11 (13)
Susana Barrios
From: Beverly Palmer <
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Public Comment <publiccomment@anaheim.net>; Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz
<JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Norma
C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>;
City Manager <Citymanager@anaheim.net>; City Attorney <cityattorneysoffice@anaheim.net>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] City Council July 23 Agenda Item, Public Hearing Item 11, Gypsum Canyon
You don't often get email from bpalmer@strumwooch.com. 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.
Please see the attached communication regarding the inadequate environmental review for the proposed General Plan
and zoning amendments to permit cemetery development in Gypsum Canyon.
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
Phone: 310-576-1233
Direct: 310-933-5930
Email: bpalmer @strumwooch.com
1250 6th Street, Suite 205
Santa Monica, CA 90401
www.strumwooch.com
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
1
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 205
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310) 576-1233
Facsimile: (310) 319-0156 www.strumwooch.com
Caroline Chiappetti
Bryce Gee
Dale Larson
Julia Michel †
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Salvador Pérez
Michael J. Strumwasser
Senior Counsel:
Andrea Sheridan Ordin
Fredric D. Woocher
† Also admitted to practice
in Washington
July 22, 2024
City Council of the City of Anaheim
VIA EMAIL to PublicComment@Anaheim.net
Re: July 23 Agenda Item No. 11, Public Hearing Item
Failure to Conduct Adequate Environmental Review under
California Environmental Quality Act
To the Honorable City Council of the City of Anaheim:
This office represents Shaun Bell, Cyrus Pourhass, Franny Yen, Robert
Tillmon, William Wickersheim, Casey Gorzeman, Githa Hampson, Cathy and
Scott Dicken, Aaron Pourhassanian, Bruce Handy, Jeff Grant, Thomas J. Stamatis
and Mark Pryor, who are either residents of the City of Anaheim or of the City of
Yorba Linda, immediately adjacent to Anaheim, who are all concerned about the
use and development of Gypsum Canyon for cemetery purposes.
The City Council should deny the requested General Plan, Zoning Code,
and Specific Plan amendments. There has not been adequate environmental
review to determine that cemetery use should be permissible in Development
Area 5 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan (MPSP). Indeed, the process employed
by the Orange County Cemetery District has resulted in the public being frozen
out of the ability to comment, relying solely on a nearly 20-year old
environmental review for a completely different project. There has been no public
comment period on the environmental analysis, and the document analyzing the
environmental impacts – an Addendum to a 20-year old Environmental Impact
Report – was not even readily available for public review until the agenda for this
Council meeting was made public, far from the typical 30-day public comment
period for a document under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Council should require this project to obtain a comprehensive and current
environmental review before approving cemetery use at this site.
As far back as April 2021, the Orange County Cemetery District (OCCD)
recognized that the environmental review process for this project necessitated
additional environmental review due to the age of the environmental documents.
Exhibit A consists of the April 6, 2021 minutes of the OCCD Board of Trustees.
Anaheim City Council
July 22, 2024
Page 2
The City Council can see for itself – the Trustees were advised that a new Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) would likely be required because the prior environmental document was twenty
years old and conditions on the site had changed since then. (See Exhibit A, p. 5.)
Yet no EIR was prepared. Instead, the Council is presented with a 244-page addendum.
No public comment period was provided for the addendum. And the addendum contains no
alternatives analysis for the proposed cemetery project on DA 5. The OCCD’s presentation on
the proposed cemetery acknowledges that there are alternatives to the proposed plan (see Exhibit
A, p. 4), and of course there are also alternative locations, such as the City of Irvine Great Park,
that are suitable for a Veteran’s Cemetery. A key purpose of CEQA is to analyze alternatives to a
proposed project, and there has been no such analysis prepared or presented to the Council for its
informed consideration.
Indeed, this is a fundamentally flawed approach. The Council is being presented with a
20-year old EIR for a large residential planned community, and a very abbreviated addendum to
that now college-aged document. The residential planned community approved in 2005 has not
been built, and never will be built, due to transfer restrictions imposed by The Irvine Company.
The entire context of the analysis is fundamentally flawed, for several reasons.
First, the project objectives of the 2005 EIR are now entirely irrelevant. The addendum
identifies such objectives as a “broad mix of housing opportunities” and “provide new homes for
sale to address Orange County’s housing shortage,” as well as improvement of air quality and
transportation by locating housing near employment and transportation. None of those objectives
has any relationship to the construction of a public cemetery. To the extent that the Council is
considering the wisdom of constructing a cemetery in this specific location, it is not being
presented with a proper environmental document to make this determination.
Critically, the fundamental circumstances under which the project is being constructed
are totally different due to the land transfer and recognition that this area will not be used for a
large number of homes. The real trade-off that the Council is considering is not whether to build
the 2005 housing project or the cemetery – the actual trade-off is open space versus cemetery
use. Yet this fundamental fact is not analyzed anywhere in the Addendum. Nor could it or should
it be – such a fundamental change in circumstances is a paradigmatic example of why a new EIR
– not a twenty year old EIR- is required. The Addendum’s approach is blinkered, simply
considered whether the originally approved housing project would have different impacts than a
proposed cemetery. But since that is not the actual question, these answers are largely irrelevant.
Consider the question from this vantage point: Could a member of the public in 2005
have commented intelligently on the proposed cemetery project, or anything related to it?
Clearly, the answer is no. The cemetery project was not even remotely under consideration in
Anaheim City Council
July 22, 2024
Page 3
2005. And have things changed since 2005? The answer is clearly “Yes.” The Irvine Company
transferred all of this property in 2014 into public ownership when it determined that the 2005
project was infeasible, and these property transfers were intended for open space purposes.
While the Addendum alludes to the changed status, it is fundamentally misleading to simply
compare the 2005 project to the cemetery project, given the changed circumstances making
residential use of any of this property or the surrounding property virtually unforeseeable at any
time. An EIR is supposed to utilize a current baseline and a reasonably foreseeable future
baseline – the Addendum does neither.
An examination of the Addendum illustrates what a poor fit this document is as a means
of analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed cemetery project. The 2005 document is
so aged that it lacked complete analysis of Energy, Greenhouse Gases, Tribal Resources, and
Wildfire. Traffic impacts in the 2005 EIR were analyzed under an LOS standard instead of a
VMT standard. The list of “project design features” showing which of the features from 2005 are
applicable to the proposed project shows that roughly two-thirds of those features are not
applicable to the proposed project. There is much that has changed in the twenty years since the
last environmental review.
There are also specific environmental areas where the Addendum’s analysis appears
patently inaccurate.
Inadequate Land Use Analysis. The Addendum fails to disclose the significance of the
2014 transfer of the project lands by The Irvine Company. The Addendum explains that the
property owned “donated land to Orange County for preservation as a conservation easement.”
(p. 3-3.) The surrounding lands are “subject to the conservation easement conditions established
by OC Parks Foundation.” The Addendum blithely contends that “this change does not affect
DA 5, which is referred to as the ‘Unencumbered Parcel’” in the 2014 deed. The Addendum
therefore concludes that “the project site has not undergone any changes with respect to land use
and planning” in the last 20 years. To completely write off the The Irvine Company land transfer
and its conservation easements as irrelevant to the question of land use and planning when
considering the cemetery project site is to create a counter-factual universe. There is now a very
large, continuous wilderness park in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery site, a fact that
should be considered and analyzed in the environmental document.
Biological Resources. At the time the EIR was prepared, DA 5 was a former quarry.
