11 (27)
Susana Barrios
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy & Derek <
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:45 PM
To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava
<NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel
<SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>
Cc: Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga
<JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; t.deutsch@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; k.rivers@orccd.com;
Cynthia@ward-associates.net; nhatch@fea.net
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] PUBLIC COMMENT: Opposi?on to accep?ng 19-years old EIR No. 331 with recent Addendum in lieu
of current and full EIR of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon that is required by CEQA
\[Some people who received this message don't o?en get email from Learn why this is important
at h?ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden?fica?on \]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open a?achments unless you
recognize the sender and are expec?ng the message.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to accep?ng 19-years old Environmental Impact Report No. 331 with recent
Addendum in lieu of current and full Environmental Impact Study and Review of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum
Canyon that is required by California Environmental Quality Act, from a local resident in Orange County for inclusion in
the public record of the Anaheim City Council Public Hearings, item 11 of the posted Agenda of the Council mee?ng of
July 23, 2024.
To: Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
To: Mayor Pro Tem Norma Campos Kurtz
To: Council Member Natalie Meeks (District 6)
To: Anaheim City Council
Cc: Ms. Berenice Ballinas, Chief of Staff to Mayor Aitken
Cc: Mr. Nick Taylor, Senior Planner, Planning and Building Department
1
Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department
Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: Opposi?on to accep?ng 19-years old EIR No. 331 with recent Addendum in lieu of current and full EIR of the
proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon that is required by CEQA
Dear Mayor Aitken, Dear Mayor Pro Tem Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of
Anaheim City Council:
I am OPPOSED to accep?ng 19-years old Environmental Impact Report No. 331 with recent Addendum in lieu of current
and full Environmental Impact Study and Review of the proposed cemetery at Gypsum Canyon that is required by
California Environmental Quality Act.
The reasons of my opposi?on to such acceptance include, but are not limited to, the following flaws in the EIR No. 331
ans its Addendum.
1. Neither EIR No. 331 nor its recent Addendum were a subject of public scru?ny with reasonable ?me and
accommoda?ons given to affected members of public to read, analyze and challenge the claims and conclusions
presented in said documents as they pertain to the current Gypsum Canyon Cemeteries project a descrip?on of which
has been recently posted at the City of Anaheim's website.
2. In par?cular, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Applicant (the Orange County Cemetery District) have
largely ignored hundreds of opposi?on emails that they received with well-jus?fied and factual arguments against
building cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon due to detrimental impact that it would have on the environment, traffic,
residen?al property values, and lives of nearby residents. This in itself goes against the CEQA requirements that
s?pulates involvement of public in several stages of the analyses and reviews of the environmental impact of the
respec?ve project.
3. One of the areas that has been not properly addressed is the likely detrimental impact that the proposed cemeteries
will have on the traffic on the 91 Fwy and local streets in the proximity of Gypsum Canyon. Any conclusions that could
have been reasonable 19 years ago are likely inadequate to the current situa?on as - with the popula?on growth in
adjacent areas and an increase of the number of commuters daily in 91 Fwy corridor - the traffic density and its nega?ve
impact on tractability of roads and streets and their suitability of quick evacua?ons of endangered residents in the case
of major fire have grown substan?ally.
4. The ques?on how the proposed cemeteries will affect life quality and values of homes of nearby residents has not
been addressed at all, despite hundreds of emails sent to the City and OCCD Leadership specifically raising those issues.
There was no public outreach regarding the current cemeteries project, and the opposi?on emails from the residents
were largely ignored.
5. Said EIR No. 331 and its recent Addendum have a number of significant flaws as they pertain to the current cemeteries
project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the EIR No.
331 as it pertains to the current cemeteries project. Despite the fact that the Technical Memorandum in this ma?er
dated May 17, 2024, by Geosyntec was delivered to the City Council and Planning Council via email by many objectors to
the cemeteries project, the finding in said Memorandum were neither addressed nor properly replied to.
2
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE accep?ng the 19-years old EIR No. 331 with
its recent Addendum in lieu of full and new Environmental Impact Study and Review for the current cemeteries at
Gypsum Canyon project, and, please, DO REQUIRE that a full and new Environmental Impact Study and Review be
completed and submi?ed to public scru?ny and challenges, instead, as required by the law and other regula?ons, in
par?cular, CEQA.
Best regards,
Tracy Prout
Yorba Linda
Sent from my iPhone
3