DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service VOLUME I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESTORATION OF HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES J U LY 2 0 1 8 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.4 7th Street Alignment Alternative ................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................ ES-7 ES.6 Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-7 ES.7 Operations and Ridership ................................................................................................................................ ES-8 ES.8 Project Cost ............................................................................................................................................................ ES-8 ES.9 Environmental Effects ....................................................................................................................................... ES-8 ES.10 Measures to Minimize Harm ........................................................................................................................ ES-12 CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Sponsors ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Public Review of the EA ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Comment Period and Next Steps ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Organization of the EA.............................................................................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Project History and Background .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Need ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVES AND LPA SELECTION PROCESS .................................................................... 11 3.1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 3.2 Alternatives Development and Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative ............................ 39 3.3 Further Modifications Considered ................................................................................................................... 48 3.4 Summary of the Project and Alternatives Evaluated in the EIR .......................................................... 49 3.5 Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................... 50 4.1 Resources of No Concern ..................................................................................................................................... 50 4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.3 Community Effects .................................................................................................................................................. 60 4.4 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 62 4.5 Energy Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 92 4.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................................................... 96 4.7 4(f) Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 105 4.8 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ................................................................................................................. 122 4.9 Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Fiscal Impacts .......................................................................... 125 4.10 Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................................................... 128 4.11 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................................................................. 140 4.12 Safety and Security .............................................................................................................................................. 161 4.13 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 165 Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in July 2018 Downtown Los Angeles ii EA City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents 4.14 Visual Quality ......................................................................................................................................................... 172 4.15 Construction ........................................................................................................................................................... 195 4.16 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................... 225 4.17 Permits and Approvals ....................................................................................................................................... 233 CHAPTER 5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION .................................................................................... 235 5.1 Public and Agency Coordination for the EA .............................................................................................. 235 5.2 Public and Agency Coordination Summary for the Draft EIR ............................................................ 235 CHAPTER 6.0 REFERENCES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......................................... 237 CHAPTER 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 241 7.1 Public Agencies ...................................................................................................................................................... 241 7.2 Consultants .............................................................................................................................................................. 242 VOLUME II APPENDICES A Maintenance and Storage Facility Site Selection Methodology Memorandum B Construction Methods Technical Memorandum C Scoping Summary Report D Air Quality and Climate Change Assessment Report VOLUME III APPENDICES E Historic Resources Technical Report F Archaeological Resources Technical Report G Energy Calculations H Noise and Vibration Technical Report I Transportation Technical Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Memorandum J Visual Impact Assessment VOLUME IV APPENDICES K Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in July 2018 Downtown Los Angeles iii EA City of Los
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United-2016-2021.Pdf
    27010_Contract_JCBA-FA_v10-cover.pdf 1 4/5/17 7:41 AM 2016 – 2021 Flight Attendant Agreement Association of Flight Attendants – CWA 27010_Contract_JCBA-FA_v10-cover.indd170326_L01_CRV.indd 1 1 3/31/174/5/17 7:533:59 AMPM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Recognition, Successorship and Mergers . 1 Section 2 Definitions . 4 Section 3 General . 10 Section 4 Compensation . 28 Section 5 Expenses, Transportation and Lodging . 36 Section 6 Minimum Pay and Credit, Hours of Service, and Contractual Legalities . 42 Section 7 Scheduling . 56 Section 8 Reserve Scheduling Procedures . 88 Section 9 Special Qualification Flight Attendants . 107 Section 10 AMC Operation . .116 Section 11 Training & General Meetings . 120 Section 12 Vacations . 125 Section 13 Sick Leave . 136 Section 14 Seniority . 143 Section 15 Leaves of Absence . 146 Section 16 Job Share and Partnership Flying Programs . 158 Section 17 Filling of Vacancies . 164 Section 18 Reduction in Personnel . .171 Section 19 Safety, Health and Security . .176 Section 20 Medical Examinations . 180 Section 21 Alcohol and Drug Testing . 183 Section 22 Personnel Files . 190 Section 23 Investigations & Grievances . 193 Section 24 System Board of Adjustment . 206 Section 25 Uniforms . 211 Section 26 Moving Expenses . 215 Section 27 Missing, Interned, Hostage or Prisoner of War . 217 Section 28 Commuter Program . 219 Section 29 Benefits . 223 Section 30 Union Activities . 265 Section 31 Union Security and Check-Off . 273 Section 32 Duration . 278 i LETTERS OF AGREEMENT LOA 1 20 Year Passes . 280 LOA 2 767 Crew Rest . 283 LOA 3 787 – 777 Aircraft Exchange . 285 LOA 4 AFA PAC Letter . 287 LOA 5 AFA Staff Travel .
