11
Susana Barrios
From: harvey@buildtheveteranscemetery.org <harvey@buildtheveteranscemetery.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 12:39 AM
To: vcgp@va.gov
Cc: bpalmer@strumwooch.com; Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Jose
Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>;
Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; City Manager
<Citymanager@anaheim.net>; City Attorney <cityattorneysoffice@anaheim.net>; t.deutsch@orccd.com;
maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; k.rivers@orccd.com; vladimiraanderson@gmail.com; Cynthia@Ward-Associates.net;
nhatch@fea.net
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Opposition to listing of Gypsum Canyon on the VCGP for the Southern California Veterans
Cemetery
You don't often get email from harvey@buildtheveteranscemetery.org. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear Director of the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program:
The first attachment is a letter to you from me explaining the reasons for my organization’s opposition to the
replacement of the ARDA site in Irvine with the Gypsum Canyon site in Anaheim for the Southern California
Veterans Cemetery if such a request has or will be made by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet).
The second attachment is an extract of minutes of an Orange County \[California\] Cemetery District Board of
Trustees meeting stating that a new EIR is expected to be required for the Gypsum Canyon cemetery.
The third attachment is a report from Geosyntec comparing the construction of the Southern California Veterans
Cemetery (SCVC) on the originally proposed ARDA site with its construction in Anaheim on Gypsum Canyon. The
SCVC is currently listed on the VCGP in Irvine on the ARDA site.
Regards,
Harvey H. Liss, P.E., Ph.D.
Executive Director
Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery
buildthegreatparkveteranscemetery.org
1
buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org
July 16, 2024
Re: OPPOSITION to approving the recent or soon to be received request from the California
Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to list Gypsum Canyon as the location of the Southern
California Veterans Cemetery (SCVC) for a Veterans Cemetery Grant Program (VCGP) grant,
replacing the ARDA site in Irvine.
Veterans Cemetery Grants Program
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Dear Director of the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program:
The Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery committee which is dedicated to building the Southern
California Veterans Cemetery and Memorial Park (SCVC) on the 125-acre ARDA Site in the Great Park,
in Irvine, California, located on the former MCAS El Toro, opposes replacement of the ARDA site
listing of the SCVC for a VCGP grant, by the Gypsum Canyon site in the City of Anaheim, for the
following reasons:
1) The original Irvine and CalVet-approved ARDA (Amended and Restated Development Agreement)
site in the Great Park, in Irvine, is still physically available, is zoned exclusively for a State Veterans
Memorial Park & Cemetery, and we expect will be approved in December of 2024 by a majority
vote of a new Irvine City Council under newly enacted District Elections, if it isn’t approved sooner
by the current City Council. Supporting this expectation is the dis-engagement of a major special
interest (developer) that had been opposed to building the SCVC on the ARDA site and had heavily
influenced Irvine City Councilmembers.
2) On July 23rd, it is expected that the City of Anaheim’s City Council will approve an Amendment to
the 2005 FEIR No. 331 for their Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project rather than requiring a new EIR.
Immediately thereafter, local environmentalists will sue the City for violation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring a new EIR because of the massive changes in the
environment and its requirements that have occurred since the 2005 FEIR was accepted , as well as
significant new geotechnical information regarding the unstable site.
The 244-page Amendment is a clear and obvious testament to the major changes that have
occurred in the project’s environmental impact since 2005 and the need for a completely new EIR
with its required public notification, review and comment period.
To: Director, Veterans Cemetery Grants Program July 16, 2024
buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org
– 2 –
3) The Orange County Cemetery District (OCCD) has been promoting the location of the SCVC at
Gypsum Canyon because the site will be shared with a public cemetery that will benefit from
shared infrastructure and access costs. Contrary to their current submission to the City of
Anaheim, and ironically, an extract from an April 6, 2021 Board meeting (2nd attachment) states:
“The RJM Design team listed the next steps that need to take place…obtaining CEQA
clearances which will more than likely involve an environmental impact report that will take
12 to 18 months to complete…”
…“Trustee Hatch asked if a new EIR is likely going to be required. RJM Design Group and GM
Deutsch felt that it probably would be since the old EIR completed by the Irvine Company is 20
years old and conditions on the site have changed since then.”
