Attachment 12 - Public Correspondence
Exhibit A Applicant Response Letter
Exhibit B Letters in Support
Exhibit C Letters in Opposition
Exhibit D Form Letters in Opposition
Exhibit A
Applicant Response Letter
Exhibit %
Letters in Support
Exhibit &
Letters in Opposition
Exhibit '
Form Letters in Opposition
2 Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or 3 lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely, Aaron pourhassanian
Yorba Linda CA 92887
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Get Outlook for Android
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely, Aaron pourhassanian
Yorba Linda CA 92887
Get Outlook for Android
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Aline Young
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: anees ahmedi
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:46 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
br
Anees
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Ben Norton
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:20 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Ben
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ 3 done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Handyman
2 Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or 3 lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
4 _______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Chelsea Chavira
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2024 4:41 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
__________________________Chelsea Chavira_____
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: chinh pham
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:14 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: chinh pham
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 1:16 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Cong Vo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Dang family
Yorba Linda
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: cyrus pourhass
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 10:10 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
cyrus pourhass
yorba linda, ca 92887
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From:
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:39 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Dirty Jeff
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:42 AM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
2 Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or 3 lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
4 -Dan Clem
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Daniel Clem
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 6:57 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Dan Clem
Sent from my iPhone
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Enad Fakhouri
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Fotis Borovilos
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 9:51 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
FoƟs Borovilos
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Glass tech Wholesale
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 10:11 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Habib Foroushani
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Herbert Hoebel
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 6:19 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Hetan Sangani
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 5:29 AM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: isabella tejeda
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 10:48 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Jessica Guo
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 5:21 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Jessica Guo
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Jessica Guo
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Joan
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Joan
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karey Yocum
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karey Yocum
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 2:27 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karey Yocum
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 6:59 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karey Yocum
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:01 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karey Yocum
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karina Cooke
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:54 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy and Karina Cooke
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Karina Cooke
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy and Karina Cooke
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Kevin D
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 9:53 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin, a concerned resident immediately impacted by this issue.
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Kevin D
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 9:59 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin, a concerned resident immediately impacted by this issue.
Sent from my iPhone
2 Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed. 3 In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Kirti Vora
4 Yorba Linda CA 92887
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Kirti Vora
--------------------------------------------------------------- This email may contain material that is confidential and privileged. Any review, reliance or distribution by 5 others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
2 Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or 3 lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
4 _______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Dr. Marek A. Suchenek
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Marek A. Suchenek
Bryant Ranch
Yorba Linda
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Maureen Dawson
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:33 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Maureen A. Dawson
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Michele Vincent
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Impt: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Michele Vincent
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Navdeep Saini
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:52 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Regards
Navdeep Saini
Yorba Linda 92887
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: P Kennedy
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 11:07 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Priscilla Yu
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 1:35 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed. 3 In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
4 _______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my Galaxy
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed. 3 In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
4 _______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my Galaxy
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ 3 done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my Galaxy
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Reggie Sadler
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Robin Sadler
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Rupal Parekh
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 1:59 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
3 done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12?0less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sanjay
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Scott Dicken
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 9:25 AM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Mayor Aitken and Members of the Anaheim City Council:
I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
2 This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
R ScoƩ Dicken
Yorba Linda 92887
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely, Sharon Pourhassanian
Yorba Linda CA 92887
Get Outlook for Android
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sharon So (Yorba Linda Residence)
2 The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11,
hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are 3 stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there? Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please,
OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Shaun Bell
Safety Director
John M. Frank Construction Inc.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Shaun
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 1:16 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' 3 [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Shaun
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 7:28 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Shaun Bell
Sent from my iPhone
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesting that you, please, revise your position in this matter in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residential `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed. 3 In addition to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that
`The proposed project would not have direct impacts on existing uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residential uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residential communities inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.'
[A quote from EIR No. 331 Executive Summary, p. 1-11,
https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10-Executive-Summary .] It has been estimated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn.
Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to time when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negative impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportation corridor directly connecting Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relatively small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiting the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of time and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportation to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residential areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuation routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the existing evacuation routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A
CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construction of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Stamatis
Corsica Way
4 East Yorba Linda
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is still under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resting place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project application are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories.
It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separation from existing development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this time, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest information, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone 1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Tracy & Derek
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:55 AM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge 3 cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy Prout
Yorba Linda
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: ucrgrad (null)
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:45 AM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As 4 proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Tanya Aro
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: ucrgrad (null)
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:54 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Tanya Aro
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=73&event id=2392&meta id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons utilized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are still present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [Aptim, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is questionable, since it is still unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully mitigated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulting in more analyses, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly environmental remediation if the Site is developed.''
PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizations should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which often involves a motorcade that follows it) exiting the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the time when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early afternoon till about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
3 https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organization, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the Attachment 9 to the draft of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objection emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indication that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this pristine and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negative impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draft of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
The Seidel family
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: victoria tejeda
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:32 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks
Cc: Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor; Jose M. Barriga; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please SAVE all of Gypsum Canyon for it’s intended preservation/ recreation use!PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construction of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gyps...
