Loading...
07/23/2024ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23, 2024 The regular meeting of July 23, 2024 was called to order at 3:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Anaheim City Hall, located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on July 18, 2024. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Norma Campos Kurtz, Jose Diaz, Carlos A. Leon, Stephen Faessel, and Natalie Meeks. Council Member Natalie Rubalcava joined the meeting during Closed Session. City Manager Jim Vanderpool, Chief Assistant City Attorney Kristin Pelletier, and City Clerk Theresa Bass ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION: None CLOSED SESSION: At 3:01 p.m., Mayor Aitken recessed to closed session for consideration of the following: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (d)(1) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code) Name of Case: City of Anaheim v. Splinter Investment, Inc., et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2023- 01350225-CU-OR-CJC 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Section 54957 (b) (1) of the California Government Code) Title: City Manager and City Clerk 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code) Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director Name of Employee Organizations: City Manager and City Clerk At 5:08 p.m., Mayor Aitken reconvened the Anaheim City Council. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ashleigh E. Aitken and Council Members Norma Campos Kurtz, Jose Diaz, Carlos A. Leon, Natalie Rubalcava, Stephen Faessel, and Natalie Meeks. INVOCATION: Pastor Tim Eaton, Zion Lutheran Church Council Member Rubalcava thanked all of the veterans who have served the country and the veterans in attendance. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Natalie Rubalcava City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 2 of 33 PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing Mary Ann Rogers for turning 100 years old on July 27th Mayor Aitken recognized Mary Ann Rogers who will be celebrating her 100th birthday. She highlighted her service in the Marines and her life in Anaheim. She presented the proclamation which was accepted by Ms. Rogers. Recognizing the 69th Birthday of Disneyland, July 17, 2024 Mayor Aitken highlighted Disneyland as an asset to the City. She noted Disneyland brings in 27 million visitors to the City which helps fund City services. She noted Disneyland is offering Anaheim residents $69 tickets and can visit the Disneyland website for additional details. She presented the proclamation which was accepted by Disney Ambassador Jada Young and Disney VoluntEARS. Ms. Young thanked the City for the recognition. She reiterated that Disneyland is offering Anaheim residents $69 tickets and hopes residents and neighbors can join to celebrate. Recognizing East Anaheim Little League's 11 U, 12U, and Junior Division 14U for winning the District 46 Championship in their respective divisions Accepted by East Anaheim Little League Champions Mayor Aitken congratulated the teams on their championships and presented the proclamation to the East Anaheim Little League's 11 U, 12U, and Junior Division 14U players. Recognizing the City of Anaheim's 2024 Employee VIPs Mayor Aitken reported each year, employees have the opportunity to nominate their colleagues for Employee VIP awards and are recognized during the City's Annual Employee Appreciation Picnic. She thanked the employees their hard work and dedication to the City. She introduced City Manager Vanderpool to present the recognitions. City Manager Vanderpool recognized the awardees not in attendance, Byron Adams (Community Services), Elena Camacho (Finance), Chris Morales (Human Resources), Kerrstyn Vega (Police), and John Sutphin (Public Works). City Manager Vanderpool recognized the awardees in attendance, Ruby Barrameda (City Administration), Leonie Mulvihill (City Attorney's Office), Blake Card (City Clerk's Office), Julia O'Brien (Convention, Sports, and Entertainment), Darrell Chin (Economic Development), Tina Oliva (Fire & Rescue), Jonathan Nguyen (Housing and Community Development), Victoria Ticorat (Planning and Building), and Bryan Vargas (Public Utilities). Recognizing the 2023 Anaheim Mills Act Recipients Mayor Aitken reported in December 2000, the City started a program to encourage the preservation of historic homes where owners can apply for a potential property tax reduction in exchange for the rehabilitation and preservation of their properties. She noted over the years the City has assisted hundreds of property owners with transformative results. She added that the City has one of the largest Mills Act programs in the State. Senior Planner Amanda Lauffer reported the City has approximately 1,500 historic properties mostly located in the Downtown area. She added, in addition to the seven (7) recipients, the City has just City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 3 of 33 under 410 Mills Act properties, the third largest number in the State. She presented the proclamations to the seven (7) 2023 Anaheim Mills Act Recipients. ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date): Recognizing August 2024, as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS all agenda items, except public hearings): Prior to receipt of public comments, City Clerk Theresa Bass provided an outline of procedures for public comments, notice of translation services, and a brief decorum statement. City Clerk Bass reported that a total of 7 public comments were received electronically prior to 2:00 p.m. [A final total of 10 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. — See Appendix. Paul Hyek recommended for Item No. 08, the acquisition of the Kettle Motor Hotel, that it is a turnkey operation. He suggested that local college students participate in the remodels. He noted the County is purchasing a hotel in Costa Mesa for a turnkey operation. Victoria Michaels expressed concern regarding Item No. 6 that the City will be paying $220,962 to an entity to provide emotional and practical support to victims of traumatic events and their families when large sums of money are being paid to City Net. She recommended that the City review the contract with Republic Services due to an issue she had with having a leaky dumpster replaced. She thanked Mark McGee for being able to resolve that issue and also thanked Public Works Director Rudy Emami for his service. Ruben Greg Soto expressed his stance against drugs and drinking and blamed society and liquor stores for ongoing issues. Cecil Jordan Corkern announced he had completed a report of Disney's rules and regulations. He commented on the security at Disney and expressed concerns about firefighters who lost their lives in a brush fire. DeeDee Miranda, a candy maker at Disneyland, encouraged the City Council to support a fair and livable wage for Disney cast members and encouraged them to ensure that Disney bargains in good faith. Anthony Barajas, an 18-year employee at Disneyland encouraged the City Council to support a union contract that employees can be proud of. He noted the cast members provide the experience to visitors and can barely make a living wage. Frank Rios, a 30-year cast member at the Disneyland Resort, encouraged the City Council to support a fair and livable wage and Disney is not providing that for their employees. He noted that recently hired individuals are being paid nearly the same wage as senior cast members. He thanked the City Council for their time. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 4 of 33 Radda-Bai reported that he was attacked and battered in front of Disneyland and a police officer never arrived. He announced that he was supporting Disney employees when he was attacked by Anaheim police officers who were impersonating FBI agents. Adam Overton, a faith -rooted organizer with Clergy and Lady United for Economic Justice (CLUE), expressed support for the 13,000 Disneyland workers who are in negotiations with Disney executives to pay them livable wages and give them respect. He noted Disney employee's dedication is unmatched while executives continue to receive wage increases. He added his hope is that the negotiations are resolved before a strike is initiated. He encouraged the City Council to stand with Disneyland workers by urging Disney executives to do the right thing and respect their workers. Cynthia Carranza, a 6-year Disney cast member, and a member of the SEIU United Service Workers West, stated that cast members make the magic happen while the City and Disney profit. She noted that 3 out of 10 cast members face food insecurity and 33% face housing insecurities. She noted the employees are ready to use any tools at their disposal including a strike. She encouraged the City Council to support Disney employees in their fight for a fair and livable wage. Wendy Lewis reported that she and her son became homeless last year and noted that the only place that helped them was City Net. She noted that she was recently advised that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is out of money and expressed concern about becoming homeless again and having no future for her son. She encouraged the City Council to develop backup plans for people who are at risk of becoming homeless again. Matthew Duncan referenced the Fish and Game Commission and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) proposal to ban killing coyotes in gas chambers and ban trapping coyotes on public land. He noted both proposals would impact Anaheim. He remarked that killing animals in a gas chamber is not humane euthanasia and those who support it should be embarrassed. Francisco Rosas expressed support for the Disney cast members in attendance. He noted that the City Council helped to create the homeless issue because they approved 156 housing units in Disneyland Forward of which none are affordable housing units. He noted he has been before the City Council multiple times requesting that something be done about affordable housing and the increasing rents. Bryan Kaye encouraged the City Council to pay attention to some of the bad things about Anaheim because if they are not acknowledged, they will never be corrected. He noted that the public comes to the City Council to talk about important issues. He invited the City Council to respond to communications with constituents. Luis Aleman, representing the Orange County Labor Federation, reported that Disney is reaching a deadline for its labor negotiations and 99% of union members voted in favor of going on strike. He emphasized that members are ready to voluntarily forego a paycheck to ensure that Disney understands that they need a living wage. He applauded the City Council for approving the Disneyland Forward project but noted that the economic boom that comes with the expansion must include an equal boom for Disney workers. He encouraged the City Council to support an offer that supports dignity and respect for Disney cast members. He noted that cast members request a living wage to ensure Disneyland and Anaheim keep moving forward. Marc Herbert reported the WiFi password has been posted. He noted that the WiFi password should be posted in a permanent place at every meeting. He reported there have been six meetings with the City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 5 of 33 Anaheim Angels and members of the City Council since March 2024. He noted that the residents need to know what is happening with the City and Angel Stadium. He referenced Item No. 12 and noted there are no affordable housing units. He reported that the 500-unit proposal in Deer Park in Anaheim Canyon also has no affordable housing units. He encouraged a gate tax to help with affordable housing in Anaheim. Olivia Hurtado, a resident at Rancho La Paz Mobile Home Park, reported that the owner, John Saunders, has significantly increased the space rent for residents. She advised that most residents are seniors who have a fixed income and cannot meet those increases. She encouraged the City Council to assist with this issue. Jeanine Robbins expressed concern that the City Council was easily influenced for Disneyland Forward project. She advised that the cast members are not happy and most likely will be striking as they are severely underpaid for the jobs they perform. She remarked that the City Council should have forced Disney to solve its current problems before approving an expansion. She reported that there is not only an extreme shortage of affordable housing but low and very -low-income housing which may be due to a lack of a housing mandate for developers who may have provided large campaign donations to City Council candidates. She cited a need for rent control, an increase in crime due to staffing shortages, and drug use in the parks. Without objection from the City Council, Mayor Aitken took the meeting out of order and considered Public Hearing Item No. 11 at 6:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: C220 11. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.2020-00204 ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEIR) NO. 331 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 ADOPTED FOR FEIR NO. 331 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 389 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.2022-160 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NO.4 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (SP NO.90-4) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 18.112) - SP NO. 90-4 APPLICANT/OWNER: Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District, 25751 Trabuco Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 283-acre property is located southeast of the State Route 91/Gypsum Canyon Road interchange, at the terminus of Santa Ana Canyon Road. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a cemetery use. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 would be approximately 126 and 157 acres, respectively. Parcel 1 would be developed as a public cemetery to be owned/operated by the Orange County Cemetery District. Parcel 2 is being proposed as a Veterans Cemetery in collaboration between the applicant and the California Department of Veterans Affairs (Calvet). The request also includes amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4, and Zoning Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council will determine whether the Addendum to the Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (MMP 137) adopted for FEIR No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 389 (MMP 389), together are the appropriate environmental City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 6 of 33 documentation for the proposed project and adopt the Addendum and MMP 389 for the proposed project. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended City Council approval of Development Application No. 2020-00204 and approved Resolution Nos. PC2024-015 (recommending City Council determine the Addendum to FEIR No. 331 and MMP 137 adopted for FEIR No. 331 and MMP 389, together are the appropriate environmental documentation for the project), PC2024-016 (approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-160), and PC2024-017 (recommending City Council approve and adopt proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendment). VOTE: 6-0 (Chairperson Kring and Commissioners Castro, Kelly, Lieberman, Perez, and Tran-Martin voted yes; Commissioner Walker absent). (Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 2024) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 389 (MMP 389), and determining that said addendum and MMP 389, together serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project (DEV2020-00204). RESOLUTION NO. 2024-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-160 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204). RESOLUTION NO. 2024-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a cemetery use and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204). RESOLUTION NO. 2024-084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (DEV2020-00204). ORDINANCE NO. 6586 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020- 00204)]. ORDINANCE NO. 6587 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 18.112 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020-00204)]. Deputy Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that the item is a request for the entitlement for the Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project. She noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project with one member absent at its June 17th meeting. She explained that the cemetery project is proposed on property located within the Mountain Park Specific Plan, which was originally approved in 1991, amended in 2005, and covers an approximately 3,000-acre area in Gypsum Canyon. Deputy Director Allen reported that the Specific Plan identified 11 development areas that were intended for residential, institutional, and open space land uses in 2014. She explained that rather than implementing the Specific Plan, The Irvine Company conveyed the property plan for residential units to the County of Orange to expand their regional park system for conservation and recreation purposes. She added that Specific Plan Development Areas 1 through 4 and Development Area 7 City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 7 of 33 were encumbered in the transfer with the conservation easement to be held by the Orange County Parks Foundation. She noted that Development Area 5 was donated without use restrictions. Deputy Director Allen reported that in 2019, Development Area 5 was deeded by the County to the Orange County Cemetery District for use as a cemetery. She noted that Development Area 5 is an approximately 283-acre property located immediately southeast of the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange for the 91 Freeway at the terminus of Santa Ana Canyon Road. She noted that the property is vacant, undeveloped, and is surrounded by open space to the east, south, and west. She reported that the site previously operated as a sand and gravel mining operation that ceased operations in 2004. Deputy Director Allen explained that Development Area 5 is designated for low, and medium - residential land uses in the General Plan. She noted that the project includes a request for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property of Development Area 5 into two new parcels and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop and operate a cemetery use. She noted that the request also includes amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Mountain Park Specific Plan, and Zoning Code to accommodate the cemetery use. She explained that the proposed project would not rezone Development Area 5 and would not eliminate the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Lastly, she explained that the project includes a required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Deputy Director Allen reported that under the proposal, Parcel 1 would be an approximately 126-acre site owned and operated by the Orange County Cemetery District. She noted that Parcel 2 would be approximately 157 acres and is proposed as a Veteran's Cemetery in collaboration with Calvet. She explained that following initial grading to establish the pads, each cemetery would be developed in an approximately 10 to 20-acre increment on an as -needed basis for internment. Deputy Director Allen reported that access to the site is from Gypsum Canyon Road at Santa Ana Canyon Road with a loop road within the property to provide access to both parcels. She noted that the cemeteries will be open daily for visitation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with burial services limited to the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. She added that up to four burial services on weekdays and three on Saturdays would be scheduled for each cemetery during designated time slots to avoid overlapping with other burial services in the respective cemetery. She reported that no services will be held on New Year's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. She noted that special activities may occur on Memorial Day and Veterans Day at the Veterans Cemetery portion of the property. Deputy Director Allen reported that proposed improvements to both parcels include bridge crossings over Gypsum Creek, roadways for vehicular circulation and parking, administrative buildings, maintenance facilities, committal shelters, landscaping, and utility infrastructure. She noted that there would be no wakes or cremation services provided on -site. She added that the public cemetery would provide approximately 405 parking spaces and the