction Contractors
The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the
general construction contractors regarding the coordination of
rideshare services for construction employees provided by the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.3-
15; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-5, MM 5.14-6, MM 5.14-8, MM 5.14-
9, and MM 5.14-23)
MM TRA-9: Ongoing during project operations, the property
owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle
program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort,
including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this
measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF
3.3-17; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.14-4)
MM TRA-15: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
construction, a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew vehicles shall be
prepared to reduce potential vehicle trips on the road and identify parking
locations for construction employees and equipment. (EIR No. 311,
PDF 3.8-5)
MM TRA-16: Prior to approval of each building permit, a Traffic
Management Plan for phasing of roadway improvements, specifying the
sequencing of construction to do the following:
1. Coordinate scheduling with other planned construction in the area.
A-206
2. Coordinate scheduling with other infrastructure improvements to
allow them to be facilitated efficiently during roadway
improvements, such as sewer, storm drain, and water line
improvements.
3. Outline procedures for any required traffic detours during
construction, including provision of tour bus stops.
4. Phase each roadway improvement to allow access to all existing
businesses/residential areas. In some instances this will require lane-
by-lane renovation, temporary bypass roads, or traffic reroutes.
5. Employ vertical shoring as often as possible. This will minimize the
amount of road surface that will be disturbed at a given location.
6. Sequence the construction of each roadway improvement to
minimize disruption to residents and businesses.
7. Establish offsite parking and staging areas, where practical and
possible, to minimize the impact to existing level of service on
adjacent roadways. These offsite parking and staging areas will
allow a dispersion of traffic flow to noncritical areas and will
encourage bussing of construction workers from the offsite areas to
the construction sites.
8. Identify how the project improvement construction schedules and
haul routes will be coordinated with other areawide improvements.
The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of
Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC), the Anaheim
Convention Center and area hotels to ensure continued operations
of these facilities, as well as the continued operation of The
Disneyland Resort. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-6 and PDF 3.8-8)
MM TRA-19: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location
of any proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any
driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular
traffic on the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform
to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475. (SEIR No.
340, MM 5.14-12)
MM UTIL-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, among the water
conservation measures to be shown on plans and implemented by the
property owner/developer within the Specific Plan area include the
following:
• Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system.
• Use of waterway re-circulation systems.
• Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush
toilets and urinals.
• Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains.
A-207
• Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it
becomes available.
• Continuation of the existing cooling tower recirculation system.
• Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and
automatic systems which use moisture sensors.
• Low-flow shower heads in hotels.
• Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and
other water-using appliances.
• Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates
are lowest.
• Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding
water conservation.
• Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever
feasible.
• Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the use of water for
washdown of exterior areas. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.10.6-2; SEIR No.
340, MM 5.15-1)
MM UTIL-14: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection, in order to
conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall comply with the California
Energy Code (Title 10), which may include the following:
• Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts at the
Anaheim Public Utilities Community and Sustainability Division
for assistance with energy-conservation design features.
• Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems, connected if
feasible to a computerized central energy management system, and
meeting all control, scheduling and load efficiency requirements of
the California Energy Code (Title 24, Building Efficiency
Standards).
• Use of electric high-efficiency (NEMA) motors intended to
conserve energy.
• While recognizing the unique lighting apparatus required for some
theme park uses, use of motion sensing lightswitch devices and
light-emitting diode (LED) energy-efficiency lighting fixtures for
indoor and outdoor lighting when feasible, T8 lamps, metal hallide
and/or high-pressure sodium (HID) lamps.
• Incorporation of electric vehicle chargers into parking structures.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.9-2; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.17-1)
MM UTIL-17: Ongoing during theme park operations and prior to final
building and zoning inspections of new theme park development, the
A-208
property owner/developer shall implement a solid waste management plan
which has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to
ensure that the project plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 related to
reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989,
as administered by the City of Anaheim, and the County’s and City’s
Integrated Waste Management Plans. Implementation of said plan shall
commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by
the Street and Sanitation Division and may include the following plan
components:
a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State, and City regulations for hazardous
material disposal.
d. Continuing participation in the City of Anaheim’s voluntary
“Recycle Anaheim,” program or other substitute program as may be
developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989
(AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid
waste reduction programs at the Disneyland Resort, including:
• Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient
locations for sorting and recycling bins.
• Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially from retail areas) by
providing adequate space and centralized locations for collections
and baling.
• Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by
providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
• Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever
feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of
trips required for collection.
• Prohibition of curbside pick-up within The Disneyland Resort. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.10.3-2 and MM 3.10.3-3; SEIR No. 340, MM
5.19-1)
MM UTIL-18: Ongoing during project operation, the existing solid waste
recycling and waste minimization practices at The Disneyland Resort shall
be expanded as feasible to serve new development in The Disneyland
Resort. Existing practices include:
• Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and
packaging.
• Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.
• Collection of office paper for recycling.
A-209
• Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
• Collection of glass, plastic, kitchen grease, laser printer, toner,
cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
(EIR No. 311, PDF 3.10.3-1; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-2)
MM UTIL-20: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the
installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high
traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining
establishments. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-4)
MM UTIL-21: Ongoing during project operation, upon City request and no
less than annually or more than semi-annually, the property
owner/developer shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director or
Planning Services Manager a consolidated Construction Waste
Management Report for all development projects on Disney Properties
demonstrating that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and
demolition debris has been recycled or salvaged, or has otherwise complied
with the City’s waste diversion program, which Report shall identify the
materials diverted from disposal and whether the materials have been sorted
on site or co-mingled. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.19-5)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required
in 1993. According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would result in direct and
indirect GHG emissions that would be cumulatively considerable, and the project
would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
Construction Emissions – Temporary impacts would result from Project construction
activities. GHGs would be emitted by off-road and on-road construction equipment and
worker vehicles. Construction emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The results
of that analysis provide an order of magnitude estimate of annual GHG emissions that
would result from implementation of the Project. The estimated GHG emissions from
construction prior to implementation of mitigation are shown in Table 5.7-3 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, and the average annual emissions are 2,745 MTCO2e for both No
Project and Project conditions. Since the Project would reallocate existing development
approvals throughout the Project Site, construction activities, equipment types, and
equipment quantities would be the same for the No Project and Project conditions.
Additionally, because the only additional quantifiable mitigation specific to the Project
is the use of Tier 4 engines, which creates no demonstrable difference in GHG
emissions, the unmitigated and mitigated emissions would be the same. There are
currently no applicable quantitative CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions.
Since the Project would not involve additional GHG emissions above the No Project
condition, the Project, considered in isolation from the underlying Disneyland Resort
A-210
Project and ARSP Project, would result in a less than significant impact to GHG
emissions related to construction emissions. However, because The
DisneylandForward Project is an amendment to the overall Disneyland Resort Project
as evaluated in EIR No. 311 and continued development of the Disney ARSP Properties
as evaluated in SEIR No. 340, although the net emissions would be less than significant,
the impact when considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project
and the ARSP Project would be significant and unavoidable.
Operations Emissions – Long-term annual GHG emissions attributed to the Project
would be generated from vehicle trips generated by the proposed land uses and from
the increased use of electricity, natural gas, and water within the Project Site.
GHG emissions were calculated as described in Table 5.7-6 of the Draft Subsequent
EIR and emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model. MM TRA-8 was
incorporated into the model through the inclusion of CAPCOA measures T-3, T-6, T-
7, T-8, T-9, T-10, T-11, T-32, T-34, T-35, and T-39. These measures were incorporated
for both Project and No Project scenarios because the VMT calculations used in
CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future Disney TDM Program.
Similarly, MM ENE-1 was incorporated into the modeling for the entirety of the
Project scenario and the ARSP portions of the No Project scenario, with the
incorporation of CAPCOA measure E-1, because the energy calculations used in
CalEEMod did not take into account the existing and future requirements of MM ENE-
1. Incorporation of the aforementioned CAPCOA reduction measures associated with
MM TRA-8 and MM ENE-1 results in a combined 15% reduction of CO2e for both
the Project and No Project scenarios.
All other previously approved mitigation measures noted in Section 5.7.5 of the Draft
Subsequent EIR, were not incorporated into the model, as they are already represented
in the energy, waste, and water inputs for both the No Project and Project scenarios.
These include MM AQ-1, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, MM AQ-6, MM AQ-
8, MM AQ-9, MM AQ-10, MM AQ-13, and MM AQ-14, PDF AQ-4, MM ENE-1
through MM ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM HWQ-2, MM HWQ-7, PDF POP-1, MM
TRA-9, MM TRA-15, MM TRA-16, and MM TRA-19, and MM UTIL 1, MM
UTIL-14, MM UTIL-17, MM UTIL-18, MM UTIL-20, and MM UTIL-21 and SR
ENE-1 through SR ENE-3. Incorporation of the aforementioned CAPCOA reduction
measures associated with MM ENE-1 and MM TRA-8 results in a combined 15%
reduction of CO2e for both the Project and No Project scenarios. CalEEMod
automatically considers the incorporation of CAPCOA reduction measures as
‘mitigation’, and therefore, outputs reflect the incorporation of these reduction
measures in the results for ‘mitigated emissions’. However, as the incorporation of
CAPCOA reduction measures is reflective of the existing Disneyland TDM program
(MM TRA-8) and existing requirements set forth by MM ENE-1, these measures
should be reflected in the unmitigated net daily operational emissions for both the
Project and No Project scenarios. As there are no new mitigation measures and MM
TRA-8 and MM ENE-1 represent previously approved mitigation from EIR No. 311
(MM TRA-8) and SEIR No. 340 (MM TRA-8 and MM ENE-1), no mitigated
scenario is presented for Operational GHG Emissions.
A-211
GHG emissions in 2045 are estimated to be 144,319 MTCO2e per year under No
Project conditions and 143,907 MTCO2e per year under Project conditions. As
mentioned previously, the Project would allow Disney to transfer previously approved
development square footage and hotel rooms to other Disney Properties in the Project
Site and no new uses are proposed beyond what was analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR
No. 340. As such, the number and types of GHG emission sources under the No Project
and Project conditions are not expected to change. While the Project would result in a
slight net reduction in GHG emissions over the No Project condition, the Project, which
considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP
Project, would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions due
to the magnitude of total GHG emissions of the prior projects.
GHG Reduction Measures- The goal for GHG emission reductions on the plan and
project level is to make a substantial contribution to the larger statewide and regional
emissions reductions goals that have been and are being developed. GHG emissions
from the Project Site would be reduced through the implementation of statewide
measures, including, but not limited to, requirements for new vehicles to have reduced
GHG emissions (i.e., the CAFE standards); the low carbon fuel standard; and the
increasing amount of renewable energy generation.
There are no new net impacts associated with GHG emissions as a result of the Project;
consequently, no new mitigation is required. However, mitigation measures that are
already applicable to the Project under existing conditions (No Project), such as those
identified within EIR No. 311 and Draft Subsequent EIR No 340, are identified below
and would apply to the Project. These measures would result in a reduction of GHG
emissions associated with both construction and operation, under both the Project and
No Project condition. Further, the Project would implement a number of efficiency and
sustainability measures, including MMs ENE-1 through ENE-5, PDF ENE-1, MM
UTIL 14, and PDF AQ-1 through PDF AQ-4.
Ultimately, development of the Project would continue to provide world-class visitor-
serving and recreational uses and continue to contribute to employment opportunities
for local communities. The Project would involve integration of theme park and hotel
uses which promotes pedestrian travel, use of pedestrian bridges and bicycle
infrastructure, and continued use of mass transit from shuttles and light rail, and a
would implement a variety of other key sustainability features detailed in Section 3.0,
Project Description. The net change related to the Project would not result in significant
GHG emissions and a less than significant impact would occur. However, when
considered with the previously approved Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP
Project, of which the DisneylandForward Project is an amendment, GHG impacts
would be significant and unavoidable. This impact would be new when compared to
EIR No. 311, which did not address GHGs, and consistent with SEIR No. 340.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact would
be new when compared with the analysis in EIR No. 311, which did not address GHG
Emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more severe when compared
with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
A-212
2. Cumulative Impacts
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.
(a) Findings
The Project would be developed in accordance with the previously approved mitigation
measures and goals established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
While the development of the Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction
goals, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact related to GHG because of the Project’s overall
contribution of GHG emissions. As such, there are no other feasible mitigation measure
to reduce the impacts to less than significant, and even with implementation of
mitigation measures and standard requirements, the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
following mitigation measures and standard requirements would apply to the Project:
AQ-1 through MM AQ-11, MM AQ-13, MM AQ-14, MM ENE-1 through MM
ENE-5, SR ENE-1 through SR ENE-3, PDF ENE-1, MM HWQ-2 through MM
HWQ-7, PDF POP-1, MM TRA-8, MM TRA-9, MM TRA-15, MM TRA-16, MM
TRA-19, MM UTIL-1, MM UTIL-14, MM UTIL-17, MM UTIL-18, MM UTIL-
20, MM UTIL-21 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 did not directly address GHG emissions as such analysis was not required
in 1993. According to SEIR No. 340, direct and indirect GHG emissions would be
cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
It is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project would have
GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change; therefore, any
impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. As discussed previously, the Project
would be developed in accordance with the previously approved mitigation measures
and goals established under local and State plans and legislation and consequently
would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs. While the development of the Project would be
consistent with the GHG reduction goals, the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to GHG because
of the Project’s overall contribution of GHG emissions.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. This
impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, which
A-213
did not address GHG emissions. This impact would not be new or substantially more
severe when compared with the impact analysis in SEIR No. 340.
D. NOISE (Threshold 5.11)
1. Construction Noise (Threshold 5.11a)
This threshold analyzes whether the Project would 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 during construction.
(a) Findings
An extensive source level measurement survey provided noise data to develop a
computer noise model. Bruel and Kjaer’s Predictor software (V2022 rev 1) was used
to develop The Disneyland Resort noise model and the respective noise level contours,
which determined the resulting sound levels due to construction will exceed the 60 dBA
threshold at the property line, with sound levels expected to be approximately 65 to 75
dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. While mitigation measures would reduce the
overall noise levels, construction noise impacts for the development of the Project
would exceed established thresholds and impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. As such, although mitigation measures would reduce the construction
noise impacts by providing noise reduction measures such as physical construction
sound barriers and mufflers, and limiting construction noise times and distances from
residences, there are no other feasible mitigation measures to further reduce the impact
to less than significant. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation measures
and standard requirements, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable
cumulative impacts related to construction noise. The following mitigation measures
and standard requirements would apply to the Project:
MM NOI-8: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer
shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment
and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. (EIR No. 311, MM
3.8-9; SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-1)
MM NOI-9: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified
acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager
identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the
attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted,
to comply with the California Building Code and Sound Pressure Level
Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on
the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and
surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures, such as but not limited to
acoustic sound barriers, shall be implemented by the property
owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. (SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.10-2)
A-214
MM NOI-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit for construction
within 75 feet of noise sensitive receptors, a note shall be provided on
building plans indicating that during construction, the property
owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction
barriers between the project perimeter and the sensitive receptor. The
construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a
minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum
Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a
continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with
suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize
sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self
closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are
filled with an acceptable solid vision product. (EIR No. 311, MM 3.8-8;
SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-5)
MM NOI-11: Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure
washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to
graffiti or other aesthetical considerations and in areas along the property
line or accessible by the public shall be limited to daytime hours of
operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-6)
MM NOI-12: Ongoing during construction, property owners/developers
shall pay for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which
shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under
the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on
a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at
any point on the exterior project boundary property line do not exceed 60
dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day
where outside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the
City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the
City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded,
construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level
below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring
conducted to confirm compliance. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-8)
MM NOI-13: Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be
provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of clam shovel
drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home. (SEIR
No. 340, MM 5.10-11)
MM NOI-14: Prior to issuance of each building permit on Disney ARSP
Properties, if pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction, a
noise and vibration analysis must be prepared and submitted to the Planning
and Building Department to assess and mitigate potential noise and
vibration impacts related to these activities, including site design features
such as setbacks and trenches. (SEIR No. 340, MM 5.10-12)
MM NOI-17: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, grading permit
or demolition permit, a note shall be provided on the plans stating that
ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall designate
A-215
a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood
complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise
complaints and requiring implementation of reasonable measures to correct
the noise issue.