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is PART II of a statement of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Council To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: PART II of sustained OPPOSITION to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Dear Council Member Meeks, Dear Mayor Aitken and Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council:
2 I sustain my OPPOSITION and am kindly requesƟng that you, please, revise your posiƟon in this maƩer in order to reconcile it with the relevant facts.
This is the SECOND PART OF MY REPLY to your reply (included, below).
You wrote:
`Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items'.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 331 is 19-years old and it pertains to completely different, residenƟal `Mountain Park' project and not to a large, .44 square mile, cemetery. Therefore, a new Environmental Impact Report is needed, as opposed to amending the old, and presumably irrelevant, one.
Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
In addiƟon to the above, the EIR No. 331 did not incorporate the Traffic Report and did not analyze the detrimental impact of funeral motorcades on already heavy traffic on 91 Freeway. It incorrectly asserted, instead, that `The proposed project would not have direct impacts on exisƟng uses to the north (SR-91, Featherly Regional Park and residenƟal uses in the City of Yorba Linda), west (Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills residenƟal communiƟes inthe City of Anaheim), and east (Chino Hills State Park) of the project site.' [A quote from EIR No. 331 ExecuƟve Summary, p. 1-11, hƩps://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/52882/10- ExecuƟve-Summary .]
3 It has been esƟmated by some experts that there will likely be several funerals a day at such a large cemetery. Likely worsening of traffic caused by funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will add an extra hour a day or more to Ɵme when 91 Fwy is jammed and traffic on Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd. is brought to a stop. This will have a serious negaƟve impact not only on residents living in proximity of these streets but also on est. 250,000 commuters, daily, who use this only available high-throughput transportaƟon corridor directly connecƟng Riverside County and Orange County. It will also likely add to hours that commuters on 91 Fwy are stuck in traffic during rush hours.
One can observe how a relaƟvely small cross-traffic entering 91 Fwy Eastbound from Lakeview Ave. towards 55 Fwy Southbound brings Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy to a stop for up to two miles. The funeral motorcades exiƟng the freeway at Gypsum Cyn. Rd. will have at least the same or worse effect on Eastbound traffic on 91 Fwy.
And the above worsening of already unmanageable during the rush hours traffic in that area does not just translate on waste of Ɵme and inconvenience of drivers and passengers who are stuck in traffic jams there, but also creates a safety hazard of grave consequences.
When local streets, like Weir Cyn. Rd., East La Palma Ave. and Gypsum Cyn. Rd., are jammed, emergency vehicles cannot access nearby homes when needed and provide rapid transportaƟon to emergency rooms and hospitals to those in need. To make it even worse, the adjacent residenƟal areas have repeatedly experienced large wiled fires, so when the evacuaƟon routes from those areas are jammed, the residents may not be able to evacuate quickly enough, which can lead to lost lives. Just, please, reflect upon what happened on island of Maui (Hawaii) in August 2023 when fire that erupted there killed 115 people due to intractability of the exisƟng evacuaƟon routes. Do you really want to put the residents in that area in this kind of danger just because the Orange County Cemetery District wants to build a large cemetery there?
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE A PERMIT TO BUILD A CEMETERY AT
GYPSUM CANYON AND, PLEASE, DO NOT REZONE THE PROPOSED SITE OF THE CEMETERY AT GYPSUM CANYON AREA that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery there.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria Tejeda
_______________________________
A copy of your reply to one of the previous OPPOSITION emails:
Re: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim and to rezoning that would allow for construcƟon of any cemetery or cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon Natalie Meeks <[email protected]>
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns, which will be noted for the record.
The proposal for a veterans and public cemetery is sƟll under review by City staff with opportunity for more feedback in the months ahead. As a city, our role is to balance the need and desire for a final veterans and public resƟng place with the concerns of those in the area. We look forward to your future input and involvement as we work through this proposal.
4 As for development costs, those rest with the Orange County Cemetery District, the applicant, and its state and federal partners. All city costs of processing the project applicaƟon are paid by the Orange County Cemetery District. As proposed, the cemetery would provide a place to honor those who served our country and provide a place for their families and loved ones to pay their respects to their memories. It would also provide general public cemetery space for those in the area to pay their respects to their lost loved ones without having to travel to another county.
We have heard from those who support the project as well as from those who oppose it. The county of Orange, which is leading the project, selected this area of county-owned land within Anaheim in part for its remoteness and separaƟon from exisƟng development. Currently, an addendum to FEIR No. 331 is being prepared that will analyze areas of concerns such as traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, and other items.
At this Ɵme, there are no public hearing dates for either Planning Commission or City Council. To keep up to date on the latest informaƟon, visit the project site at Anaheim.net/cemetery or email Project Planner Jose Barriga at [email protected].