Veterans Cemetery would provide at least 359 spaces. She explained that both parcels are designed with parking near the administration buildings as well as along the internal roadways and each provides a surplus of parking using data from three different cemeteries including El Toro Memorial Park, Santa Ana Cemetery, and Riverside National Cemetery. Deputy Director Allen reported that the project requires an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element because the project is located within an area that has specific density limitations associated with the Mountain Park Specific Plan. She noted that the project also includes amendments to the City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 8 of 33 Mountain Park Specific Plan and associated Zoning Codes section to add a cemetery and associated - infrastructure as a permitted use in Development Area 5. Deputy Director Allen explained that when an EIR has been previously certified for a project, CEQA includes a strong presumption against requiring any further environmental reviews. She reported that CEQA guidelines establish the circumstances when a subsequent or supplemental EIR needs to be prepared, and conversely when an addendum is the required environmental analysis. She explained that consistent with these regulations, the City determined the project requires preparation of an addendum to the previously certified Mountain Park Specific Plan, EIR 331, specifically, the analysis that evaluated potential impacts associated with the cemetery use versus those of the previously approved 1,595 residential units in Development Area 5. She noted that the project would not result in significant new or more severe impacts and, in fact, has a reduced impact in several areas. She advised that no new mitigation measures are required; therefore, EIR 331 remains valid and an addendum has been prepared. She further explained that the analysis was based on City -approved technical studies including on topics including soils and traffic. She reported that the addendum and all supporting technical studies were provided to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. She explained that original applicable mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been incorporated into the project and a new Mitigation Monitoring Plan, MMP 389 has been created to incorporate these measures as well as project design features and standard conditions. Deputy Director Allen reported that the applicant and their development team have conducted various engagements with the public. She noted that the project was presented to members of Congress County of Orange Supervisors, mayors, and city officials. She advised that presentations were also made at District 6 community meetings, the Anaheim Senior Citizens Advisory Council, and the City of Yorba Linda staff. She noted that staff has maintained a web page on the City's website dedicated specifically to the cemetery project. She advised that staff has periodically sent updates throughout the course of processing the application to those subscribing to receive updates. She noted that the staff has carefully reviewed the proposed project and determined that it meets the necessary requirements and standards for approval. She remarked that the project has been thoughtfully designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, provide adequate on -site operations, and mitigate potential impacts. She advised that the project will enhance the community by providing a needed public veterans cemetery while preserving the area's open space character. Lastly, the Planning Commission found the project to be in conformance with the General Plan, Mountain Park Specific Plan, and Zoning Code as amended and noted that staff recommends approval of this request. DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken inquired if any ex-parte communications needed to be disclosed by any member of the City Council. Council Member Faessel referenced a document that the City Council received from a group of attorneys expressing concern regarding the 20-year-old original EIR. He inquired if that document changed staff's recommendation. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that she reviewed the letter dated July 22 from Strumwasser & Woocher and it does not change the recommendation for approval. She noted their concerns but according to CEQA, case law, and guidelines, the age of the EIR is not a factor when looking at the adequacy of environmental review. She advised that in this instance there is an approved environmental document that is still valid for the project as modified by the proposed cemetery. She reiterated the document does not change staff's recommendation. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 9 of 33 Council Member Meeks reported meeting with representatives from the County Cemetery District and touring the site with other public officials and representatives from both the County Cemetery site and the Veterans Cemetery Organization. She noted that she has also received numerous emails from constituents and has communicated with some of them on the item. Council Member Faessel reported touring the site over the last several years along with attending public meetings at the site that were also attended by other regional officials as well as advocates. He noted he has not met with anyone recently. Council Member Leon reported he has not attended any formal meetings but has run into some of the proponents for the project at different events and has also received a number of different emails on this item. Mayor Aitken reported meeting with Tim Deutsch from the Orange County Cemetery District about the project as well as meeting with many veteran groups. She reported touring the site with other elected officials and Secretary Lindsey Sin from Calvet. Council Member Rubalcava reported that she has had formal conversations with Bobby McDonald and Nick Berardino. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz reported she spoke with constituents and the applicant at the Memorial Day event at the Anaheim Cemetery regarding the upcoming vote. At 6:41 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing. Tim Deutsch, Orange County Cemetery District (OCCD) General Manager, reported that this item is a community benefit for not only Anaheim residents but for the County in general. He reported there will be a First Responders section and an Allied Veterans section within the public cemetery. He noted that they have been working in collaboration with Calvet. He explained that one of the main reasons for needing a new cemetery is that the public cemeteries will be running out of casket space for all County residents effective possibly in the Fiscal Year 2025/26. He noted that this will provide veterans who reside in Anaheim and Orange County with a local option for internment. He added that the property was deeded by the County of Orange in 2019. Mr. Deutsch reported that the OOCD is one of 250 public cemetery districts in the State of California and is the largest in the state. He explained that most of their revenue is from burial sales although they receive a small percentage of the 1 % Ad Valorem Tax that helps keep fees affordably lower. He noted that the Anaheim Cemetery was depleted in 2010, the Santa Ana Cemetery was depleted of existing sites in 2020 with El Toro Memorial Park projected for depletion in FY 2025/26. Larry Ryan, Principal, RJM Design Group, presented a brief overview of the Master Plan and thanked City staff for their work. He noted that the Master Plan creates an upper pad which is the parcel that is reserved for the Calvet Cemetery. He explained that the parcel below the slope would contain the OCCD-administered public cemetery which would include LA Veterans and First Responders. He noted that the project has garnered the support of all of the county's 34 cities and has received broad support from the local community. Mr. Ryan reported that a comprehensive set of drawings was completed and reviewed by city staff along with peer review consultants. He noted that all parties agree on what has been requested in terms of the entitlement process. Lastly, he provided a brief overview of important milestones during the process including the County's $20 million allocation for the cemetery in 2021, resolutions of City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 10 of 33 support approved by 34 cities, application submittal to the City in August 2022, and events leading up to the June 2024 recommendation of approval by the Anaheim Planning Commission. Mr. Deutsch reported that a highlight video and informational booklet have been made available along with a project website trying to address as many of the concerns that have been expressed by constituents in Anaheim as well as throughout the county. He provided a brief overview of the project team's community outreach efforts. He highlighted positive community sentiment including press articles about the project. Mr. Ryan provided an overview of the project timeline and noted that upon approval will start to work with staff to develop the improvement drawings. He reported that supplemental geotechnical work is currently being conducted on the site as recommended by the City's peer reviewer. He explained that construction is planned to start in September 2026 with internment available in January 2028 for the public cemetery section. He provided a brief overview of the Calvet project timeline and noted that Calvet prepared their concept plan and cost estimates for the Veterans cemetery which was just recently submitted to the federal government for funding. Lastly, he presented renderings of the site layout. He noted that there were original concerns about how the project would fit the natural topography but noted that the natural hillside and character have remained untouched. Cassandra Perez read a letter on behalf of Congressman Lou Correa expressing support for the construction of a veterans cemetery in the City of Anaheim on the Gypsum Canyon site. He encouraged the City Council to stand with the Orange County veteran community and approve the project. Anthony Monroy read a letter on behalf of Assemblymember Sharon Quirk -Silva expressing strong support for the Orange County Veterans Cemetery Project at Gypsum Canyon. In the letter, she highlighted the support of 43 surrounding cities and unanimous and bipartisan support by State and Federal delegation members. She encouraged the City Council to continue to support the Southern California Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon and approve the project. Ronnie Guyer expressed support for the Veterans Cemetery and noted that he was involved in one of the first major battles of the Vietnam War and recalled his time during the war. He thanked the City Council for their support and expressed pride for what they are doing on behalf of Anaheim. Ron Bengochea reported he was in attendance when Anaheim was the first city to approve a resolution for the cemetery in Gypsum Canyon. He thanked the City Council on behalf of the veteran families and their loved ones who will one day be able to enjoy the cemetery and reflect on their loved ones. He mentioned he was grateful for the cemetery and highlighted how long people have been waiting for the opportunity. Chuyen Nguyen reported that he is a Vietnamese U.S. Air Force veteran fighter pilot who served in the Vietnam War from December 1969 to April 1975. He noted that he was speaking on behalf of many Vietnamese war veterans who could not be in attendance for whatever reason regarding the Southern California Veterans Cemetery located at Gypsum Canyon in Anaheim. He noted that veterans sacrifice their lives to serve the country and deserve a final resting place. He encouraged the City Council to support Item No. 11 so veterans and ally veterans can have a dignified and honorable final resting place near home. Michelle De La Cruz, Chef de Gare for Grand du California of the Forty and Eight, reported that the City of Anaheim has won their national competition for City of the Year not only because of its decades of support for the veterans and their families in the community but especially for its support City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 11 of 33 of the Veterans Cemetery. She requested that the City provide a representative to their national promenade in Sandusky, Ohio on September 20th. She encouraged the City Council to approve the Veterans Cemetery program. Jose Duran, representing the Anaheim Police Association (APA), expressed APA's full support for the proposed Gypsum Canyon Memorial Cemetery which is dedicated to honoring veterans, Allied Veterans, and First Responders. He noted that the project ensures minimal environmental impact, enhances the area's aesthetics, and promises long-term benefits for Anaheim residents and Orange County taxpayers. He encouraged the City Council to approve the item. Paul Bartlett, Executive Director for the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, reported that his organization represents 3000 active county law enforcement officers as well as 1700 retired members. He emphasized veterans and first responders deserve a final resting place in Orange County. He expressed appreciation that Anaheim stepped up to make this an opportunity to have it in the county. He encouraged the City Council to support the cemetery by approving the item. Nick Berardino, President of the Valor Veterans Alliance of Orange County (VAOC), thanked the City Council and City staff for their hard work on this project. He thanked City Manager Vanderpool for his responsiveness on the project. He highlighted the challenges of the project but highlighted the historic opportunity for the City. He thanked Council Member Rubalcava and Mayor Aitken who helped build the Heroes Hall Veterans Foundation. Richard Bui Jr., President of Central Coordinators Republic of Vietnam Armed Force in South Western USA, reported that he served in the Vietnam Air Force from August 1972 until April 1975 as a helicopter pilot during the Vietnam War. He recalled his time during Operation Frequent Wind where they successfully evacuated over 50,000 refugees and American personnel from Vietnam. He encouraged the City Council to support Item No. 11 for a dignified and honorable final resting place for veterans and allied veterans. Bobby McDonald, Orange County Veterans Advisory Council, reported on his history with the project. He noted that this could be a historic day in Anaheim. He encouraged the City Council to approve the Southern California Veterans Cemetery Robert Brower, an Irvine resident, reported he has been working on bringing a veteran's cemetery to Orange County since 2010. He reported that he served with the 101 st Airborne Division in Vietnam and felt this was a great project to get involved with since he had land use development experience in Orange County. He noted it was important to understand that bringing a Veterans Cemetery to Orange County and Anaheim will serve veterans who reside between Los Angeles and Riverside County. He encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Bill Sandlin reported that he has volunteered for many years trying to get a Veteran's cemetery done. He noted that almost all of the veterans' organizations support the Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon. He clarified comments made that the cemetery belongs to Irvine proclaiming it is an Orange County cemetery. He encouraged the City Council to approve the item. Bill Cook reported he is a United States Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran and the Chairman of the Orange County Veterans Memorial Park Foundation, a Board Member of Valor, and a member of Forty & Eight. He remarked that the City Council has the distinct honor and opportunity to be able to add a landmark to the portfolio of the City of Anaheim. He encouraged the City Council to approve the item. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 12 of 33 Steve Herr, U.S. Marine Corps, reported that he has been living in Orange County for 20 years and noted that this is the closest the project has ever been to being built. He noted that his son, a decorated combat veteran, was killed 14 years ago and is buried at Riverside National Cemetery. He explained that it is a place of solace for him and is honored that his country built a place for him. He noted that Orange County veterans need to have a place that is near home. He encouraged the City Council to approve the item. Joe Pak representing the Korean American Vietnam Allies War Veterans requested the City Council's support for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery. He reported that Congressman Mark Takano ordered the Korean American Allies Long Overdue Relief Act (VALOR) which was signed into law by President Biden. He explained that the bill allows for the Veterans Administration (VA) to treat individuals who served in Vietnam as a member of the armed forces of the Republic of Korea as a veteran of the armed forces of the United States. He requested the City Council's support for Item No. 11 for a dignified and final resting place for Allied veterans and veterans. He noted that over 300,000 Korean veterans were deployed in the Vietnam War, noting over 5,000 never returned home. He noted hundreds of Korean Vietnam War veterans have made Orange County their home. He thanked Council Member Faessel for his cousin's service during the Korean War. Harvey Liss, Executive Director of Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery, explained that their mission is to get a State Veterans Cemetery built in the Great Park in Irvine, a site where the veterans cemetery rightfully belongs, which is the former Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro. He noted the site was unanimously approved by the Irvine City Council in 2014 with Calvet approving the project in 2016. He noted issues with a developer who wanted to develop the site. He noted that the push to place the site at Gypsum Canyon was due to cost but noted that the costs would be lower in Irvine and construction time. He recommended postponing the vote on Item No. 11 to the next City Council meeting so it can be further considered. Lam Tran encouraged the City Council to approve Item No. 11. Marc Herbert expressed support for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery but requested additional details. He expressed concern that the area is in a designated high fire area which could be hard to contain and noted it was not addressed in the EIR. He referenced the May draft of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element does not recommend any affordable units in that area because the risk of fire was so great. He noted the same private companies completing the EIR for the Deer Park and Disneyland Forward project did not reference fire risks. He noted that there is a 141-page report on fire in this area and not one page references an evacuation plan. Marlena Truong Hi, a District Representative, read a letter on behalf of Senator Tom Umberg expressing support to move forward with the veteran's cemetery in Orange County. He expressed pride in having secured $25 million in state funding to build a cemetery befitting the sacrifice of Orange County veterans and their families. City Clerk Bass reported that a total of 64 public comments were received related to Public Hearing Item No. 11. [A final total of 69 public comments were received electronically, distributed to the City Council, and made part of the official records]. — See Appendix. At 7:45 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing. Mr. Deutsch thanked all the veterans and the community for their support. He thanked everyone involved and noted he is looking forward to working with everyone on this project. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 13 of 33 DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz noted that this item has a legal side and a moral and ethical side. He noted this is now the City's opportunity for a veterans cemetery. He reported that the site legally meets all of the requirements required by CEQA. He explained that this project will enhance the life of veterans knowing they will have a resting place close to home. He noted that this is a not - for -profit cemetery and will be affordable. He referenced the moral and ethical side which is to honor the country's veterans who protect the resident's freedom. He expressed strong support for the item. Council Member Meeks inquired if it is ensured in the documents that part of this site is reserved and restricted for a veteran's cemetery. She noted that she wanted to ensure that the County does not take up the entire site with the public cemetery. Deputy Director Allen explained that in terms of the land use the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approves a cemetery use and is conditioned to comply with the letter of the request which includes the description of the acknowledgment that the second parcel is in collaboration with the Calvet Cemetery. Council Member Meeks inquired if a deed restriction can be required in addition to the Condition of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that it would not be appropriate and requested additional information regarding the concern. She explained that if for some reason cemetery use was not happening on the property, the City would seek to revoke the CUP and eliminate cemetery use on the property. She further explained that as a Condition of Approval, the applicant must operate within the Letter of Operation that committed to providing these two types of cemeteries. Mr. Deutsch explained that part of the requirement that the County of Orange had on the land deed transfer stipulated that they had to set aside 50% of the developable acreage. He further explained that they cannot do anything with the remaining parcel unless there is approval from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Council Member Meeks acknowledged and thanked all the veterans in the Council Chamber for their service. She noted that she is honored to vote for the item and to do what is right for current and future veterans who deserve a resting space to honor them. She acknowledged individuals who felt strongly about wanting the cemetery to be located at El Toro but noted it is more important to move forward with what is being presented. She referenced constituents who emailed that the project would have an impact on their view and would impact their daily lives but noted it is well separated from residential properties by both the 91 and 241 Freeways. She noted that this was a repurposing of a former mining site and would be a wonderful use for the community and veterans. Council Member Rubalcava inquired if federal funding would be available for veterans who are laid to rest at this cemetery. Mr. Deutsch explained that they are working in collaboration with Calvet. He noted that Calvet has already submitted for federal funding. Council Member Rubalcava inquired about who is eligible to be interred in the law enforcement section of the cemetery. Mr. Deutsch explained that they are currently working with all the agencies to develop eligibility requirements for both the allied veterans and the first responder's section. He noted that law enforcement who are killed in the line of duty and retired personnel will have the right to be interred City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 14 of 33 there. He noted that Supervisor Don Wagner allocated $1 million to ensure that the first 100 police officers and first 100 firefighters will have paid space there when needed. Council Member Rubalcava thanked all of the veterans who took the time to come down to Anaheim City Hall and express their support for the cemetery. She noted that her grandfather, an Army veteran, is buried at Riverside Veterans Cemetery. She expressed gratitude to be able to sit on the dais and give support and approval for the development of the cemetery in Anaheim where it rightly belongs and including an area for law enforcement. She noted District 3 is home to the American Legion and VFW and thanked all the veteran organizations for their service. She thanked Council Member Diaz for his touching words earlier. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz expressed pride to be able to sit on the dais to participate in a historic vote. She noted that she will take the vote in honor of her grandfather who is a World War One veteran, her father who is a World War Two veteran, and her husband who is a Vietnam veteran. She thanked all current and future veterans for their service. She referenced comments about the location near the freeway and remarked that those driving by would be proud of their country and the people who serviced the country. She expressed support for approving the item. Council Member Leon remarked that this project is long overdue and agreed that this is a project that will benefit Anaheim residents. He thanked the many veteran organizations that have been so welcoming and open to working together for the community. He thanked local veterans who have continuously exemplified patriotism, and shown their love of country, and their love for the community. He stated it is an honor and privilege to take part in the project. MOTION: Council Member Leon moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. `2024-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 389 (MMP 389), and determining that said addendum and MMP 389, together serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project (DEV2020- 00204), RESOLUTION NO. - 2024_-082 ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-160 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204), RESOLUTION NO._.__ 2024-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a cemetery use and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204), RESOLUTION NO. 2024-084 _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (DEV2020-00204), and introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6586 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020- 00204)] and ORDINANCE NO 6587 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 18.112 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020- 00204)], seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. DISCUSSION: Council Member Faessel thanked Mr. Pak for acknowledging his cousin's service in the Korean War. He thanked the VFW for their work and attendance. He thanked Orange County Cemetery District Board Member Cynthia Ward for her work behind the scenes to see the project to fruition. He noted that he has been part of many legacy votes but believes that none will mean as much to so many people as this project. He thanked everyone who has worked on the project. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 15 of 33 Mayor Aitken echoed her City Council colleagues and thanked the Orange County Cemetery District beyond the project and the beautiful legacy of the Anaheim Cemetery. She noted that they guard a legacy of working with families in their greatest time of need and their greatest time of hurt and to be able to help families honor the legacy of their loved ones is a beautiful charge. She thanked Board Member Ward and the entire Orange County Cemetery District team for their good work. She thanked all of the veteran organizations for taking the time to involve community groups, educate elected officials, and remind residents how important it is to honor those who have been lost. She thanked Mr. McDonald and Mr. Berardino for reaching across aisles and reaching across communities to build the coalition that brought the City where it is. She acknowledged that it was not just a project but a life passion and legacy. She acknowledged the opportunity to honor public safety and first responders as well as allies who fought alongside the United States troops in so many places around the world. She added the project serves as the City's commitment not only to Anaheim veterans but to Orange County veterans and sacred. She noted that it will be a place of reflection for family members to gather and honor their loved ones' legacy, retell their stories, and spend moments with their family members that they have lost. She remarked that the cemetery aims to honor the courage and ensure that veteran's legacies will be rewarded, not just for their families, but for generations to come. Lastly, she noted that it is a lasting reminder of respect and a symbol of the City's eternal gratitude for those who allow residents to have the freedoms they enjoy daily. MOTION: Council Member Leon moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 389 (MMP 389), and determining that said addendum and MMP 389, together serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project (DEV2020- 00204), RESOLUTION NO. 2024-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-160 and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204), RESOLUTION NO. 2024-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a cemetery use and making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2020-00204), RESOLUTION NO. 2024-084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim (DEV2020-00204), and introduce ORDINANCE NO. _ 6586 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting an amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020- 00204)] and ORDINANCE NO 6587 ____(INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 18.112 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code [Amendment No. 4 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan) (DEV2020- 00204)], seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. Ordinances introduced. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Faessel congratulated Community Services Park Services Coordinator Leo Aguirre on his upcoming retirement after 39 years with the City of Anaheim. He shared that Leo Aguirre has worked at Modjeska Park, Brookhurst Park, Boysen Park, Pearson Park, and Peralta Park. Council Member Faessel wished District 5 resident, Antonio Garcia, a happy 75th Birthday. He noted that Mr. Garcia and his family have been Anaheim residents since 1976. Council Member Faessel highlighted and shared photographs of events he attended including visiting the Muzeo Museum and Cultural Center. He recommended that everyone visit the exhibits at the Muzeo including the Rubber City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 16 of 33 Menagerie and Victorian Mourning Presented by Haunted OC Exhibitions. Council Member Faessel attended the Inaugural South Asian, Middle Eastern North African (SAMENA) Collective kickoff event hosted by Access California Services. The SAMENA collective is comprised of several non-profit organizations who provide resources for the SAMENA community. He shared that SAMENA founder Nahla Kayali, has also done a great job with the new Access California Services facility since their move a year ago. Council Member Faessel thanked Director of Public Works, Rudy Emami, for the Lincoln Avenue Improvements tour he and his Council Aide Nam Bartash received. The improvements include 3,000 feet of street widening, street repavement, new streetlights, new water lines, new catch basins and sewers, and eventually a new median. He also attended the Anaheim Ballet at Pearson Park and congratulated Larry Rosenberg on his talented performers. He attended the 60th Annual CHOC hospital walk fundraiser at Disneyland. He stated it was wonderful to hear the stories from individuals whose lives were saved as children at Choc. Council Member Rubalcava highlighted and shared photographs of events she attended in District 3. She noted her office is collaborating with Mondragon Family Market, which has been in the community for about 40 years, for a Backpack Giveaway Summer Extravaganza on Friday, July 26. She thanked City departments including Public Utilities, Community Services, Anaheim Fire and Rescue, and the Anaheim Police Department for their participation. She stated that between 300 and 500 students will be receiving a backpack with supplies to ensure that they have the tools needed for a successful upcoming school year. She referenced a photograph of the Mondragon family with Police Chief Rick Armendariz and Lieutenant Steve Pena and thanked the Mondragon family for being the lead host and the Anaheim Police Association for purchasing school supplies and backpacks for the event. Council Member Rubalcava shared that she has been working collaboratively with residents and businesses in District 3 to walk neighborhoods with residents to identify issues to implement solutions to enhance the quality of life for residents. Last Thursday the walk took place in the Pauline Street Community off Sycamore Street. She noted that there has been an increase in gang activity and landlords who are providing substandard living conditions for many of the residents in the area. Staff from Code Enforcement, Anaheim Gang Unit, Public Utilities, Public Works, and Police Chief Armendariz were present to identify issues. Higher Ground, a gang intervention and prevention non-profit organization, is working with the community to ensure that intervention options for students and young people living in these impacted neighborhoods are provided. She shared that she was honored to serve with Council Member Meeks and Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz on a panel for the second annual Anaheim Public Utilities Bright Girls Program which is a STEM initiative. She stated they had an opportunity to share their diverse professional backgrounds and promote jobs within the City of Anaheim which have good paying opportunities, as well as pensions. They highlighted the different job opportunities, not only in City departments, but also positions in law enforcement and first responders. There were a lot of junior high age young ladies who attended the event including young ladies from Project S.A.Y. and Higher Ground. Council Member Rubalcava noted that the City Council approved August as Chicano Heritage Month. She stated she and Director of Community Services, Sjany Larson -Cash had the honor of visiting Emigdio Vasquez's daughter Rosemary and their private art collection. Council Member Rubalcava stated Mr. Vasquez painted the mural at Little People's Park and several other Chicano -related murals across Anaheim, Santa Ana, and other places. She mentioned that Rosemary is also featuring her artwork during August and part of September to highlight and honor Chicano Heritage Month. She noted the City of Anaheim will be recognizing her during Chicano Heritage Month to highlight all the work that she and her father have done to elevate the community. Council Member Rubalcava mentioned that Anaheim was home to the Chicano riots back in 1978 and there is a historically significant meaning to people who reside in Anaheim. Council Member Leon attended the Magnolia Agriscience Community Center's MACC Berry Festival at Magnolia High School. He shared that there were many fresh berries and produce. He was able to City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 17 of 33 tour the freight farm, which is the first of its kind in Southern California. The freight farm allows for a more significant amount of produce to be grown in a smaller footprint. He was excited to announce that the future of agriculture and farming is in District 2. Council Member Leon invited everyone to the Anaheim Police Department's National Night Out event on August 6 at 5:00 p.m. at Modjeska Park. The annual event strengthens the community by promoting partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie with police officers. There will be live music, demonstrations, and a donut -eating contest. He shared that Community Services Coordinator Jason Perez is the donut -eating champion three years in a row. Council Member Leon also invited everyone to the Second Annual Back to School Bash at Madison Elementary School on Saturday, August 10 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Backpacks and school supplies will be given out, resources will be provided by community partners, a limited number of haircuts from True School Barbershop will be provided, and there will also be raffle prizes. Council Member Leon congratulated Walker's Deli, the July Business of the Month. He stated that Walker's Deli is a hidden gem that serves fresh ingredients and some of the tastiest sandwiches ever. Walker's Deli is inside a convenience store on Lincoln Avenue, just west of Euclid Street. Council Member Leon congratulated Ceviche 19, the July Restaurant of the Month. Ceviche 19 is a family business, owned by Peruvian immigrants. Chef Alonso, his wife, his parents, and his in-laws all work there. They are all dedicated ambassadors of Peruvian cuisine and serve fresh and authentic dishes that bring the vibrant flavors of Peru to District 2 residents and the broader Anaheim community. Council Member Meeks shared that in honor of the Olympics, she was wearing her Olympics jacket and asked everyone to cheer for the men's and women's volleyball teams and the two fencers who train in Anaheim. She thanked the Police Department for the electric bike informational meeting that was held in District 6. She encouraged everyone to share safety information regarding electric bikes with kids and their parents because electric bikes can be complex. Some require helmets for individuals under 18 and some may require helmets for all ages, or there are also electric bikes that are illegal to ride on public streets. She noted that a representative from a local middle school will be handing out the flyers during registration and Council Member Meeks encouraged others to do the same. Mayor Aitken thanked Anaheim Public Utilities for hosting the Bright Girls Program closing ceremonies and for inviting her to hand out the certificates. She stated that it was fun meeting with the girls and answering questions about her background and her journey to get there. Mayor Aitken shared that she felt like a rock star because she was autographing shirts and hats for the girls. They even taught her how to take a point -five selfie and she made some of their Instagram accounts. She thanked Public Utilities General Manager Dukku Lee for offering the program. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: City Manager Vanderpool shared that Community Services' summer happenings continue with lineups of live music and summer shows at Pearson Park Amphitheatre. On July 26, 2024, there will be Baile Y Canto performances by Grupo Folkloric Project S.A.Y. and Cal State Fullerton's Banda Primavera. On August 3 there will be a performance by Anything for Salinas Band, a Selena Tribute Band and on August 10, Santanaways, a Carlos Santana Tribute Band will be performing. The shows begin at 7:00 p.m. and for more information visit anaheim.net/play. The Concerts to the Max at Maxwell will bring fun, food, and music to West Anaheim. The series will begin on August 1 at 6:30 p.m. with the band Tabu playing a fusion of Latin, pop, and classic rock. He shared that for the first time ever, Community Services is partnering with the Anaheim Police Department to bring the second concert in the series to National Night out at Modjeska Park on Tuesday, August 6. Music by Modern Highway, a top 40s hit band, will be there at 6:30 p.m. to perform during the event. City Manager Vanderpool pointed out the amazing work of the men and women of the Anaheim Police Department and the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force (OCHTTF). The Anaheim Police Department City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 18 of 33 is the lead agency for the OCHTTF and hosts the Task Force at the Anaheim Police Department. On July 9, the Task Force received information about a juvenile who was being trafficked. OCHTTF and assisting agencies recovered the victim and located the suspect who was responsible for the trafficking. After locating the suspect, he led officers on a pursuit. Ultimately, the suspect was arrested. On July 11, the District Attorney's Office charged the suspect with several offenses. He remains in custody and is being held in lieu of a $1 million bail. The investigation illustrates the commitment OCHTTF and the Anaheim Police Department in locating and identifying victims of human trafficking. CONSENT CALENDAR: At 8:40 p.m., the Consent Calendar was considered with Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz pulling Item Nos. 3 and 6 and Council Member Meeks pulling Item No. 2. MOTION: Council Member Faessel moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions and adopt the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and recommendations furnished each City Council Member, seconded by Council Member Leon. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. D116 1. Receive and file the list of Professional Service Agreements executed by the City Manager in June 2024. 4. Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, AMPCO Contracting, in the AGR-14919 amount of $388,650 plus a 10% contingency, for the Kraemer Power Plant Demolition Project; authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the contract and related documents and to take the necessary actions to implement and administer the contract; determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15304 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 5. Approve the Services Agreement with Smart City Networks, Limited Partnership (SCN) AGR-14920 designating SCN as the exclusive technology service provider throughout the Anaheim Convention Center for a base term of seven (7) years and at the end of the seventh year, the City and SCN by mutual consent, may renew for three (3) additional one-year terms; SCN submitted a financial proposal that commits to paying the City a license fee of 60% of gross revenues on technology services; 3% Technology Reserve Fund; and Capital Investment, in the amount of $2,150,000, consisting of network and infrastructure upgrades for enhanced technology services; and authorize the Executive Director of the Convention, Sports & Entertainment Department to execute this agreement and any other related documents, including all actions necessary to implement and administer the Agreement and execute any optional renewals. 7 Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Security Land & Right of Way Services, AGR-14922 Inc., in an amount not to exceed $200,000, for professional property management services to support current and future economic development needs for a two year term with two two-year optional renewals for a total contract amount not to exceed $600,000, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute and administer the agreement. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 19 of 33 AGR-14923 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-085A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the acquisition of the Kettle Motor Hotel located at 1760 W. Lincoln Avenue, in the amount of $3,915,000; approving an Agreement for Sale of Property and Joint Escrow Instructions by and between the City of Anaheim and Kali Investment, Inc., a California Corporation, substantially in the form submitted herewith for the purchase of the Kettle Motor Hotel, in the amount of $3,915,000; authorize the Director of Housing and Community Development, or her designee, to execute and administer the agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim; and increase the FY 2024-2025 Housing and Community Development Department's Budget by $3,915,000. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 6585 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM M142 amending Section 18.54.035 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to require annual review of sex - oriented business employee identification cards and finding and determining that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15601(b)(3) because it will not have a significant effect on the environment [Development Application No. 2024-00026, introduced at the Council Meeting of July 16, 2024, Item No. 27]. BUSINESS CALENDAR: D182 2. Approve the proposed Five -Year Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Year 2024/25. DISCUSSION: Council Member Meeks inquired about the amount of time it takes to remove the telecommunications equipment off the utility poles and options to accelerate the timeline for removal. Anaheim Public Utilities General Manager Dukku Lee reported that there are six different telecommunication companies that have overhead facilities on poles in Anaheim. He noted that the two primary companies are AT&T and Spectrum Communications. He added the companies have their own regional resources to supply to the City, Orange County, and surrounding counties. He noted that the City does its best to coordinate with all of the agencies but the equipment tends to stay on the pole for an average of 2.4 years. He expressed staffs understanding over frustration for the length of time for removal and reported that technical staff had internal discussions with the City Attorney's Office to explore opportunities that the City can pursue. He noted that staff is recommending an ordinance to set specific timelines into the Municipal Code, which currently reads for removal in a timely manner with no specific time frame. He noted that staff is having discussions with those different communication companies to try to understand their resource and crew limitations and work to develop something to present to the City Council at a later date. Council Member Meeks reported the current timeline for removal is frustrating and expressed support for bringing an ordinance back to the City Council. She explained that the telecommunication companies are not only notified when the work is being done but are also a part of the City's Five - Year Plan, adding they are effectively given 7.5 years to remove their equipment. General Manager Lee reported that the telecommunication companies also are noticed during the public hearing process when the Underground District is formed. He noted that the companies also bring out their inspectors to observe the installation of the conduits the City does on its behalf. He agreed that they are adequately noticed of the process but will try to come up with a better plan than what is currently in place. Mayor Aitken inquired if the lines on the poles were active or inactive after 2.4 years. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 20 of 33 General Manager Lee reported that the overhead lines are active and that the companies have to install new underground lines and then cut over or transition from the existing overhead to the new underground before they can remove the poles. He confirmed that work cannot be completed until the City installs the conduit system. Council Member Diaz inquired if there was a timeline for the ordinance to come before the City Council. General Manager Lee explained that staff is hoping to bring the item before the City Council in September or October. He requested prior to City Council review, that the matter be presented to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Underground Subcommittee comprised of Planning Commissioners and PUB Board Members for review in September and ultimately City Council in October. He added if the City Council approves, staff can bring the item directly to the City Council and bypass the boards. Council Member Diaz inquired if Council Member Meeks was comfortable with October who expressed her approval. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to approve the proposed Five -Year Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Year 2024/25, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. AGR-14918 3. Accept the proposal and approve an agreement with All City Management Services Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,537,600, for school crossing guard services for a two-year period with up to three one-year renewal options; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with RFP #9780. DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz thanked the Anaheim Police Department (APD) for working with the school districts to provide the school crossing guard service. She reported that she has had complaints about drivers who are still cutting in front of children and crossing guards. She inquired if there was a system in place to capture that driver's information. Police Chief Rick P. Armendariz reported that the Traffic Unit within APD works with schools at the beginning of each school year to provide education and awareness through social media and through the various Parent Teacher Associations (PTA). He noted that traffic enforcement increases its visual presence with patrol officers and School Resource Officers, especially at the beginning of the school year. He added it is ultimately a collaboration of education, awareness, and enforcement that needs to take place. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz reported that the complaints she has received are from parents. She inquired how parents could report those drivers or if an officer could be placed at those locations. Chief Armendariz reported APD encourages citizens to make reports about traffic complaints to the schools, the crossing guards, or directly to APD. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz moved to accept the proposal and approve an agreement with All City Management Services Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,537,600, for school crossing guard services for a two-year period with up to three one-year renewal options; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with RFP #9780, seconded by City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 21 of 33 Council Member Rubalcava. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. 4GR-14921 6. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc., in a total contract amount not to exceed $220,962, to provide a range of emotional and practical support to victims of traumatic events and their families for a three year term commencing on July 1, 2024, with two one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Fire Chief to execute and administer the agreement. DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz requested a detailed explanation of what the trauma intervention is and who they work with. In response, Chief Armendariz reported that the item for approval of is a contract between the City and Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc. (TIP), to provide emotional and practical support to victims of traumatic events and their families. He explained that these are victims that both the Police and Fire Department come into contact with due to a tragic loss. He noted the service is provided 24 hours, seven days a week. He reported that the initial agreement is for a three-year term followed by two one-year renewal options with a total not to exceed amount of $220,969 over the five -years. Chief Armendariz reported that there is a request to waive Council Policy 4.1 due to the fact that trauma intervention services in Orange County are very unique and TIP is the only provider that can provide the service in Orange County. He noted that staff investigated other providers but there are no similar alternatives for the services and demand being requested. He noted that the service will be available 24 hours, seven days a week including holidays and weekends. He added it is important to have additional resources to provide emotional support to victims. He explained that in 2012, Anaheim Fire and Rescue (AF&R) used the TIP program as a pilot project to provide emotional and practical support to victims of trauma. He noted that based on the success of the pilot program AF&R added the use of TIPS to the department's standard protocols where the company officer on the scene can refer TIPS to provide trauma -related services. He added that APD has joined in collaborating and working with TIP to provide invaluable services to the City. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz noted that something special about the program is that it provides support to law enforcement personnel who experience trauma. She expressed appreciation for the services to City staff. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc., in a total contract amount not to exceed $220,962, to provide a range of emotional and practical support to victims of traumatic events and their families for a three year term commencing on July 1, 2024, with two one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Fire Chief to execute and administer the agreement, seconded by Council Member Meeks. DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava inquired how many families have been helped over the years or an average per year. AF&R Battalion Chief Nicholas Colonelli reported that between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024, TIPS provided 255 individual calls for service for over 1,000 residents. He noted that 662 emergency responders with 814 follow-up calls totaling 1,051 hours of TIPS representatives on scene to support Anaheim citizens. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Battalion Chief Colonelli reported that no one is turned away. He noted that police officers and fire captains are trained to identify when someone has experienced any incident that they feel or perceive that the residents could use the assistance. He City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 22 of 33 explained that the service is never forced on residents and the resident is always asked for permission to bring in TIPS. Council Member Rubalcava requested clarification that this service is not only for residents but also a benefit for Anaheim's police officers and firefighters who may have also experienced a traumatic experience. Battalion Chief Colonelli confirmed that TIPS services are available to any individual who has experienced any type of trauma. He noted that TIPS typically arrives within 22 minutes of being notified. Council Member Rubalcava inquired if Risk Management or Workers' Compensation would be a benefit for City employees also leverage if an incident happened while on the job. Chief Armendariz emphasized employee wellness is essential and confirmed that the City has additional services available as well. Council Member Diaz referenced a speaker from public comments and noted there is some confusion. He noted that the City provides services to the homeless community through City Net to try to help them off the streets. He explained that the services provided by TIPS are for emergency trauma services such as a parent suddenly being killed by a drunk driver. He noted that those services need to be available for first responders for the trauma they experience in those situations. Council Member Faessel reported that he has been very pleased with the work that TIP has performed in District 5 over the years. He explained that for the family's impact, it is often the worst time in their life. He noted that in most of the cases he has experienced, Spanish is the dominant language and they ensure that the care providers have appropriate language skills. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Kurtz moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc., in a total contract amount not to exceed $220,962, to provide a range of emotional and practical support to victims of traumatic events and their families for a three year term commencing on July 1, 2024, with two one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Fire Chief to execute and administer the agreement, seconded by Council Member Meeks. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. E127 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-086 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, accepting the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the verification of signatures of the initiative petition entitled "City of Anaheim For - Profit Hospital Gross Receipts Tax Initiative." Upon acceptance of the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the verification of signatures of the initiative, and if the initiative is found sufficient, either: i) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure imposing a general tax on each for- profit general acute care hospital located in the City of Anaheim ("Hospital") equivalent to three (3) percent of the For -Profit Hospital's Annual Gross Receipts; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 23 of 33 Or the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of the general municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. a. If the resolution is adopted, decide whether to submit an argument against the ordinance proposed by the initiative measure as provided in Section 9282 of the Elections Code of the State of California, and if submitting an argument against the ordinance, may designate the author(s) of the argument. ii) Order a report on the effect of the proposed initiative measure pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 to be presented to the City Council no later than at the August 20, 2024 Council meeting. City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that the item is related to an initiative petition filed by proponents that would impose a general tax on each for -profit general acute care hospital located in the City of Anaheim equivalent to 3% of the for -profit hospital's gross receipts. She reported that following a prima facie review and examination of the petition, the City Clerk's Office determined that the petition contained the requisite number of signatures and forwarded the petitions to the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV) for signature verification. City Clerk Bass reported that the ROV completed the review and provided the City Clerk's Office with a Certificate as to the Verification of Signatures on Friday, July 19th. She noted that the certificate was distributed to the City Council and made publicly available on the City's website as part of the agenda packet, specifically Exhibit A, to the resolution accepting the certificate. City Clerk Bass explained that pursuant to the Elections Code once the certificate is received, it is to be presented to the City Council for acceptance. She reported that the petition was found sufficient and contained the signatures of not less than 10% of the registered voters of the City of Anaheim. She noted that as a result, the City Council is required to take one of the following actions pursuant to the Elections Code: adopt the ordinance without alteration, submit the initiative measure without alteration to the voters, or order a report on the effect of the proposed initiative measure. City Clerk Bass explained that because the proposed ordinance imposes a tax, the City Council cannot exercise the first option. She reported that State Constitution Proposition 218 requires that a tax measure must be approved by the voters. She noted that this leaves the City Council with the option of either placing the measure on the ballot or ordering a fiscal impact report. She explained that if the City Council elects to order a report, the report must be presented to the City Council no later than 30 days from the Certification of Signatures finding the petition sufficient. City Clerk Bass explained that if the report is ordered, the report will be presented and brought back for City Council consideration at the scheduled meeting of August 13, 2024. She noted that if the City Council chooses to call an election pursuant to the Elections Code, the election shall be held at the next regular election not less than 88 days which is scheduled for November 5, 2024. She explained that the resolution before the City Council calls for the election, establishes the ballot language to be submitted to the voters, and other provisions such as requesting the ROV to render the services relating to conducting the election, establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttals, and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. She explained that pursuant to the City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 24 of 33 code, the legislative body may also elect to submit an argument against the measure. She further explained that if the City Council elects to submit an argument against the measure, and in order to comply with the Brown Act, staff recommends that the City Council designate three or fewer of its members to author the argument against the measure on behalf of the City Council. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon expressed support for submitting the measure to the voters for the November 5, 2024, General Election. Council Member Meeks inquired if the fiscal impact report would address the potential impacts on hospital services for Anaheim residents or only the financial impacts to the City. Chief Assistant City Attorney Kristin Pelletier explained that it would depend on the City Council's request with respect to the fiscal impact report. She noted that the City Council could request that analysis as long as it is completed within the period by which the report needs to come back to the City Council. Council Member Meeks expressed interest in seeing that data to assess the impacts to the community. She noted hospital are already crowded and after the pandemic the City should consider looking at hospital closures and restricted availability as a result of the measure. Council Member Rubalcava inquired how many for -profit hospitals operate in Anaheim and if there was an estimate of potential revenue to the City. Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier reported there are four for -profit hospitals operating in Anaheim. She reported that the estimated annual revenue would range from $6 million to $12 million. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier explained that it the City Council requested a fiscal impact report the measure would not be able to go onto the November 5th ballot. Council Member Rubalcava inquired what the timeline for removing the measure from the ballot if the proponents decided not to move forward. Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier explained that the proponents have up to 88 days before the election to notify the City Clerk that they want the measure removed. She further explained that the City then has 83 days to rescind the submission of the initiative and provide a new resolution to the ROV that it has been withdrawn. City Clerk Bass explained that the Elections Code allows the proponents up to August 9th, which is 88 days prior to the election, although found sufficient, to withdraw the petition. She noted that the Elections Code also provides the legislative body, once an election has been called, to withdraw or amend a measure that has been submitted and state the reasons, recitals, and facts. She further explained that the Elections Code allows up to, 83 days prior to the election, in this case, August 14tn for the City Council to approve a resolution withdrawing the measure and submitting that to the ROV. She noted the City Council has a scheduled meeting on August 13th. She added if the proponents submit a request for withdrawal with their signatures, a resolution would be presented at the August 13th meeting to officially withdraw the measure from the November 51h ballot. City Clerk Bass explained that the 30-day timeframe period to receive the fiscal impact report will extend past the August gth deadline to place the item on the November 5, 2024 election ballot. She added if the deadline is missed, the measure would be placed on the next General Election ballot, City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 25 of 33 which is November 2026. She noted that the City Council has the option to call for a special election for that specific measure but is not required. She clarified the Elections Code calls for the initiative to be placed on the next General Election ballot in no less than 88 days. Council Member Rubalcava inquired how much a fiscal impact report would cost the City. Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier reported that the reports have been commissioned in the past but estimated it would be tens of thousands of dollars depending on the scope of the report. Council Member Rubalcava noted the City may not have access to the financials of private hospitals to understand the financial impact. Council Member Diaz expressed concern about the measure given that the City does not know what the long-term consequences would be to Anaheim residents. He expressed interest in participating in authoring the argument against the measure. Council Member Faessel expressed concern regarding the measure and believes it is almost punitive against the for -profit hospitals. He noted that the City Council did not ask for the tax nor endorse the tax. He expressed support for understanding the financial effects, and service level effects and hearing input from the for -profit hospitals. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz inquired if City staff or members of the City Council were contacted by any of the hospitals or the hospital association. She requested clarification of the process for the proponent withdrawing the measure. City Clerk Bass explained that the Elections Code allows the proponents to withdraw the initiative 88 days prior to the election. She noted that the Elections Code also provides the legislative body 83 days prior to the election to either amend or withdraw a measure that has already been called for or placed on the ballot. She further explained that if the proponents choose to withdraw the measure, she would be presenting a resolution to the City Council at the August 13th meeting to withdraw the measure from the November 5, 2024 ballot. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz, City Clerk Bass clarified if the measure is placed on the ballot and the petitioners wish to withdraw the measure, the City Council would take action to withdraw the resolution from the ballot. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz requested clarification that the City Council could at that time take a vote to accept the notice to withdraw the measure or vote to allow it to remain on the ballot. Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier explained that there would be no practical reason for the City Council to continue with the measure because it would no longer have a proponent. She reported that the City Clerk did contact the ROV who had never witnessed this situation before. She added staff consulted with outside counsel and but that the process outlined is the correct process according to the Elections code. Mayor Aitken noted that because it is a tax measure, the City's options are restricted. She inquired if the most cost-effective path forward for the City would be to make a motion to place the measure on the November ballot and then let the for -profit hospitals and proponents confer and educate the voters so the City is not involved. She noted even if the Council does not agree with the measure, the City must take the measure to the voters. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 26 of 33 Council Member Meeks explained that the measure does not require a special election but could place the measure on the November 2026 ballot if it did not meet the ROV timelines. She expressed interest in understanding the long-term impacts on the residents and their healthcare options. Mayor Aitken noted that she is leaning towards placing it on the November 2024 ballot and letting the voters decide as it would be the most pragmatic and cost-effective way forward for the City. Council Member Rubalcava explained that at some point it will have to go on the ballot to let the voters decide. She noted that it is not responsible for the City to use more taxpayer dollars to conduct an economic impact study given the unknowns. She added it is better to place the measure on the ballot now than to have it loom until 2026. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to approve i) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure imposing a general tax on each for- profit general acute care hospital located in the City of Anaheim ("Hospital") equivalent to three (3) percent of the For -Profit Hospital's Annual Gross Receipts; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of the general municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, seconded by Mayor Aitken. DISCUSSION: Council Member Leon expressed agreement with placing the measure on the November 2024 ballot. Council Member Meeks stated that if the vote does not pass, she would be interested in an analysis of long-term impacts on residents and not an economic impact study. She noted that one of the decisions the City Council needs to make is whether or not to move forward with an argument against the measure. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz expressed agreement with placing the measure on the November 2024 ballot. She expressed concern that the for -profit hospitals or hospital associations have not contacted any members of the City Council. Council Member Diaz explained that this is a tax on the gross receipts, not the profits which mean it would divert federal and State taxes to the City. He expressed concern about how this measure will impact services to residents and how residents will be informed. City Clerk Bass noted prior to taking action on the motion by Council Member Rubalcava, the City Council needs to take action on the resolution to accept the Certification of the Verification of Signatures from the ROV. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2024-086 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, accepting the certification of the Orange County Registrar of Voters as to the verification of signatures of the initiative petition entitled "City of Anaheim For -Profit Hospital Gross Receipts Tax Initiative.", seconded by Council Member Rubalcava. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Diaz, Leon, Rubalcava, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 0. Motion carried. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 27 of 33 DISCUSSION: Mayor Aitken clarified that City Council will now be voting on Council Member Rubalcava's motion to call for an election at the next general election which will be on November 5 2024, which she had previously seconded. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to approve i) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-087 P RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 and ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Anaheim an initiative measure imposing a general tax on each for- profit general acute care hospital located in the City of Anaheim ("Hospital") equivalent to three (3) percent of the For -Profit Hospital's Annual Gross Receipts; requesting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors direct the Orange County Registrar of Voters to render services to the City relating to the conduct of the general municipal election; establishing the deadlines for the filing of arguments and rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis, seconded by Mayor Aitken. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 4 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Leon, and Rubalcava); NOES — 3 (Council Members Diaz, Faessel, and Meeks). Motion carried. City Clerk Bass noted that the City Council can now decide whether to submit an argument against the ordinance and designate at least three members of the City Council, in order to not violate the Brown Act, to be authors of the argument. Mayor Aitken requested clarification on whether the City Council needs to vote to designate authors for the argument. City Clerk Bass confirmed a vote is required. Council Member Meeks inquired who would help the City Council draft the argument. City Clerk Bass explained that the three City Council members appointed would need to write the argument. Council Members Meeks and Diaz volunteered to be one of the authors of the argument. City Clerk Bass clarified staff recommended three authors, but it is not required. Mayor Aitken clarified that the City Council can designate authors for the argument and added that individual Council Members can vocally take their own personal positions. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to designate Council Member Meeks and Council Member Diaz as the authors of the argument, seconded by Council Member Diaz. DISCUSSION: Council Member Rubalcava explained that it is challenging for her to take an opposed position on this simply because it's benefiting the City. She explained that she would be voting no to oppose. She understands the impacts on businesses and highlighted the lack of outreach by hospital associations and for -profit hospitals. She expressed the belief that the costs are going to be transferred onto the residents who utilize the hospital. MOTION: Council Member Meeks moved to designate Council Member Meeks and Council Member Diaz as the authors of the argument against the measure, seconded by Council Member Diaz. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 3 (Council Members Diaz, Faessel, and Meeks); NOES — 4 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Leon, and Rubalcava). Motion failed. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 28 of 33 PUBLIC HEARING: Pilo 12. Public hearing to consider a proposed vacation/abandonment of portions of excess street right-of-way lying west of Anaheim Boulevard and directly south of Midway Drive requested by developer, Encore Anaheim LLC, in order to clear title to construct the 156 single-family attached dwelling Residential Project. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM vacating portions of excess street right of way lying west of Anaheim Boulevard and directly south of Midway Drive (Abandonment No. ABA 2019-00390) Approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Encore Anaheim LLC, in the purchase price of $1,600,000, for the sale of excess right-of-way from the City; authorize changes to the agreement that do not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Agreement, so long as such changes are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney's Office; authorize the Director of Public Works Director to execute the Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the Quitclaim Deed; authorize and direct the Public Works Director or his designee to execute other documents on behalf of the City, including escrow documents, as required to close escrow; and authorize the City Clerk to deliver the Resolution and Quitclaim Deed to escrow for recordation in the Orange County Recorder's Office. City Engineer Carlos Castellanos reported that the item is for the proposed abandonment of portions of excess street right-of-way just west of Anaheim Boulevard and directly south of Midway Drive. He reported that on September 13, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a 156 single-family attached dwelling residential project. He noted that the abandonment has been requested by the developer, Encore Anaheim, in order to clear the title to construct the residential project. He explained that if vacated, the City would reserve a public utility easement over the portions of excess street right-of-way which by a separate resolution, the public utility easements can be considered for summary vacation at a later time. City Engineer Castellanos reported that one of the portions of the excess street right away, commonly known as Zyen Street shares access with two adjacent properties. He noted that to the east of Zeyn Street lies the Housing Authority Midway Affordable apartments and to the south of Zeyn Street is Golden Skies Mobile Park. He reported that on June 22, 2021, the City Council approved the Midway Affordable Apartments request to abandon the east half of Zeyn Street subject to preserving access rights for the abutting properties. He noted that on May 5, 2022, a reciprocal easement agreement was recorded that secured access to Zeyn Street as a private street for all three abutting properties. City Engineer Castellanos reported that City staff has determined the right-of-way under consideration for abandonment is considered to be an excess right-of-way away, unnecessary for present or prospective public street use consistent with Section 8324(b) of the California Streets and Highways Code. He noted that City Council Policy No. 5.5 requires compensation to the City for fair market value from any application requesting the abandonment or vacation of easements right-of-way or other property interests. He reported that an appraisal of the portion of the street right away was conducted by Sharon A. Hennessey, MAI, a duly authorized appraiser retained by the City. He explained that as a result of the inspection analysis, a fair market value of $1.6 million was determined and agreed upon with the applicant. Lastly, he reported that staff recommends approving the proposed abandonments of these portions of excess street right-of-way for the proposed residential project. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 29 of 33 DISCUSSION: Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz inquired if the Golden Skies Mobile Home Park will have two- way vehicle access to Midway Drive. City Engineer Castellanos confirmed that was correct and noted that as part of the abandonment, the City is abandoning five segments. He explained that for Zeyn Street both the Housing Authority Midway Affordable Apartments Project and the Encore Anaheim Project are preserving vehicular and pedestrian access throughout. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz, City Engineer Castellanos confirmed residents would be able to traverse through the alley that allows residents to turn up Zeyn Street to get to Midway Drive. He clarified that Zeyn Street is being preserved as a private drive aisle. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz inquired if the children living in the mobile home park would be able to walk Zeyn Street over to Midway Drive to cross the street to go to school. City Engineer Castellanos confirmed they would be able to take that route. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz expressed concern about the existing traffic in the area and the dangerous conditions of drivers entering and exiting at the same time with the street not being wide enough especially in emergency situations. She noted she has received complaints from drivers about the existing traffic. City Engineer Castellanos explained that residents of the mobile home park can make a right out of the park to access Anaheim Boulevard and after the project, will be able to make a left onto the alley at the southern portion of the apartment process to access Zeyn Street to get to Midway Drive. He presented several routes to access the mobile home park. Mayor Aitken inquired if the Midway Affordable Apartments is Miraflores and requested a description of the original project. Housing and Community Development Director Grace Ruiz-Stepter confirmed that the Housing Authority site in question is the Miraflores site. Deputy Director of Planning and Building Heather Allen reported that in 2021, 156 single-family attached townhomes were approved. Mayor Aitken inquired if the project changed and if the developer is still intending to build 156 attached townhomes. Deputy Director Allen reported that the application has not changed. She noted there have been other discussions but nothing formal has been filed. She elaborated that Encore has been in discussions to potentially bring in another party, but no application has been filed. Mayor Aitken inquired if there were any affordable units being proposed or if it was 100% market rate. Deputy Director Allen confirmed that it is 100% market rate. In response to Mayor Aitken, Deputy Director Allen confirmed that Encore did not participate in the City's voluntary affordable housing program. Mayor Aitken inquired if each alley was being assessed independently for the total fair market value. City Engineer Castellanos confirmed the alleys were assessed by the square footage of each segment. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 30 of 33 In response to Mayor Aitken, Deputy Director Allen noted he does not have the amount Encore paid to purchase the bifurcated parcels. Mayor Aitken inquired if the City conducted an analysis of the aggregated parcels and their current value. City Engineer Castellanos reported that staff does not know the total value of the aggregated properties. He noted that the street segments that are proposed to be abandoned are assessed with a higher value. Mayor Aitken inquired if one larger parcel is typically worth more than broken -up sites. Director Ruiz- Stepter agreed that generally, an assembled site makes it easier to develop and does increase the value of a site. Director Ruiz-Stepter noted she was unaware if Encore Anaheim had other projects in the City. She provided a brief history of the site and noted it was part of an Enterprise Zone that, if purchased, qualified for tax breaks due to its location in poverty zones. She noted that one of the sites was purchased under that program. She added there were conversations to decide on the development of townhomes or apartments to utilize the tax breaks. She noted that staff is aware of ongoing conversations because City staff has also been in conversations about developing Miraflores and the projects share Zeyn Street. In response to Mayor Aitken, Director Ruiz-Stepter noted that she would confirm ownership of Encore and pass it on to the City Council. She added staff has been operating under the assumption that it is two or three smaller investors. Mayor Aitken remarked that she is sensitive to the fact that the project was approved years ago. She noted that it is clear that the value is much higher than an assembled parcel. She expressed concern that the developer did not participate in the voluntary affordable housing program and is planning to build market -rate housing in one of the City's most housing -poor neighborhoods. She remarked that these are the kinds of questions that the City Council needs to ask. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz expressed concern that there is no affordable housing available and a lack of participation in the City's volunteer affordable housing program. She expressed concern that the area is severely housing -challenged. She added she would like to see what the effects would be on the mobile home park and its residents. She supports the abandonment as long as there is access to the streets but would like to hear more from the developer. In response to Council Member Rubalcava, City Engineer Castellanos confirmed the developer requested the abandonment and they were not in attendance. Council Member Rubalcava expressed concern that the developer did not have a vested interest in attending to ensure that the abandonment was approved for $1.6 million. She recommended tabling the item until the next City Council meeting to have the developer present. City Engineer Castellanos noted that the developer is looking to close escrow within 30 days. Council Member Rubalcava remarked that she is mindful of the fact that the City needs more affordable housing but is also accepting of having some mixed housing since there is an affordable housing apartment complex going up in the area. She added the importance of having diverse populations living in the community. She noted she is concerned that the developer did not attend the hearing to provide additional information on the project. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 31 of 33 MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to table the item. DISCUSSION: Council Member Diaz remarked appraisals are a complicated matter and that the developer has most likely made all the considerations in the appraisal. He noted that a benefit for the City is that they no longer need to maintain the public streets. He expressed support for the item as Anaheim needs more housing to help stabilize housing processes. He noted that while he did not want to speculate why the developer was not present, this is typically a routine process without controversy. Mayor Aitken stated she would second the motion to table the item. Council Member Meeks concurred with Council Member Diaz that abandonments are typically very routine. She noted that this has been approved by the Planning Commission and the previous City Council. She noted that in the approvals, the City acknowledged the intent to abandon the streets according to State law. She noted that the MAI appraiser typically looks at the value of the individual parcels and the accumulated parcels to assess the property's total value. She remarked that a three- week delay will cause a hardship on the developer. She noted she would not be in favor of changing the rules on a developer three years after going through the process and is now moving forward with housing in the City. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz inquired how it could have been approved in September 2021 but plans were still being submitted in 2023. Deputy Director Allen explained that this version of the project was approved by the Planning Commission in September 2021. She noted that City Council did consider a rezone in October 2021 which was a clean-up item to remove the mobile home park overlay. She explained that the applicant considered redesigning but ultimately chose not to do so and kept the original entitlement. Mayor Aitken inquired if there are any dates associated with breaking ground on this project. Deputy Director Allen noted they do not have a Development Agreement (DA) in place at this time, but they are within their approvals. Mayor Aitken inquired if it is possible that once the parcel is assembled Encore Anaheim could sell it to another developer and it sits there for additional time. Deputy Director Allen confirmed that there is nothing contractually obligating Encore Anaheim to develop the project and they could sell the entitlement. Mayor Aitken expressed concern that it would be flipped for a larger profit and the lack of participation in the City's affordable housing program, noting those are fair questions to ask the developer. She clarified that Council Member Faessel had originally seconded Council Member Rubalcava's motion. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to table the item, seconded by Council Member Faessel. In response to Mayor Aitken, Chief Assistant City Attorney Pelletier clarified the Council would still need to open the public hearing even if the motion is to table the item. At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Aitken opened the public hearing. City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 32 of 33 Marc Herbert expressed concern that the City Council does not have the names of the developers although nothing has changed over the last year and a half including the City staff. He expressed concern that the Deer Park project passed without as much scrutiny but also does not have affordable units. He noted that Tom Daly is a consultant on the Deer Park project and has had several meetings with City Council members. He referenced the Housing Element which is still out of compliance and has cost the City $7 million. He noted that the number of affordable housing units permitted by the City last year was only 178 but the target for the Eighth Year Cycle is 9100. He remarked that the City is not on a path leading towards more affordable housing units. He expressed concern that during Disneyland Forward the consultants promised the City it could leverage Disney money and it looks like that is now not possible. He encourages the City Council to be more open with the public. City Clerk Bass reported there were no electronic comments received related to Item No. 12. At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Aitken closed the public hearing. Council Member Leon expressed support for continuing the item to the next meeting to address additional questions. He referenced Council Member Diaz's comments and noted that the City Council is not trying to stop development or building houses but to ensure the City Council has all the information and facts to move forward. Council Member Faessel remarked that the abandonment will still be on the agenda if continued but there will not be a renegotiation of any deal on the property. He noted it was reasonable to have the developer answer questions which is why he offered a second to Council Member Rubalcava's motion. Council Member Diaz clarified that it is very common in the construction industry for a company to acquire the rights to a property and then sell it to a construction company to finish the project. He referenced public comments about the previous Mayor and City staff. He emphasized that City staff has a lot of integrity, and ethics, and stands in the right position. Council Member Rubalcava modified her motion to continue the item and not to table the item. She referenced public comments about staff and noted that they were unfounded. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the public hearing, seconded by Council Member Faessel. In response to City Clerk Bass, Mayor Aitken clarified that the motion is to continue the item to the next City Council meeting, August 13, 2024. Mayor Pro Tern Kurtz concurred with Council Members Diaz and Rubalcava that she has found City staff to be honest, ethical, and hard-working for the betterment of Anaheim, its residents, and businesses. MOTION: Council Member Rubalcava moved to continue the public hearing to the Council meeting of August 13, 2024, seconded by Council Member Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5 (Mayor Aitken and Council Members Kurtz, Leon, Rubalcava, and Faessel); NOES — 2 (Council Members Diaz and Meeks). Motion carried. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None City Council Minutes of July 23, 2024 Page 33 of 33 PUBLIC COMMENTS (non -agenda items): None COUNCIL AGENDA SETTING: Council Member Leon thanked his Council colleagues for their approval of Item No. 8 authorizing City staff to purchase the Kettle Motor Hotel in District 2. He stated it is a big step in the right direction for the area. He thanked staff for their continued efforts in helping address public safety concerns and improving the quality of life for residents in the area. Council Member Meeks requested a memo regarding outreach to mid-century modern home neighborhoods to create the same synergy as Mills Act properties to bring more families, a sense of community, and investment to other neighborhoods in the City ADJOURNMENT: At 10:23 p.m., Mayor Aitken adjourned the City Council. Ily submitted, There a Bass, CMC City (-I:lerk Susana Barrios From: harvev@buildtheveteranscemetery.org <harvev@buildtheveteranscemetery.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2024 12:39 AM To: vcgp@va.gov Cc: bpalmer@strumwooch.com; Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; City Manager <Citymanager@anaheim.net>; City Attorney<cityattorneysoffice@anaheim.net>; t.deutsch@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; k.rivers@orccd.com; vladimiraanderson@gmail.com; Cynthia@Ward-Associates.net; nhatch@fea.net Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to listing of Gypsum Canyon on the VCGP for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery You don't often get email from harvev@buildtheveteranscemetery.org. Learn why this is important Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. Dear Director of the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program: The first attachment is a letter to you from me explaining the reasons for my organization's opposition to the replacement of the ARDA site in Irvine with the Gypsum Canyon site in Anaheim for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery if such a request has or will be made by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet). The second attachment is an extract of minutes of an Orange County [California] Cemetery District Board of Trustees meeting stating that a new EIR is expected to be required for the Gypsum Canyon cemetery. The third attachment is a report from Geosyntec comparing the construction of the Southern California Veterans Cemetery (SCVC) on the originally proposed ARDA site with its construction in Anaheim on Gypsum Canyon. The SCVC is currently listed on the VCGP in Irvine on the ARDA site. Regards, Harvey H. Liss, P.E., Ph.D. Executive Director Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery bu ildthegreatparkvetera nscemetery.org July 16, 2024 Re: OPPOSITION to approving the recent or soon to be received request from the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to list Gypsum Canyon as the location of the Southern California Veterans Cemetery (SCVC) for a Veterans Cemetery Grant Program (VCGP) grant, replacing the ARDA site in Irvine. Veterans Cemetery Grants Program U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Dear Director of the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program: The Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery committee which is dedicated to building the Southern California Veterans Cemetery and Memorial Park (SCVC) on the 125-acre ARDA Site in the Great Park, in Irvine, California, located on the former MCAS El Toro, opposes replacement of the ARDA site listing of the SCVC for a VCGP grant, by the Gypsum Canyon site in the City of Anaheim, for the following reasons: 1) The original Irvine and CalVet-approved ARDA (Amended and Restated Development Agreement) site in the Great Park, in Irvine, is still physically available, is zoned exclusively for a State Veterans Memorial Park & Cemetery, and we expect will be approved in December of 2024 by a majority vote of a new Irvine City Council under newly enacted District Elections, if it isn't approved sooner by the current City Council. Supporting this expectation is the dis-engagement of a major special interest (developer) that had been opposed to building the SCVC on the ARDA site and had heavily influenced Irvine City Councilmembers. 2) On July 23rd, it is expected that the City of Anaheim's City Council will approve an Amendment to the 2005 FEIR No. 331 for their Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Project rather than requiring a new EIR. Immediately thereafter, local environmentalists will sue the City for violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring a new EIR because of the massive changes in the environment and its requirements that have occurred since the 2005 FEIR was accepted, as well as significant new geotechnical information regarding the unstable site. The 244-page Amendment is a clear and obvious testament to the major changes that have occurred in the project's environmental impact since 2005 and the need for a completely new EIR with its required public notification, review and comment period. buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org To: Director, Veterans Cemetery Grants Program July 16, 2024 3) The Orange County Cemetery District (OCCD) has been promoting the location of the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon because the site will be shared with a public cemetery that will benefit from shared infrastructure and access costs. Contrary to their current submission to the City of Anaheim, and ironically, an extract from an April 6, 2021 Board meeting (2nd attachment) states: "The RJM Design team listed the next steps that need to take place... obtaining CEQA clearances which will more than likely involve an environmental impact report that will take 12 to 18 months to complete..." ..."Trustee Hatch asked if a new EIR is likely going to be required. RJM Design Group and GM Deutsch felt that it probably would be since the old EIR completed by the Irvine Company is 20 years old and conditions on the site have changed since then." 4) The voters of Irvine have repeatedly weighed in on the matter, rejecting one scheme after another influenced by special interests to abandon the ARDA site. For example, we represent the 19,165 Irvine residents who signed our Referendum Petition in 2017 that put a measure on the ballot that overwhelmingly overturned by a vote of 63% to 37% an ordinance that would have rezoned the ARDA site for commercial development and enabled a land -swap agreement with the developer. 5) Finally, to thwart the continued threat of developer interests taking control of the ARDA site by a complicit City Council, Irvine citizens wrote their own Initiative law to specify and ensure that the original and historic ARDA site with its iconic Control Tower, was the one and only site supported by the people of Irvine for the SCVC. By the terms of the Initiative Petition signed by 19,795 Irvine residents and adopted by the Irvine City Council on May 12, 2020, the ARDA site was permanently reserved for that purpose by being exclusively zoned for the SCVC under Irvine Zoning law. 6) The ARDA site, under Irvine's development plans for the Great Park, has already been cleared of its many decayed buildings dating from their military usage and is being prepared for the future, expected SCVC. 7) Contrary to widespread propaganda listing, veterans organizations that wrote letters of support for the Gypsum Canyon location, it is believed, did so without polling their members, because they were not given a choice. We have a list of 1,500 actual veterans and their families who want the SCVC on the ARDA site. And they strongly want it there because of its historic location on the former MCAS El Toro where many veterans flew out of and to where many personnel never returned, and because of its convenient location in central Orange County. 8) A current poll by the local Irvine online newspaper, Irvine Community News & Views with about 300 responses of subscribers shows a 97% choice of the SCVC on the ARDA site in Irvine rather than at Gypsum Canyon. 9) A recently released report (3rd attachment) by Geosyntec, commissioned by the City of Irvine compares the costs and complications of building the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon with the ARDA site. Its conclusion is that it would cost about $100 million more to build the SCVC at Gypsum Canyon and take 10 years, compared to 3-4 years on the ARDA site. buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org —2— To: Director, Veterans Cemetery Grants Program July 16, 2024 10) The Gypsum Canyon site is only 2 miles from the Riverside County border, adjacent to the 91 freeway, a heavily and continuously congested roadway during the day, and only 27 road miles from the Riverside National Cemetery. Gypsum Canyon is an inconvenient location for Orange County residents and seemingly too close to the Riverside National Cemetery to satisfy the Department of Veterans Affairs cemetery separation requirements. 11) Councilmember Larry Agran, who first introduced the Resolution in 2014 designating the ARDA site for the SCVC, and who has been fighting to get it built there ever since, lost his seat on the Council at the following election from massive propaganda funded by developer opposition, but regained his 4-year Council seat in 2020. He is currently running for mayor and is expected to win. He has been a major, altruistic force for 32 years on the City Council as mayor and councilmember since 1978 and will lead the effort for a favorable Council majority vote on redesignating the ARDA site for the SCVC. The truth is that since 2017, all it has taken for the City of Irvine to begin negotiation with the State for transfer of the ARDA to the State for the SCVC has been a majority City Council vote. Sincerely yours, Harvey H. Liss, P.E., Ph.D. Executive Director Build the Great Park Veterans Cemetery buildtheveteranscemetery.org harvey@buildtheveteranscemetery.org cc: Beverly Palmer, Atty, Strumwasser & Woocher City of Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, City of Anaheim Councilmembers; City Manager and City Attorney Orange County Cemetery District General Manager Tim Deutsch & Board of Trustees buildtheveteranscemetery.org info@buildtheveteranscemetery.org —3— DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B ra W Board of Trustees Apr.il 6, 2021 unali= The regular monthly meeting of the Orange County Cemetery District Board of Trustees was called to order via video conference by Chair Marroquin at 10:00 a.m,, in the Board Room of the Orange County Cemetery District, 25751 Trabuco Rd., Lake Forest, CA 92630. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chair Nelson. Roll Call by Board Secretary, Mary Funk, PRESENT: Maribel Marroquin First District William E. Nelson, Vice Chair Third District Kelly Rivers Second District Noel Hatch Fifth District ABSENT: Cynthia Ward Fourth District STAFF: Tim Deutsch, General Manager Brenda Manriquez, Finance and Accounting Manager Mary Funk, Board Secretary ALSO PRESENT: Steve Quintanilla, General Counsel Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group Craig Sensenbach, RJM Design Group Tamara McClory, RJM Design Group PUBLIC COMNUNTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Board Meeting, March 2, 2021. B. Approval of the April 2021 Check Registers (Claims) Nos. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160. MOTION: of Vice Chair Nelson, seconded by Trustee Rivers and carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0 (Trustee Ward absent for the vote), approved the Consent Calendar. A. Interments and Interment Space Sales Reports — February 2021 The following interment and interment space sales for February 2021 were reviewed: 2020-2021 2019-2020 ANAHEIM Interments 15 (11 Urn) 73 (47 Urn) 55 (36 Urn) Lot Sales 8 39 26 DS Chair Secretary DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B O.C.C.D. -- Minutes April 6, 2021 RJM Design Group recommends Alternate Plan 4 as it is the most cost-effective while being in the preferred footprint relative to the master plan. GM Deutsch commented that these revisions make the project much more viable. Trustee Nelson commented that if another user comes in to develop the upper pad, it is extremely unlikely that they would ever reimburse the District for any of the Shared Costs identified in the plans. He stated that the District must assume we will have to bear the fall burden of those expenses. GM Deutsch stated that it is important for us to consider what the future development needs will be for any group wanting to develop the Lipper pad. It is better for the District to develop the necessary infrastructure now when it will be least expensive to accomplish such work. If we do, not develop appropriate infrastructure to develop the upper pad now, it may cause future problems for our public cemetery development down the road when such work could be invasive and problematic for existing development. It may also send the wrong message to elected officials that the District does not really support the future development of a Veterans Cemetery on the upper pad, The RJM Design team briefly discussed the proposed bridge locations for access to the property and the preferred bridge layout. The RJM Design team listed the next steps that need to take place before construction can begin. They include: finalizing the Phase I project scope; confirming with the City of Anaheim the type of CEQA process that will be required; obtaining CEQA clearances which will more than likely involve an Environmental Impact Report that will take 12 to 18 months to complete; establishing preliminary design and cost estimates; and development of construction documents for Phase 1. RJM Design Group is hopeful that this entire process can be completed within 18 to 22 months. Trustee Hatch asked if a new EIR is likely going to be required. RJM Design Group and GM Deutsch felt that it probably would be since the old EIR completed by the Irvine Company is 20 years old and conditions on the site have changed since then. Vice Chair Nelson requested a more detailed project plan. Larry Ryan explained that they could provide a more detailed plan when they confirm with the City of Anaheim what the CEQA process will be, He also said that without a finalized development plan many questions can't be answered yet. GM Deutsch asked the Board if they have consensus that the Alternate Plan 4 with the possibility for future lawn, interment expansion is the plan they want to accept, Each Trustee was verbally polled and they all agreed that Plan 4 should be used. (Trustee Ward was absent from the meeting and could not participate in the discussion.) Vice Chair Nelson asked if any grading in the upper pad is included in the cost estimate. Larry Ryan answered that both developments in the upper and lower pad require the slope between to be stabilized, This will require some remedial grading on the upper pad. Vice Chair Nelson stated that he didn't think the District should do the upper pad grading and wanted to know how much that was going to cost. RJM Design Group stated that the grading on the upper pad protects our property as well and if we wait to do it later with will be 4 to 5 times more expensive. Vice Chair Nelson said he would still like to see what the cost differences are and asked for a project plan that was more detailed. RJM Design Group said that they would work on that. F DS - Chair'Secretary 5 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 Geosyntec" consultants 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 3530 Hyland Ave., Suite 100 Costa Mesa, California 92626 PH 714.969.0800 FAX 714.969.0820 www.geosyntec.com 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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 [20231 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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, 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment May 17, 2024 Page 7 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. ' Limited liquefaction mitigation for administration and public restroom buildings, maintenance buildings, committal shelter and bridge. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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. Engineering, design and permitting $12,000,0001 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-made Unknown at this time but debris mitigation significant added cost to the project 5. Potential environmental legacy Unknown at this time but contamination/regulatory negotiation 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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 Canyons ARDAI 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 costs upwards of -- Estimate) $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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators DocuSign Envelope ID: E55BBFED-COBD-418D-84F3-8942F86665F1 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: Habib Foroushani Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 2:31 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios From: lion28 Sent: Monday, u y F, W:w 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; ynthia@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 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Thomas Stamatis Yorba Linda, 92887 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: Wen Chia Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 2:18 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: chinh pham Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:10 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: Shaun Bell <sbell@jmfconst.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:43 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 sbell@jmfconst.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: Ben Norton Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:36 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. My name is Ben and I live across 91 in direct view of the proposed location. 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Ben Susana Barrios -----Original Message ----- From: Herbert Hoebel Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:33 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios From: Sylvie Vorratha Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:23 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT: Opposition to accepting 19-years MR. FwPitrecRentFencluminlieu 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Susana Barrios From: Y L Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:21 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Lang Martin Susana Barrios From: G H Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:09 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT: Stop Gypsum Cyn Cemetery 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. Stop Gypsum Cyn Cemetery Environmental impacts will be irreversible and permanent and tragic. Existing impact study is outdated and was improperly performed in the first place. Will not support the local economy in terms of job creation or useable public space and will not bring meaningful economic or social benefit to our community. Will aggravate existing traffic congestion, Will lower surrounding and nearby home values by as much as 1 /3. The 91 fwy is our only major artery to evacuate in emergency and to go to work and school we need traffic relief not additional cars , let alone funeral processions 7 days a week. This project has been intentional[ sneaked into existence intentionally without local residents knowledge or consent. Please halt The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to accepting 19-year 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you Sent from an Apple Mobile Device Susana Barrios From: G H Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:09 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; Subject: [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT: Stop Gypsum Cyn Cemetery 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. Stop Gypsum Cyn Cemetery Environmental impacts will be irreversible and permanent and tragic. Existing impact study is outdated and was improperly performed in the first place. Will not support the local economy in terms of job creation or useable public space and will not bring meaningful economic or social benefit to our community. Will aggravate existing traffic congestion, Will lower surrounding and nearby home values by as much as 1 /3. The 91 fwy is our only major artery to evacuate in emergency and to go to work and school we need traffic relief not additional cars , let alone funeral processions 7 days a week. This project has been intentional[ sneaked into existence intentionally without local residents knowledge or consent. Please halt The following is a statement of OPPOSITION to accepting 19-year 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you Sent from an Apple Mobile Device Susana Barrios From: Beverly Palmer <bpalmer@strumwooch.com> 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(a�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. SIVStrumwasser &Woocher Caroline Chiappetti Bryce Gee Dale Larson Julia Michel t Beverly Grossman Palmer Salvador Perez Michael J. Strumwasser Senior Counsel: Andrea Sheridan Ordin Fredric D. Woocher t Also admitted to practice in Washington July 22, 2024 City Council of the City of Anaheim VIA EMAIL to PublicComment@Anaheim.net 1250 Sixth Street, Suite 205 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-1233 Facsimile: (310) 319-0156 www.strumwooch.com 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- p� sum - 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B ra W Board of Trustees Apr.il 6, 2021 unali= The regular monthly meeting of the Orange County Cemetery District Board of Trustees was called to order via video conference by Chair Marroquin at 10:00 a.m,, in the Board Room of the Orange County Cemetery District, 25751 Trabuco Rd., Lake Forest, CA 92630. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chair Nelson. Roll Call by Board Secretary, Mary Funk, PRESENT: Maribel Marroquin First District William E. Nelson, Vice Chair Third District Kelly Rivers Second District Noel Hatch Fifth District ABSENT: Cynthia Ward Fourth District STAFF: Tim Deutsch, General Manager Brenda Manriquez, Finance and Accounting Manager Mary Funk, Board Secretary ALSO PRESENT: Steve Quintanilla, General Counsel Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group Craig Sensenbach, RJM Design Group Tamara McClory, RJM Design Group PUBLIC COMNUNTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Board Meeting, March 2, 2021. B. Approval of the April 2021 Check Registers (Claims) Nos. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151,152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160. MOTION: of Vice Chair Nelson, seconded by Trustee Rivers and carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0 (Trustee Ward absent for the vote), approved the Consent Calendar. A. Interments and Interment Space Sales Reports — February 2021 The following interment and interment space sales for February 2021 were reviewed: 2020-2021 2019-2020 ANAHEIM Interments 15 (11 Urn) 73 (47 Urn) 55 (36 Urn) Lot Sales 8 39 26 DS Chair Secretary DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B O.C.C.D, — Minutes April 6, 2021 EL TORO Interments 87 (24 Urn) 610 (181 Urn) 476 (172 Urn) Lot Sales 98 792 554 SANTA. ANA Interments 24 (5 Urn) 211 (65 Urn) 215 (55 Urn) Lot Sales 9 89 115 TOTAL Interments 126 (40 Urn) 894 (293 Urn) 746 (263 Urn) Lot Sales 115 920 695 GM Deutsch reported that Anaheim Cemetery conducted 15 interment services in February, which is the most Anaheim has done in one month since January 2016. Eleven of those services were cremation interments. Year-to-date, Anaheim has conducted. 73 interments and have sold 39 interment spaces, which puts them ahead of last year's figures in both categories. El Toro Memorial Park continues to carry the bulk of sales and services, with 87 interments in February and 98 space sales. Twelve niches in the Maureen Rivers Memorial Niche Garden were sold in February. GM Deutsch is currently working on a master plan for niches for all three cemeteries and expects that Anaheim Cemetery will need a new niche area before Santa Ana and El Toro. Year-to-date, El Toro has completed 610 interments and sold 792 interment spaces. GM Deutsch stated that this may be the first time a single cemetery reaches the 1,000 milestone mark for services or sales in one year. GM Deutsch said that March has shown some small signs of activity slowing at El Toro, with mot burials and appointments being scheduled at about a three week wait. At the current rate of sale GM Deutsch cautioned that El Toro could be sold out as early as 2026, Vice Chair Nelson asked that if the cemetery is selling 1,000 spaces a year and there are only about 4,000 spaces 14 wouldn't we be sold out earlier than, 2026? GM Deutsch replied that the 1,000 space sales also includes cremation space sales, which account for about 30% of sales. In addition, GM Deutsch does not believe that the current pace of sales will become the new norm, and is hopeful that activity will drop to levels usually seen prior to the pandemic. Trustee Hatch asked if GM Deutsch's projections took into consideration the limitation on casket space sales that the Board will be discussing later in the meeting. GM Deutsch said that the new policy was not considered when projecting those numbers. He is'hopeful that the new limitation will prevent the establishment of family lots where multiple spaces are unused or abandoned. For COVID related deaths in February, Anaheim conducted two COVID services, El Toro conducted 20 COVID services and Santa Ana conducted I I COVID services. Since the start of the pandemic, the District has completed 156 COVID related interments. B. Financial Reports — February 2021 Brenda Manriquez reported that the District is almost $1 million over budget for interment space sales revenue, with much of that being attributed to high pre -need sales. Interment service revenue is also higher than projected. Tax revenues are also trending up. The District received $ 170,000 in Secured Property Taxes in March and anticipates receiving another, $700,000 in April. Interest is still trending down. DS Chair Secretary 2 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AAl98E-8E0E-4724-83B0-D90117E4E23B O.C.C.D.— Minutes April 6, 2021 For expenses, the most notable variance is for credit card merchant fees in the 1900 account. We had expected to do about $200,000 a month in transactions, but the District is doing almost double that amount. We did negotiate a slight decrease in this fee. Equipment expenses are about $9,000 below budget due to savings on the ProLine Mower for Santa Ana Cemetery. Buildings and Improvements expenses are slightly over budget due to ongoing site work on the new property. Brenda Manriquez reported that on the Balance Sheet stayed the same. The District has approximately $2.6 million in unassigned and she expects that we will be able to move about $600,000 to Committed for New Cemetery Development. C. Investment Portfolio Changes — March 2021 GM Deutsch noted that we are getting some redemptions and making a lot of purchases. If we can't get close to the rates for Ca1TRUST and OCIP we will consider transferring back to those funds. It is harder to transfer back in to the Orange County Investment Pool, but it is possible. GM Deutsch stated that they are trying to invest as much as possible in short terms under two years, so when rates improve we can quickly take advantage. Vice Chair Nelson commented on the two investments purchased by UBS with rates of only 0.31 %. GM Deutsch said those purchases were made before the Finance and Investment Committee's recommendation that no purchases be made below 0.5%. GM Deutsch also added that currently, Municipal Bonds, seem to be the best option. D. Capital Projects Update GM Deutsch reported that a meeting to take place at the Gypsum Canyon property with Anaheim's new City Manager, Jim Vanderpool and Councilmember O'Neil ahs been scheduled for April 161h. GM Deutsch said he would update the Board on how that goes. GM Deutsch also stated that it appears Veterans groups are becoming more disgruntled about the back and forth that is still taking place in Irvine regarding the development of a State Veterans Cemetery. While CalVet is open to discussing other properties, they lack any legislative direction to explore other sites. CalVet is expected to issue a report to the City of Irvine on the plausibility of both Irvine sites. Veteran Ron Bengochea has been sending letters to voice support for the Gypsum Canyon site and Bill Cook is in support of the District's property as well. It seems that, while Nick Berardino is still hopeful for a site in Irvine, he too is becoming frustrated. GM Deutsch said he is trying to educate as many people as possible about the need for a fourth public cemetery and the possible use of the site for the State Veterans Cemetery. GM Deutsch also reported that the slope project at El Toro Memorial Park is still on hold pending action from the telecommunications company on the line relocation. They are also expecting to reduce the scope of the slope improvement project. GM Deutsch also reported that the backhoe we have been waiting for is now in port and should be delivered within the next few weeks. At this time, GM Deutsch recommended that the Board move to Manager's Reports Item G — New Cemetery Development Update as the team from RJM had joined the Zoom meeting. G. New Cemetery Development Update Larry Ryan, Craig Sensenbach and Tamara McClory from RJM Design Group led a presentation on developing the new public cemetery at Gypsum Canyon. They stated that today's discussion would focus on agenda item C — Development of Phase 1 - Plan Alternatives. FFDS air Secretary 3 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B O,C.C.D. — Minutes April 6, 2021 Larry Ryan said that the team was quite aware at the last presentation that the cost estimates coming in at just over $53 million were very disappointing. Since then, the team has been looking at what can be done to improve cost efficiency. The current plan shows that the public cemetery property will consist of 92 acres with 96 acres being reserved for a future Veterans Cemetery on the -upper pad. The unusable slope between the upper and lower pads consists of approximately 76 acres, The District will also need to negotiate a property swap with OC Parks in order to secure the land needed for entry and exit into the property. Vice Chair Nelson asked if OC Parks would be agreeable to such a swap. GM Deutsch answered that they understand our need and the property swap could also be beneficial to them as well, as they are hoping to take land they receive from the District to create an educational area. Craig Sensenbach then discussed potential alternatives in design. He stated that in the initial plan, the first phase of the public cemetery development would cover 23.5 acres and include 7.5 acres for lawn interment. Shared costs that could potentially be reimbursed by any group developing the upper pad, came in at almost $18 million. The first phase of Public Cemetery Development was estimated at $35.6 million. Alternate Plan 2 encompasses the same footprint as Plan 1, but there are reduced Toad improvements, a decrease in the niche feature, and only one committal shelter will be built. This plan includes 8.2 acres of lawn interment space. It also includes minimized landscape improvements. The shared costs for Plan 2 come in at $16.3 million with the first phase of public cemetery development costing almost $29.8million for a total cost of about $46 million. Alternate Plan 3 moves the footprint closer to the Maintenance Building which would require that the Cemetery Office building be moved to a location that is less preferable. It also minimizes the secondary access road and reduces the amount of lawn interment space to only 4 acres with opportunity for future lawn interment expansion. The shared costs for Plan 3 come in at about $15.8 million with the first phase of public cemetery development costing $22.5 million. The total cost for Plan 3 would be approximately $38.4 million, Alternate Plan 4 returns the development to the original, preferred footprint andlocates the Cemetery Office as originally desired, but rather than a permanent structure, the Cemetery Office would be a smaller, modular building. Available lawn interment space would be reduced to 5.2 acres. Shared costs for Plan 4 would be $15.8 million with the first phase of public cemetery development coming in at $23.3 million. The total project cost would be about $39.2 million. For an additional $500,000, three additional acres of lawn interment space could potentially be added. GM Deutsch stated that it is important to consider the available lawn interment space because that is what will generate future revenue. It is better to put money toward burial space then toward costs such as a bigger office building that will not contribute toward additional revenue. Trustee Hatch asked about the balance of undeveloped areas and costs associated with making it. usable, GM Deutsch said that the first phase of development includes all the infrastructure costs. To create additional interment space the main costs are just final grading,'"roads," and irrigation and seediiig. DS 04� air-- Secretary 4 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-8360-D90117E4E23B O.C.C,D. — Minutes April 6, 2021 RJM Design Group recommends Alternate Plan 4 as it is the most cost-effective white being in the preferred footprint relative to the master plan. GM Deutsch cominented that these revisions make the project much more viable. Trustee Nelson commented that if another user comes in to develop the upper pad, it is extremely unlikely that they would ever reimburse the District for any of the Shared Costs identified in the plans. He stated that the District must assume we will have to bear the full burden of those expenses. GM Deutsch stated that it is important for us to consider what the future development needs will be for any group wanting to develop the, upper pad. It is better for the Distlict to develop