MM NOI-18: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer
shall locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air
compressors and portable generators a minimum of 75 feet from noise
sensitive receptors.
MM NOI-19: Ongoing during construction, no impact driven piles shall be
allowed in conjunction with the construction of parking structures. (EIR
No. 311, MM 3.5-6)
SR NOI-1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, contractor
specifications shall include a note indicating that noise-generating
construction activities which produce a sound pressure level at any point
along the property line in excess of 60 dBA shall be limited to between the
hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on any day. This requirement is identified in
Section 6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance. Additional
work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by and on approval of
the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (EIR No. 311, MM
3.8-7; SEIR No. 340, SR 5.10-1)
MM TRA-13: Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each
demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during
grading and construction, a Truck Route Plan identifying truck routes along
arterials, avoiding residential areas to the extent feasible and in compliance
with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. The Plan shall show
conformance with the external noise limits for construction between 7 p.m.
and 7 a.m. The Plan shall also prohibit construction traffic on residential
streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to
ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel
on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on
the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of
truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and
construction signage at appropriate locations. The Truck Route Plan shall
provide for monitoring of street conditions and potential repairing and/or
repaving by property owner/developer after completion of construction as
required by the City Engineer. (EIR No. 311, PDF 3.8-3)
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 found construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of mitigation measures. SEIR No. 340 concluded that
construction activities associated with future development within the ARSP area have
the potential to significantly impact noise-sensitive receptors, and, as a result, found a
significant and unavoidable construction noise impact.
A-216
Project Specific Conclusion
Analysis of the existing noise and potential increases in noise associated with
implementation of the Project is based on technical reports, noise monitoring, and noise
prediction modeling conducted as part of the Project’s Noise Study conducted by
Veneklasen, dated June 2023 and included as Appendix I to the Subsequent EIR. The
model utilized existing noise levels and the noise monitoring on-site to express current
and potential future noise levels throughout the Project site. The model was created
using ISO 9613, “Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors". Based on the
computer model, the resulting sound levels due to construction will exceed 60 dBA at
the property line, with sound levels expected to be approximately 65 to 75 dBA at the
nearest sensitive receptors. The most notable impact will occur in the Toy Story
Parking Area (future Southeast District and Theme Park East Overlay) when
construction is occurring closest to the property line generally within 100 feet.
However, the southern and eastern perimeters of this area includes an existing 12- to
16-foot barrier wall previously constructed to mitigate noise impacts from construction
and operation of the existing parking lot. When future construction activity moves
towards the center of the Toy Story Parking Area, the impact will be gradually reduced.
Mitigation measures will also be implemented to limit the amount of disturbance during
construction, such construction barriers throughout the Project Site to reduce noise
(MM NOI-10; MM TRA-13), assigning a noise disturbance coordinator to respond to
neighborhood complaints and adjust operations causing the complaints (MM NOI-17),
and locating stationary construction equipment a minimum of 75 feet from noise-
sensitive receptors (MM NOI-18).
Implementation of MM NOI-8 requiring that that the property owner/developer ensure
all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with
properly maintained mufflers; MM NOI-9 requiring submittal of a noise study
identifying if noise attenuation is required and, if so, proposing noise attenuation
measures; MM NOI-11 limiting pressure washing operations for purposes of building
repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical consideration along the
property line to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; MM
NOI-12 requiring the property owner/developer to pay all reasonable costs associated
with construction noise monitoring to confirm noise between the hours of 7:00 pm to
7:00 am does not exceed the 60 dBA threshold; MM NOI-13 requiring that prior to
issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on plans indicating that there
shall be no operation of clam shovel drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any
existing home; MM NOI-14 requiring preparation of a noise and vibration analysis if
pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction on Disney ARSP Properties
to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities;
and MM NOI-19 prohibiting use of impact driven piles in conjunction with
construction of parking structures. Although these mitigation measures would help to
reduce the overall noise levels, they may not reduce construction noise impacts to less
than significant.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
The Project may result in a temporary potentially significant and unavoidable
construction noise impact even with the implementation of mitigation measures. This
A-217
impact would be new when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311, but not
new or substantially more severe and consistent with the impact analysis in SEIR No.
340.
2. Cumulative Impacts – Construction Noise
This discussion analyzes whether the Project would have a significant cumulative
impact related to construction noise
(a) Findings
Cumulative short-term noise impacts are still anticipated to result from construction of
the Project as the Project would surpass the noise threshold, even with mitigation. The
Project’s contribution may be cumulatively considerable and therefore would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Additionally, if
cumulative projects were also to be constructed at the same time and in close proximity
to the edges of the Project Site, a higher level of noise and/or a longer cumulative period
of noise would result when compared to just the Project itself, which would contribute
to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. As such, there are no other feasible
mitigation measure to reduce the impacts to less than significant and even with
implementation of mitigation measures and standard requirements, the Project would
result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to construction noise.
The following mitigation measures and standards requirements would apply to the
Project:
MM NOI-8 through MM NOI-14, MM NOI-17 through MM NOI-19, SR NOI-1,
MM TRA-13 (see above).
(b) Findings of Fact
Conclusions in Prior EIRs
EIR No. 311 concluded that residents within 100 feet of construction areas would be
exposed to construction noise between 69 and 73 dBA when grading occurs; however,
due to the short-term nature of construction noise this would not represent a significant
cumulative impact. SEIR No. 340 concluded that buildout of the ARSP would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impact;
impacts related to construction vibration would not contribute to a cumulative
significant impact.
Project Specific Conclusion
The Project as well as other cumulative projects have the potential to result in short-
term noise impacts. Noise and vibration impacts during construction would be localized
and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time throughout the construction
periods of future development activities within the Project Site. The Project would
reduce noise and vibratory impacts during construction by complying with the City’s
noise ordinance, as well as by implementing MM NOI-6, MM NOI-8, MM NOI-10,
MM NOI-11, MM NOI-12, MM NOI-13, MM NOI-14, and MM NOI-17; however,
cumulative short-term noise impacts are still anticipated to result from construction of
A-218
the Project. The Project’s contribution may be cumulatively considerable and therefore
would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Similarly, and
due to the highly developed nature of this portion of the City, other construction
projects in the area may also significantly impact sensitive receptors. Cumulative
construction projects would be required to evaluate their cumulative contributions to
construction-related noise and to comply with City Code and incorporate appropriate
mitigation measures, which would help to reduce cumulative noise impacts. However,
if cumulative projects were also to be constructed at the same time and in close
proximity to the edges of the Project Site, a higher level of noise and/or a longer
cumulative period of noise would result when compared to just the Project itself, which
would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
Project Conclusion Compared to Previous EIR Conclusions
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to construction noise. This
impact would be increased when compared with the impact analysis in EIR No. 311
but would not be new or substantially more severe when compared with the impact
analysis in SEIR No. 340.
VIII. Irreversible Environmental Changes, Growth Inducement, and Other
CEQA Considerations
Section 7.0 of the Draft Subsequent EIR describes irreversible environmental changes,
growth-inducing impacts, and other CEQA considerations.
A. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a Draft EIR to describe any
significant irreversible environmental changes which would occur as a result of
the proposed action should it be implemented. Construction and long-term
operation of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of
nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels
and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, construction, lighting, heating, and
cooling of structures) and lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other
metals (for use in building construction, piping, and roadway infrastructure).
Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental
stresses would also be impacted by Project implementation, such as air quality
through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases and
water supply through the increased potable water demands for drinking,
cooking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs. An increased
commitment of public services (e.g., police, fire, and sewer and water services)
would also be required. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result
in an irreversible commitment of land, energy resources, and public services.
Restoration of the Project Site to pre-developed conditions would not be
feasible given the degree of disturbance, the urbanization of the area, and the
level of capital investment.
In addition, the Project Site is currently entitled for additional development
associated with buildout of The Disneyland Resort and the ARSP, which would
A-219
increase the demand for nonrenewable resources as detailed above. Because the
only increase to development square footage associated with the
DisneylandForward Project includes an increase of 4,376 theme park-related
parking spaces in the ARSP at the 333 West Ball Road site (ARSP Parking
Overlay), there would be no net increase in hotel or theme park development
compared to existing entitled conditions. The DisneylandForward Project
would also introduce a greater level of efficiency through the mitigation
measures and project design features discussed throughout this Draft
Subsequent EIR. While many of these efficiencies would be implemented or
achieved with or without the DisneylandForward Project, the anticipated
demand for nonrenewable resources would be no greater than what would occur
without the DisneylandForward.
B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e), this section
is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential
growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following
questions:
1. Would this proposed project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through
the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do
not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing
regulations pertaining to land development)?
2. Would this proposed project result in the need to expand one or more
public services to maintain desired levels of service?
3. Would this proposed project encourage or facilitate economic effects
that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the
environment?
4. Would approval of this proposed project involve some precedent-setting
action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment?
Obstacles to Growth – New and modified infrastructure facilities are required
to accommodate the Project including improvements to on and off-site sewer,
water, and electrical facilities and vehicular circulation improvements. The
Project would not introduce increased roadway capacity in areas that are not
already fully developed or planned for development and redevelopment with
urban uses, and therefore would not induce unplanned growth. Additionally, the
utility infrastructure installed as part of the Project would be sized and located
expressly to serve the Project Site (existing and proposed uses), entitled uses,
and anticipated growth associated with related projects buildout of the ARSP,
and would not, therefore, induce growth in the immediate vicinity. Overall,
approval of the Project and associated discretionary actions would
accommodate growth, including economic growth, associated with existing
entitlements associated with The Disneyland Resort and the ARSP but would
not remove an existing regulatory obstacle to growth, but rather, would allow
A-220
for flexibility in the continued development of the Project Site with entitled
uses. This is consistent with the findings of EIR No. 311. The Project is not,
therefore, considered to be growth-inducing with respect to removal of
obstacles to growth.
Expansion of Public Services – The Project would potentially increase the
demand for public services (police and fire), however all expanded facilities
would be located within the development footprint of the DisneylandForward
Project. Therefore, the Project would not necessitate the expansion of existing
public service facilities outside the limits of the Project Site in order to maintain
desired levels of service. In the event that these facilities or associated resources
do need to be expanded in off-site areas, funding mechanisms are in place
through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate such
growth. The Project would not, therefore, have significant growth-inducing
consequences with respect to public services. This would be consistent with the
findings of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
Encourage Economic Effects – During project-specific construction
associated with the Project, a number of design, engineering, and construction-
related jobs would be created, which would last until project-specific
construction was completed. This would provide economic stimulus in the area;
however, these jobs typically would be filled by existing residents of the region
and would not be substantial enough to foster other activities that would have
significant effects on the environment. In addition, the Project would result in
the addition of employees, which the majority of the anticipated employment
positions are typical of the existing employment on the Project Site and within
the City associated with visitor-serving uses and may not offer a unique enough
opportunity to induce job seekers to relocate to the area for the sole purpose of
filling these positions. Nonetheless, implementation of the Project may result
in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would
be created when goods and services are purchased from businesses in the
region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those
employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and
services in the region. This would be consistent with the findings of EIR No.
311 and SEIR No. 340.
Precedent-Setting Action – The Project involves continued development of
entitled uses and does not involve any changes in the type or amount of allowed
development on the Project Site or in the City, with the exception of an increase
of 4,376 theme park-related parking spaces in the ARSP. Additionally, these
actions, which include flexibility for future development, are Project-specific
and would not encourage and facilitate other activities. The Project would
continue to function as a visitor-serving use and would be generally consistent
with existing land use and planning policies. No changes to any of the City’s
building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement the Project.
Regulatory requirements, and Project-specific mitigation measures have been
identified in Sections 5.1 through 5.16 to ensure that implementation of the
Project complies with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances, as
A-221
applicable, to ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development
regulations and that environmental impacts are minimized. The Project does not
propose any precedent-setting actions that, if approved, would specifically
allow or encourage other projects and resultant growth to occur. This would be
consistent with the findings of EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340.
IX. Project Alternatives
The Draft Subsequent EIR in Section 6.0 considered three alternatives to the Project
including Alternative 1- No Project/Continuing Development, Alternative 2- Restrict
Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features, and Alternative 3 –
Development with No Theme Park East Overlay. The three alternatives analyzed in the
Draft Subsequent EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each
alternative. In addition, other alternatives were considered and rejected as infeasible as
described in Section 6.4 of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT/CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT
1. Summary of Alternative
According the Section 15156.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “no project” alternative
shall be evaluated to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the
proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Additionally,
the no project alternative may represent the continuation of an existing land use or
ongoing operation into the future. Thus, the following analysis focuses on the impacts
of the Project in comparison to the impacts that would occur under the existing plans,
in this case continued development of The Disneyland Resort Project and the ARSP,
analyzed in EIR No. 311 and SEIR No. 340, respectively.
The No Project/Continuing Development Alternative assumes that the General Plan
land use designations, DRSP Development Districts, and DRSP and ARSP
development standards and regulations would remain as they currently pertain to the
Project Site. Assumptions include that the 489.7-acre Disneyland Resort Project would
proceed as approved, but that the benefits associated with coordinating infrastructure,
design, and streetscape improvements between the DRSP and the ARSP as detailed for
the DisneylandForward Project would not be realized. Additionally, future
development and redevelopment would be subject to existing entitlements and would
be specifically limited to the Districts and Overlays as defined by the existing DRSP
and ARSP.
The No Project/Continuing Development Alternative would assume that current land
use designations, development standards and regulations would remain as they do
today, pursuant to the DRSP and ARSP. The DRSP and ARSP areas would continue
to be developed in accordance with the current DRSP and ARSP, respectively, and all
approved amendments. Under current conditions, development has occurred pursuant
to the DRSP and the ARSP; therefore, much of the coordination related to
infrastructure, design, and streetscape improvements has already occurred, creating
three distinct but complimentary specific plan areas.
A-222
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A detailed comparison between impacts identified in the Project and Alternative 1 is
detailed in Section 6.5.1.