Since then, the quarry has been stabilized. As a result of that stabilization and the passage of
time, “the project site contains oak trees designated as Specimen Trees under Section 18.112.070
of the City’s Municipal Code.” (Addendum, p. 3-23.) (Note that this is a new and more
protective provision of the code than was analyzed twenty years ago.) While disclosing this bare
minimum fact, the Addendum contains no information about the trees: how many are there?
Anaheim City Council
July 22, 2024
Page 4
What is their condition? What is the habitat value of these trees? Indeed, there is no information
provided on the possible habitat value of the site, given the conservation of all the surrounding
property, a fundamental change in circumstance requiring a new EIR. As the OCParks
announced in November 2023 (see https://www.ocparks.com/news/oc-parks-opens-gypsum-
canyon-wilderness), the Gypsum Canyon area generally is home to “an abundance of wildlife
including mule deer, red-tailed hawks, California gnatcatchers and bobcats.” In light of these
facts provided by the County, the City should not be entitled to simply rely on a twenty-year old
EIR that considered the site under entirely different circumstances.
Traffic. The entirety of the traffic analysis rests on a fundamental flaw because it uses
the wrong baseline. The 2005 project cannot be considered the baseline, because that project will
never be constructed. So, to conclude that the cemetery will generate less traffic than the 2005
project is a meaningless and misleading conclusion. The proper question for analysis is what are
the cemetery’s impacts compared to the present day and reasonably foreseeable future use of the
site.
In more detailed review, the Addendum admits that at present, the intersection of
Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road has an unsatisfactory performance. (See
Addendum, pp. 3-100 and 3-101.) At present, there are additional impacts at this intersection due
to queueing of vehicles for the eastbound SR-91 on ramp. The Addendum considers whether a
traffic signal for this intersection would be appropriate but concludes that it does not meet the
warrant requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD). There are no
details provided as to why the intersection does not satisfy these requirements. Moreover, by
considering how much “less bad” the traffic would be from the proposed cemetery than from the
moribund housing project approved in 2005, the Addendum entirely fails as an informational
document.
Geology. The City of Irvine engaged Geosyntec to evaluate the feasibility of cemetery
construction on the proposed Gypsum Canyon site. (See Exhibit B.) While the Addendum states
that the site is not in a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, Geosyntec notes 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 amplified by the liquefiable soils associated with the Santa
Ana River alluvial plain mapped under areas of the Site.” Geosyntec recommended additional
seismic analysis.
Geosyntec also observed that “the Site presents several geologic hazards such as a large
landslide re-activated by mining operations and generally unfavorable bedrock bedding
Anaheim City Council
July 22, 2024
Page 5
conditions.” Geosyntec commented that such hazards “require mitigation,” at an estimated cost
of over $51 million.
Parks and Recreation. This section of the Addendum reveals how significantly the
environmental setting for the project has changed in 20 years. While the 2005 EIR discussed
various off-site recreational areas to serve the future residents of the housing project, the
cemetery now proposed would be directly adjacent to the Gypsum Canyon Wilderness Area. The
EIR and Addendum focus on whether there would be any increased demand on existing
recreational facilities from the project, but given the changed circumstances in the area
surrounding the project, the question should be whether the cemetery project would have an
impact on the existing recreation facilities and wilderness uses in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project.
Hazardous Materials. As Geosyntec observed (Exhibit B), the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) was inadequate, failing to disclose historic uses that are likely sources of
contaminants on the site. “Furthermore, regulatory requirements have changed since the 2005
EIR, probably resulting in more analysis, regulatory negotiations, and potentially costly
environmental remediation if the Site is developed.” The failure to properly analyze the current
requirements for remediation means the 2005 EIR and Addendum do not fully disclose the
impacts of cemetery development.
Overall, the use of the 2005 EIR as the basis to evaluate the impacts of the cemetery
projects results in a fundamentally misleading and biased presentation. Of course, the impacts of
constructing a cemetery on a portion of a much larger planned residential community site are less
if that is the basis for comparison. But there is no reason for this to be the basis of comparison,
because the correct environmental baseline is not the approved project. Legally and practically,
the approved housing project will not be constructed. This fundamental error taints the entire
reliance on the Addendum. Exhibit C to this letter, and its exhibits, set forth the terms under
which the County and the OCCD acquired this property, making it fully clear that the housing
project approved in 2005 will never be constructed. While the Addendum contends that this site
is not subject to a conservation easement, it was nevertheless transferred to the County with the
express direction that it is to be used for park purposes only.
The City should decline to approve this project and its legislative entitlements, and
should instead require the preparation of a full and adequate EIR for the cemetery project, that
considers the objectives of that project, alternatives to that project (including different locations),
and the impacts of that project compared to what might realistically be constructed at that site in
the future. If the City does not comply with CEQA in its review of the zone and plan
amendments necessary for the cemetery project, it risks a legal challenge that will highlight how
Anaheim City Council
July 22, 2024
Page 6
the City’s review of this project has relied upon a patently improper premise to compare the
project’s impacts to a never-to-be-built housing project.
Yours truly,
Beverly Grossman Palmer
Enclosures: Exhibit A - OC Cemetery District April 6, 2021 Minutes
Exhibit B - May 21, 2024 Memo Re Presentation of
Technical Report Re: Proposed Gypsum Canyon Site
Exhibit C - Investigative Report on Development of a Gypsum Canyon
Veterans Cemetery
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Memo
To: Oliver C. Chi, City Manager
From: Larry Agran, Vice Mayor
Date: May 21, 2024 LA
Re: Presentation of Focused Technical Report Regarding Proposed Gypsum
Canyon Site for the State-Funded Southern California Veterans Cemetery
Recently, the City Council was provided with a report prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants that contained details related to a focused technical review and feasibility
assessment regarding the proposed Gypsum Canyon site for the planned State-funded
Southern California Veterans Cemetery. A copy of that assessment is included as an
attachment to this memorandum.
The assessment that was performed of the Gypsum Canyon site, which was coordinated
through an in-depth review of publicly available documentation, identifies several
significant potential issues that could negatively impact the eventual delivery of the
proposed State-funded Southern California Veterans Cemetery.
I am requesting that staff agendize a presentation on the report findings at our May 28,
2024, Great Park Board Meeting.
cc: Great Park Board / City Council
City Clerk
City Attorney
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 $12,000,0001
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.
Furthermore, construction of Phase 1 at the ARDA site is estimated to be able to be performed
within 36 to 48 months, per verbal information provided by the City of Irvine. In comparison,
Phase 1 construction of the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon is estimated to take 10 years, based on the
100-year total duration for the 10-phase masterplan. This extended construction period of the
Phase 1 construction for the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon is likely to result in additional costs,
which will increase the chance of encountering potential change of conditions and regulations
during the construction phase. This timing factor should be taken into account as part of the
overall SCVC project at 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.
* * * * *
EXHIBIT C
Investigative Report on
Development of a State Veterans Cemetery
at
GYPSUM CANYON
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Report Dated: December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Author
Michelle Johnson is a former executive in banking, real estate and finance with 27 years of
experience. She was previously a Managing Director and National Group Head in Real Estate
at Banc of America Securities where she worked for 17 years.