If not already, you can join the project interest list at Anaheim.net/cemetery and click `subscribe.' Natalie Meeks
Anaheim Council Member
District 6
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: victoria tejeda
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 10:45 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] June 16, 2024- OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
Please see the below and register my opposiƟon- The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission
To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
2 1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from 3 their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Victoria Tejeda
Sent from my iPhone
1 Jose M. Barriga
From: Wen Chia
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:42 PM
To: Scott Koehm; Jose M. Barriga
Cc: Ashleigh Aitken; Norma C. Kurtz; Natalie Rubalcava; Jose Diaz; Carlos A. Leon; Stephen Faessel; Natalie Meeks; Berenice Ballinas; Nicholas J. Taylor Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSITION to the draft Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecƟng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission To: City of Anaheim Principal Planner Mr. ScoƩ Koehm
To: Mr. Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department Cc: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
Cc: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
Cc: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department Re: OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim Dear Messrs. Koehm and Barriga, Dear Anaheim Planning Commission:
This is a statement of OPPOSITION to the draŌ Report on Cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim for inclusion in the public record of the Anaheim City Planning Commission.
Despite hundreds of objecƟons emails from the local residents that the Anaheim City Council and the Planning Commission have received earlier this year, the Planning Commission has incorrectly concluded that the planned civilian cemetery at Gypsum Canyon will not have a negaƟve impact on the environment, nearby residents, and traffic in surrounding areas.
Below are the major flaws of the draŌ of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will aƩempt to approve during its meeƟng on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report Ɵtled ``Focused Technical Review and 2 Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulƟng and engineering firm:
hƩps://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=73&event_id=2392&meta_id=151541 The report states (see pages 7 and 8 of it):
``ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [ApƟm Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.] done for the Site contains several inconsistencies, the major ones are:
On Page 4-3 of the Phase 1 ESA, it is reported: `No pits, ponds or lagoons uƟlized for waste disposal purposes were observed in the exterior area of the subject property.' This is inaccurate, as ponds used for mining purposes are sƟll present and are visible within the Site and were described in the same document.
The Phase 1 ESA [ApƟm, 2023] concludes that a Phase 2 ESA is not warranted. This is quesƟonable, since it is sƟll unclear if historical impacts from Site past industrial use have been fully miƟgated to today's regulatory requirements (see Geosyntec 2005 reports in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR).
Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005 EIR, probably resulƟng in more analyses, regulatory negoƟaƟons, and potenƟally costly environmental remediaƟon if the Site is developed.'' PLEASE, NOTE: The above facts alone imply that the new EIR is needed for the proposed cemetery project at Gypsum Canyon, and they will make the City of Anaheim vulnerable to a likely lawsuit or lawsuits by environmental organizaƟons should new EIR be not completed.
2. The Traffic Study has not been done and Traffic Report has not been included in said Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission ignores the fact that each funeral procession (which oŌen involves a motorcade that follows it) exiƟng the 91 Fwy at Gypsum Canyon Rd. is likely to slow down traffic on 91 Fwy by about 10 MPH; if that happens during the Ɵme when the 91 Fwy is used to its full capacity (which typically is the case on business days from late morning or early aŌernoon Ɵll about 6 or 7 PM) then the 91 Fwy will get jammed for miles thus causing overflow of traffic on nearby streets and traffic jams on those streets.
3. The Planing Commission failed to analyze the impact of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon on the home prices in the adjacent areas. A comprehensive study ``The Neighborhood Features That Drag Down Your Home Value - Ranked'' available at this link:
hƩps://www.realtor.com/news/trends/things-that-affect-your-property-value/ done by a respectable organizaƟon, Realtor.com, has concluded that the home prices in the areas adjacent to cemeteries are about 12% less then prices of comparable homes that are not situated in proximity of a cemetery.
4. Despite a claim to the contrary in the AƩachment 9 to the draŌ of Planning Commission Report, the outreach to the affected residents has not been done. On the contrary, hundreds, if not thousands, of objecƟon emails from nearby residents that have been sent to the project owner, the Orange County Cemetery District, and to Anaheim City Council and the Planing Commission have been ignored although they provide a clear indicaƟon that said residents are overwhelmingly opposed to turning this prisƟne and scenic landscape of rare beauty that Gypsum Canyon is onto a huge cemetery covered by graves and tombstones that hundreds or thousands of said residents will have direct views on from their loving rooms, bedrooms, and streets - a constant and sad reminder of death and dying that makes it harder for said residents to enjoy their lives in homes that so many of them have worked hard for decades in order to pay off their 3 mortgages. The Planning Commission apparently does not recognize that a negaƟve impact on the enjoyment of life by the nearby residents is a serious and detrimental impact that needs to be accounted for while weighing pros and cons of this highly controversial project.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, do not approve the current draŌ of the Report of the Planning Commission regarding the Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon Project. Please, correct its flaws so that it accounts for the facts that I described above before sending it to the Anaheim City Council for acceptance.
Yours sincerely,
Sent from my iPhone
2 Below are the major flaws of the draft of the Report that the Planning Commission is going to discuss and will attempt to approve during its meeting on June 17, 2024.
1. The Environmental Impact Report that California law requires before any approval is 19-years-old and was done for a totally different project. Here is a link to the most recent (May 17, 2024) report titled ``Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California'' by Geosyntec Consultants, a renowned consulting and engineering firm:
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id