Project Objectives
The No Project/Continuing Development Alternative would allow for continued
development of The Disneyland Resort according to current entitlements which would
achieve the Project objectives. Under the current DRSP development structure, theme
park uses are only allowed in the Theme Park District. As of the date of the Notice of
Preparation of this Draft Subsequent EIR, October 21, 2021, Disney has developed
approximately 45 percent of the approved square footage for theme park uses, even
though most of the Theme Park District is built out. Future development, including
additional theme park square footage, would require expansion into new areas or
replacement of existing uses in the existing Theme Park District with more dense
development. Accordingly, because expansion of theme park uses into new areas would
not occur under the No Project/Continuing Development Alternative, this alternative
would limit the ability to develop new immersive theme park experiences that would
meet and exceed guest expectations. Without allowing for flexibility to meet guest
expectations, the Disneyland Resort would attract fewer theme park guests, resulting
in decreased economic benefits when compared with the DisneylandForward Project.
Therefore, this alternative would not support any of the identified Project objectives to
the same degree as the Project.
Conclusion
The No Project/Continuing Development Alternative, when compared to the
DisneylandForward Project, would result in reduced impacts related to Cultural
Resources and greater impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Land Use and
Planning, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 – RESTRICT REMOVAL OR SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES TO HISTORIC FEATURES
1. Summary of Alternative
The Alternative to Restrict Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features
would not allow any future modifications to, or removal of, the structures determined
to be historic resources as defined by CEQA. This alternative would continue to allow
the transfer of uses permitted under The Disneyland Resort Project to other areas of the
DRSP and Disney ARSP Properties, as proposed by the Project, however, any future
modifications could not substantially impact the potential Disneyland Theme Park
Historic District, the three individually eligible structures (the Hungry Bear Restaurant,
Pirates of the Caribbean and the Main Street Railroad Depot), or the Pope House.
Substantial changes include changes or alterations that result in a material change such
that the resources no longer convey historic significance. As detailed in Section 5.4,
Cultural Resources, the majority of modifications anticipated for the potential
Disneyland Theme Parks Historic District would not result in a material change that
would affect this potential district. This Draft Subsequent EIR analyzes the potential
A-223
for demolition or substantial changes and finds a significant and unavoidable impact.
However, because these four features are limited to currently developed areas within
Disneyland and its back-of-house area, most of the DisneylandForward Project would
continue to be implemented as proposed, especially within areas outside of the potential
Disneyland Theme Parks Historic District.
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A detailed comparison between impacts identified in the Project and Alternative 2 is
detailed in Section 6.5.2.
Project Objectives
The Alternative to Restrict Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features
would not meet the underlying purpose of the Project and would totally prevent most
updates and changes to Disneyland. Implementation of the Alternative to Restrict
Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features would restrict substantial
modification or removal of potential historic resources, including the potential
Disneyland Theme Park Historic District, the three historic resources within
Disneyland (the Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Main Street
Railroad Depot), and the potentially individually eligible Pope House; therefore, this
alternative would frustrate Disney’s objective of being able to change the resort as
Disney imagines new and more exciting entertainment for guests.
Additionally, this Alternative would not meet other Project objectives listed below to
the same degree as the DisneylandForward Project in that limiting the flexibility of
future redevelopment of specific elements would limit Disney’s ability to maximize
future guest experiences, potentially limit the volume of visitors seeking new and ever-
changing experiences, and limit the ability to more meaningfully contribute to the
economic growth of the City.
Infeasibility
As further detailed in the Historical Resources Technical Report, prepared by HRG in
May 2023, and included as Appendix D-2 to the Draft Subsequent EIR, given there are
contributing resources throughout Disneyland, implementation of the Alternative to
Restrict Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features would be
infeasible for the reasons noted above, including inhibiting Disney’s ability to provide
new theme park experiences and maximize future guest experiences, potentially
limiting the volume of visitors seeking new and ever-changing experiences, and
limiting the ability to more meaningfully contribute to the economic growth of the City.
Conclusion
This alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impact on
cultural resources; however, the remaining impacts would be similar to those of the
Project. The retention of the four features would eliminate the potentially significant and
unavoidable impact related to the loss of historic resources, thus reducing the impacts of
the Project.
A-224
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 – DEVELOPMENT WITH NO THEME PARK EAST
OVERLAY
1. Summary of Alternative
The Development With No Theme Park East Overlay Alternative would restrict future
development of the 52.6-acre parcel located at 1900 South Harbor Boulevard, identified
as the ARSP Theme Park East Overlay in the Project, to current uses allowed under the
ARSP. As shown in Table 3-2, maximum allowable development for this property
under the ARSP would be 3,348 hotel rooms, or the property could remain as the Toy
Story Parking Lot through June 26, 2024 under Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-
05103C, which has a maximum of 4,635-surface parking spaces. The parcel would
remain within the ARSP C-R District in the Low-Medium Density, which allows for
development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre. Although the parcel would be developed
and included as part of this alternative, no theme park uses would be permitted on this
parcel under this alternative. As detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, Section
18.116.070 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code would allow the development of
theme parks, entertainment venues, and transportation facilities on this property with
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP); however, no CUP would be requested with
this alternative. Future development of the remainder of the Project Site would be
pursuant to the DisneylandForward Project. This alternative also assumes the planned
extensions of Clementine Street and Gene Autry Way would be removed as part of this
alternative, thus adjusting the current acreage associated with the parcel to include these
street rights-of-way. This alternative would not modify the development potential
associated with the DisneylandForward Project; instead, it would restrict development
of theme park uses to specific areas. With the removal of the parcel at 1900 South
Harbor Boulevard, the remainder of the maximum theme park square footage would be
developed elsewhere within the DisneylandForward site, as shown in Table 3-2, Uses
Currently Allowed Under DRSP/ARSP For Disney Properties, with the exception of
theme park uses on the Theme Park East Overlay.
The DisneylandForward Project would not increase the amount of development square
footage or hotel rooms currently allowed in the DRSP and analyzed in Environmental
Impact Report No. 311, which the City certified in 1993, or the number of hotel rooms
currently allowed in the ARSP and analyzed in Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 340, which the City certified in 2012. Similarly, this alternative would
neither increase nor reduce the amount of hotel rooms currently allowed in the ARSP
for the parcel at 1900 South Harbor Boulevard. The purpose of this alternative is to try
to reduce or avoid potential noise impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with
developing theme park uses on the parcel located at 1900 South Harbor Boulevard.
2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
A detailed comparison between impacts identified in the Project and Alternative 3 is
detailed in Section 6.5.3.
Project Objectives
The Development With No Theme Park East Overlay Alternative would not support
the identified Project objectives to the same degree as the DisneylandForward Project,
A-225
primarily because limiting the potential expansion of theme park uses into new areas
limits the potential to attract the same volume of new visitors to the area as would the
DisneylandForward Project, which would support a more immersive theme park and
hotel experience. Implementation of this alternative would not allow for the potential
for development of theme park uses at 1900 South Harbor Boulevard (known as the
proposed Theme Park East Overlay), thus limiting the potential for meeting the
changing demands of future tourism in Southern California and the City of Anaheim.
This alternative also likely would limit the introduction of theme park uses into the
DRSP Southeast District given its smaller size relative to the Theme Park East
Overlay. As discussed in the Section 3.0, Project Description, the Southeast District is
24.7 acres and allocated up to 390,000 square feet of theme park uses while the Theme
Park East Overlay is 52.6 acres (more than twice the size of the Southeast District) and
allocated up to 840,000 square feet of theme park uses. Without development of theme
park uses in the Theme Park East Overlay, the Project would lack the synergy important
to develop both properties with theme park uses.
Infeasibility
As discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, implementation of the Development With
No Theme Park East Overlay Alternative would be infeasible due to the lack of
adequate land in the Southeast District to create a theme park.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Development With No Theme Park East Overlay Alternative
would result in substantially similar impacts when compared with the Project. Although
impact conclusions would be consistent with the Project, this alternative would create
minor differences in the severity of impacts related to Noise. Specifically, according to
the Noise Study summarized in Section 5.11, Noise, theme park operations represent a
worst case scenario when compared to hotel uses; however, impacts would be reduced
to less than significant levels under either scenario. Therefore, this alternative would
not avoid or decrease the significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality,
Cultural Resources, GHG Emissions, or Noise associated with the DisneylandForward
Project.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative, then the Draft EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Table 6-3 provides,
in summary format, a comparison of the impacts for each alternative to the Project.
Table 6-3 identifies whether the respective alternatives would have similar, less, or
greater impacts compared to the impacts of the DisneylandForward Project.
The Restrict Removal or Substantial Changes to Listed Historic Features Alternative
has the least impact to the environment because it would eliminate a potential
significant and unavoidable impact by retaining the potential Disneyland Theme Park
Historic District, the three individually eligible features within the potential Disneyland
Theme Park Historic District (the Hungry Bear Restaurant, Pirates of the Caribbean
A-226
and the Main Street Railroad Depot), and the potentially individually eligible Pope
House. While this alternative would be environmentally superior to the
DisneylandForward Project, it would not meet most of the Project Objectives,
particularly the following:
• To support the continued reimagination of The Disneyland Resort to meet and
exceed evolving guest expectations for immersive entertainment and
technological advances in theme park and other resort experiences.
• To continue to fulfill the following vision of Walt Disney: “Disneyland will
never be completed…It will continue to grow as long as there is imagination
left in the world.”
Additionally, this Alternative would not meet other Project objectives listed below to
the same degree as the DisneylandForward Project in that limiting the flexibility of
future redevelopment of specific elements would limit Disney’s ability to maximize
future guest experiences and more meaningfully contribute to the economic growth of
the City.
• To reconfirm and enhance Southern California as one of the world’s greatest
tourist destinations;
• To support the ongoing transformation of The Anaheim Resort into a multi-day
destination resort for use by Southern California metropolitan area residents, as
well as visitors from around the world;
• To promote the goals of the Anaheim General Plan by enhancing visitor-serving
commercial uses in the City and to provide a catalyst for the economic and
physical enhancement of Anaheim;
• To support the buildout of a fully integrated resort that increases visitation
levels and generates an economic base capable of supporting project
components consistent with the objectives of the City;
• To maintain and enhance the economic vitality of the City of Anaheim and
Orange County by providing business and job opportunities associated with the
construction and operation of The Disneyland Resort;
• To enhance The Anaheim Resort by providing a wider range of attractions,
hotel accommodations, restaurants, shopping opportunities, and public parking;
• To maintain and encourage Anaheim’s position as a nationally recognized
tourist, convention and recreation center;
• To increase sales tax yields and further enhance the economic base of the
community, thereby lessening the tax burden on real property; and
• To encourage the development of quality facilities that complement
conventions, family entertainment, and recreation within appropriate areas of
the community.
A-227
X. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (Public Resources
Code § 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines § 15093), requires a public agency to balance
the benefits of a project against the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse
impacts in determining whether to approve the project. The DisneylandForward
Project, encompassing the approvals listed previously in Section III. Project
Description and detailed in Section 3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, will result in
environmental effects, which, although mitigated to the extent feasible by the
implementation of mitigation measures required for the Project, will remain significant
and unavoidable, as discussed in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and CEQA Findings of Fact. Significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air
Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise are the impacts for
which this Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Details related to each
significant and unavoidable impact are detailed above.
The Anaheim City Council finds and determines in approving the DisneylandForward
Project that the Final Subsequent EIR has considered the identified means of mitigating
or avoiding the Project's significant effects and that to the extent any significant
environmental effect remains unavoidable or not mitigated to below a level of
significance after mitigation, such impact is acceptable in light of the social, legal,
economic, environmental, technological and other Project benefits discussed below,
and such benefits override, outweigh, and make "acceptable" any such remaining
environmental impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)).
The Project will provide the following benefits and considerations, taken together or
individually, outweigh such significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts. All of these benefits and considerations are based on the facts set forth in the
Findings, the Final Subsequent EIR (including, without limitation, the Draft
Subsequent EIR, including appendices, the response to comments, and the record of
proceedings for the Project.) The Anaheim City Council determines that the evidence
in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the determinations made in this
Statement of Overriding Considerations, that the facts stated in this document and in
the Findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony
received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, staff reports and all materials in
the City’s Project files. The Anaheim City Council also determines that to the extent
other evidence was presented that is contrary to the determinations made herein or in
the Findings, such evidence was nevertheless considered, weighed and determined to
be either lacking in credibility or insufficient in weight to detract from the
determinations made herein or in the Findings such that the Anaheim City Council
reached these determinations after due consideration of all evidence presented to it.
Each of these benefits and considerations is a separate and independent basis that
justifies approval of the Project, so that if a court were to set aside the determination
that any particular benefit or consideration will occur and justifies project approval, the
Anaheim City Council determines that it would stand by its determination that the
remaining benefit(s) or consideration(s) is or are sufficient to warrant project approval.
Facts in Support of Statement of Overriding Considerations: The Anaheim City
Council hereby finds that the substantial benefits resulting from implementation of the
A-228
Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse effects related to air quality,
cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. The Anaheim City Council
has reviewed the substantial evidence before this decision-making body and concludes
these potentially significant unavoidable impacts are acceptable based upon the
overriding considerations set forth in these Findings. Any of these overriding
considerations is sufficient to support the Anaheim City Council’s determinations
herein:
1. Provides Economic Benefits to the City of Anaheim: The Disneyland Resort is
the largest employer in the City of Anaheim and is one of the main engines
supporting the City’s economy. Based on a June 5, 2023 study conducted by
California State University, Fullerton, for every $1,000,000,000 Disney invests in
the City of Anaheim, the City of Anaheim receives $15,000,000 in annual tax
revenue from Resort operations and $253,000,000 in economic output. The
DisneylandForward Project is expected to generate revenue to the City from
transient occupancy taxes (TOT) and sales taxes and Disney is not requesting any
public funding for the Project. This additional revenue will increase the City’s
General Fund, which is used for a wide variety of public benefits, including funding
police and fire personnel and resources, local school districts, parks, libraries, and
capital improvements.
2. Provides Jobs: The DisneylandForward Project will require local workers to fill
construction and skilled labor jobs over the 40-year buildout period. Because the
Project will be developed over an extended timeframe, permanent part-time and
full-time jobs also will be required over this same period and into the future. These
jobs will be available to local workers and will include hotel, theme park, retail,
dining, and other service industry work. Based on a study conducted by California
State University, Fullerton, for every $1,000,000,000 Disney invests in the City of
Anaheim, 4,480 construction jobs over a four-year period and 2,292 operational
jobs are added to the local economy.
3. Sustainability and Efficiency: The Project will continue to implement
sustainability features that go beyond compliance with federal, State and local
environmental rules and regulations. The Project will incorporate key sustainability
features, including the following: high-efficiency lighting and other electrical
equipment; water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems; water saving
fittings, fixtures, and equipment; incorporation of electric vehicle chargers; use of
recycled paper products; and recovery and recycling of materials.
4. Increased Pedestrian Safety: The Project has been designed to increase pedestrian
circulation and safety throughout The Anaheim Resort. The Project proposes new
and enhanced pedestrian linkages between land uses and areas of the Project Site,
including landscaped walkways, promenades, and plazas. The Project also includes
grade-separated pedestrian bridges or crossings to reduce potential
pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation in
The Anaheim Resort; specifically, the Project will include construction of at least
one and up to three pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way
and south of Manchester Avenue, improving pedestrian connectivity and safety
within The Disneyland Resort. The Project may also construct two additional
A-229
pedestrian bridges or crossings over Disneyland Drive between Magic Way and
Katella Avenue.