Contact: ocveteranscemetery@gmail.com
Contributing Author
Theodore R. Johnson, III, a US Army veteran, is a California Professional Geologist,
Certified Engineering Geologist, and Certified Hydrogeologist with 34 years of experience.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
II. History and Ownership ............................................................................................................ 1
III. County of Orange – Ownership and Transfers ....................................................................... 2
Ownership .......................................................................................................................2
Transfers from Orange County to Orange County Cemetery District ...............................4
IV. Orange County Cemetery District (“OCCD”) ........................................................................ 7
OCCD Preliminary Business Plan and Funding Sources ............................................... 12
Sources and Uses for Phase 1a and 1b .......................................................................... 14
V. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 15
VI. References............................................................................................................................... 17
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Irvine Company Open Space Addition Map
Exhibit B: Letter of Intent – Conveyance of Irvine Company Land to County
Exhibit C: Donation, Conveyance & Implementation Agreement (2014 Donation)
Exhibit D: Major Fire Ignitions – Gypsum Canyon Area
Exhibit E: CalFire Map: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 1 | 18
I. Introduction
The discussion of various sites within Orange County for a State Veterans Cemetery has recently
brought forward a new site for consideration called Gypsum Canyon. This is the fourth site to be
considered for a State Veterans Cemetery and is unique in that it is proposed to be a shared site
with the for-profit Orange County Cemetery District who would manage a public cemetery on
approximately half the developable acreage. The sites that have completed studies by CalVet
include the ARDA site, the Strawberry Fields site, and the Golf Site. Currently, the ARDA site is
the only site exclusively zoned for a State Veterans Cemetery in Irvine, and the Golf site which
requires a successful ballot initiative to overturn the ARDA site zoning, remain available for
consideration. The purpose of this investigative report is to identify potential issues with the
Gypsum Canyon site that would cause delays, substantial cost increases, ongoing maintenance
issues or otherwise cause barriers to realize a State Veterans Cemetery as soon as possible.
II. History and Ownership
The subject property represents 283.3 acres of contiguous land near the intersection of the 241
Eastern Toll Road and the State Route 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County and is part of
the area known as Gypsum Canyon. It is 5 miles from the Riverside County border and 27.6
miles from Riverside National Cemetery. This property was part of the Irvine Ranch which
spanned over 93,000 acres and represents approximately 1/5th of the land mass of Orange
County. Over the past 50 years, The Irvine Company (“TIC”), now controlled by Donald L.
Bren, developed a plan to permanently preserve open space and parkland through the donation of
over 55,000 acres or approximately 60% of the Irvine Ranch. This continued a long tradition
dating back to 1897 when TIC made its first public land donation of 304 acres to the people of
Orange County for what today is Irvine Regional Park.
In 2014, the remaining 1,073.9 acres of Gypsum Canyon was donated as part of a total 2,500-
acre gift to the County of Orange as TIC celebrated their 150th anniversary. The majority of
Gypsum Canyon and the adjacent Weir Canyon were donated as part of a 20,000-acre gift to the
County of Orange in 2010. The following is from a press release from TIC announcing the gift:
“The lands represented by this new gift are last pieces of a spectacular open space puzzle
that has been assembled on the Irvine Ranch. Preserving these areas protects the balance
of stewardship and recreation that ensures the long-term health of this tremendous natural
resource. I can’t even begin to guess what the value of this property is. But in term of its
biological and geologic value, it is truly priceless. It’s a world-class piece of land.”
- Michael O’Connell
Executive Director
Irvine Ranch Conservancy
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times (6/30/2010), “the land is important
ecologically as it is what scientists call a Mediterranean climate zone, an area characterized by
dry, mild weather and coastal fog that covers just 2% of the planet but contains 20% of all
known plant species.” Albert Bennett, dean of the School of Biological Sciences at UC Irvine
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 2 | 18
stated “the land is truly magnificent, a globally important ‘hotspot’ of biological diversity.
Students and faculty travel the world to study similarly endowed open spaces and these local
lands rival many of those places in their diversity and biological importance.”
Supervisor Todd Spitzer, who represented the 3rd District where the gifted land is located,
provided the following comments at the Board of Supervisors (“BOS”) meeting on November
18, 2014, before unanimous approval of the donation of the lands to the County of Orange:
“Before us today is a gift of 2500 acres – 2500 acres – that will not only expand Irvine
Regional Park but also complete the preservation of the county’s northeastern canyons.
This gift will combine with the previous Irvine Company donations to create an unbroken
stretch of preserved land from Irvine to Anaheim Hills all the way down to the 91 and
from Orange to the Cleveland National Forest. These permanently preserved canyons,
hills, and meadows, are really a treasure.” Spitzer continued, “The County has chosen to
expand our open space partnership by foregoing development here, to enhance
recreational enjoyment and wildlife preservation. It’s not a lot of times you can announce
publicly that an individual has entitlements for thousands of homes and instead is going
to dedicate that land for permanent open space in perpetuity that is significant. Spitzer
continued “We’re making an open space investment for generations to come.”
Supervisor Spitzer made no mention in his comments about any provision for a cemetery on any
portion of the land gifted either through specific gift or easement restriction. A portion of
Gypsum Canyon had previously received entitlements through the City of Anaheim for
approximately 2,500 homes in a development formerly called “Mountain Park”.1
In recognition of the biological and geologic significance of the open spaces of the Irvine Ranch,
36,398 acres were designated as a National Natural Landmark by the U.S. Department of the
Interior in 2006 and as a California Natural Landmark in 2008 – the only land ever to receive
both State and Federal designations.
As part of their dedication of land to the County, TIC contributed $50 million for its long -term
care and management. See map on Exhibit A for the map of the land gifted in 2014.
III. County of Orange – Ownership and Transfers
Ownership
On August 19, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved a Letter of Intent to accept the
conveyance of TIC land to the County. In the letter, the following Mountain Park acreage was
included:
1 Gypsum Canyon was considered for development in 1989-1991 by the Orange County Board of Supervisors for an
expanded site for the Orange County Jail. Despite not owning the land, the BOS spent $7.5 million to study Gypsum
Canyon, twice approved it for a jail site and considered a half cent sales tax measure to fund it. Resident opposition
in Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills coupled with cost estimates of $1 Billion and an economic downturn ultimately
defeated the site from consideration.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 3 | 18
• Mountain Park – 794 acres encumbered by a conservation easement or similar deed
restrictions
• Mountain Park – 250 acres restricted for park purposes
• Mountain Park – 25 acres for Weir Canyon Road right of way
Concurrently, a Letter of Intent was also approved for a donation of 15.7 acres of land for open
space purposes located in Gypsum Canyon that was owned by a private party – RRM Properties,
Ltd. See Exhibit B for a copy of the Letter of Intent specifying the Mountain Park parcels.
Between August 2014 and the BOS meeting to accept the land donation on 11/18/2014,
substantially all the documentation was drafted. The Agenda Staff Report from the BOS
summarized the transaction by Development Area for Mountain Park as follows:
“The Mountain Park area is located within the City of Anaheim and is surrounded on
three sides by land already owned by the County and managed by OC Parks. The TIC-
owned property (1,073.9 acres) is currently entitled for development of approximately
2,500 homes; however, donation of the land to the County for conservation and regional
park purposes will preclude such development. Almost all the land in Mountain Park
(1048.5 acres) will be conveyed to the County via a Gift Deed. Most of the land included
in the Gift Deed (754.0 acres) will be encumbered by a conservation easement held by
the OCPF [Orange County Parks Foundation (a 501 (c)(3))]. The remainder in the Gift
Deed (283.3 acres) will be conveyed without use restrictions but will be utilized by OC
Parks for regional park purposes, in a manner consistent with the limitations of County
Service Area 26, the principal funding source for the regional park system. The adjacent
RRM Properties, Ltd. Parcel will be conveyed by a Grant Deed also without use
restrictions, but similarly intended to be utilized for regional park purposes only.”