4) The voters of Irvine have repeatedly weighed in on the matter, rejecting one scheme after another
influenced by special interests to abandon the ARDA site. For example, we represent the 19,165
Irvine residents who signed our Referendum Petition in 2017 that put a measure on the ballot that
overwhelmingly overturned by a vote of 63% to 37% an ordinance that would have rezoned the
ARDA site for commercial development and enabled a land-swap agreement with the developer.
5) Finally, to thwart the continued threat of developer interests taking control of the ARDA site by a
complicit City Council, Irvine citizens wrote their own Initiative law to specify and ensure that the
original and historic ARDA site with its iconic Control Tower, was the one and only site supported
by the people of Irvine for the SCVC. By the terms of the Initiative Petition signed by 19,795 Irvine
residents and adopted by the Irvine City Council on May 12, 2020, the ARDA site was permanently
reserved for that purpose by being exclusively zoned for the SCVC under Irvine Zoning law.
6) The ARDA site, under Irvine’s development plans for the Great Park, has already been cleared of
its many decayed buildings dating from their military usage and is being prepared for the future,
expected SCVC.
7) Contrary to widespread propaganda listing, veterans organizations that wrote letters of support
for the Gypsum Canyon location, it is believed, did so without polling their members, because they
were not given a choice. We have a list of 1,500 actual veterans and their families who want the
SCVC on the ARDA site. And they strongly want it there because of its historic location on the
former MCAS El Toro where many veterans flew out of and to where many personnel never
returned, and because of its convenient location in central Orange County.
8) A current poll by the local Irvine online newspaper, Irvine Community News & Views with about
300 responses of subscribers shows a 97% choice of the SCVC on the ARDA site in Irvine rather
than at Gypsum Canyon.
9) A recently released report (3rd attachment) by Geosyntec, commissioned by the City of Irvine
compares the costs and complications of building the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon with the ARDA site.
Its conclusion is that it would cost about $100 million more to build the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon
and take 10 years, compared to 3-4 years on the ARDA site.
To: Director, Veterans Cemetery Grants Program July 16, 2024
buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org
– 3 –
10) The Gypsum Canyon site is only 2 miles from the Riverside County border, adjacent to the 91
freeway, a heavily and continuously congested roadway during the day, and only 27 road miles
from the Riverside National Cemetery. Gypsum Canyon is an inconvenient location for Orange
County residents and seemingly too close to the Riverside National Cemetery to satisfy the
Department of Veterans Affairs cemetery separation requirements.
11) Councilmember Larry Agran, who first introduced the Resolution in 2014 designating the ARDA
site for the SCVC, and who has been fighting to get it built there ever since, lost his seat on the
Council at the following election from massive propaganda funded by developer opposition, but
regained his 4-year Council seat in 2020. He is currently running for mayor and is expected to win.
He has been a major, altruistic force for 32 years on the City Council as mayor and councilmember
since 1978 and will lead the effort for a favorable Council majority vote on redesignating the ARDA
site for the SCVC. The truth is that since 2017, all it has taken for the City of Irvine to begin
negotiation with the State for transfer of the ARDA to the State for the SCVC has been a majority
City Council vote.
Sincerely yours,
Harvey H. Liss, P.E., Ph.D.
Executive Director
Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery
buildtheveteranscemetery.org
harvey@buildtheveteranscemetery.org
cc: Beverly Palmer, Atty, Strumwasser & Woocher
City of Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, City of Anaheim Councilmembers;
City Manager and City Attorney
Orange County Cemetery District General Manager Tim Deutsch & Board of Trustees
3530 Hyland Ave., Suite 100
Costa Mesa, California 92626
PH 714.969.0800
FAX 714.969.0820
www.geosyntec.com
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Technical Memorandum
Date: May 17, 2024
To: Mr. Joel Belding, City of Irvine
Mr. Sean Crumby, City of Irvine
From: Saverio Siciliano, P.G., C.E.G., Geosyntec Consultants
Sneha Upadhyaya, Ph.D., P.E., Geosyntec Consultants
Yonas Zemuy, P.E., Geosyntec Consultants
Subject: Focused Technical Review and Feasibility Assessment of the Proposed
Veterans Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Site, Anaheim, California
This memorandum presents a focused technical review and feasibility assessment of the Gypsum
Canyon Site, located in Anaheim, California, as a potential location for the development of a
proposed Veterans Cemetery (the Project). Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) prepared this draft
memorandum for the City of Irvine (City). This memorandum pertains to the review of documents
listed in the References Section.
