06.17.2024 - Harvey Bronx - Attachment 1
RECEIVED
May 21, 2024
Memo
CITY OF IRVINE
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
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, theCity Council was provided with a report prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants that contained details related to a focused technicalreview 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
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.
SC1464/ Technical Review GypsumCanyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 2
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.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 3
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, $7,058,578
Memorial Wall, Carillion Tower)
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.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 4
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, $6,406,000
Maintenance, and Committal Shelter)
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
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 5
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
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 6
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
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 7
1
an additional remedial ROM cost of $8,000,000 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.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 8
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.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 9
Table 4. Additional Cost Items and Estimated ROM Costs
Additional Cost Items Estimated ROM Cost
1
1.Engineering, design and permitting$12,000,000
2.Questar pipeline relocation and associated$135,000 to $260,000
permitting
3.Liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading$8,000,000
mitigation
4.Unsuitable soils/untested fill/man-madeUnknown at this time but
debris mitigationsignificant added cost to the project
5.Potential environmental legacyUnknown at this time but
contamination/regulatory negotiationsignificant added cost to the project
(could be in the order of several
million dollars)
costs upwards of $20,260,000
Total Additional Costs
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.
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final
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
12
Gypsum CanyonARDA
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
costs upwards of
Additional Cost Items (Geosyntec --
3
$20,260,000
Estimate)
Note:
1.Cost estimate from DGS (2023).
2.Cost estimate provided by the City of Irvine and based on the DGS estimate dated May 2018 updated to account for
inflation to 11/2023 using Consumer Price Index (CPI) and current site conditions (i.e., building demolition and
disposal is complete, site demolition and disposal and Hazardous waste remediation/removal is
ongoing/substantially complete, and site utility development is ongoing, with City of Irvine bearing the costs for
these items).
3.See Table 4 above.
As summarized in Table 5 above, the costs for development of Phase 1 of the SCVC at the ARDA
site will be cheaper in the order of $100,000,000 than at the Gypsum Canyon.
SC1464/ Technical Review GypsumCanyon -Final
Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment
May 17, 2024
Page 11
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.
* * * * *
SC1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final