The only areas allowing future development included a 25.4-acre parcel for the right of way
extension of Weir Canyon Road and a 2-acre site for future water reservoir to serve Anaheim
Hills. County Service Area 26 is defined in the County of Orange as:
CSA No.26: Orange County Parks County Service Area No. 26 is an administrative unit
of the County of Orange, established by the County as the successor to the Harbor,
Beaches and Parks District as the repository for funding, real property and all other assets
for all County of Orange owned, operated, and managed regional parks, beaches, and
recreational areas.
The parcel for discussion of this paper represents the 283.3 acres of Mountain Park land. The
parcel is surrounded by land that is either encumbered by a conservation easement or the
boundary of the Chino Hills State Park. As part of their donation, TIC delivered an Easement
Documentation Report for each area donated that was encumbered by a conservation easement,
independently prepared by Harmsworth Associates. The conservation values of the easement
“states that the natural and ecological conservation values of the property include open space
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 4 | 18
land, habitat, and habitat linkages essential to preserving various natural communities. In
addition, the property will produce significant public benefits of preserving open space against
development pressure, providing protection for scenic qualities unique to the area, proving public
access and venues for appropriate education and recreational activities, and providing venues and
targets for scientific study.”
Because of the habitat linkages, it is important to understand the natural communities of the
adjacent acreage next to the 283.3 acres that has no natural or manmade boundaries. Noted in the
Harmsworth report were six special status plant species, including coastal sage scrub, and several
special status wildlife species including 15 birds such as the gnatcatcher, and at least 10 species
of mammals.
By donating the land to the Orange County Parks Foundation, The Irvine Company received tax
benefits. The transfer of ownership from TIC to the County of Orange/OC Parks was completed
on December 29, 2014, with almost 1,600 pages of documents including a Donation,
Conveyance & Implementation Agreement (See Exhibit C). In our search of all the transfer
documents using the words “veteran” or “veterans,” “veterans cemetery” or “cemetery,”
“memorial park,” and “burial park” no references were found. A review of the BOS meeting on
11/18/2014 including Supervisor Spitzer’s public comments and the final Agenda Staff Report
indicates no mention or discussion of a cemetery either public or for veterans. If TIC had
donated the land directly to the County of Orange or Orange County Cemetery District
(“OCCD”), a for profit District, this would likely have affected the tax aspects of the transaction.
The original donative intent of the gift was to preserve the land in perpetuity against
development and to protect the unique scenic qualities while providing public access and venues
solely for recreational and educational activities and for various scientific studies. The donative
intent was clearly evidenced by the Letter of Intent, executed agreements, recorded documents
and public announcements by TIC and would preclude any for profit development including a
cemetery.
Transfers from Orange County to Orange County Cemetery District
On 6/26/2018 Supervisor Spitzer had a Special Closed Session Item scheduled to discuss the
“terms and value of future lease or transfer” of the 283.8 acres of County of Orange owned open
space property in the City of Anaheim adjacent to Gypsum Canyon Road and California State
Route 91.” However, County Counsel advised against a Closed Session Item and recommended
Supervisor Spitzer give “direction to County Staff” instead in order not to violate any legal
procedural issues. During his comments, Supervisor Spitzer mentioned he was contacted a week
prior by representatives of VALOR2 regarding the Gypsum Canyon parcel as a veterans
cemetery.
2 VALOR is Veterans Alliance of Orange County. Nick Berardino, President of VALOR, spoke at this BOS meeting in support of the
transfer to OCCD for a veterans cemetery outside of Irvine. Mr. Berardino also ran the VALOR Issues Committee which received
$800,000 from Heritage Fields, owned by Five Point Communities, to promote approval of Measure B in Irvine. Measure B was
an Irvine City Referendum proposed to swap the existing ARDA site (inclusive of new entitlement rights to build over 812,000
s.f. of office, commercial and industrial space) for a new site called “Strawberry Fields”(owned by Five Point Communities) . On
June 5, 2018, Measure B was overwhelmingly defeated 63% to 37% and 91% of the precincts voting No on B. VALOR’s contact
with Supervisor Spitzer occurred within two weeks after the defeat of Measure B. On July 10, 2018, the Irvine City Council voted
again to reject the ARDA site and introduced a new site in the Great Park called the “Golf Site”.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 5 | 18
“…. about a week ago yesterday I was approached by an organization that’s better known
as VALOR, about whether or not that the County land out in my District at the 91/241
which as you remember we voted unanimously to take into the County stewardship in
2015 when Mr. Bren made a very generous gift to the County. When Mr. Bren had
approached me and his staff had approached me about that gift, those years ago, I had
responded back to The Irvine Company that I would like to see the 91/241 property be
taken with a cemetery overlay because at that time I was unsure, and I think the
community in my District and the City of Irvine was unsure about what was going to
happen with respect to a veterans cemetery. So within the last week I put it on in
conjunction with CEO the item for discussion of closed session, believing that because it
was potentially a negotiation for real property, and that’s a closed session item, that has at
least the ability to be closed session, that we could proceed in closed session.”
Supervisor Spitzer then read his proposed item as follows: “…provide direction to the
County CEO’s office to explore the possibility, and that’s a very important word, it’s just
a possibility, of utilizing approximately 283.3 acres of County owned open space land
near the junction of the 91/241 freeways and Gypsum Canyon Road, in the City of
Anaheim, as a veterans cemetery. And report back to the Board on or before August 14th,
2018, with options developed with consideration of input from the Orange County
Cemetery District and veterans organizations and it should say and state entities and other
affected parties, I need to insert that, on the disposition of the property and possible
operational structures. So, it’s completely open-ended direction, no solid commitment but
come back to the Board and then it will be appropriately agendized for either open,
closed whatever at that point we kind of understand what those parameters are. That was
my simple intent today, Mr. Chairman.”
On August 14, 2018, a Closed Session item was scheduled with the Chief Real Estate Officer
and Orange County Cemetery District to negotiate the transfer of the Gypsum Canyon parcel.
CS-1.
County Executive Office - CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property Location: 288 +/- acre County of
Orange owned open space property in the City of Anaheim adjacent to Gypsum Canyon Road
and California State Route 91, which is a part of Assessor Parcel Number 085-071-57 and
Assessor Parcel Number 514-012-08
County Negotiator: Thomas A. Miller, Chief Real Estate Officer Negotiating Party: Orange
County Cemetery District, United States of America, California Department of Veteran's Affairs
Under Negotiation: Terms and Value of Future Lease or Transfer
We submitted a Public Records Request to the Board of Supervisors requesting any
documentation regarding Gypsum Canyon that would support Supervisor Spitzer’s statement that
the Gypsum Canyon property had an easement for a cemetery or could be developed as a
cemetery. We received only a copy of the publicly available 11/28/2018 memo by Supervisors
Do and Spitzer as outlined below.
On 11/28/2018, Supervisors Andrew Do and Todd Spitzer added a supplemental item to the
agenda for the BOS meeting on 12/4/2018. The memo was titled: Transfer of Mountain Park
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 6 | 18
Property to Orange County Cemetery District. The summary memo stated “there is a deed
restriction on the Property that restricts its use to County park purposes or as a memorial
park/cemetery. Any other use besides this would require Park Abandonment.” The original draft
of the proposed Quitclaim Deed specified the following requirements:
1) The property would only be used for memorial park or burial park purposes consistent
with County Area 26 and for no other purpose unless approved by the County.
2) The BOS would approve the operational plan for the cemetery prior to any use.