5. Bicycle Circulation: The Project will install bicycle facilities, including the
following: a Class I Bike Path on the east side of Walnut Street from Ball Road to
Katella Avenue; a Class I Bike Path on the north side of Disney Way between
Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street; a single two-way, off-street, shared-
use pathway for pedestrians and bicycles on the west side of Clementine Street
between Alro Way and Disney Way; and a bike parking facility in the East Parking
Area and/or Parking Overlay just north of the East Parking Area. The Project also
will dedicate right-of-way and contribute in-lieu fees to fund proposed Class II
bicycle lanes on Ball Road east of Walnut Avenue and on Haster Street south of
Katella Avenue.
6. Vehicle Trip Reduction: The Project will continue to implement trip reduction
measures, including those that directly support alternative means of transportation
like transit, bicycle travel, and pedestrian movement. The Project will continue to
implement Disney’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that
includes: bicycle parking and amenities; online ride-matching and carpool/vanpool
program; guaranteed return trip program; incentives for using alternative travel
modes; flex schedule and telecommuting; electric vehicle parking and incentives;
shuttle services; and promotions, marketing and education to make employers and
employees aware of the various programs and benefits offered. Additionally, the
Project will implement specific improvements to reduce vehicle miles traveled,
including use of the East Esplanade Transportation Center and construction of
pedestrian bridges or crossings within The Anaheim Resort.
7. Structural Height and Setbacks: The Project will implement modified height
restrictions and a Sky Exposure Plane to limit heights and require buildings to step
back from the property line along certain roadways to reduce visual exposure from
adjacent, off-site uses. The Project would 1) permit more natural light to reach the
street or property line adjacent to a proposed building or structure, and 2) reduce
the apparent bulk and mass of any building. The Project also will require
compliance with the 360-Degree Architectural Treatment Criteria set forth in the
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to ensure
sufficient screening from adjacent properties.
5640831.1
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx4-1SECTION 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMP) NO. 000387 (INCLUDING PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES) FOR THE DISNEYLAND RESORT PROJECT AS AMENDED BY THE DISNEYLANDFORWARD PROJECT CEQA Action Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 352 (Resolution No. ____) Project Description General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan No. 92-1 Amendment No. 9, and Specific Plan No. 92-2 Amendment No. 17 Applicant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, California, Project Location 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, and 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. The Project site encompasses The Disneyland Resort, including the Theme Park, Parking and Southeast Districts of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP), and properties in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) owned or controlled by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (Disney) or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company. Terms and Definitions 1. Applicant - Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.2. Property Owner/Developer – Any owner or developer of properties owned by Disney or other subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company within the DRSP or theARSP.3. Project Design Features (PDFs) – Measures incorporated into The Disneyland Resort Project as amended by the DisneylandForward Project by the applicantwith the intent of minimizing potential environmental impacts. The PDFs included in this Mitigation Monitoring Program will be implemented as mitigationmeasures.4. Environmental Equivalent/Timing – To the extent permitted by law, if Disney cannot complete any PDF or Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, the Citymay specify another substituted measure, which (i) will have the same or superior result, (ii) will have the same or superior effect on the environment, and (iii)has a nexus to the Project. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy ofany proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” based on substantial evidence and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the PlanningCommission. Any costs associated with information required to make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the Applicant.5. Responsibility for Monitoring – Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by alldepartments listed for each mitigation measure.6. Ongoing Mitigation Measures – The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation monitoring program willbe monitored in the form of an annual letter from the Property Owner/Developer and/or Applicant in January of each year stating how compliance with theEXHIBIT D
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-2 subject measure(s) has been achieved. Mitigation Measures are referenced in parentheses by their section number as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352. Mitigation Measures and/or PDFs designated to occur on an ongoing basis are noted with an asterisk (*). For mitigation measures/PDFs that are to be monitored “Ongoing During Construction”, the annual letter will review those mitigation measures/PDFs only while construction is occurring; monitoring will be discontinued after construction is complete. A final annual letter will be provided at the close of construction. 7. The City recognizes that the certain infrastructure improvements and service capabilities, as identified in this Mitigation Monitoring Program, will serve not only the Applicant but also other property owners/developers in the Specific Plan area, The Anaheim Resort, and the service area, each of which should contribute in allocable share of the cost of these improvements. To implement this requirement as it applies to other property owners/developers in the Specific Plan area, The Anaheim Resort, and the service area, the City shall make appropriate arrangements with other public agencies, if any, to reimburse the Applicant to the extent that its contributions for these improvements exceed the Applicant’s allocable share of the cost. Such arrangements shall include one or more of the following: (1) creation of integrated financing districts; (2) entry into a reimbursement agreement with the Applicant; (3) creation of appropriate community facilities districts, assessment districts and/or use of similar public financing districts and/or mechanisms; and (4) creation of such other mechanisms or districts as may be appropriate to provide for the reimbursement of these costs. The determination of the allocable share of improvement costs attributable to the Applicant and other property owners/developers, and reimbursement amounts, shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such improvements and equipment and personnel among property owners/developers, including the Applicant, in the Specific Plan area, The Anaheim Resort, or otherwise defined service area, as applicable, depending on the area served. 8. To the extent that this Mitigation Monitoring Program requires the Applicant to submit plans for several phases simultaneously, it is understood that such later phase plans may be considered preliminary and may be subject to change. Such preliminary plans for the later phase will not be required to provide the level of detail required for the initial phase plans provided that more detailed plans will be submitted separately at a later time. Nevertheless, such preliminary plans for the later phase shall provide sufficient schematic or descriptive detail to ensure that plans submitted for said later phase shall comply with the provisions of this Mitigation Monitoring Program and shall be consistent with the provisions of the initial phase plans. 9. Timing – This is the point where a mitigation measure/PDF must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure/PDF must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program will occur, as routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure design feature has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved building plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance. 10. Building Permit – For purposes of this Mitigation Monitoring Program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion/modification of any existing building, but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions of up to 1,000 square feet to an existing structure or building.
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-3 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Aesthetics MM AES-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall submit plans which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas for the subject buildings will be screened from adjacent public streets and adjacent residential areas. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-2 Prior to final building and zoning inspections Private streets within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as determined by the Public Utilities Department. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Utilities Department MM AES-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for each parking facility along Walnut Street; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection The property owner/developer shall submit plans which detail the lighting system for the parking facilities along Walnut Street, Ball Road, Haster Street and along interior property lines abutting residential neighborhoods. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources to the extent feasible to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in the opinion of the engineer, this requirement has been met. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-4 Prior to final building and zoning inspection or whenever established; and on an ongoing basis The property owner/developer shall participate in a landscape assessment and maintenance district for the Anaheim Resort. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM AES-5 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first A Construction Barrier Plan showing the location and types of barriers shall be in place during grading and construction. Said plan shall provide for all construction areas to be screened from view in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and shall include provision for the type and height of the barriers to be placed along all construction perimeters prior to the commencement of demolition, Site preparation or grading, whichever occurs first. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division; Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-4 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM AES-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit The proposed Specific Plan incorporates design guidelines as well as zoning and development standards, many of which have been designed to reduce the potential visual impacts of the project and to present a visually integrated resort area, including: • The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan provides for heavily landscaped streetscapes and gives the guidelines for trees and shrubs, light fixtures, benches, monuments, and signs located within the landscaped area. • The East and West Parking Areas and the hotel parking facilities will have landscaped setbacks from the public right-of-way and are restricted in height. • Rights-of-way will be landscaped to add to the aesthetics of the area. • The landscape treatments will vary to create distinct places visually. • The West Parking Area and hotel parking facilities will be terraced back from Walnut Street with landscaping treatments above 40 feet. In addition, canopy trees will be planted in a center median on Walnut Street, and the parkway along the street will be landscaped. • A coordinated color theme for major street features will be incorporated into the design. • The service areas and back-of-house areas will be screened from public view. • All rooftop equipment on buildings will be screened as per the Specific Plan. • A layered landscape treatment in the setback realm will provide screening of a 9-14 feet in height sound wall adjacent to the Southwest Parking Area. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-7 Prior to issuance of building permits All plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit All air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-5 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM AES-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit for theme park uses within the Theme Park District, the Southeast District, and the ARSP Theme Park Overlays Plans shall show compliance with the 360-Degree Architectural Treatment Criteria set forth in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit Plans shall show that no shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel or vacation ownership resort front setback area. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-11 Ongoing The property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division MM AES-12 Prior to final building and zoning inspections Root and sidewalk barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM AES-13 Prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with the building permit. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-14 Ongoing All on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within an area in which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the property owner/developer, in compliance with City standards. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; MM AES-15 Ongoing Any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-16 Ongoing A licensed arborist shall be hired by the property owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-6 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM AES-17 Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate previous payment The property owner/developer shall pay a fee for street tree purposes to the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer. Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM AES-18 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses to the maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AES-19 Prior to issuance of each building permit The location and configuration of all lighting fixtures including ground-mounted lighting fixtures utilized to accent buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian areas shall be shown on all plans submitted for building permits. All proposed surface parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet adjacent to any residential properties. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to direct lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from adjacent residential property lines. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Air Quality MM AQ-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection The property owner/developer shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified stationary sources. Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning Department. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AQ-2 Ongoing during operation of The Disneyland Resort The property owner/developer shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions: a. To the extent practicable, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours. b. Use clean fuel for attraction rides and other uses, as practicable. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division; Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-7 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit associated with a cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay, whichever occurs first Prior to final building and zoning inspections associated with a cumulative total of over 10,000 square feet of theme park development in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay Ongoing during project operation The property owner/developer shall submit a site and operations plan for this facility showing the location and configuration of the on-site cast financial and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The property owner/developer shall provide cast financial and dining services within the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay and the Theme Park District to accommodate cast members. The property owner/developer shall continue to provide cast financial and dining services in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AQ-4 Ongoing during project operation The following will be achieved: (1) the 1.5 AVR target for all cast and (2) the average length of the out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days, or a demonstration that the SCAG VMT reduction targets have been met through other means. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) MM AQ-5 Ongoing during construction The following measures will be followed by the property owner/developer to reduce air quality impacts: a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-8 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the on-site haul roads shall be paved. c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles. d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export material at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of material exported from the project site occur. e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site. f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall either be covered prior to entering public streets or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. This California Vehicle Code section stipulates that the load, where it contacts the sides, front and back of the cargo container area, remain six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and that the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area. g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas. h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes. i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed. j. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during second stage smog alerts. l. Comply with the SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction. m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable. n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable.
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-9 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned. p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable. q. Should demolition, grading, or, excavation activities of two or more projects within any portion of the Project site occur concurrently, air quality monitoring shall be conducted each day that demolition and grading/excavation activities occur concurrently; monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and ensure that PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations shall not exceed the established regulatory limit of 50 micrograms per cubic meter. MM AQ-6 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan) The property owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export Plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for material export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM AQ-7 Ongoing during construction The property owner/developer shall implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage: a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate. b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary, in ways that minimize solvent emissions. c. Encourage use of high-solid or water-based coatings. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM AQ-8 Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the east and west public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District; ongoing during project operation All public day-use parking facilities, not including hotel, hotel accessory uses or cast parking facilities, will have a crew of cast members, based on parking predictions, on each lot or facility level, to assist speed parking procedures. In addition, the East and West public parking structures and any parking structure in the Southeast District will incorporate the following design features on each facility level, to assist speed parking procedures: 1. Signage designed to enhance smooth traffic flows and reduce traffic flows on each facility level. 2. Speed ramps which will take cars directly to the level that has available spaces, thus eliminating circulation movement and time involved with hunting for a space. The speed parking striping and procedures currently used at the Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-10 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Disneyland theme park parking lot will be adapted to use within the parking structures and will be designed to safely park 60 cars per minute. (Refer to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.) 3. Ceiling clearances and lateral clearances, an open well design, and enhanced lighting levels will eliminate the enclosed feeling of a standard garage, which tends to slow drivers. MM AQ-9 Ongoing during project operation The property owner/developer will implement a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all project employees. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM AQ-10 Prior to the issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, that project design will incorporate the following energy-saving features. This energy savings will also contribute to reduced operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following: a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors. b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances. c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design and proper sealing of buildings. d. Use water-wise landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water. e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center. f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible. Planning & Building Department, Building Division and Planning Services Division; MM AQ-11 Prior to issuance of each building permit for public day-use parking facilities The public parking facilities, which may be used for theme park guest parking, shall be designed in accordance with the speed parking procedures set forth The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan which will assist in reducing vehicular fuel from idling engines. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-11 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM AQ-12 Prior to issuance of the first building permit The property owner/developer shall submit a human health risk assessment (HRA) for any proposed sensitive land uses (according to SCAQMD standards at that time) to be located within 500 feet of the near edge of the I-5 freeway unless it is demonstrated that the health risks have been determined to be acceptable according to the standards of the SCAQMD at the time of building permit application. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM AQ-13 During construction activities For all offroad engines that are diesel and above 50 brake horsepower, the contractor shall use engines that comply with USEPA Tier 4 offroad engine standards. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM AQ-14 Prior to issuance of a grading permit If two or more dust-generating construction projects, which collectively will disturb 15 acres or more and which have demolition, excavation, or grading activity scheduled to occur concurrently, a Localized Significance Threshold analysis shall be prepared. If the LST analysis determines that the established Localized Significance Thresholds for NOx, PM2.5, or PM10 would be exceeded, then modifications to construction equipment profiles, modifications to construction schedules, or additional pollution reduction measures shall be implemented. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division PDF AQ-1 Ongoing during project operation The project has been designed to reduce dependence on the private automobile, which will reduce and avoid many of the traffic-related emissions associated with the existing Disneyland theme park and Disney California Adventure Park, as well as those normally associated with hotels and day-use only special event activities and those associated with development of theme park uses in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay. Guests will be encouraged to park their cars and leave them for the duration of their visits, thus eliminating the trips to restaurants and sightseeing, or entertainment attractions normally associated with vacation stays. Marketing efforts in Southern California will promote the Disneyland Resort as a mini-vacation site for Southland residents. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division PDF AQ-2 Ongoing during project operations A wide range of entertainment, lodging, retail and restaurant attractions will be located within the project area and will be linked by an electrically powered monorail system, pedestrian ways/guest transportation system to transport visitors from parking facilities to The Disneyland Resort, and/or pedestrian bridges, walkways and promenades. Convenient walkway access within the Theme Park District, the Southeast District and the Theme Park East Overlay and adjacent uses, such as the City of Anaheim Convention Center, will also facilitate pedestrian trips by non-project guests who will Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-12 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion remain within the project area rather than use automobiles to travel to restaurants and entertainment outside of the area. PDF AQ-3 Ongoing during project operations In accordance with transportation and circulation mitigation measures, The Disneyland Resort traffic will be accommodated, and existing traffic conditions and circulation patterns will be improved through implementation of the identified transportation and parking features, including parking facilities, monorail and pedestrian way/guest transportation systems and convenient access to parking facilities from the freeway. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division PDF AQ-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for the East Parking Facility and ongoing during project operations The Disneyland Resort Project will include a special drop-off area on Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way, or internal or adjacent to the East Parking Area Parking Structure and/or adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay, or other accessible location, for shuttle buses to help encourage use of buses by area visitors. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division SR AQ-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first The property owner/developer shall provide written evidence of compliance to the Planning & Building Director or their designee that all construction activities shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which shall assist in reducing short term air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 (Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 403) requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division SR AQ-2 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of all buildings in compliance with SCAQMD regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1113. This information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall also submit an architectural coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-13 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage: a. Use nonsolvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate; b. Use solvent based coatings, where they are necessary. Biological Resources MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first A letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal and building demolition activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and January 31 to avoid the bird nesting season. If this is not feasible, the property owner/developer shall implement MM BIO-2. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM BIO-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, and if Project demolition and/or vegetation clearing must occur during the bird nesting season (February 1–July 31) A pre-construction nesting bird survey of structures to be demolished and/or vegetation to be removed shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than three days prior to such work occurring. If the Biologist does not find any active nests within or immediately adjacent to the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work shall be allowed to proceed. The pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be updated following any work stoppage of two weeks or longer. If an active nest of a bird species protected under California Fish and Game Code or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is identified within or immediately adjacent to the construction area, and the Biologist determines that the nest may be impacted or breeding activities substantially disrupted, the Biologist shall delineate an appropriate no-impact buffer zone (at a minimum of 25 feet) around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. All nests and associated buffers shall be mapped on the construction plans. The active nest shall be protected until nesting activity has ended. The following restrictions to clearing and/or construction activities shall be required until nest(s) are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1) clearing limits shall be established within a buffer around any occupied nest (the buffer shall be 25–100 feet for nesting birds and 300- to 500- feet for nesting raptors), unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist; and (2) access shall be restricted within the buffer of any active nest, unless otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Encroachment into the buffer area around a known nest shall only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity would not disturb the nest occupants. Once the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest, there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt, or the nest has failed, construction can proceed within the buffer zone. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-14 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Cultural Resources MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of each grading permit The property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for archaeological monitoring, as well as for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. Specific monitoring procedures will be established based on review of site specific conditions, including presence of native soils, anticipated construction activities, and nature of ground disturbance including depth of excavation. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department within ninety days. Public Works Department; Development Services Division MM CUL-2 For properties within the ARSP, prior to approval of building, grading or demolition permits, whichever occurs first For properties that contain a structure over 45 years old, property owners/developers shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division, documentation to verify the presence/absence of historic resources. On properties where resources are identified, such documentation in accordance with HABS standards shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist. Planning &Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-15 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first The property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division: If an individual development project within the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District proposes to substantially alter or demolish a contributing feature to the potential Disneyland Theme Park Historic District as identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report attached as Appendix E-2 to Subsequent EIR No. 352, that contributing feature shall be documented in the outline format as specified in the HABS History Guidelines, and photographed according to the HABS Photography Guidelines, . The documentation shall be prepared by a historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Standards in the relevant discipline. Digital copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division for storage with Heritage Services, and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM CUL-4 Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first The property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementing the following and submitting the required documentation to the Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division: If any of the individually designated or potentially eligible features or buildings within the theme park, as identified in the Historic Resources Technical Report attached as Appendix E-2 to Subsequent EIR No. 352, are proposed for substantial alteration or demolition, that feature or building shall be documented individually in the outline format as specified in the HABS History Guidelines, and photographed according to the HABS Photography Guidelines. The documentation shall be prepared by a historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Standards in the relevant discipline. Digital copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division for storage with the Heritage Services Division, and housed in the Walt Disney Company archives. Planning &Building Department, Planning Services Division SR CUL-1 Before and during construction If human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin, and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 has occurred. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-16 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Energy MM ENE-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards current at the time of application by at least 10 percent. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM ENE-2 Prior to submittal of plans for electrical system improvements Any new system improvements (e.g., substation, line connections), if required, shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the then current Electric Rates, Rules and Regulations and Electrical Specifications. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Utilities Department, Electric Services Division MM ENE-3 Prior to approval of each final building and zoning inspection The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are intended to assist in the selection of most energy-efficient water heaters and furnaces. The property owner/developer shall implement a program, as required, to reduce the demand on natural gas supplies. Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM ENE-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall demonstrate on plans that fuel-efficient models of gas-powered building equipment have been incorporated into the proposed project to the extent feasible. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM ENE-5 Prior to issuance of a building permit The property owner/developer shall incorporate feasible renewable energy generation measures into the project. These measures may include but not be limited to use of renewable biofuels, solar and small wind turbine sources on new and existing facilities and the use of solar powered lighting in parking areas. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section PDF ENE-1 Ongoing during project development and operation The project shall be developed in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and shall offer a broad diversity of theme park, retail, dining and entertainment experiences which will enhance the destination resort character of The Disneyland Resort. As a result, many visitors will extend their length of stay; thus, incremental vehicular trips to and from the site are expected to be reduced. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-17 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion SR ENE-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2) landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division SR ENE-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards. Planning & Building Department, Building Division Geology MM GEO-1 Prior to approval of each grading plan The property owner/developer shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval a thorough soils and geological report for the area to be graded, based on proposed grading and prepared by an engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer. The report shall comply with Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM GEO-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM GEO-3 Prior to issuance of each foundation permit The property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that compressibility does not underlie the footing. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM GEO-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM GEO-5 Prior to issuance of building or grading permits The property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-18 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM GEO-6 Ongoing during grading activities The property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Division. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM GEO-7 Prior to issuance of each grading permit The property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standards that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for paleontological monitoring, as well as for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If fossils are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological monitor shall administer appropriate actions based on SVP protocols7. b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process shall be reposited in an appropriate educational or research institution. Preparation, storage and curation shall be funded by the property owner/developer. c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the discovery by a buffer of at least 50 feet. Construction shall not resume until the paleontological monitor has given the order to proceed in that location once a determination on the significance of the fossil discovery has been made. d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. Public Works Department, Development Services Division SR GEO-1 Ongoing during grading activities All grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 17, Land Development and Resources, and the most recent version of the California Building Code. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 7 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), Guidelines from the Ethics Education Committee for Collecting, Documenting and Curating Fossils (last updated 2021). https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-from-the-Ethics-Education-Committee.pdf (accessed August 18, 2023).
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-19 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Greenhouse Gas Emissions As discussed in Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352, Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, incorporates SRs, MMs, and PDFs from Section 5.1, Air Quality; Section 5.5, Energy; Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 5.14, Transportation; and Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1 Prior to any relocation of transformers that may contain PCBs which are being moved or relocated as part of project development The transformers shall be tested by the property owner/developer for PCBs. Utilities Department, Electric Services MM HAZ-2 Ongoing during demolition and construction In the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section MM HAZ-3 Prior to approval of a grading plan or issuance of a demolition permit, whichever occurs first The property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared pursuant to current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments to identify potential threats to human health and the environment for review by the City. If possible hazardous materials are identified during the site assessments, the appropriate response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as appropriate. The ESA shall detail procedures that shall be taken if a previously unknown underground storage tank (UST) or other unknown hazardous materials or waste is discovered onsite. The ESA shall outline where hazardous materials may be found, types of hazardous materials anticipated, how to screen for them, and what to do in the event they are identified. The ESA shall identify the party responsible for the screening, and training requirements for those responsible for undertaking the screening effort. The ESA shall specify requirements for reporting, handling, staging, disposal, and recordkeeping. The ESA shall also identify contingencies in the event that significant contamination is identified that is 1) above regulatory thresholds and 2) cannot be removed/ remediated by proposed construction. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-20 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM HAZ-4 Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit, whichever occurs first In areas known or thought to have been previously occupied by underground storage tanks (USTs), or other hazardous materials or waste, and in areas where tank removal has not been verified prior to excavation or grading; the property owner/developer shall retain the services of a qualified environmental professional to conduct an investigation for known, or the presence of, cryptic tanks using geophysical methods that include the potential use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) or similar technologies to determine no abandoned USTs are present. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency MM HAZ-5 Prior to the removal of underground storage tanks (USTs) The property owner/developer shall obtain a permit from the Hazardous Materials Management section of the Fire Department for removal of such tanks. During removal of the underground storage tank, a representative from the Hazardous Materials Section (HMS) of the Fire Department shall be onsite to direct soil sampling. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency MM HAZ-6 Ongoing during remediation All remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to underground storage tanks (USTs), conducted on behalf of the property owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and witnessed by Anaheim Fire Department/Hazardous Material Management Section (HMS). Information on subsurface contamination from an underground storage tank shall be provided to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning & Building. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency MM HAZ-7 Prior to issuance of each demolition permit A hazardous building material survey shall be conducted to verify the absence of hazardous building materials and, if needed, future abatement by a California-licensed contractor, and/or removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state, and local transportation and disposal regulations. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency SR HAZ-1 Ongoing during Project construction All construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with all CalOSHA standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect worker health and safety. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency SR HAZ-2 Ongoing during Project implementation The removal and disposal of any lead-based paint (LBP) encountered on site during Project implementation shall be performed by an LBP Abatement Contractor that is licensed and registered in California pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 17. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-21 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion SR HAZ-3 Ongoing during Project construction and operations Activities at the Project Site shall comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport. All on-site generated waste that meets hazardous waste criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and in a manner to the satisfaction of the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), as applicable. All transport and transfer of hazardous materials shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste hauler in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and Title 40, Section 263 (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards; and Division of Occupational Safety and Healthy (Cal/OSHA) standards. Fire Department, Environmental Protection Section; Orange County Health Care Agency SR HAZ-4 Ongoing during Project construction All construction activities, including demolition and renovation of the existing facilities and installation of the new facilities, shall be performed in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 requiring a survey for and proper abatement of asbestos-containing materials prior to construction. Air Quality Management District Hydrology and Water Quality MM HWQ-1 Ongoing during Project operations The property owner/developer shall comply with the Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) and shall submit updates as required for new grading for review and approval by the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit landscaping and irrigation plans and an Irrigation Management Program. This landscape plan shall include a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. Additionally: a. The landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape architect shall submit plans in accordance with Anaheim’s Landscape Water Efficiency Ordinance and Guidelines including: 1. Project Information 2. Maximum Applied Water Use expresses as annual totals. 3. Soil management report or specifications. Public Utilities, Water Services; Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-22 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion 4. Landscape design plan. 5. Irrigation design plan. 6. Grading design plan. b. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system and shall be designed by an irrigation engineer (plans to be submitted in accordance with the Specific Plan). The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies. c. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be developed to be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, which require that the Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) to be less than the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) or that the landscape irrigation system include water-conserving features such as low-flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. In addition, all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with reclaimed water, if it should become available. MM HWQ-3 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort The property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim including, but not limited to, private streets and parking lots on not less than a monthly basis. Using water to clean streets, parking lots, and other areas shall be allowed on a periodic basis if allowed in the property owner/developer’s NPDES permit and allowable based on drought restrictions. Nightly washdown shall be allowed in the theme parks and, where advisable to maintain safe and sanitary working conditions, the back-of-house area, if allowed in the property owner/developer’s and City's NPDES permit. Flushing debris, residue, and sediment down the storm drains shall conform to the property owner/developer’s NPDES requirements. Property owner/developer agrees that material deposited in City storm drains shall not be in violation of the City's NPDES permit. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-23 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM HWQ-4 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection (for non-Setback Realm Areas); prior to acceptance by City Engineer (for Setback Realm Areas) The property owner/developer shall submit a Certificate of Substantial Completion, as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which establishes that the landscape irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM HWQ-5 Ongoing during grading operations The property owner/developer shall implement standard practices from all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent erosion. Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM HWQ-6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil The property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division MM HWQ-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit To reduce the project's demand on potable water, the property owner/developer shall install water lines onsite so that reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation and other purposes, if and when it becomes available. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM HWQ-8 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM HWQ-9 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Development Services Division SR HWQ-1 Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits Development projects that will result in soil disturbance of one (1) or more acres of land shall comply with the State’s Construction General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The property owner/developer shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB by providing a copy of the NOI invoice and the assigned Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) No. for the project. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed with a goal of preventing a net sediment load increase in storm water discharges relative to preconstruction levels and shall prohibit during the construction period discharges of storm water or non-storm water at levels which would cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards contained in the Basin Plan. The BMPs shall address erosion control, sediment control, Public Works Department, Development Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-24 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion wind erosion control, tracking control, non-storm water management and waste management and materials pollution control during all phases of construction, including a sampling and analysis plan for sediment and non-visible storm water pollutants. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for proper implementation of the SWPPP. SR HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of the precise grading permit The property owner/developer shall prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for review and approval by the Public Works, Development Services. The WQMP shall identify permanent site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The WQMP shall also describe the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment control BMPs and the mechanism for funding the BMPs. The WQMP shall be recorded against the property to ensure long-term compliance. Public Works Department, Development Services Division SR HWQ-3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Disney ARSP Properties The property owner/developer shall pay the Storm Drain Impact Fees which would go toward future storm drain improvements within The Anaheim Resort area and South Central City area. Public Works Department, Development Services Division SR HWQ-4 Ongoing during Project construction and operations Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code is the City’s NPDES Ordinance, which provides regulations to comply with the CWA, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the City’s NPDES permit. This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates illicit connections to the storm drain system; requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water; and requires local discharge permits for non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division SR HWQ-5 Prior to issuance of grading permit The property owner/developer of individual developments shall provide written proof to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division of a water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirement (WDR) as well as a plan for compliance with the discharge prohibitions, TMDLs, and various programs of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin through the issuance of individual WDRs; discharge prohibitions; water quality certifications; programs for salt management, non-point sources, and storm water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as necessary. Public Works Department, Development Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-25 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Land Use and Planning MM LU-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit Building plans shall be submitted by the property owner/developer and will be reviewed for consistency with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM LU-2 Prior to issuance of each building permit The proposed project shall be implemented based on the guidelines and standards in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines, and a Public Facilities Plan. All development proposals within The Disneyland Resort must be consistent with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the City of Anaheim General Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM LU-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking facilities The property owner/developer shall submit plans detailing the setbacks for the parking structures and landscaping plans which minimize compatibility impacts of the parking facilities on surrounding areas, consistent with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division PDF LU-1 Prior to approval of issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit documentation that project design features are in compliance with all building setbacks, height standards, landscaping requirements, and design guidelines as specified in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Noise MM NOI-1 Ongoing during project operation The property owner/developer shall obtain pyrotechnic permits on an annual basis. Material additions or modifications to firework shoots shall require a separate permit. Fire Department; MM NOI-2 Ongoing during project operations Lower noise-producing fireworks displays will be used at Disney California Adventure to minimize noise from 11:00 p.m. fireworks shows to meet the noise levels in the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Fire Department; Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division MM NOI-3 Ongoing during project operations and prior to the commencement of any show west of Disneyland Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays areas that includes fireworks that are No aerial fireworks show shall be allowed west of Disneyland Drive in the expanded Theme Park District, the Southeast District or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays. Prior to the commencement of any show in these areas that includes fireworks that are non-explosive (i.e., stage pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!), the property owner/developer shall present a noise study to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate that noise levels from the fireworks would meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and would not create a noise increase greater than 5 dBA over Fire Department; Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-26 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion non-explosive (i.e., stage pyrotechnics) or explosive fireworks with an explosion point at an elevation less 50 feet (e.g., Fantasmic!) existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive. MM NOI-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for an amphitheater Plans submitted for the location of the amphitheater will document that the facility is no closer than 2,000 feet from the nearest existing residence. The design and orientation of the amphitheater will be reviewed by a certified acoustical engineer; the property owner/developer shall submit a report, for review and approval by the City, to ensure that noise from the amphitheater does not exceed the noise levels established by the City of Anaheim Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-5 Prior to final building and zoning inspection for the amphitheater and within 9 months of commencement of amphitheater operations A Noise Monitoring Program prepared by a certified acoustical engineer shall be submitted for review and approval. The property owner/developer shall submit the results of the Noise Monitoring Program conducted by a certified acoustical engineer to ensure that there are not violations of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance from amphitheater operations outside the Disneyland Resort. If noise in excess of the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance is detected, the property owner/developer shall modify operations within three days to bring the amphitheater into conformance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-6 Ongoing during construction and project operations Engine noise from sweeping equipment used in the parking facilities and any hotel parking facilities adjacent to residential areas shall be muffled. Sweeping operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM NOI-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections For structures that are adjacent to residential areas or other sensitive uses, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate that noise levels from mechanical ventilation units, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 DBA Sound Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater than 3 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive. Planning & Building Department, Building Division and Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-27 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM NOI-8 Ongoing during construction The property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. Planning & Building Department, Building Division; Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM NOI-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Official identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the California Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures, such as but not limited to acoustic sound barriers, shall be implemented by the property owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections. Planning & Building Department, Building Division and Planning Services Division MM NOI-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit for construction within 75 feet of noise sensitive receptors A note shall be provided on building plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers between the project perimeter and the sensitive receptor. The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled with an acceptable solid vision product. Planning & Building Department, Building Division and Planning Services Division MM NOI-11 Ongoing during construction and project operation Pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical considerations and in areas along the property line or accessible by the public shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-28 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM NOI-12 Ongoing during construction Property owners/developers shall pay for all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical engineer under the direction of the Planning and Building Department four times a year on a random basis to ensure that outdoor construction-related sound levels at any point on the exterior project boundary property line do not exceed 60 dBA between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM of the following day where outside construction is occurring. If a complaint is received by the City, additional noise monitoring shall be conducted at the discretion of the City. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, construction activities will be modified immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA requirement, with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-13 Prior to issuance of each building permit A note shall be provided on plans indicating that there shall be no operation of clam shovel drops or vibratory rollers within 25 feet of any existing home. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM NOI-14 Prior to issuance of each building permit on Disney ARSP Properties If pile driving and blasting is anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Department to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities, including site design features such as setbacks and trenches. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM NOI-15 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall present area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any development of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays includes 30-foot-tall buildings or structures between the property line near residential or other noise sensitive land uses and the proposed theme park land or theme park attraction. If a noise barrier is provided, such as a ride façade, the material used shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-16 Ongoing during project operations The property owner/developer shall pay all reasonable costs associated with noise monitoring which shall include monitoring conducted by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer under the direction of the Planning Department to ensure that The Disneyland Resort ongoing operations do not exceed 60 dBA at any point on the property line between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. If the monitoring finds that the 60 dBA threshold is being exceeded, modifications to the ongoing operations, such as adjustments to volume at the source or orientation of speakers, shall be commenced immediately to bring the sound level below the 60 dBA Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-29 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion requirement with additional follow-up monitoring conducted to confirm compliance. Monitoring shall be conducted as follows: (a) Ongoing: Semi-annually on a random basis for a three (3) day period. (b) During the first five (5) years of operation of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District west of Disneyland Drive, the Southeast District, and/or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays: Four (4) times a year on a random basis for a three (3) day period. (c) In response to a noise complaint, at the City’s discretion: For a three (3) day period at the location of the noise exceedance. MM NOI-17 Prior to the issuance of each building permit, grading permit or demolition permit A note shall be provided on the plans stating that ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining the cause of the noise complaints and requiring implementation of reasonable measures to correct the noise issue. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-18 Ongoing during construction The property owner/developer shall locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators a minimum of 75 feet from noise sensitive receptors. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM NOI-19 Ongoing during construction No impact driven piles shall be allowed in conjunction with the construction of parking structures. Planning & Building Department, Building Division MM NOI-20 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a parking structure The property owner/developer will submit plans to the Planning and Building Department indicating noise from the parking structure will be reduced by the provision of convenient access to the parking structure, sound attenuation devices (louvers and walls), and the use of textured deck surfaces to reduce tire squealing. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-21 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall present plans to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate development of theme park uses in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays shall include installation and maintenance of at least 12-foot-tall noise barriers along the property line to reduce back-of-house noise, such as vehicle pass-bys and truck deliveries with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-30 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM NOI-22 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Indoor) and Family (Indoor) attractions shall be located no less than 200 feet from the center of the ride or attraction to noise-sensitive receptors and shall include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors, provided a 30-foot-high building or 30-foot-high noise barrier shall not be required if the proposed ride or attraction is located within an enclosed building or structure. The planning of each attraction shall take into account any openings or outdoor areas of the attractions and directionally orient the openings away from noise-sensitive receptors and towards the center of the new theme park development Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM NOI-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Thrill (Outdoor), rides taller than 50 feet, Parades and Large Shows shall be located: 1. For 1st to 3rd Offsite Floor Receptors: No less than 550 feet from the center of the ride to any noise-sensitive receptor and shall include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors. 2. For 4th Floor Offsite Receptors and above (i.e., no shielding from 30-foot buildings/barriers): No less than 1100 feet between the center of the ride and any noise-sensitive receptor. If the distance of 1100 feet cannot be met, an indoor rollercoaster shall be considered. If a distance less than 1100 feet is considered with exposure to 4th Floor receptors, the distance to noise-sensitive receptors and layout shall be reviewed by a certified acoustical consultant or engineer prior to finalizing the site plan. In general, the entire full height of the ride shall include a solid barrier shielding it from any noise-sensitive receptors. The material used for the barrier shall have a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-31 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM NOI-24 Prior to issuance of each building permit and to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections The property owner/developer shall present a noise study and area development plans if part of a new theme park land or building plans if part of one theme park attraction in the expanded Theme Park District (west of Disneyland Drive), the Southeast District, or the ARSP Theme Park Overlays to the Planning and Building Department to demonstrate any Family (Outdoor), Round and Small Show attractions shall be located at least 400 feet from sensitive receptors and include a 30-foot-high building or a 30-foot-high noise barrier between the attraction and the property line near noise-sensitive receptors. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division SR NOI-1 Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits Contractor specifications shall include a note indicating that noise-generating construction activities which produce a sound pressure level at any point along the property line in excess of 60 dBA shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on any day. This requirement is identified in Section 6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by and on approval of the Director of Public Works or Building Official. Planning & Building Department, Building Division SR NOI-2 Prior to issuance of building permits Development shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, which establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. Title 24 requires that new hotels, motels, and multi-family residences be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise, attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed the 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in any habitable room with windows closed. Planning & Building Department, Building Division SR NOI-3 Ongoing during Project construction No commercial use shall produce noise associated with continual loading or unloading of heavy trucks at the site between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM (Municipal Code Section 18.32.130). Planning & Building Department, Building Division Population and Housing PDF POP-1 Ongoing during project operations The Walt Disney Company will recruit workers who are already a part of the resident work force in the region. Implementation of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan will further efforts in offering employment opportunities at various socioeconomic levels. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-32 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Public Services Fire MM PS-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit for development in the ARSP Parking and Theme Park Overlays The property owner/developer shall pay all applicable fire fees in the amount then in effect and in accordance with the City-adopted Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee Program (initially established through City Council Resolution No. 95R-73). Alternatively, the City and the Property Owner/Developer may enter into alternative financing arrangements. Fire Department MM PS-2 Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or lot Onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required, by the property owner/developer. Fire Department MM PS-3 Prior to approval of each grading plan The property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with the Fire Department service requirements. Fire Department MM PS-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan which shall include detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with required fire flow. A construction plan providing a complete timeline and construction goals shall be provided and approved by the Fire Department for all new construction projects. Fire Department MM PS-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection Plans shall indicate that all buildings shall have sprinklers installed by property owner/developer, to include all open and closed parking structures, exclusive of one-story detached accessory buildings of less than 120 square feet in floor area, and free standing shade structures that are open on at least two sides to sufficiently prevent the accumulation of smoke and hot gases. Additionally, alternatives to automatic sprinkler systems (e.g., self-contained water mist systems) that provide an equivalent level of fire protection may be approved for other buildings on a case-by-case basis upon review and approval by the Fire Department. Fire Department
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-33 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-6 Prior to issuance of each building permit Plans shall be submitted to ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards, including: a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full minimum width of 26 feet for all designated fire access roads. b. All fire access roads, bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 78,000 pounds. c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies (hydrants) are required at the entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the Fire Department. d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 300 feet apart. e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water system. Flow rates for all structures shall be a minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute f. Fire access roads shall be provided with vertical and horizontal clearance in compliance with Fire Department standards. Any changes to emergency vehicle access roads shall be included in the overall emergency vehicle access plans for the Resort area, and maintained by property owner/developer. The Fire Code Official shall review all proposed changes and determine whether to approve any deviations from these standards. g. Temporary structure regardless of type of construction shall be considered temporary if at a location for less than 6 months. Other than pre-fabricated construction trailers, structures that are at a location for more than 6 months shall be provided with a fire suppression system and/or fire notification/life safety systems applicable to the use of the structure. h. Integrated Safety Systems (ISS) testing as designed by the property owner/developer or an updated equivalent shall be required for all attractions on an annual basis. The property owner/developer shall provide advance notice to the Fire Department to coordinate witnessing of such testing at the Fire Code Official’s discretion. Fire Department
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-34 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-7 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement between the City and Disney The property owner/developer shall enter into a Fire Operations Agreement with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid its fair share of the funding to address the Operations and Community Risk Reduction staffing needs to maintain adequate levels of service of response and ongoing fire inspection of the Project and in the Anaheim Resort. Fire Department; City Attorney’s Office MM PS-8 Prior to approval of street improvement plans and water improvement plans The water supply system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Fire Department MM PS-9 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel The property owner/developer shall submit an emergency evacuation response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require posted notices in all hotel rooms on emergency evacuation procedures and incorporate ongoing emergency evacuation training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Fire Department MM PS-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department as being in conformance with the California Fire Code. Fire Department MM PS-11 Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site An all-weather fire access road shall be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements noted in the Anaheim Municipal Code and in accordance with City of Anaheim Fire Department Standards. Fire Department MM PS-12 Prior to approval of building plans The property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the Fire Department that all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with “knox box” devices as required and approved by the Fire Department. Fire Department MM PS-13 Prior to approval of on-site water plans Unless each commercial building is initially connected to separate fire services, an unsubordinated covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be recorded prohibiting any individual sale of buildings until separate fire services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale. Fire Department; City Attorney’s Office
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-35 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-14 Prior to the issuance of construction permits associated with development of over 10,000 sf within the Theme Park District or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. The property owner/developer shall locate and design a Fire Substation within the Theme Park District, in a location approved by the Fire Chief. The Substation shall meet the below minimum criteria, and is subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief: 1. Designated parking stalls, for a medic truck, ambulance, medic golf cart, and 2 staff vehicles 2. Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line (services for cable, wifi) 3. Two offices with two workstations each 4. Breakroom/kitchen type area 5. Day room able to accommodate up to 8 personnel (4 paramedics, 2 ambulance, 2 Community Risk Reduction) 6. Restrooms with showers/locker rooms Fire Department; Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division MM PS-15 Prior to issuance of building permits for any structure greater than 75 feet tall The property owner/developer shall conduct an analysis to determine if the structure would interfere with the Emergency Radio Response Communication (ERRC) System signal. If warranted based on the analysis, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for installation of new or relocated equipment. Fire Department PDF PS-1 Ongoing during project operation The existing services and capabilities of the Disneyland Fire Department shall be maintained for the DisneylandForward Project Site. Existing services include preconstruction checks, pre-investigation of fires and alarms, preplanning for fires and evacuations, fire prevention program activities, and monitoring of pyrotechnics and special effects. Fire Department Police MM PS-16 Prior to issuance of each applicable building permit The property owner/developer shall pay all applicable police protection fees in the amount then in effect. Alternatively, the City and the property owner/developer may enter into alternative financing arrangements. Police Department MM PS-17 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort The operator of the public parking facilities shall provide an adequate staff of private security officers for patrol and surveillance of the facilities. Police Department
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-36 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-18 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. The property owner/developer shall enter into Police Operations Agreement with the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid its fair share of the funding for police personnel and equipment necessary to meet the service need of the Anaheim Resort as determined by the Chief of Police. Police Department; City Attorney’s Office MM PS-19 Prior to issuance of each building permit for parking structures The Police Department shall review the safety measures incorporated into the building plans for the parking structures within the DisneylandForward Project Site to be submitted by the property owner/developer. The security measures shall include the following or other substitute security measures as may be approved by the Police Department: Immediate access in priority criminal cases, where an urgent need or demand exists and time is of the essence. Closed circuit television surveillance and recording equipment or other adequate security measures reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Police Department MM PS-20 Ongoing during operation of the Disneyland Resort The property owner/developer shall continue to provide anti-gang, human trafficking, child exploitation and substance abuse educational programs which are currently provided for park security cast members. Police Department MM PS-21 Ongoing during operations The Disneyland Security Department shall be maintained to provide equivalent levels of service to the entire Disneyland Resort. These services will include initial response, investigation, and report writing. Entry points to the theme parks will be patrolled by the Disneyland Security Department. Police Department MM PS-22 Prior to issuance of each building permit for a hotel The property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval by the Chief of Police, or their designee, for safety, accessibility, crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas). Police Department MM PS-23 Prior to issuance of each building permit for or including a parking lot and/or parking structure The project design shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department. Police Department