BACKGROUND
Geosyntec understands that the State of California (State) is planning to develop a Southern
California Veterans Cemetery (SCVC) in Orange County, and the Department of General Services
(DGS) is assisting the state with the location selection for the SCVC. DGS is considering
developing the SCVC cemetery on a 153-acre site within a 283-acre [GMU, 2023a] undeveloped
property known as Gypsum Canyon (Site) in the City of Anaheim, California. The Site is currently
owned by the Orange County Cemetery District (OCCD). The Site is located near State Routes 91
and 241 and can be accessed from the intersection of Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon
Road.
Based on the review of public documents, a portion of the Site was used as a testing facility for
rocket fuel by McDonnell Douglas/Astropower between 1961 and 1991 [City of Anaheim, 2005].
In the 1950s and until 1992, the Site was used as a mine facility for sand and gravel source that
was extracted by surface mining operations by Robertson’s Ready Mix [GMU, 2023a].
Approximately 40 years after the surface mine was established, the southeasterly area of the site
was used as an asphalt batch plant by All American Asphalt Company.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 2
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Surface mining and batch plant operations significantly altered the natural topography of the site.
Prior to the surface mining operations, the site consisted of a series north-northwesterly trending
ridgelines. These ridgelines previously reached elevations of 900 to 940 feet above mean sea level
(msl; USGS, 1954). Today, the area of this previous topographic high has an approximate elevation
of 600 to 640 feet above msl, indicating an approximately 300-foot vertical reduction. Topographic
reduction of a lesser scale occurred throughout portions of the site [GMU, 2023a].
Based on conceptual design plans [Huitt Zollars and Rhaa, 2023], development of the SCVC will
include: overall site preparation; remedial and mass grading (including stabilization of an existing
large landslide); utilities installation; construction of access roads; full perimeter walls; stormwater
treatment and detention facilities; administration and maintenance buildings; ceremonial entrance;
cortege assembly area; committal service shelter; flag and assembly area; memorial walkway; in-
ground cremains plots and columbaria niches; and other ancillary infrastructure.
Based on the review of the Project Cost Summary prepared by DGS [2023], the total project cost
for Phase 1 of the SCVC development is estimated to be $126,031,800, as summarized in Table 1
below:
Table 1. Project Cost Summary for Phase 1 of the SCVC prepared by DGS [2023]
Element Estimated
Cost
Construction/Hard Costs $73,071,500
Escalation $14,731,200
Contingency at 5% $4,390,100
Subtotal $92,192,800
Soft Costs $33,839,000
Total Cost $126,031,800
Note:Detailed breakdown of the above costs by DGS or description of how DGS
calculated the above costs was not provided to Geosyntec.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 3
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Geosyntec also reviewed the Final Concept Plan Cost Estimate prepared by Huitt-Zollars [2023]
for the SCVC Phase 1 development, a summary of which is provided in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Project Cost Summary for Phase 1 of the SCVC prepared by Huitt-Zollars [2023]
Element Estimated
Cost
Construction Costs:
01. Site Work $59,769,038
02. Administration and Public Restroom Buildings $2,437,948
03. Maintenance Building $3,429,131
Total Construction Cost $66,175,208
Total OCCD Costs for Possible State Participation $46,546,400
Total Add Alternatives Cost (Section 23-Crypts,
Memorial Wall, Carillion Tower)
$7,058,578
Total Other Costs (Operations Equipment) $45,668
Total Cost $119,825,854
Notes:
1. The above cost estimate by Huitt-Zollars [2023] is based on the OCCD proceeding to
develop their Site first which will include the development of Site infrastructure such as
access road, bridges over Gypsum Creek, storm drain, offsite waterline extension, and
electrical communication systems. An estimate of total OCCD costs for possible state
participation is included assuming that OCCD may request that the State participate
financially in these improvements which are mutually beneficial to both OCCD and the
State.
2. The above cost estimate by Huitt-Zollars [2023] does not include soft costs (i.e., design
and engineering fees), environmental assessment/hazardous material abatement fees,
building permits and fees, inspection and testing fees, construction contingency, and
project cost escalation fees.