3) The property had to put into use as a cemetery within 10 years of the transfer. Use as a
cemetery was defined to mean that the property has been properly planned and permitted
by the appropriate authorities and that it is actively being used for internments.
4) At least half the burial space would be provided or reserved for United States veterans.
Supervisor Spitzer publicly commented at the meeting as follows:
“And I indicated to Mr. Bren and his staff that given what was happening in terms of
discussions about the future of a military or veterans cemetery in Orange County that I
wanted to make sure that this land had a veterans cemetery overlay as a protective
easement in the event that there was an inability to resolve the veterans cemetery issue in
Orange County. I am still 1000% supportive of a veterans cemetery at the Great Park if
that is to come to fruition.” Spitzer continued “So the decision today is simply
transferring the land to the cemetery district, holding back all the decisions with respect
to exactly what if anything it will be in the future.” He concluded with “Today, if the
City of Irvine cannot deliver a cemetery at some point, any point, in a period of time this
option leaves the Board of Supervisors in the driver’s seat to help facilitate and make that
dream come true. This isn’t a way of stopping anything, it doesn’t stop Irvine, the City,
any of its partners from planning a veterans cemetery in any way whatsoever. But what it
does is it unequivocally makes a statement it will be a cemetery; civilian, could be all
civilian, will be a cemetery and it preserves an option to be dually considered at an
appropriate time if that question were to be presented to this Board of Supervisors.”
The Quitclaim Deed as drafted was never filed and Supervisor Spitzer was then elected to the
District Attorney’s office of Orange County. Negotiations with Orange County Cemetery District
occurred over the next three months. On March 26, 2019, Supervisor Do introduced Item S38A –
Adopt resolution setting 10% of all burial space at proposed cemetery in Anaheim for those who
served in military or government of U.S. allied forces in Korean and Vietnam Wars. Supervisor
Do’s comments were as follows:
“Since this is really part of a civilian cemetery that is only dedicated for military use, I
would like to add that three words, for those who served “and their spouse.” Because I
don’t want people to have to be put in a position where they have to choose to either be
with their compatriots or be with their spouse. So, make no mistake about it, this is not
taking away from the 50% that we have previously dedicated on December 4, 2018, for a
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 7 | 18
U.S. veterans cemetery. That part is preserved. The 10% will come out of the civilian
side.”
The Quitclaim Deed that was recorded on April 2, 2019, stated among the Covenants and
Restrictions:
“At least half of the developable acreage on the Property, as part of the initial site
development master plan and reaffirmed in each phase the Cemetery is developed and
constructed, shall be provided or reserved for the development and operation of a State
Veterans Cemetery established pursuant to Division 6, Veterans Buildings, Memorials
and Cemeteries of the California Military and Veterans Code section 1170, et seq., or
otherwise, and if it is not, County may enforce this covenant through specific
performance…”
Supervisor Do’s restriction for the reservation of 10% of the burial space on the civilian side is
not mentioned in the recorded Quitclaim Deed.
IV. Orange County Cemetery District (“OCCD”)
Public cemeteries in California were created in 1909 with the primary purpose of maintaining the
existing gravesites of tens of thousands of California citizens and continuing to provide burial
services – often in small communities where private cemeteries cannot operate profitably.3
Today, California has over 250 public cemetery districts. Governed by the State’s Health and
Safety Code, public cemeteries are prohibited from conducting a variety of related services so as
not to compete with private cemeteries. 4 Because of these restrictions and their location in
mostly small communities and rural areas, public cemeteries are reliant upon an allocation of
property tax revenue to operate. OCCD manages three long established public cemeteries in
Orange County for public internments and cremains burials. The three cemeteries are in Santa
Ana (29 acres), Lake Forest (25 acres), and Anaheim (16 acres) where recorded burials have
occurred prior to 1900. A portion of countywide property taxes is allocated to OCCD. They
allow burials from residents and taxpayers of Orange County as well as out of area residents
(generally for a 15% increase over the published rate). The majority (60%-76%) of cemetery
space in each of their cemeteries is utilized by residents in the immediately surrounding cities.
OCCD has space available for in ground burials through approximately 2033 and cremains
burials for the next 30-40 years.
OCCD initiated meeting with Supervisor Spitzer in 2016 to discuss their need for a parcel of land
to build a new cemetery. Sometime after that meeting into 2017/2018, discussions ensued around
the fact that the Gypsum Canyon parcel may be available for a public cemetery use. General
Manager Tim Deutsch (“GM Deutsch”) stated in their 3/6/2018 meeting minutes “Of all the
parcels he has explored, he felt Gypsum Canyon site offer the best potential as it has its own
3 “What you should know about California Public Cemetery Districts” California Association of Public Cemeteries
4 OCCD cannot operate mortuaries, conduct funeral services and related activities, build, or operate crematoriums,
construct mausoleums, or sell caskets, markers, or benches. Their income is ge nerated primarily from the sale of
casket plots and niche spaces, sale of basic metal urns as needed, flower vases and required outer burial
containers.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 8 | 18
offramp, the intent for use matches our needs and there are no neighbors nearby who could
object.”
From 2018 to the present, OCCD has pursued a cemetery at the Gypsum Canyon si te although
they believe that Gypsum Canyon is “zoned open space” and do not appear to have reviewed the
gift deed documents or the restrictions that are imposed on the potential site (they have only
sought to confirm with Supervisor Spitzer that cemetery use is permitted as disclosed in their
meeting minutes). After the Quitclaim Deed was recorded, OCCD has spent over $775,000 in
taxpayer funds ordering various design and site studies.
The following is a list of the site studies that have been completed:
1) RJM Design Group: Prepared a draft design of the proposed cemetery dividing the
property into two different cemeteries: one civilian on the lower pad and one for veterans
on the upper pad. Per the meeting minutes of April 6, 2021, the Board adopted a plan as
follows:
• 92 developable acres of a public cemetery on the lower pad
• 96 developable acres for a State Veterans Cemetery on the upper pad
• 76 acres of unusable slope between the upper/lower pads
• OC Parks land swap needed for entry/exit to the property
• Approximately $43-$50 million estimated cost for Phase I of public portion only
of the cemetery (excluding bridge costs, EIR, hazardous material remediation,
city street widening/improvements, traffic study/signals and other costs)
• OCCD believes $15.8 million of costs are “shared” costs with upper pad to be
reimbursed by the upper pad end user
2) Leighton Consulting Group, Inc.: Prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Site Feasibility
Study, Proposed Gypsum Canyon Cemetery, dated October 8, 2019 (1,410 pages). This
report as well as comments from the City of Anaheim (Letter from City of Anaheim
Planning Department dated October 21, 2020, sent to GM Deutsch) indicate significant
concern regarding the soils and grading of the site including existing landslides, alluvium
and groundwater issues, liquefaction, and seismic settlement. We reviewed the Leighton
report which raises significant issues with the parcel including prior use of the land as: a)
mining for clay and gypsum after 1949, b) sand and gravel operation/mining, c) asphalt
batch plant operations up to 2005. Summarized below are some of the issues raised in the
report:
• The soil condition has been significantly impacted by the long-term mining and
asphalt operations. Stated in the report is the following:
“The sand and gravel mining operations have significantly altered and removed
much of the natural topography across the project site such that the location of the
previously existing topographic high is now currently at approximate El. +620 to
+640 feet above msl. Therefore, the elevation reduction in this area due to mining
operations is on the order of up to approximately 300 vertical feet or more, with
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 9 | 18
lesser reduction in the natural topography also having occurred throughout
remaining portions of the site.