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Projected Versus Actual Ridership on Los Angeles’ Metro Rail Lines
    AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master In Urban and Regional Planning By Lyle D. Janicek 2019 SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS: AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES AUTHOR: Lyle D. Janicek DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019 Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Richard W. Willson Thesis Committee Chair Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Dohyung Kim Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Gwen Urey Urban and Regional Planning ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the support of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I am especially indebted to Dr. Rick Willson, Dr. Dohyung Kim, and Dr. Gwen Urey of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, who have been supportive of my career goals and who worked actively to provide me with educational opportunities to pursue those goals. I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and other related projects with my time at Cal Poly Pomona. Each of the members of my Thesis Committee has provided me extensive personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both scientific research and life in general. Nobody has been more supportive to me in the pursuit of this project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents Larry and Laurie Janicek, whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Preliminary Engineering Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar
    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) for 30%-Design Preliminary Engineering for the Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar LOS ANGELES STREETCAR, INC AUGUST 14, 2015 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc. (LASI) is seeking an Engineering Firm/Team (Design Consultant) to develop 30% Engineering Design for the proposed Los Angeles Streetcar (“Project”). The Project is currently undergoing environmental review pursuant to CEQA, to be followed by federal NEPA review upon certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Project is also in the process of securing federal funding under the FTA Small Starts program, and exploring potential P3 partnerships for capital funding and operational support. The work of the Design Consultant will be overseen by LASI and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE), with close coordination with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT)—LASI, BOE, and DOT are referred to herein as the Streetcar Project Team. The Design Consultant’s day-to-day communications will be with the Principal Civil Engineer at BOE. To advance the Project, the Design Consultant will develop plans to 30% Design and Engineering concurrent with the Metro-led environmental review process. The Scope of Work (SOW) for the Design Consultant will focus on defining the project’s centerline, geometry, profile, and cross sections, and will identify utility conflicts and work with utility companies to identify potential solutions, address project risks and impacts, provide the basis for a refined cost estimate, and position the project for federal funding and potential public-private partnership(s). The SOW includes 30% Design and Engineering for each of the 4 Project Alternatives evaluated in the EIR: 1) 7th St alternative with Grand Ave extension; 2) 7th St alternative without Grand Ave extension; 3) 9th St alternative with Grand Ave extension; and 4) 9th St alternative without Grand Ave extension.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Transit Administration
    Finding of No Significant Impact Grant Applicant: City of Los Angeles Project: Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in Downtown Los Angeles Project Location: City of Los Angeles, California The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in Downtown Los Angeles (Project) was prepared in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4332); the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b)); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303); and Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations). FTA is the federal lead agency for the Project under the NEPA. Development of the Project and its environmental review process are being managed through the joint cooperation of the City of Los Angeles (City) Department of Transportation (LADOT), Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Additional support is being provided by City Council District 14 and Los Angeles Streetcar Inc. (LASI), an independent non-profit agency. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the design features and mitigation measures presented in the EA. The full text of the EA, prepared by the City of Los Angeles and approved and issued by FTA, is hereby incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to enhance mobility options to residents, employees and visitors of downtown Los Angeles through expanded transit circulation service and as well as support the growth and revitalization of downtown Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday Through Friday Mt