Note that while the total estimated costs by DGS [2023] and Huitt-Zollars [2023] are close, there
is some discrepancy, the cause of which is unknown at this time since a detailed breakdown of the
DGS [2023] estimated costs was not readily available to Geosyntec.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 4
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
To assist with the technical feasibility of the Site for the proposed SCVC, Geosyntec reviewed the
project documents listed in the References Section and offers the comments described in the
following sections.
GENERAL CIVIL COMMENTS
The Site is currently vacant, and following the cessation of mining activities, has been left as
unimproved open space. Based on our review of the referenced documents, the Site has no
established water, sewer, or gas connections. Also, construction of a permanent vehicular access
across Gypsum Creek (i.e. a bridge), paved roads, and other basic infrastructure will be needed.
The costs associated with utilities connection and the necessary civil improvements (not including
the costs for site grading/earthwork) are estimated by Huitt-Zollars [2023] to be in the order of
$60,923,000, itemized into different categories as summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Estimated cost for Civil Improvements for Phase 1 of the SCVC based on Huitt-Zollars
[2023].
Key Project Element Estimated Cost
Site Preparation and Clearing $1,899,000
Site Improvements (Roads, Parking, Landscaping) $24,923,000
Wet Utility Site Improvements $14,080,000
Dry Utility Site Improvements $590,000
Structural Buildings (Admin and Public Restroom,
Maintenance, and Committal Shelter)
$6,406,000
Total OCCD Costs for Possible State Participation $13,025,000
Total $60,923,000
Note:
1.The above estimated costs do not include site grading/earthwork costs (separately discussed later under
comments related to geologic hazards).
Although the site consists mostly of open land, a segment of the Questar natural gas pipeline
transects the southern region of the site. The Questar pipeline is reported as 16 inches in diameter
and has a general east to west alignment [GMU, 2023a]. This segment of the Questar pipeline will
require relocation prior to proposed grading activities associated with the project. This is a major
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 5
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
utility line, and cost and schedule impacts associated with the relocation of the pipeline do not
appear to have been reflected in the project’s cost estimate reviewed by Geosyntec. Geosyntec
estimated that an additional Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost range of $135,000 to $260,000
estimated at approximately $95 to $185 per linear foot for an approximate pipe length of 1,400
feet will be required to relocate the pipeline. This ROM does not include design, permitting,
construction management and connection costs.
GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS
The reviewed geotechnical reports [GMU, 2023a,b], prepared for the State of California
Department of General Services and California Department of Veteran Affairs, generally follow a
methodology consistent with the local standard of practice for similar projects. The key elements
of the reports include:
Reviewing past geotechnical information;
Assessing geologic risk;
Performing a geotechnical field investigation;
Performing a geotechnical laboratory testing program;
Developing geotechnical parameters for Site geologic materials;
Conducting slope stability analyses; and
Providing geotechnical recommendations for the design in a report documenting the above
steps.
While the above steps are described in the geotechnical design reports, the following sections
provide our selected review comments.
COMMENTS RELATED TO SEISMICITY
The geotechnical report [GMU, 2023b] states on page 10: “The site is not within a designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults are known to exist within the site.
However, localized folding and faulting of strata are present on the eastern margin of the site that
is associated with the mapped shear zone shown on the Geotechnical Map – Plate 2.0. Adjacent
to the eastern margin of the site is the Elsinore Fault zone and the Chino Fault zone is located
about 4 miles from the site.”
The geotechnical report [GMU, 2023b] does not mention that the active Glen Ivy Section of the
Elsinore Fault has been mapped by the California Geologic Survey approximately 2 miles east of
the site and is trending towards the site, which due to this fault Right-Lateral sense of movement,
creates a concern for the Site, as focused seismic energy can be directed towards the Site and
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 6
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
amplified by the liquefiable soils associated with the Santa Ana River alluvial plain mapped under
areas of the Site. Due to the Site’s proximity to a major active fault, additional seismic analyses to
assess seismic ground motions (in addition to using the Caltrans basic ARS Online tool utilized by
the consultant) are warranted, including comparing records of existing strong motions with the
calculated seismic parameters for the Site and performing a site-specific seismic site-response
analysis.