At the project site, the maximum depth of alluvium ranges from approximately 10
feet to greater than 100 feet within the main Gypsum Canyon drainage area. The
material is generally composed of silts, sands, and gravel, with scattered cobbles and
boulders. Undocumented artificial fill associated with the Robertson’s Ready Mix
sand and gravel mining operation and land reclamation was observed across the
majority of the site. The onsite undocumented fill is comprised of sand and gravel
mining byproduct. These materials generally consist of clay and silt from washing
operations, silty and clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and
boulder size material. A former east-west trending drainage canyon traverses the
southern portion of the project site. The canyon, as well as the majority of the site was
subsequently filled as a result of reclamation upon completion of the former mining
operations. The maximum depth of undocumented fill is estimated to be
approximately 105 to 120 feet and located in the southeastern portion of the site based
upon field exploration and review of prior topography.”
• There are three active landslides located on the site and ancillary landslides located
immediately outside the boundary. These landslides must be stabilized and maintained
and there is further concern due to the location of the property near active earthquake
faults. As previously referenced, these issues were documented in both the Leighton
Report and the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department Letter as follows:
Leighton Report - Landslides: “Three landslides have been mapped within the subject
site. These landslides, which include surficial soil slips and bedrock failures, have
been mapped and are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2). Mapping of
the landslides was based on air photo analysis, topographic interpretation, field
mapping, and subsurface exploration.
The two landslides located on the eastern margins of the project site (Qls2, Qls3)
have been identified as areas with the potential to reactivate and that may result
in blocking adjacent drainages. The largest of the three mapped landslides (Qls1)
is located in the northeastern portion of the site and is believed to have failed in
approximately 2002-2003 due to ongoing mining activities. Proposed
development in this area would likely require removal of unsuitable landslide
material and stabilization of the landslide in the form of drained buttress keyway.
Extensive multi-phased subsurface explorations have been conducted by Leighton
and predecessor consultants to evaluate the lateral limits, depth and geometry of
the landslides encountered onsite. Cross-section profile (Section AA, Plate 3) was
constructed to illustrate the interpreted three-dimensional geometry of the
significant landslide onsite.
In general, the landslide is a translational failure which occurred where daylighted
(unsupported) beds of the Vaqueros Sespe Formation were exposed during mining
operations. Due to the mining reclamation, the landslide in the northeastern region
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 10 | 18
is geomorphically subtle and evidence of recent activity has been obliterated
during reclamation of the site. This landslide is recommended to be partially
removed and replaced with a drained buttress keyway. Review of the grading plan
and elevation data is required to adequately determine the width and depth of the
buttress key. Landslides outside the buildable area along the margins of the project
should be designated as restricted use areas (RUA) on the final map.”
City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department - Landslides: “The project site is
within a Landslide Area and therefore require slope stability analysis including
grading and maintenance recommendations for the affected areas. Submit a
preliminary geotechnical report.”
Leighton Report – Earthquake/Liquefaction: “More specifically, the site is situated at
the northern terminus of the Santa Ana Mountains, which lie along the western side
of the Elsinore Fault Zone, a major component of the San Andreas fault system and
the Perris Block, a rectangular-shaped area located between the Elsinore and San
Jacinto fault zones in the northern edge of the Elsinore Trough. The location of the
site relative to active faults indicates the subject site and the structures that will
comprise the proposed development are likely to experience strong ground shaking
during the life of the development.”
City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department – Earthquake/Liquefaction: “The
site is located within a liquefaction zone on a Seismic Hazard Map issued by the State
of California Divisions of Mines and Geology (DMG). The developer must submit to
the Public Works Department for review and approval a preliminary geotechnical
report that meets the requirements for “Screening Investigation for Liquefaction
Potential” as identified in DMG special publication 117 “Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California”. Please note that if the findings of the
screening investigation cannot demonstrate the absence of liquefaction hazards, then
the comprehensive quantitative evaluation must be conducted to develop mitigation
recommendations to effectively reduce the hazard to an acceptable level.”
OCCD then hired a second firm, GMU, to review and comment on the Leighton report
and make recommendations only for the public cemetery pad. Recommendations by
GMU included special design for bridges due to potential of liquefaction and seismic
settlement and long-term potential maintenance issues.
3) LSA: Prepared an environmental report which noted in the minutes evidence of
gnatcatcher territories and coastal sage scrub habitat.
4) Fuscoe Engineering: Prepared a conceptual level grading plan, storm water management
plan, roadway access and circulation plan, utility plan, and cost estimate and schedule.
His recommendations were noted in the minutes as follows:
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 11 | 18
Grading & Drainage: Three step grading process involving one to two million yards of
earthwork. Stormwater needs to be carefully managed so it does not impact the Santa
Ana River.
Roads: Proposed intersection at Santa Ana Canyon Rd with a traffic signal. Use of two
prefabricated bridges at Gypsum Canyon Creek, which has river flows 7 months out of
the year.
Utilities: There is no sewer or water currently on site. Water is two miles away. Land is
considered a Category 7 fire hazard. Sewer line is nearby under the Santa Ana River.
Stormwater management and Water Quality Assurance: Developed a storm water plan so
as not to disrupt the natural existing stream flow. Recommended filtering as much water
into the ground and remaining water slowly and quietly into the stream. Acknowledged it
will be a challenge not to change what is naturally occurring.
5) City of Anaheim: The Planning and Building Department has provided a comment
document to OCCD which lists out various issues and requirements from the City
(including the previously mentioned landslide and earthquake/liquefaction issues). This
item also included:
New Environmental Impact Report: The City of Anaheim staff anticipates a full EIR
would be required. OCCD noted in their minutes they would attempt to update the old
TIC EIR which is 20 years old.
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment: Timing to be coordinated
with the City Housing Element Update. The City will be seeking to reclassify the land
use from residential under the old Mountain Park plan to Open Space. However, the City
seems unaware of the classification of the parcel on the Gift Deed to “parkland” and the
requirement that it be managed by OC Parks according to County Service Area 26.
Traffic Study: A traffic study has not been completed,
Long Term Erosion Control Plan: City of Anaheim (Public Works Department)
specifically requested a long-term erosion control plan for the upper pad where the
proposed State Veterans Cemetery would be located.
Property Line Issues and Gypsum Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road to provide
access: The report does not reference the restrictions in the Conservation Easement that
encumber the land that is next to Gypsum Canyon Drive. There is no possible access
across this Conservation Easement that is allowed under the recorded terms and
conditions. The City of Anaheim noted the site plan showed grading outside the property
line and requested documentation from the owner. The 8/4/2020 New Cemetery
Development Update minutes acknowledge the current access road veers outside the
property line. A land swap with OC Parks for 11.5 acres of land was proposed. Any swap
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 12 | 18
of land with OC Parks would have to address the restrictions of the Conservation
Easement that runs with the land.
6) Other Agencies: Other agencies identified but not yet contacted are US Army Corps of
Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and CALTRANS . Orange County
Fire Authority and OC Parks have been contacted but their responses were not disclosed.
7) Other Documented Issues – Mudslides: The Gypsum Canyon site and area has well
documented instances of mudslides dating back to the 1960s that cascade onto the 91/241
Freeways causing long closures. One such mudslide occurred in December 2014 closing
all eastbound lanes of the Riverside (91) Freeway and the northbound lanes of the 241-
toll road. The debris trapped 7 cars and spread across seven lanes and both shoulders of
the eastbound freeway. According to Doug Morton, adjunct professor emeritus of
geology at UC Riverside, a mud flow at that location should not come as a surprise due to
recent wildfire activity and that he doubted the slide could have been prevented.5
OCCD Preliminary Business Plan and Funding Sources
OCCD has published a business plan for Gypsum Canyon dated 10/5/2021. Included is a
schedule of construction for phase 1a and 1b cemetery as follows:
Phase 1a: Project start-up, demolition, grading operations, utility infrastructure, site circulation,
access, bridges, and entry upgrades to support the public and potential State Veterans Cemetery.