    New printed schedules will not be issued if trips are adjusted Monday through Friday All trips accessible by five minutes or less. Please visit www.go-metro.com for the go smart... go METRO 24 most up-to-date schedule. 24 Mt. Lookout–Uptown–Anderson Riding Metro From Anderson / To Downtown From Downtown / To Anderson . 1 No food, beverages or smoking on Metro. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Offer front seats to older adults and people with disabilities. METRO* PLUS 3. All Metro buses are 100% accessible for people 38X with disabilities. 46 UNIVERSITY OF 4. Use headphones with all audio equipment 51 CINCINNATI GOODMAN DANA MEDICAL CENTER HIGHLAND including cell phones. Anderson Center Station P&R Salem Rd. & Beacon St. & Beechmont Ave. St. Corbly & Ave. Linwood Delta Ave. & Madison Ave. Observatory Ave. Martin Luther King & Reading Rd. & Auburn Ave. McMillan St. Liberty St. & Sycamore St. Square Government Area B Square Government Area B Liberty St. & Sycamore St. & Auburn Ave. McMillan St. Martin Luther King & Reading Rd. & Madison Ave. Observatory Ave. & Ave. Linwood Delta Ave. & Beechmont Ave. St. Corbly Salem Rd. & Beacon St. Anderson Center Station P&R 11 ZONE 2 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 1 ZONE 2 43 5. Fold strollers and carts. BURNET MT. LOOKOUT AM AM 38X 4:38 4:49 4:57 5:05 5:11 5:20 5:29 5:35 5:40 — — — — 4:10 4:15 4:23 — 4:35 OBSERVATORY READING O’BRYONVILLE LINWOOD 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Leahy, Chief Executive Officer
    ART LEAHY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Art Leahy was appointed as Metrolink’s Chief Executive Officer and began in April 2015. He brings more than 40 years of public transportation leadership and experience to Metrolink. One of the nation’s leading transit officials, Art Leahy served as chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for six years. During that time, he guided implementation of one of the largest public works programs in United States history, securing billions in federal and state dollars to help finance construction of dozens of transit and highway projects. He led the completion of numerous projects funded by Los Angeles County’s Measure R. Metro has transit and highway projects valued at more than $14 billion, eclipsing that of any other transportation agency in the nation. This includes an unprecedented five new rail projects under construction, including phase 2 of the Expo Line extension to Santa Monica and the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa, as well as the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, the Regional Connector in downtown Los Angeles, and the first phase of the Westside Purple Line subway extension to Wilshire and La Cienega. Leahy also launched a $1.2-billion overhaul of the Metro Blue Line and guided the purchase of a new fleet of rail cars. And he helped transform the iconic Union Station into the hub of the region’s expanding bus and rail transit network and led the agency’s acquisition of the 75-year-old iconic facility. Though Metrolink is a separate transportation agency from Metro, the two agencies work collaboratively on multiple fronts to provide effective and efficient public transportation options for people throughout the region.
    [Show full text]
  • January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails To
    January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails to Rubber to Rails Again, Part 1: Alabama–Montana Headlights The Magazine of Electric Railways Published since 1939 by the Electric Railroaders’ Association, Inc. WWW.ERAUSA.ORG Staff Contents Editor and Art Director January–June 2005 Sandy Campbell Associate Editors Raymond R. Berger, Frank S. Miklos, John Pappas Contributors Edward Ridolph, Trevor Logan, Bill Volkmer, Columns Alan K. Weeks 2 News Electric Railroaders’ Compiled by Frank Miklos. International transportation reports. Association, Inc. E Two-Part Cover Story Board of Directors 2008 President 18 Rails to Rubber to Rails Again Frank S. Miklos By Edward Ridolph. An extensive 60-year summary of the street railway industry in First Vice President the U.S. and Canada, starting with its precipitous 30-year, post-World War II decline. William K. Guild It continues with the industry’s rebirth under the banner of “light rail” in the early Second Vice President & Corresponding Secretary 1980s, a renaissance which continues to this day. Raymond R. Berger Third Vice President & Recording Secretary Robert J. Newhouser Below: LAMTA P3 3156 is eastbound across the First Street bridge over the Los Treasurer Angeles River in the waning weeks of service before abandonment of Los Angeles’ Michael Glikin narrow gauge system on March 31, 1963. GERALD SQUIER PHOTO Director Jeffrey Erlitz Membership Secretary Sandy Campbell Officers 2008 Trip & Convention Chairman Jack May Librarian William K. Guild Manager of Publication Sales Raymond R. Berger Overseas Liason Officer James Mattina National Headquarters Grand Central Terminal, New York City A-Tower, Room 4A Mailing Address P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • City of West Hollywood Appendix J