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-37 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-24 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the DisneylandForward Project or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Police Department to construct and maintain a Substation in the Theme Park District which meets the following minimum criteria: • Designated parking stalls, including EV charging stations, for approximately 4-6 EV, 15-20 regular spaces • Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line • Minimum of two private offices • Conference/briefing room • Interview room • Kitchen • Breakroom • Locker rooms with showers, restrooms, and lockers • Enclosed bicycle storage for at least 12 bicycles • Equipment storage (size equivalent to two offices) The location and facility components are subject to the review and approval of the Chief of Police. A designee of the Chief of Police shall be included in the initial design phase of the Substation, and shall be regularly consulted during design and construction. Any subsequent modification or relocation to either facility is subject to the review and approval of the Chief of Police. Police Department; Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-38 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM PS-25 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for development of over 10,000 sf in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay or as otherwise determined in the Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the Police Department to construct and maintain a Satellite Office in the Southeast District or the Theme Park East Overlay which meets the following minimum criteria: • Designated parking stalls, including 2 -4 EV charging stations, 6 - 8 regular spaces • Equipped with dedicated fiber optic line • Breakroom • Conference/briefing room • Interview room • Restrooms • Enclosed bicycle storage for at least 6 bicycles The location and facility components are subject to the review and approval of the Chief of Police. A designee of the Chief of Police shall be included in the initial design phase of the Satellite Office, and shall be regularly consulted during design and construction. Any subsequent modification or relocation to either facility is subject to the review and approval of the Chief of Police. Police Department; Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division PDF PS-2 Ongoing during project operation The property owner/developer shall continue to provide and expand its Court Liaison program to meet the needs of the Disneyland Resort. Police Department Schools MM PS-26 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall provide proof that school impact fees have been paid consistent with State statute. Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-39 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion PDF PS-3 Ongoing during project operations The Disneyland Resort has developed and/or engaged in a series of educational programs in cooperation with the local community and regional agencies and organizations, designed to enhance and complement the educational opportunities and experiences for the youth. The 10 educational programs that currently exist are indicated below 1. Anaheim Union High School District’s Anaheim’s Innovative Mentoring Experience (AIME) program 2. Big Brothers & Big Sisters of Orange County’s Workplace Mentoring Program at Anaheim Union High School District 3. United Way’s Youth Career Connections and Speakers Bureaus at the Anaheim Union High School District 4. Anaheim Family YMCA Avanza Program 5. Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance’s ROOTED Career Development Program at Anaheim Union High School District 6. Hola Readers at Anaheim Elementary School District 7. Anaheim Elementary School District’s Broadway Bound: Empowering Young Performers in Anaheim 8. Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Anaheim-Cypress gEARed Up for the Future 9. School Support Programs Girls Inc.’s Girls Meet the Workforce/Project Accelerate 10. CIF Champion Celebration Girl Scouts of Orange County’s Career Exploration Program – Dreams to Reality The property owner/developer will continue these programs and/or substitute similar programs of equal importance. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Parks PDF PS-4 Ongoing during operations Substantial area within the Disneyland Resort shall be designed to encourage utilization by pedestrians in a park-like setting linking key areas of the project as described in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Community Services Department, Parks Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-40 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion PDF PS-5 Ongoing during operations The property owner/developer shall provide space(s), outside the ticketed theme park gates, easily accessible to theme park guests and non-ticketed visitors, where those who have brought their own food can eat. The proximity of amenities such as drinking fountains, vending machines, and restrooms/locker facilities will be considered in the siting and design or such space(s). Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Community Services Department, Parks Division Libraries MM PS-27 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for development in the ARSP Parking and Theme Park Overlays, with the exception of theme park square footage transferred from the DRSP The property owner/developer shall comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 17.08.385, Public Library Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required. Planning & Building Department, Building Division Transportation MM TRA-1 Ongoing during project development and operations The property owner/developer shall implement the improvements and pay in lieu fees described in Table 19 (Recommended Intersection Improvements) and Table 20 (Other Transportation Improvements) of the Operational Traffic Analysis for the DisneylandForward Project (Gibson 2023), as set forth in Appendix J-2 of Subsequent EIR No. 352, within the time frames described in those tables. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, any remaining applicable Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees (Fees) relating to the building permit site shall be paid by the property owner/developer to the City of Anaheim in the amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit, except to the extent such fees may have been previously paid or satisfied pursuant to one or more separate agreements between Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. and the City of Anaheim relating to The Disneyland Resort Project or The DisneylandForward Project. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-2 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise established in Development The property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. Public Works Department, Development Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-41 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. or as approved pursuant to a Discretionary Exemption to establish the timing of Street and Other Right-of-Way Dedications and Improvements (Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.40.060 Dedications and Improvements) and Transportation Division MM TRA-3 Prior to demolition of an existing Disneyland Resort parking lot Ongoing during project operation Replacement parking for the existing parking spaces removed will be constructed or secured. Access Improvements and Public Parking Facilities Included in Project Design (Exhibit 4.3.1b – Interstate 5-West Street/Disneyland Drive Interchange (Showing Entrance to West Parking Facility) and Exhibit 4.3.1c – Interstate 5/Katella Interchange (Showing Entrance to East Parking Facility) Public Parking Facilities. New public parking facilities will be constructed at opposite sides of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan area to receive traffic from the I-5. A minimum of 24,500 guest and cast parking spaces will be provided. The West Parking Area is oriented to receive southbound I-5 traffic, and the parking facilities in the East Parking Area and adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay will be oriented to receive northbound I-5 traffic. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-4 To be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the east and west parking structures/ facilities To be shown on street improvement plans: Improved Access. Access roads leading up to the parking facilities shall be sized to accommodate traffic at peak hours, thereby substantially reducing the likelihood of backups onto City streets and freeway ramps, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. No cast or guest access or egress will occur from Walnut Street. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-42 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM TRA-5 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for both the east and west parking structures Speed Parking. Building plans shall show direct ramps to each level of the East and West Parking Area facilities to minimize internal circulation within the garages and accommodate the project's "speed parking" operation. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-6 To be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspection for each parking structure and/or facility To be shown on street improvement plans: Conveyance Systems. In addition to an extensive network of landscaped pedestrian thoroughfares, conveyance systems will transport Disneyland Resort guests around The Anaheim Resort. Guest transportation systems will move guests from the parking facilities to the Theme Park District. The monorail/guest transportation systems shall move guests within the Theme Park District. Future connections may also be provided to the Southeast District. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-7 To be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the second theme park for Phase II; and if pursued, to be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections for the East Parking Area or adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay parking structure(s) or other accessible location in Phase IV To be shown on street improvement plans: Theme Park Drop-Off Area. To provide access to the attractions in the Specific Plan area to people staying outside of The Disneyland Resort area, a bus and shuttle drop-off area will be located adjacent to Harbor Boulevard north of Disney Way as shown on Exhibit 4.4.2a of the Specific Plan; or, in Phase IV, the facility may be located adjacent or internal to the East Parking Area or the adjacent ARSP Parking Overlay Parking Structure(s), or other accessible location in the Theme Park District. The types of vehicles served at this facility may include public and private passenger shuttles and buses. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-43 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM TRA-8 Ongoing during project operation Transportation Demand Management Program The need to minimize cast vehicle trips to reduce congestion and improve air quality, consistent with the goals of both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and with the Regional Mobility Plan of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is recognized. The Disneyland Resort will implement and administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all cast, which will strive to achieve an average vehicle ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 persons per vehicle and, an average length of out-of-area guest stay of 1.72 days. At this point in project development, it is not possible to predict precisely which programs and activities would be most successful for The Disneyland Resort in meeting these goals. In addition, property owner/developer will review annually with the City any changes to the TDM Program and the Program's effectiveness toward achieving a 1.5 AVR. In consultation with the SCAQMD, the City of Anaheim and other agencies, and after analyzing the effectiveness of these items, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. will select specific programs for implementation. Objectives of the TDM program are: • Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests. • Meet the cast 1.5 AVR target. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division; South Coast Air Quality Management District • Provide a menu of commute alternatives for The Disneyland Resort cast, to reduce project-generated trips. • Provide transportation "linkages" to existing and future transportation modes (other than single-occupant vehicle travel) for both The Disneyland Resort cast and guests. Implementation strategies and elements of the TDM program for cast and guest trips are described below. Cast Making a commitment to commute management and trip reduction will become an integral part of the new-hire training. A menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both, existing and future cast commute options would be examined, including, but not limited to, the following:
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-44 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion • Onsite Service. Onsite services, such as the food, retail, and other services may be provided to the cast. • Ridesharing. An online listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the purpose of providing a "matching" of members with other cast members who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare to The Disneyland Resort. • Vanpooling. An online listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be developed for the purpose of matching numbers of cast who live in geographic proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool to The Disneyland Resort. • Transit Pass. Southern California Rapid Transit District and Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes may be promoted through financial assistance and onsite sales to encourage cast to use the various transit and bus services to The Disneyland Resort from throughout the region. • Commuter Bus. As commuter "express" bus service expands throughout the region, passes for use on these lines may be provided for cast members who choose to use this service. Financial incentives will be provided. • Shuttle Service. A computer listing of all cast members living in proximity to The Disneyland Resort may be generated, and a local shuttle program will be offered to encourage cast members to travel to work by means other than the automobile. • Bicycling. A Disneyland Resort Bicycling Program may be developed to offer a bicycling alternative to cast members. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers will be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area would be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options. • Rental Car Fleet. A "fleet vehicle" program may be developed to provide cast members who travel to work by means other than an automobile with access to automobiles in case of emergency, medical appointments, etc. This service would help cast members use alternative modes of transportation by ensuring that they would be able to have personal transportation in the event of special circumstances. • Emergency Ride Home Program. The program may provide cast members who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the event
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-45 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion of emergencies during the work shift. In essence, this program addresses the concerns of the cast member who rideshares and might be stranded without a vehicle in the event of an emergency. • Local Hiring Efforts. Continue to actively recruit prospective employees within 20 miles. • Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Design an incentives program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips. • Work Schedule - Staggered Shifts. The Disneyland Resort cast may work different hours throughout the daily hours of park operation. A thorough review of cast shifts would be undertaken to provide the potential for cast shifts during nonpeak travel times, thus lessening peak hour congestion. - Compressed Work Week. The Disneyland Resort may review the possibility of developing a "compressed work week" program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts, as an option for cast members. This program would help eliminate certain trips on certain days that would otherwise be generated daily by The Disneyland Resort Cast. - Telecommuting. The Disneyland Resort employs cast members in a wide a variety of jobs including clerical, administrative and professional roles. Sometimes that work can be completed at home. Telecommuting will be encouraged on a limited basis as operational needs allow. • Work Environment/Facility Management - Parking Management. The Disneyland Resort may develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work. - Management Staff. The existing Disneyland theme park transportation management staff may be expanded onsite to accommodate new employees and to explore relationships with adjacent employers to determine whether joint efforts can lead to greater reductions in VMT by Disneyland Resort cast members and other employees in the Anaheim Resort.
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-46 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion - Amenities. Transit systems, transit shelters, bicycle storage areas, and other amenities may be provided with efficient parking management for cast and guests. - Access. Preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles may be provided. - Delivery Management. Schedule deliveries in nonpeak traffic congestion hours to the extent reasonably practicable. • Financial Incentives In addition to the above items, certain financial incentives will be integrated into The Disneyland Resort TDM program, such as: - Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $300 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit (including commuter rail and/or express bus pools). In addition, The Disneyland Resort provides free OCTA passes and a 75% subsidy (up to $100/month) for other transit passes. - Financial Incentive for Bicycling and Walking. Cast members may be offered financial incentives for bicycling to work; they would be provided with secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers. Cast members may also receive a cash incentive for reporting a bike or walk commute. - Financial Incentive for Carpooling. Cast members may be offered a cash incentive for carpooling to work. - Special “Premium" for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Tickets/passes to project theme parks and/or vacations could be offered to employees who recruit other cast members for vanpool, carpool, or other Disney trip reduction programs. • Guests - Even though visitors to The Disneyland Resort are estimated to average nearly four persons per vehicle, additional programs and incentives could and will be provided to encourage even more guest use of ridesharing, transit, and other modes of travel to and from The Disneyland Resort. The property owner/developer is currently developing a list of potential programs and is working with the City of Anaheim and OCTA on the
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-47 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion provision of convenient linkages to other modes of transportation. Marketing materials for The Disneyland Resort will describe it as an "auto-free" zone with a range of transportation amenities where cars are not needed. - Bicycle spaces for guests shall be visible from the primary entrance, illuminated at night, and protected from damage from moving or parked vehicles. • Construction Contractors The property owner/developer shall provide notification to the general construction contractors regarding the coordination of rideshare services for construction employees provided by the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN). MM TRA-9 Ongoing during project operations The property owner/developer shall continue to participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, and shall participate in the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) in conjunction with the ongoing operation of The Disneyland Resort, including the Disney ARSP Properties. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-10 Ongoing during construction If Anaheim Police Department or Anaheim TMC personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fairshare basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with such services. Police Department; Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-11 Ongoing during project operations The property owner/developer will establish an onsite public information office (which is conveniently and accessibly located) where construction scheduling and phasing information will be available to the public. The public information office shall be open during construction hours. A telephone "hotline" will be provided to the community to allow members of the public to call the office with questions or comments during business hours. At least one liaison officer will be staffed at the office. The liaison officer shall be available to answer questions from the public and shall coordinate with the City of Anaheim, other public agencies, and major developers in the area regarding the coordination of construction activities and infrastructure improvements. The City shall be provided with a monthly summary of the calls received and follow-up actions. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-48 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM TRA-12 Prior to issuance of each building permit for The Disneyland Resort or, any other timing specifically provided in this measure The property owner/developer shall submit a Traffic Mitigation and Construction Phasing and Control Plan. To the extent needed, as determined by the Public Works Department, the Traffic Mitigation and Construction Phasing and Control Plan shall identify the following: a. A Construction Staging Area Plan showing the location and size of the construction staging area. The Plan shall also show how the staging area will be screened from view in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-13 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during grading and construction A Truck Route Plan identifying truck routes along arterials, avoiding residential areas to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. The Plan shall show conformance with the external noise limits for construction between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Plan shall also prohibit construction traffic on residential streets where improvements are not planned and shall provide measures to ensure that truck drivers are directed away from residential streets and travel on approved routes only. Measures to assist in guiding truck movement on the arterial roadway system include, but are not limited to, provision of truck route maps to truck drivers and placement of flagpersons and construction signage at appropriate locations. The Truck Route Plan shall provide for monitoring of street conditions and potential repairing and/or repaving by property owner/developer after completion of construction as required by the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-14 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during grading and construction A Construction Traffic Management Plan which includes mechanisms to reduce construction-related traffic congestion which shall be implemented during grading and construction, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Configure construction parking to minimize onsite and offsite traffic interference. 2. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. 3. Provide flagpersons to guide traffic, as determined in the plan. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-15 Prior to approval of each grading plan or issuance of each demolition or building permit, whichever occurs first; implemented during construction A Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew vehicles shall be prepared to reduce potential vehicle trips on the road and identify parking locations for construction employees and equipment. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-49 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM TRA-16 Prior to approval of each building permit A Traffic Management Plan for phasing of roadway improvements, specifying the sequencing of construction to do the following: 1. Coordinate scheduling with other planned construction in the area. 2. Coordinate scheduling with other infrastructure improvements to allow them to be facilitated efficiently during roadway improvements, such as sewer, storm drain, and water line improvements. 3. Outline procedures for any required traffic detours during construction, including provision of tour bus stops. 4. Phase each roadway improvement to allow access to all existing businesses/residential areas. In some instances this will require lane-by-lane renovation, temporary bypass roads, or traffic reroutes. 5. Employ vertical shoring as often as possible. This will minimize the amount of road surface that will be disturbed at a given location. 6. Sequence the construction of each roadway improvement to minimize disruption to residents and businesses. 7. Establish offsite parking and staging areas, where practical and possible, to minimize the impact to existing level of service on adjacent roadways. These offsite parking and staging areas will allow a dispersion of traffic flow to noncritical areas and will encourage bussing of construction workers from the offsite areas to the construction sites. 