Phase 1b: First phase of public cemetery grounds including grounds for 11,485 inground casket
and 1,200 cremation spaces, cemetery administration building, maintenance facility, 1,050 niche
and rose garden, parking, and circulation roads for access to through the property.
Costs were estimated based on the “probable construction cost” and not on actual bids from
contractors. Costs that were not included in the budget and outlined in Appendix C of the
business plan include:
• Environmental and Cultural Mitigation, CEQA;
• Corps of Engineers 404 Permit, RWQCB 401 Certification, CDFW Section 1600
Streambed Alteration Agreement, USFWS Section 7 Consultation and CDFW 2081
Permit;
• Hazardous material cleanup and remediation;
• Traffic Signalization;
• Santa Ana Canyon and/or Gypsum Canyon Street Improvements;
5 The Press-Enterprise. December 17, 2014. “Mudslide on the 91 was impossible to predict, expert says” by David
Downey.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 13 | 18
• Design, Permits, Processing fees, City of Anaheim Conditions of Approvals;
• Costs associated with development of the Veterans Cemetery Improvements;
• Balance of OCCD cemetery improvements beyond phase 1 designated 26-acre site;
• Import soil, amendments, fertilizer to modify existing soil conditions
OCCD has expressed concerns regarding their ability to fund the Gypsum Canyon cemetery
from the inception of considering the site. OCCD currently has maximum borrowing capacity of
approximately $43 million plus an additional $8 to $10 million of reserves. On May 4, 2021, GM
Deutsch noted in their meeting minutes under Capital Projects Update that “if Irvine opts out
completely from a Veterans Cemetery, Five Points might be willing to provide some funding for
the Veterans Cemetery on our site.” The City of Anaheim appears unable to provide any funding
due to their reported $120 million deficit. OCCD noted their concerns about taking on the project
without a veterans cemetery component and considered leasing the upper pad to other interested
users to generate revenue including a motocross park, green waste recycling, RV/Boat storage or
a shooting range for OC Sherriff. They have concluded the RV/Boat storage was most
compatible with a cemetery. Currently OCCD is pursuing subleasing 50 acres located on the
veterans portion to a third party that has not been disclosed but was named Gypsum Canyon
Cemetery Partners LLC.
Various financing options were investigated including a public finance loan, issuing bonds (and
purchasing those bonds with their long-term endowment fund), lease finance bonds, and an
assessment district. OCCD appeared as of May 2021 to be inclined to form an assessment district
that would issue bonds repaid from an increase in property taxes in Orange County.6 This action
would trigger a ballot measure and a 2/3 property tax owner approval would be necessary for the
tax increase. However, to avoid a ballot measure at the outset, OCCD’s preliminary New
Cemetery Development Business Plan dated 10/5/2021 is currently proposing the following
sources and uses of funds for the partial budget:
(Continued on next page)
6 Board discussions regarding a special county wide property tax assessment occurred on Dec. 3, 2019, Jan. 7,
2020, Nov 3, 2020, and summarized in a memo from GM Deutsch dated Feb 24, 2021, where they considered
hiring a “consultant to poll the electorate to see how much support the District would receive for the tax and also
to assist with the elections and preparation of the ballot measure.”
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 14 | 18
Sources and Uses for Phase 1a and 1b7
Sources
Private Bank Loan Debt Proceeds8 $14,000,000
New Cemetery Development Reserve Fund (current) $13,767,000
Forecasted increase in New Cem. Development Reserve Fund (6/30/23) $ 2,233,000
Internal borrowing from Endowment Income Fund9 $ 8,000,000
Internal borrowing from Pre-Need Fund10 $ 4,000,000
Subtotal all sources $42,000,000
Uses
Project management, Permitting, additional Costs (2023-2025) $ 1,877,920
Phase 1a – grading, Utilities, Access, Fencing, Entry & Landscape $15,862,545
Phase 1b – grading, Irrigation, roads, facilities, Niches, Landscape, etc. $24,259,535
Subtotal partial costs $42,000,000
OCCD’s most recent Audited Financial Statement for FY 6-30-2019 indicates that endowment
fees, currently approximately $425-$525 per space/niche, are contained in an Endowment
Principal Fund (restricted as to use). Investment earnings are transferred to the Endowment
Income Fund and are designed to be used for “future and perpetual maintenance of all of the
District’s cemeteries.” Borrowing from the Income Fund represents the entirety of the balance in
the Fund (2019 balance was $7,644,922).
Pre-Need Funds are established as a liability for OCCD and represent monies collected in
advance of services. Per their 2019 Audit, “the resources in the fund are restricted .” It is unclear
if these funds can be borrowed by OCCD.
Other issues with the budget OCCD published are the following:
1. The first phase of the construction includes only the public portion of the cemetery. The
veterans portion of the cemetery would be located on the slopes where landslides were
located and would require the most expensive remedial grading work to be completed.
There have been no studies on the veterans portion of the cemetery and therefore no costs
were included.
2. The inflation escalator of 3% used in OCCD budget does not reflect the current run rate
of inflation (YOY) which is 6.8% as of November 30, 2021 (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
7 Note: The numbers utilized in the Business Plan dated October 5, 2021, were the same as presented in GM
Deutsch memo dated Sept 28, 2021
8 25-year term at 4% interest, paid annually beginning in 2024-2025.
9 This amount is used to fund operating expenses in 2022-2024 at $4 million per annum. Any excess revenue will
be placed into the reserve fund. Transfers back into the Endowment Income Fund begins in 2034-2035.
10 Per the audited FYE 2019 Financial Statement note for OCCD: “The pre-need Trust Special Revenue Fund is
established to account for monies collected in advance of services. Accordingl y, the resources in the fund are
restricted.”
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 15 | 18
3. The cost estimate was not prepared by a construction costing engineering firm with
experience in complicated land development. Substantial costs were not included in the
estimate.
4. It does not appear that OCCD would have any excess borrowing capacity to address any
unforeseen circumstances such as supply chain and project delays or potential litigation
from various stakeholders.
V. Conclusion
Gypsum Canyon began as a donation of land to be preserved and protected in perpetuity as part
of OC Parks system. It has now become a player in a major political battle over where to locate
the Orange County State Veterans Cemetery. The site is not suited for a cemetery of any kind for
the following reasons:
1. The donative intent and the documentation of the gift of land from TIC does not specify
or allow a cemetery, memorial and/or burial park. Given the habitat linkages of the
surrounding property with restrictive Conservation Easements and the documentation of
special status wildlife and plant species and mammals the property is not suited for any
development. The proposed boundary of the public cemetery directly crosses into the
Conservation Easement which would prohibit development of any kind including any
kind of entry drive.
2. The geological, biological, and environmental significance of the land, as an important
piece of a much larger acreage, should be preserved. Environmental groups would likely
challenge the development of this site based on the significant impact a cemetery would
have on the land.
3. The prior use of the land, including as an active mining operation, sand and gravel, and
asphalt plant coupled with the geotechnical issues of landslides, liquefaction and seismic
settlement are cost prohibitive not only for current development but ongoing maintenance
costs as well.