    R2, R3, R4 Multi-Family Survey Report City of West Hollywood Appendix J: 1986-87 Survey Context, prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates Appendices November 2008 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. when a small group of citizens formed the West Hollywood Incorporation Committee. By November of that year, studies by the Local Agency Formation Commission confirmed that incorporation was indeed economically feasible. Tenants led by the Coalition for Economic Survival, homeowners concerned with planning issues and the gay community were among the leading advocates of cityhoog. Formal application was made on April 4, 1984. On November 4, 1984, by a 4:1 favorable margin, the voters approved incorporation . One of the new city's first tasks was to begin to draft a General Plan , the land use policy document for the municipality required· by State law. In January of 1985, the city began the process of preparing the Plan, noting that the physical environment, social character and quality of life within the City would be influenced by the General Plan. It was a stated goal to link land use and urban design, emphasizing the relationship between parcels and uses throughout the city. A reduction of density from those outlined in the West Hollywood Community Plan, .---- prepared before incorporated by the County of Los Angeles, was planned. As an i ntegral part of this planning process. the city of West Hollywood applied for c survey grant from the State Off ice of Historic Preservation in November of 1985 . 1.2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY The area now known as West Hollywood has played a key role in t h e development of Los Angeles County west of Los Angeles .
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority Meeting Council Chambers, City Hall, 104 S
    MINUTES OF CLAREMORE PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 104 S. MUSKOGEE, CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA MARCH 03, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Brant Shallenburger at 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Nan Pope called roll. The following were: Present: Brant Shallenburger, Buddy Robertson, Tony Mullenger, Flo Guthrie, Mick Webber, Terry Chase, Tom Lehman, Paula Watson Absent: Don Myers Staff Present: City Manager Troy Powell, Nan Pope, Serena Kauk, Matt Mueller, Randy Elliott, Cassie Sowers, Phil Stowell, Steve Lett, Daryl Golbek, Joe Kays, Gene Edwards, Tim Miller, Tamryn Cluck, Mark Dowler Pledge of Allegiance by all. Invocation by James Graham, Verdigris United Methodist Church. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman that the agenda for the regular CPWA meeting of March 03, 2008, be approved as written. 8 yes, Mullenger, Lehman, Robertson, Guthrie, Shallenburger, Webber, Chase, Watson. ITEMS UNFORESEEN AT THE TIME AGENDA WAS POSTED None CALL TO THE PUBLIC None CURRENT BUSINESS Motion by Mullenger, second by Lehman to approve the following consent items: (a) Minutes of Claremore Public Works Authority meeting on February 18, 2008, as printed. (b) All claims as printed. (c) Approve budget supplement for upgrading the electric distribution system and adding an additional Substation for the new Oklahoma Plaza Development - $586,985 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (d) Approve budget supplement for purchase of an additional concrete control house for new Substation #5 for Oklahoma Plaza Development - $93,946 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment. (Serena Kauk) (e) Approve budget supplement for electrical engineering contract with Ledbetter, Corner and Associates for engineering design phase for Substation #5 - Oklahoma Plaza Development - $198,488 - Leasehold improvements to new project number assignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing Passenger Preferences and Operational Efficiency in Network