8. Identify how the project improvement construction schedules and haul routes will be coordinated with other areawide improvements. The property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC), the Anaheim Convention Center and area hotels to ensure continued operations of these facilities, as well as the continued operation of The Disneyland Resort. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-17 Ongoing during project construction The property owner/developer shall submit a quarterly update report showing construction activities for the upcoming quarter which shall include traffic mitigation and control planning and construction scheduling. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-18 Prior to approval of each grading plan The property owner/developer shall show how the project will be in compliance with the Traffic Mitigation and Construction Phasing and Control Plan. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-50 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM TRA-19 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit The location of any proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-20 Prior to the issuance of building permits Plans shall show that all driveways shall be constructed with a minimum fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Public Works Department, Traffic and Transportation Division MM TRA-21 Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever occurs first Security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities and other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer. Installation of said improvements shall occur prior to final building and zoning inspections. Public Works Department, Development Services Division MM TRA-22 Prior to approval of each tentative tract or parcel map The following Street Design Elements shall be shown on each tentative tract or parcel map: a. Street cross-sections, including dimensions, labels, circulation designation (i.e., Resort Secondary) and whether public or private. b. Street grades and vertical alignment. c. Horizontal alignment, including radii, and cul-de-sac radii. Public Works Department, Development Services Division Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that cause excavation to depths greater than current foundations Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The property owner/developer or contractor as designee shall provide evidence in the form of an executed Agreement to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department that they have retained a qualified Native American tribal monitor to provide third-party monitoring during construction-related ground disturbance activities and to recover and catalogue tribal resources as necessary. The tribal monitor shall be from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The agreement shall include (i) professional qualifications of Native American monitor; (ii) detailed scope of services to be provided including but not limited to pre-construction education, observation, Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-51 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion evaluation, protection, salvage, notification, and/or curation requirements, as applicable, with final documentation/report to Public Works Inspector; (iii) contact information; (iv) communication protocols between Contractor and Monitor for scheduling to facilitate timely performance; (v) acknowledgment that if the tribal monitor is unavailable or unresponsive based on terms stipulated in the agreement, property owner/developer or contractor as designee may contract with another qualified tribal monitor acceptable to the City. The selection of the qualified professional(s) shall be subject to City acceptance based on generally accepted professional qualifications and certifications, as applicable. The cover sheet of the grading plans shall include a note to identify that third party tribal monitoring is required during excavation and grading activities in accordance with the City-approved Agreement. Contact information for approved tribal monitor shall be provided by the contractor to the City inspector at the pre-construction meeting. SR TCR-1 Prior to approval of any amendment to the ARSP or the City of Anaheim General Plan The project property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City Planning Department to undergo a solicitation of Native American consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code, Section 65352.3). Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Utilities and Service Systems Public Services and Utilities - Water MM UTIL-1 Prior to issuance of building permits Among the water conservation measures to be shown on plans and implemented by the property owner/developer within the Specific Plan area include the following: • Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation system. • Use of waterway re-circulation systems. • Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals. • Use of self-closing valves on drinking fountains. • Use of reclaimed water for irrigation and washdown when it becomes available. • Continuation of the existing cooling tower recirculation system. • Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use moisture sensors. • Low-flow shower heads in hotels. Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section; Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-52 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion • Water-efficient ice machines, dishwashers, clothes washers, and other water-using appliances. • Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest. • Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation. • Use of water-conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible. • Use of vacuum and other equipment to reduce the use of water for washdown of exterior areas. MM UTIL-2 Prior to each final building and zoning inspection The property owner/developer shall submit a certified water audit for landscape irrigation systems except for areas within the Theme Parks. Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM UTIL-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit All water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and Fire Department. Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division; Fire Department MM UTIL-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit Water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer’s service. Utilities Department, Water Services MM UTIL-5 Prior to issuance of building permits Plans shall specifically show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, aboveground and behind the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final building and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, in accordance with the building permit plans. Utilities Department, Water Services
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-53 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM UTIL-6 Prior to final building and zoning inspections A separate water meter shall be installed for landscape water on all projects where the landscape area exceeds 1,000 square feet for non-residential uses in accordance with Ordinance No. 6160. Utilities Department, Water Services MM UTIL-7 Ongoing during project development and operations The property owner/developer shall implement the following required improvements to the water supply system, in accordance with Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations, Water Services Administrative Procedures and Design Guidelines (APDG), and Water Services Standard Specifications (WSSS), within the timeframes described below or as further determined by the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division. The cost of all Main Extensions, Main Enlargements, abandonments, relocations, and easements documents shall be paid for by the property owner/developer of the properties served by these mains in accordance with Rule 15A. • In the Theme Park District, west of Disneyland Drive, all new fire water connections, including but not limited to, those that would serve, private fire hydrants, in The Disneyland Resort shall be made to water mains served by the 335 Pressure Zone. Specifically, no new fire water connections are permissible on existing water mains in Walnut Street or Magic Way. Any new fire connections for buildings adjacent to these mains shall connect to the 20-inch water main in Disneyland Drive. • The Southeast District shall be served by at least two points of connection with internal looping. o Any new water service connections along Harbor Boulevard shall require the construction of a 12-inch water main from Convention Way intersection to a point approximately 400-ft north of the intersection. o Any new connection to the existing water main in Clementine Street, north of Orangewood Avenue, shall require replacement of the existing 8-inch water main with a new 12-inch water main. • Abandon the existing 12-inch water main within the Esplanade between Harbor Boulevard and Disneyland Drive. This work shall be completed concurrently with any proposed improvements along Disneyland Drive or Harbor Boulevard. • New easements may be required where public water infrastructure are located within private property through abandonment(s) of a public right-of-way. Such easements shall limit improvements that impact access for operation and maintenance of existing facilities. Alternatively, the property owner/developer may abandon and/or relocate existing public water infrastructure provided the property owner/developer prepares an analysis to determine any associated and Utilities Department, Water Services
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-54 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion appropriate improvements due to the work. The property owner/developer shall submit the analysis and any associated improvement plans to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division for review and approval. • Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall submit hydraulic analyses to determine the adequacy of existing and proposed facilities if required by the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division. Public Services and Utilities – Wastewater/Sewer MM UTIL-8 Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for any new hotel development within the Theme Park District that proposes a portion or the entirety of the hotel project’s sewer flow to discharge to the City sewer system on Harbor Boulevard, north of Katella Avenue The property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate whether there is adequate capacity in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system to accept the flow from the proposed new hotel use. The Sewer Study shall determine whether the proposed hotel project would create a deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream City sewer system. If the Sewer Study shows there would be deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream sewer system, the Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades. If a sewer system upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the upgrade to the sewer system and all associated improvements [collectively, “Sewer Improvements”]. The City-identified and approved cost of the Sewer Improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the hotel project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the related sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the hotel project and the sewer improvement plans shall identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections for the hotel. If no sewer system upgrade is required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085, with applicable credits applied for sewer flows from existing uses to be removed. Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Design Division MM UTIL-9 Prior to issuance of a plumbing permit resulting in a cumulative flow of more than 50 gpm peak in the Theme Park District resulting in redirected existing sewer flows that currently do not flow to The property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate whether there is adequate capacity in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system to accept the proposed redirected flow. The Sewer Study shall determine whether the proposed redirected flow would create a deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream City sewer system. If the Sewer Study shows there would be deficiency in the Harbor Boulevard sewer system or the downstream sewer system, the Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades. If a sewer system Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Design Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-55 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Harbor Boulevard to instead flow to Harbor Boulevard via non-gravity flow (e.g. lift station, force main, ejector pump, etc.) upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the upgrade to the sewer system and all associated improvements [collectively, “Sewer Improvements”]. The City-identified and approved cost of the Sewer Improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the hotel project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the related sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the hotel project and the sewer improvement plans shall identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections for the hotel. If no sewer system upgrade is required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085, with applicable credits applied for sewer flows from existing uses to be removed. MM UTIL-10 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for development of over 10,000 sf in the Southeast District or Theme Park East Overlay The property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate whether the total sewer flow proposed to the Katella Avenue sewer system, east of Harbor Boulevard, for development authorized by the DisneylandForward project for the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District does not exceed a peak flow of 285 gpm. And that the total sewer flow proposed to be directed to the Harbor Boulevard sewer system, south of Katella Avenue, for development authorized by the DisneylandForward project for the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District does not exceed a peak flow of 2,000 gpm (total allowable development within Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District). If the projected sewer effluent flow exceeds these stipulated amounts for either the Katella Avenue or Harbor Boulevard sewer system, the Sewer Study shall determine whether the development project creates a deficiency in the Katella Avenue sewer system, east of Harbor Boulevard, or the Harbor Boulevard sewer system, south of Katella Avenue, sewer collections systems and the downstream City sewer system. Should a deficiency be created, the Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades and improvements (“Sewer Improvements”). If Sewer Improvements are required, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the Sewer Improvements. The City-identified and approved cost of the sewer improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the development project upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the City. The design of the Sewer Improvements and the sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for development in the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District and shall identify all associated improvements required for the required Sewer Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Design Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-56 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion Improvements. Construction of Sewer Improvements shall be completed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for development within the Theme Park East Overlay/Southeast District. If no improvement is required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085. MM UTIL-11 Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for any new hotel development within the Parking Overlay (between Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue) The property owner/developer shall prepare a Sewer Study for review and approval by the City Engineer, funded by the property owner/developer. Said Sewer Study shall evaluate the sewer flow from the hotel(s) directed to Clementine Street and ultimately Katella Avenue. Sewer improvements required to address deficiencies in the sewer systems in Clementine Street and/or Katella Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner/developer (“Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements”). Should a deficiency be created, the Sewer Study shall identify the required sewer system upgrades and improvements. If a sewer system upgrade is required, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements and all associated improvements. The City-identified cost of the Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements may be credited toward the applicable sewer impact fees for the hotel project(s) upon completion of the Sewer Improvements and acceptance by the City. The design of the Clementine and Katella Sewer Improvements and the sewer improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the hotel project(s) and identify all associated improvements required for the Sewer Improvements. Construction of sewer improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first hotel development. If no improvement is required, the developer shall be required to pay the applicable sewer impact fees, pursuant to A.M.C. 10.12.085. Public Works Department, Development Services Division and Design Division Public Services and Utilities – Storm Drains MM UTIL-12 Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first The property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows: The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following: a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency. Public Works Department, Development Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-57 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates. MM UTIL-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits The City shall require that building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies. Public Works Department, Development Services Division Public Services and Utilities – Electricity MM UTIL-14 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to each final building and zoning inspection In order to conserve energy, the Disneyland Resort shall comply with the California Energy Code (Title 10), which may include the following: • Consultation with the City energy-conservation experts at the Anaheim Public Utilities Community and Sustainability Division for assistance with energy-conservation design features. • Use of high-efficiency air conditioning systems, connected if feasible to a computerized central energy management system, and meeting all control, scheduling and load efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Building Efficiency Standards). Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-58 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion • Use of electric high-efficiency (NEMA) motors intended to conserve energy. • While recognizing the unique lighting apparatus required for some theme park uses, use of motion sensing lightswitch devices and light-emitting diode (LED) energy-efficiency lighting fixtures for indoor and outdoor lighting when feasible, T8 lamps, metal hallide and/or high-pressure sodium (HID) lamps. • Incorporation of electric vehicle chargers into parking structures. MM UTIL-15 Prior to issuance of a building permit If the property owner/developer incorporates grid-tied renewable energy generation systems into the project, they shall comply with the Anaheim Public Utilities Department’s most recent Interconnection Guidelines. Utilities Department, Resource Efficiency Section MM UTIL-16 Two to five years prior to energizing new switching stations The property owner/developer shall provide Anaheim Public Utilities Department electrical engineering staff with its forecasted electric demand and schedules to allow for sufficient lead time for planning, design, engineering, materials procurement, and construction of new electrical facilities, if required, to accommodate the Project’s additional or modified electrical demand. Forecasts must be at least two to five years: e.g., two years for the construction of up to two line extensions and five years for the construction of three line extensions or a new substation. Utilities Department, Electric Services Division Public Services and Utilities – Natural Gas As discussed in Draft Subsequent EIR No. 352, Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, Natural Gas, incorporates MMs Section 5.5, Energy. Public Services and Utilities – Solid Waste MM UTIL-17 Ongoing during theme park operations and prior to final building and zoning inspections of new theme park development The property owner/developer shall implement a solid waste management plan which has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department to ensure that the project plans comply with AB 939, SB 1383 related to reducing organic waste in landfill, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim, and the County’s and City’s Integrated Waste Management Plans. Implementation of said plan shall commence upon occupancy and shall remain in full effect as required by the Street and Sanitation Division and may include the following plan components: a. Detailing the locations and design of on-site recycling facilities. b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling. c. Complying with all Federal, State, and City regulations for hazardous material disposal. d. Continuing participation in the City of Anaheim’s voluntary “Recycle Anaheim,” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City. Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-59 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs at the Disneyland Resort, including: • Facilitating paper recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins. • Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially from retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collections and baling. • Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing. • Providing trash compactors for nonrecyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection. • Prohibition of curbside pick-up within The Disneyland Resort. MM UTIL-18 Ongoing during project operation The existing solid waste recycling and waste minimization practices at The Disneyland Resort shall be expanded as feasible to serve new development in The Disneyland Resort. Existing practices include: • Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and packaging. • Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard. • Collection of office paper for recycling. • Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling. • Collection of glass, plastic, kitchen grease, laser printer, toner, cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery. Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division MM UTIL-19 Prior to issuance of building permits Ongoing during project operation Plans shall show that trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division. On an ongoing basis, trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division MM UTIL-20 Prior to issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-60 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion MM UTIL-21 Ongoing during project operation Upon City request and no less than annually or more than semi-annually, the property owner/developer shall prepare and submit to the Planning & Building Director or their designee a consolidated Construction Waste Management Report for all development projects on Disney Properties demonstrating that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris has been recycled or salvaged, or has otherwise complied with the City’s waste diversion program, which Report shall identify the materials diverted from disposal and whether the materials have been sorted on site or co-mingled. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Public Service and Utilities – Television MM UTIL-22 Ongoing during project operation If the City of Anaheim determines that the proposed project creates a significant impact on broadcast television reception at local residences, the property owner/developer shall install a signal booster or relay system on the roof of the tallest project building to restore broadcast television reception to its original condition as soon as practicable. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division Public Services and Utilities – Standard Requirements SR UTIL-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit The property owner/developer shall be required to prepare and submit to the City for review and approval (1) a Landscape Documentation Package and (2) landscape and irrigation plans with appropriate water use calculations in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.19, Landscape Water Efficiency. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division SR UTIL-2 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall provide evidence to the Planning & Building Director or their designee that all sewage and wastewater disposal into the sewer system shall comply with OCSD’s Wastewater Discharge Regulations, including the procurement of the necessary permits by food service establishments that would be developed in the ARSP area. Planning & Building Department, Building Division SR UTIL-3 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall provide proof of payment to the Planning & Building Director or their designee for a sanitary sewer service charge to OCSD. Planning & Building Department, Building Division SR UTIL-4 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall provide proof of payment to the Planning & Building Director or their designee for a capital facilities connection charge to OCSD. Planning & Building Department, Building Division
DisneylandForward Final Subsequent EIR No. 352 R:\Projects\WDI\3WDI000400\Environmental Documentation\Final SEIR\Final_SEIR-022824.docx 4-61 Mitigation Measure/Project Design Feature Number Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion SR UTIL-5 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. Planning & Building Department, Building Division SR UTIL-6 Prior to issuance of building permits The property owner/developer shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (24 CCR11). Planning & Building Department, Building Division