4. Backbone infrastructure costs are prohibitive when compared to other infill sites as water
line access is 2 miles away and sewer, electrical, and storm water management are
significant. From existing reports by Fuscoe, the Gypsum Canyon Creek flows cannot be
preserved and will be negatively affected by the development.
5. The ongoing and prolonged drought conditions in California and the designation of
Gypsum Canyon as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by CalFire coupled with
ongoing climate change do not support development of this area. Note the area has had
numerous fires that destroyed residential homes in the area including as recently as 2017
(104 Years of Wildfire History by Hills For Everyone dated September 2019- see
Exhibit D for map of impacted area surrounding Gypsum Canyon and Exhibit E for
CalFire map).
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 16 | 18
6. Nearby residential areas of Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda would be negatively
impacted by the development and wildfire danger of the land and both areas have
organized resident opposition to prior attempts to develop open space near their
communities (notably their defeat of the development of a jail within Gypsum Canyon).
There are two active groups currently gathering resident signatures in both Yorba Linda
and Anaheim Hills and organizing resident opposition. No resident outreach was done
prior to either City Council expressing their support of Gypsum Canyon.
7. Coordination with other major federal and state agencies has not yet started. These
agencies may have additional significant issues on wetlands, river flows, protected
species and plants that may not be overcome.
8. OCCD has limited and insufficient funding to start and complete Phase I of the cemetery
development and complete the project. Based on the current Business Plan published by
OCCD, the District is reliant upon a) a successful ballot measure to pass a county wide
property tax increase and/or b) the ability to highly leverage the District with their
available endowment and preneed funds as well as reliance on outside bank financing.
While Option B may avoid a ballot measure for now, it will seriously impact the ability
of OCCD to serve their existing cemeteries and risks taxpayer funds on the sale of plots
to repay over $26 million in borrowed funds. A number of significant project costs have
been omitted from their proposed budget leaving an unknown shortfall at the outset.
OCCD was formed to maintain small, community-based cemeteries. The development of
Gypsum Canyon would be a radical departure from their stated mission and the large,
complex nature of the project is beyond the scope of their expertise.
9. Coordination with CalVet has not started and there is no current enabling legislation for
the site. OCCD has incurred significant costs to design and study mainly their portion of
the land without regard for the requirements of a State Veterans Cemetery. OCCD is
partly relying on reimbursement of half of the backbone infrastructure and shared
entrance on whatever entity utilizes the upper pad. Since the funding of both OCCD and
CalVet comes from California taxpayers11, it does not make sense for the project to move
forward without input from a major potential partner and to look at the entire project
costs.
We remain supportive of a State Veterans Cemetery in Orange County. However, our review of
the information on the Gypsum Canyon site leads us to conclude this site would take the longest
and cost the most of any site thus far if it even could be developed as a cemetery. In conclusion,
we believe Gypsum Canyon is not suited for development of any kind, including a cemetery, and
that previous sites studied and available provide faster and more cost-effective alternatives for a
State Veterans Cemetery in Orange County.
11 OCCD is reliant upon their allocation of property tax revenue from the County to operate. Approximately 1/3 of
their revenue is from property tax allocation as stated in their FY2019 audit.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 17 | 18
VI. References
Berg, Tom, “The Largest Land Gift in OC History,” 2020. The Irvine Standard, August 2, 2020.
Businesswire, 2014. “Irvine Company Completes Open Space Master Plan with Gift of
Additional 2,500 Acres, Brings Preserved Irvine Ranch Lands to 55,000 Acres”. August
12, 2014.
BOS, 2014 Public Records Request for Item #9 November 18, 2014, 1595 pages of documents
Related to TIC donation of Gypsum Canyon land.
California Association of Public Cemeteries. “What you should know about California Public
Cemetery Districts.
County of Orange, 2014. Transcribed comments from Supervisor Todd Spitzer, 3rd District.
From BOS meeting on November 18, 2014.
County of Orange, 2018. BOS Memorandum “Transfer of Mountain Park Property to Orange
County Cemetery District, November 28, 2019.
County of Orange, 2018. BOS Attachment of Quitclaim Deed, December 3, 2018.
County of Orange, 2018. Transcribed comments from Supervisor Todd Spitzer, 3 rd District and
question from Chairman Do. From BOS meetings on June 26, 2018, and December 4,
2018.
County of Orange, 2019. BOS Memorandum “Adopt Resolution Designating Space for U.S.
Allies in Korean and Vietnam Wars at Proposed Anaheim Cemetery.” March 20, 2019.
County of Orange, 2019. Transcribed comments from Chairman Do. From BOS meeting March
26, 2019.
GMU, 2020. Summary of Geotechnical Review and Evaluation Pertaining to Gypsum
Canyon Cemetery Development Concepts, County of Orange, California,
Letter dated May 28, 2020.
Gypsum Canyon Press Conference Facebook Live Event. 2021. Transcribed comments from
District Attorney Todd Spitzer, July 1, 2021.
Harmsworth Associates, 2014. Easement Documentation Report for The Irvine Company’s
Mountain Park Conservation Easement Orange County, California. October 30, 2014.
HillsforEveryone.org, 2019. “104 Years of Wildfire History Near Chino Hills State Park”,
September 2019.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1) P a g e 18 | 18
History of Significant Weather Events in Southern California. Updated May 2017.
www.weather.gov.
Kraft, Scott, 2010. “Irvine Co. gives 20,000 acres of open space to Orange County”. Los
Angeles Times, June 30, 2020.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. October 8, 2019. “Geotechnical Engineering Site Feasibility Study
Proposed Gypsum Canyon Cemetery State Route 91 and Gypsum Canyon Road
Anaheim, California.” (1,410 pages) Prepared for Orange County Cemetery District.
Luis, Eric. “The Worst Mudslides in California History.” September 23, 2021 (updated).
OC Parks, 2014. Open Space Lands Transaction – Letter of Understanding and Agenda
November 6, 2014.
Orange County Cemetery District, October 5, 2021. Master Plan and New Cemetery
Development Business Plan
Orange County Cemetery District, 2018-May 2021. Board Meeting Minutes
Orange County Cemetery District, 2021. RJM Design Group Presentation on Gypsum Canyon
site, January 5, 2021.
Orange County Cemetery District, 2019. Quitclaim Deed and Resolution 2020-2 from public
records request, April 2, 2019, and February 4, 2020.
Orange County Cemetery District, 2021. “New Cemetery Development Funding – Assessment
Fee Option,” February 24, 2021.
Orange County Cemetery District, FYE 2018 and 2019. Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the years ended June 30, 2018, and June 30, 2019.
Patch Laguna Beach, Dec 17, 2014. “Mudslide Closes 241 and 91 Freeway for Hours” by Paige
Austin, Patch Staff.
Press-Enterprise, December 17, 2014. “Mudslide on the 91 was impossible to predict, expert
says” by David Downey.
Sefton, Gloria, 2014. Community Editorial Voice of OC, “Giving Thanks for Irvine
Co’s Donation of Parkland, November 25, 2014.
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
EXHIBIT D
Gypsum Canyon is located at the intersection of the 91/241 Freeways and
abuts the Chino Hills State Park (outlined in green).
Major fires that occurred in Gypsum Canyon include:
1. October 2017, Canyon2Fire, a road flare caused a fire that burned
9200 acres, destroyed 25 homes and damaged 55 structures.
2. March 2007, an arsonist caused a fire that burned 1,618 acres.
3. In October 1982 a power line caused a major fire that burned 19,986
acres, destroyed 14 homes and damaged 72 structures.
EXHIBIT D
Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
December 15, 2021 (Update #1)
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E