    Risk Averseness Regarding Short Connections in Airline Itinerary Choice AV020 Annual Meeting 2006 Submission Date: 01 April 2006, Word Count: 6902 By: Georg Theis Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Room 35-217 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel.: (617) 253-3507 Fax: (270) 968-5529 Email: [email protected] Thomas Adler Resource Systems Group 55 Railroad Row White River Junction, VT 05001 Tel.: (802) 295-4999 Fax: (802) 295-1006 Email: [email protected] John-Paul Clarke School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0150 Tel: (404) 385-7206 Fax: (404) 894-2760 Email: [email protected] Moshe Ben-Akiva Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Room 1-181 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel.: (617) 253-5324 Fax: (617) 253-0082 Email: [email protected] Theis et al. 2 ABSTRACT Network airlines traditionally attempt to minimize passenger connecting times at hub airports based on the assumption that passengers prefer minimum scheduled elapsed times for their trips. Minimizing connecting times, however, creates peaks in hub airports’ schedules. These peaks are extremely cost intensive in terms of additional personnel, resources, runway capacity and schedule recovery. Consequently, passenger connecting times should only be minimized if the anticipated revenue gain of minimizing passenger connecting times is larger than the increase in operating cost, i.e. if this policy increases overall operating profit. This research analyzes to what extent a change in elapsed time impacts passenger itinerary choice and thus an airline’s market share. We extend an existing airline itinerary choice survey to test the assumption that passenger demand is affected by the length of connecting times.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA
    Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA Matthew Barrett Metro Transportation Research Library, Archive & Public Records - metro.net/library Transportation Research Library & Archive • Originally the library of the Los • Transportation research library for Angeles Railway (1895-1945), employees, consultants, students, and intended to serve as both academics, other government public outreach and an agencies and the general public. employee resource. • Partner of the National • Repository of federally funded Transportation Library, member of transportation research starting Transportation Knowledge in 1971. Networks, and affiliate of the National Academies’ Transportation • Began computer cataloging into Research Board (TRB). OCLC’s World Catalog using Library of Congress Subject • Largest transit operator-owned Headings and honoring library, forth largest transportation interlibrary loan requests from library collection after U.C. outside institutions in 1978. Berkeley, Northwestern University and the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center. • Archive of Los Angeles transit history from 1873-present. • Member of Getty/USC’s L.A. as Subject forum. Accessing the Library • Online: metro.net/library – Library Catalog librarycat.metro.net – Daily aggregated transportation news headlines: headlines.metroprimaryresources.info – Highlights of current and historical documents in our collection: metroprimaryresources.info – Photos: flickr.com/metrolibraryarchive – Film/Video: youtube/metrolibrarian – Social Media: facebook, twitter, tumblr, google+,
    [Show full text]
  • Disneyland® Park
    There’s magic to be found everywhere at The Happiest Place on Earth! Featuring two amazing Theme Parks—Disneyland® Park and Disney California Adventure® Park—plus three Disneyland® Resort Hotels and the Downtown Disney® District, the world-famous Disneyland® Resort is where Guests of all ages can discover wonder, joy and excitement around every turn. Plan enough days to experience attractions and entertainment in 1 both Parks. 5 INTERSTATE 4 5 2 3 6 Go back and forth between both Theme Parks with a Disneyland® Resort Park Hopper® 1 Disneyland® Hotel 4 Downtown Disney® District Ticket. Plus, when you buy a 3+ day ticket before you arrive, you get one Magic Morning* 2 Disney’s Paradise Pier® Hotel Disneyland® Park early admission to select experiences 5 at Disneyland® Park one hour before the Park opens to the general public on select days. 3 Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel® & Spa 6 Disney California Adventure® Park *Magic Morning allows one early admission (during the duration of the Theme Park ticket or Southern California CityPASS®) to select attractions, stores, entertainment and dining locations at Disneyland® Park one hour before the Park opens to the public on Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday. Each member of your travel party must have 3-day or longer Disneyland® Resort tickets. To enhance the Magic Morning experience, it is strongly recommended that Guests arrive at least one hour and 15 minutes prior to regular Park opening. Magic Morning admission is based on availability and does not operate daily. Applicable days and times of operation and all other elements including, but not limited to, operation of attractions, entertainment, stores and restaurants and appearances of Characters may vary and are subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]