The geotechnical report [GMU, 2023a] recommends a spread-footing foundation type for the
proposed bridge to provide vehicular access across Gypsum Creek, and other cemetery ancillary
structures. In Geosyntec’s experience, pile foundations or tie-downs are generally necessary to
prevent foundation uplift due to Site seismicity and associated ground motions. While the GMU
[2023a] report recommends spread footings for the proposed bridge, review of the final concept
plan prepared by Hutt-Zollars and Rhaa [2023] indicates that OCCD’s design team is currently
proposing deep foundations systems (i.e., caissons or piles) for the bridge and the Huitt-Zollars
[2023] cost estimate included deep (pile) foundations provided under the OCCD costs for possible
state participation.
However, additional costs associated with the development of site-specific seismic response
analysis generally required for the bridge and other cemetery structures in similar seismic settings
do not appear to have been included in the final concept plan cost estimate for the project.
COMMENTS RELATED TO GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The Site presents several geologic hazards such as a large landslide re-activated by mining
operations and generally unfavorable bedrock bedding conditions. These hazards require
mitigation consisting of landslide headscarp removal and reconstruction with an engineered
buttress, and construction of a large toe buttress key. The costs for landslide and unsuitable soils
mitigation have been included under site earthwork and is estimated at $51,798,000 [Huitt-Zollars,
2023].
In addition to landslide mitigation and unfavorable bedrock conditions, other geologic hazards
such as liquefaction potential, seismic-induced settlement, lateral spreading, and unsuitable soils
requiring remedial measures exist at the Site.
While the large landslide mitigation costs are included in the mass grading, additional costs
associated with liquefaction and seismic settlement mitigation generally required for the type of
proposed structural improvements do not appear to have been included in the final concept plan
cost estimate for the project. Based on our experience with similar projects/sites, we estimate that
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 7
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
an additional remedial ROM cost of $8,000,0001 will be needed for potential liquefaction and
seismic settlement mitigation.
Furthermore, portion of the site is underlined by artificial untested fill that generally consists of
clay and silt with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, and boulders. This artificial fill also contains
varying amounts of man-made debris (concrete wash-out deposits, rebar, metal, and concrete
piping, etc.). The variation of the characteristics of the soil and rock materials underlying the site
(i.e., materials ranging from gravely sands to silty clays and man-made construction debris) can
have adverse impacts on settlement and infiltration rates, potentially affecting adjacent slopes
and/or improvements.
Additional costs, schedule delays, and difficulties associated with the removal and disposal of the
unsuitable oversize material and construction debris do not appear to have been included in the
final concept plan cost estimate for the project. While this additional cost for removal and disposal
of unsuitable oversize material and construction debris is difficult to be quantified at this time, it
should be noted that this cost can be significant cost to the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
The latest Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) [Aptim, 2023] 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 historical McDonnell Douglas/Astropower facility used for rocket fuel testing between 1961
and 1991 at the Site, which is mentioned in Appendix J of the 2005 EIR No. 331 for the previously
proposed Mountain Park Development Site, is not mentioned in the 2023 Phase 1 ESA. The center
of the rocket fuel testing was located approximately 1 mile south of the mouth of Gypsum Canyon.
The 2023 Phase 1 ESA concludes that no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), no
Historical RECs (HRECs), no Controlled RECs (CRECs), nor petroleum products were
encountered within the Site. The historical McDonnell Douglas/Astropower facility should be
considered an HREC, at a minimum.
1 Limited liquefaction mitigation for administration and public restroom buildings, maintenance buildings, committal
shelter and bridge.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 8
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
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.
Additional costs associated with the potential extensive environmental remediation work and
additional required analysis necessary to meet current regulatory requirements for the type of
proposed site improvements do not appear to have been included in the final concept plan cost
estimate for the project. While these costs are dependent on several factors such as the extent and
nature of remediation as informed by additional testing and analyses and are difficult to be
quantified at this time, it should be noted that these might add significant costs to the project.
CONCLUSIONS
The sections above present geotechnical and environmental remediation considerations whose
estimated costs for the Site do not appear to have been included in the final concept plan cost
estimate prepared by Huitt-Zollars [2023] for the project.
