11 (66)
Susana Barrios
From: Jennifer Shepard <
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:40 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: Opposition to accepting 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 often get email from 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.
The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to accepting 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 meeting 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
Cc: Jose M. Barriga, Associate Planner, Planning and Building Department
1
Cc: General Manager Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Board of Trustees, Orange County Cemetery District
Cc: Managers, Orange County Cemetery District
Re: Opposition to accepting 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 strongly OPPOSED to accepting 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. Our world here in the Santa
Ana Canyon region has changed substantially in the 19 years since the study was conducted.
The reasons for my opposition to such acceptance include, but are not limited to, the following flaws in
the EIR No. 331 and its Addendum.
1. Neither EIR No. 331 nor its recent Addendum were a subject of public scrutiny with reasonable time
and accommodations 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 description of which has been recently posted at the City of Anaheim's website.
2. In particular, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Applicant (the Orange County
Cemetery District) have largely ignored hundreds of opposition emails that they received with well-
justified and factual arguments against building cemeteries at Gypsum Canyon due to detrimental
impact that it would have on the environment, traffic, residential property values, and lives of nearby
residents. This in itself goes against the CEQA requirements that stipulates involvement of the public in
several stages of the analyses and reviews of the environmental impact of the respective 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 situation as - with the population growth in adjacent areas and an increase of the number of
commuters daily in 91 Fwy corridor - the traffic density and its negative impact on tractability of roads
and streets and their suitability of quick evacuations of endangered residents in the case of major fire
have grown substantially.
4. The question 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 opposition 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
2
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 matter 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
findings in said Memorandum were neither addressed nor properly replied to.
Taking all the above issues and circumstances into account, please, OPPOSE accepting 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 submitted to public scrutiny and challenges,
instead, as required by the law and other regulations, in particular, CEQA.
Best regards,
Regards,
Jennifer Shepard
Yorba Linda Resident since 1989
3