A summary of these additional items/considerations and our estimated ROM costs is provided in
Table 4 below.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 9
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Table 4. Additional Cost Items and Estimated ROM Costs
Additional Cost Items Estimated ROM Cost
1. Engineering, design and permitting $12,000,000
1
2. Questar pipeline relocation and associated
permitting
$135,000 to $260,000
3. Liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading
mitigation
$8,000,000
4. Unsuitable soils/untested fill/man-made
debris mitigation
Unknown at this time but
significant added cost to the project
5. Potential environmental legacy
contamination/regulatory negotiation
Unknown at this time but
significant added cost to the project
(could be in the order of several
million dollars)
Total Additional Costs costs upwards of $20,260,000
Note:
1.Engineering, design, and permitting costs assumed as 10% of the total project construction costs.
Based on the above, it would be advantageous to find an alternate site that does not require such
extensive civil/geotechnical improvements due to its geologic setting or has a potential for further
environmental remediation due to its past site use. For comparison purposes, Table 5 compares the
estimated costs for Phase 1 for the Gypsum Canyon Site against the estimated costs for Phase 1 of
the alternate ARDA Site.
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 10
Table 5. Comparison of Estimated Costs for Phase 1 of SCVC at Gypsum Canyon versus ARDA
Site
Elements Estimated Costs for Phase 1 SCVC
Gypsum Canyon1 ARDA2
Construction/Hard Costs $73,071,500 $25,347,000
Escalation $14,731,200 $1,277,500
Contingency at 5% $4,390,100 $1,331,300
Subtotal $92,192,800 $27,955,800
Soft Costs $33,839,000 $14,566,500
Total Cost $126,031,800 $42,522,300
Additional Cost Items (Geosyntec
Estimate)
costs upwards of
$20,260,0003
--
Note:
1. Cost estimate from DGS (2023).
2. Cost estimate provided by the City of Irvine and based on the DGS estimate dated May 2018 updated to account for
inflation to 11/2023 using Consumer Price Index (CPI) and current site conditions (i.e., building demolition and
disposal is complete, site demolition and disposal and Hazardous waste remediation/removal is
ongoing/substantially complete, and site utility development is ongoing, with City of Irvine bearing the costs for
these items).
3. See Table 4 above.
As summarized in Table 5 above, the costs for development of Phase 1 of the SCVC at the ARDA
site will be cheaper in the order of $100,000,000 than at the Gypsum Canyon.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 11
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
REFERENCES
Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC. 2023. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, Anaheim, CA 92808. June 14.
California Department of General Services (DGS). 2023. Real Estate Services Division Project
Management and Development Branch Project Cost Summary, Southern California Veterans
Cemetery Gypsum Canyon Anaheim Hills, CA. December 19.
City of Anaheim. 2005. Mountain Park Specific Plan Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 331, SCH No. 2004071098. Volume III - Technical Appendices. Appendix J
Environmental Site Assessment. March.
City of Anaheim. 2005. Mountain Park, Specific Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 331, SCH No. 2004071098, Volume IV – Responses to Comments. July.
GMU Engineers and Geologists. 2023a. Final Preliminary Report of Geotechnical Studies and
Review of Preliminary Grading Plan for Tentative Parcel Map 2022-160, Gypsum Canyon
Cemetery Site, City of Anaheim, California. Orange County Cemetery District. June 12.
GMU Engineers and Geologists. 2023b. Geotechnical Investigation and Design Recommendations
Report, Southern California Veterans Cemetery Project, Gypsum Canyon Site, Tentative
Parcel Map 2022-160, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, California. GMU Project No.
23 070-00. August 29.
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 2023. Final Concept Plan Cost Estimate - R3, Southern California Veterans
Cemetery, Gypsum Canyon - Phase 1, Anaheim, CA. OCMI JOB #: 230188.000.
21 November.
Huitt Zollars and Rhaa Landscape Architecture and Planning. 2023. Final Concept Plan,
Geotechnical Investigation and Design Recommendation Report, Southern California
Veterans Cemetery – Gypsum Canyon Site Anaheim, California. November.
OCCD. 2023. Gypsum Canyon Cemetery and Veterans Cemetery Project Description, Anaheim,
California. December.
RJM Design Group. 2023. CCD Public Cemetery Master Plan, Gypsum Canyon Cemetery
Development, Orange County, California. Orange County Cemetery District. February 15.
* * * * *