the necessary infrastructure now when it will be least expensive to accomplish such work. If we do, not develop appropriate infrastructure to develop the upper pad now, it may cause future problems for our public cemetery development down the road when such work could be invasive, and problematic for existing development. It may also send the wrong message to elected officials that the District does not really support the future development of a Veterans Cemetery on the -upper pad. The RJM Design tearri briefly discussed the proposed bridge locations for access to the property and the prefbrred bridge layout. The RJM Design team listed the next steps that need to take place before construction can begin, They include: finalizing the Phase 1 project scope; confirming with the City of Anaheimthe type of CEQA process that will be required; obtaining CEQA clearances which will more than likely involve an Environmental Impact Report that will take 12 to 18 months to complete; establishing preliminary design and cost estimates; and development of construction documents for Phase 1. RJM Design Group is hopeful that this entire process can be completed within 18 to 22 months. Trustee Hatch asked if a new EIR is likely going to be required. RJM Design Group and GM Deutsch felt that it probably would be since the old EIR completed by the Irvine Company is 20 years old and conditions on the site have changed since then. Vice Chair Nelson requested a more detailed project plan. Larry Ryan explained that they could provide a more detailed plan when they confirm with the City of Anaheim what the CEQA process will be. He also said that without a finalized development plan many questions can't be answered yet. for future lawR interment expansion is the plan they want to accept, Each Trustee was verbally polled and they all agreed that Plan 4 should be used. (Trustee Ward was absent ftm. the meeting and could -not participate in the discussion.) Vice Chair Nelson asked if any grading in the upper pad is included in the cost estimate. Larry Ryan answered that both developments in the upper and lower pad require the slope between to be stabilized. This will require some remedial grading on the upper pad. Vice Chair Nelson stated that he didn't think the District shoulddo the upper pad grading and wanted to know how much that was :going to cost. RJM Design Group stated that the grading on the upper pad protects our property as well and if we wait to do it later with will be 4 to 5 times more expensive. Vice Chair Nelson said he would still like to see what the cost differences are and asked for a project plan that was more detailed, RJM Design Group said that they would work on that. F DS F /04 C air Secretary 5 of 8 DocuSign Envelope R 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B O.C.C.D. — Minutes April 6, 2021 A. Cemetery Development — LSA Environmental Consulting Proposal GM Deutsch informed the Board that a biological assessment, which can only be done in the spring, needs to be completed at the Gypsum Canyon property. This assessment will also be needed as part of the anticipated EIR, LSA has submitted a proposal to complete this work which is estimated to cost $69,500. GM Deutsch noted that if certain conditions are not found on the site, such as pooling water or roosting bats, some components such as the Spadefoot Toad Survey or the nighttime bat study will not need to be conducted and the District will not be billed for those components. Vice Chair Nelson asked that if sensitive species or plant life is found, will the impede the District's ability to develop the property? RJM Design said that if certain conditions are occurring we will have to abide by mitigation requirements. Counsel Quintanilla stated that just because you find a rare species does not mean that you can't develop the site. You just have to follow protocols that will allow species to co -exist with the proposed development. GM Deutsch also explained that the biological assessment is just one part of an EIR. There are multiple issues that will be examined including noise, traffic, etc. MOTION: of Vice Chair Nelson, seconded by Trustee Hatch and carried bya. roll -call vote of 4-0 (Trustee Ward absent for the vote), approved the proposal from LSA and authorized the General Manager to execute the professional service agreement with LSA in the amount of $69,500. The design team from RJM Design Group left the meeting at this time (I I : 3 5 afn,). • E. Special District Risk Management Credit Incentive Program & Loss Prevention GM Deutsch explained that each year the District participates in two SDRMA cost savings 'programs. One program reduces premiums for property/liability and workers compensation policies. The other provides reimbursement for safety related training material or expenses. The District has once again carried the maximum amount of premium savings and reimbursement. The District will be receiving a check for $1,000 which will help to offset the cost of supplies used to prevent transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Vice Chair Nelson asked how much the District saved in premium costs. GM Deutsch answered that the District saved $5,307 on our Property/Liability premiums and $16,534 in Workers' Compensation premiums, F. COVID-19 Update GM Deutsch stated that with the recent changes in the County's COVID status, the District is still following the same restrictions it has followed over the last several months, We are still encouraging no more than 50 people to attend graveside services, the offices are'lremaining closed r public, and for the time being we are still not providing chairs at graveside services. GM 0--y Secretary 6 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8E0E-4724-83B0-D90117E4E23B 0. C. C.D. — Minutes April 6, 2021 Deutsch stated that - he has heard reports that the likelihood of contracting the virus fromsurface exposure such as a chair is low, so staff will be discussing reinstating providing chairs for graveside services. About 50% of staff have been vaccinated with several staff having to take time off due to illness after receiving the vaccine. They are able to use Emergency Paid Sick Leave for these'absences as well as for time spent going to their vaccination appointment. We are still attempting to provide customer service remotely when possible and have signed up for Docusign to make it easier for families to execute the required documents needed for interments. GM Deutsch also informed the Board that FEMA i * s offering reimbursements for funeral expenses to families who have suffered a COVID related death. The reimbursement is up to $9,000 per death or $35,000 per family. The reimbursements will cover any COVID related deaths that have occurred since January 1, 2020. We are in the process of reaching out to families who may have been impacted to inform them about these possible reimbursements. GM Deutsch said he first learned of the reimbursements through ICCFA. He informed CAPC so other Cemetery Districts could be made aware of the new program. It is each family's responsibility to go to the FEMA website and file a claim. The District can provide families with copies of paid invoices if needed. P ��4144-d 11#1 MIN 11010 1 If I GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT Counsel Quintanilla reported that crematoriums are now being allowed to operate longer hours to accommodate the, increase in deaths and reducing the wait time for families needing to have a loved one cremated. This may result in cemeteries seeing cremains coming in more quickly then what they have experienced previously. He also noted that Walmart stores are now starting to offer COVID vaeci-nes. DS Chair Secretary 7 of 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 32AA198E-8EOE-4724-83BO-D90117E4E23B O.C.C.D. — Minutes Vice Chair Nelson expressed his congratulations to Chair Marroquin for being selected as the Executive Director for the Orange County Sheriff s Advisory Council. A. CSDA Fiscal Committee Meeting, March 11, 2021 (Virtual) Vice Chair Nelson reported that the committee received the 2020 Audit report, which had a clean opinion. Chair Nelson stated that CSDA had approximately $4.8 million in revenue and $4.6 million in expenses with net income of $263,000, which will be allocated to reserves. B. CAPC Board Meeting, March 24,2021 (Virtual) Trustee Rivers attended the CAPC Board meetin•g where they discussed the upcoming Area/Educational meeting scheduled for October 2021. C. ISDOC Executive Committee Meeting, April 6, 2021 (Virtual) Vice Chair Nelson reported that the Second Vice President for ISDOC was appoin, ted. He also stated that Chris -Palmer gave a CSDA update on his efforts to make elected officials more aware of the association. Vice Chair Nelson also stated that there are nine candidates running for a seat ® the CSDA Board for the Southern Network. m7m��� A. ISDOC Quarterly Meeting, April 29, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. (Virtual) Vice Chair Nelson, Chair Marroquin, Trustee Hatch, Trustee Rivers and GM Deutsch will all be attending the ISDOC Quarterly Meeting. B. Special District Legislative Days, May 18-19, 2021 (Virtual) For every registration submitted, CSDA is offering a free registration for a first-time attendee to the Special District Legislative Days, Trustee Nelson, Trustee Rivers, Chair Marroquin and GM Deutsch are all interested in attending this virtual event. The District should be able to send two people at no cost, since Vice Chair Nelson is the only one from the District who has previously attended the event. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesdayl May 4, 202 1, at 10:00 a.m,, at the Orange County Cemetery District, 2575 1 Trabuco Rd,, Lake Forest, CA 92630. : —' d by: DOCUS7�4 —'—A2GWA9VA84489__ Chair V DS 01Z air Secretary Secretary MM 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 Geosyntec Consultants 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 3530 Hyland Ave., Suite 100 Costa Mesa, Califomia 92626 PH 714.969.0800 FAX 714.969.0820 www.geosyntec.com 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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, 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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 SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators Gypsum Canyon Site Assessment May 17, 2024 Page 7 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 I 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. ' Limited liquefaction mitigation for administration and public restroom buildings, maintenance buildings, committal shelter and bridge. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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. 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-made Unknown at this time but debris mitigation significant added cost to the project 5. Potential environmental legacy Unknown at this time but contamination/regulatory negotiation 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators 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 Canyon' 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 costs upwards of -- Estimate) $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 engineers I scientists I innovators 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. SC 1464/ Technical Review Gypsum Canyon - Final engineers I scientists I innovators EXHIBIT C Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at GYPSUM CANYON 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 1. 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 ]a and lb ..........................................................................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) 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 115th 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 tota12,500- acre gift to the County of Orange as TIC celebrated their 1501h 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 11 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".' 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 2 1 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 3 1 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 Q. 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 Oranze 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 9L" 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 VALOR regarding the Gypsum Canyon parcel as a veterans cemetery. z 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 4 1 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 14tn, 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 5 1 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 6 1 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 a "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 generated 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 7 1 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 site 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 8 1 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 (Qlsl) 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 9 1 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 10 1 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) Page 11 1 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.' OCCD Preliminary Business Plan and Fundinz Sources OCCD has published a business plan for Gypsum Canyon dated 10/5/2021. Included is a schedule of construction for phase 1 a and 1 b cemetery as follows: Phase la: 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 lb: 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) Page 12 118 • 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 $120 million deficit. OCCD noted their concerns about taking on the project without a veterans cemetery component and considered leasing the upper pad to other interested users to generate revenue including a motocross park, green waste recycling, RV/Boat storage or a shooting range for OC Sherriff. They have concluded the RV/Boat storage was most compatible with a cemetery. Currently OCCD is pursuing subleasing 50 acres located on the veterans portion to a third party that has not been disclosed but was named Gypsum Canyon Cemetery Partners LLC. Various financing options were investigated including a public finance loan, issuing bonds (and purchasing those bonds with their long-term endowment fund), lease finance bonds, and an assessment district. OCCD appeared as of May 2021 to be inclined to form an assessment district that would issue bonds repaid from an increase in property taxes in Orange County.' This action would trigger a ballot measure and a 2/3 property tax owner approval would be necessary for the tax increase. However, to avoid a ballot measure at the outset, OCCD's preliminary New Cemetery Development Business Plan dated 10/5/2021 is currently proposing the following sources and uses of funds for the partial budget: (Continued on next page) 6 Board discussions regarding a special county wide property tax assessment occurred on Dec. 3, 2019, Jan. 7, 2020, Nov 3, 2020, and summarized in a memo from GM Deutsch dated Feb 24, 2021, where they considered hiring a "consultant to poll the electorate to see how much support the District would receive for the tax and also to assist with the elections and preparation of the ballot measure." Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Page 13 118 Sources and Uses for Phase ]a and 1 b' Sources Private Bank Loan Debt Proceeds$ $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 la — grading, Utilities, Access, Fencing, Entry & Landscape $15,862,545 Phase lb — 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: 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). 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. Accordingly, 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 14 1 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: 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) Page 15 118 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 Ca1Vet 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 Ca1Vet comes from California taxpayers", 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. " 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) Page 16 118 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, 3rd 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) Page 17 118 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) P a g e 18 1 18 EXHIBIT A r w s F 0.� fr�Ae +r t7 r' t4 Q N • 0 0 . ,.w a cto +* �. 0 ID 44 o r.«i - Rf a a VD w S 2 a 13 CA HNC U 4. r u� 3 � L M r�wr�e.rrww.�rw�rw.�{ri+e.w5{ i 0 (D i a r� r- 0 M 0 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) EXHIBIT B ATTACHMENT 2 August 19, 2014 l oun[% cif Orange Mr, Dan Miller C a l i t' o r n i a Senior Vice President, Entitlement & Public Affairs Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Scott t1 ':taker Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chief Real lateO iccr Subject: letter of Intent —Conveyance of Irvine Company Land to the County Dear Mr. Miller: Thank you for the Irvine Company's very generous offer of a potentially significant donation of property to complement the land now known as the "Irvine Ranch Open Space." This offer is yet the latest example of Irvine Company Chairman Donald Bren's commitment to open space preservation and conservation. Negotiations over the past month have resulted in a mutually acceptable basis for the negotiations of agreements relative to the conveyance of approximately 2,500 acres of Irvine Company landholdings associated with the Mountain Park, Santiago Mills and East Orange developments. On August 19, 2014, the Board of Supervisors considered the parameters of the conveyance and authorized me to communicate to you the County's intentions, as follows: • The County intends to accept the following lands from the Irvine Company and its affiliates ("TIC") upon their fee simple title transfer: Mountain Park — 794 acres encumbered by a conservation easement or similar deed restrictions Mountain Park -- 250 acres restricted for park purposes o Mountain Park — 25 acres for Weir Canyon Road right-of-way o Santiago Mills —16 acres with a conservation easement or for unrestricted purposes o East Orange —1,231 acres encumbered by a conservation easement or similar deed restrictions a East Orange —106 acres for unrestricted purposes (allowing for lake recreation and adjacent recreation uses similar to existing uses that would otherwise not be allowed within a conservation easement) o East Orange — 71 acres for Santiago Canyon Road right-of-way (includes existing right-of-way and future expansion) 1 �r+rrltt l�,tl, •lrFat()J%jr•r• xi: ii`xi;.t Via fai`'!I * The County understands that TIC would like the acceptance of the lands to occur no later 111mf t 1,4:r Sa„caAtm,, .61",,. than December 31, 2014, with TIC having the option to extend such acceptance to a date no later than January 30, 2015.as to some or all of such lands. The County will endeavor to meet these timeframes. Tel 6'I 11 k:A<a74r, :i,'t !\}41l ,l'et11 wl,ilt Page 1 of 3 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) ATTACHMENT 2 • the acceptance of the above lands is contingent upon the following: a TiC providing all required conveyance documents, Including agreements, deeds, easements, legal descriptions and maps, title reports and hazardous material assessments. o The County completing a due diligence review of the documents and a companion due diligence investigation of the existing condition of the land, and successfully resolving with TIC any resulting issues. o Acceptance of applicable conservation easements (to be held by a qualified non-profit organization) or deed restrictions (to be recorded by the County). o The County finding the terms of the applicable conservation easements or deed restrictions acceptable. Specifically, the terms must balance habitat preservation and public recreation, • TIC granting to the County: a) the twenty-nine (29) acres of East Orange land currently teased to Serrano Water District (SWO) for recreation and storage purposes and b) ADO% of the lake recreation rights (TiC's 75% and SWD's 25%). o TiC ensuring and reserving dedicated access to the Santiago Canyon Landfill. a TIC revising current deed restrictions applicable to the use of the Santiago Canyon Landfill to allow additional uses consistent with waste management activity. a TIC and/or any other entity committing to donate a minimum of $2SO,000 to the Orange County Parks Foundation's "Restricted Fund for the Historic Irvine Ranch." The Fund has been established for purposes of long-term management of County -owned land designated as the "Irvine Ranch Open Space," the land proposed to be conveyed, with the exception of the road rights -of -way and unrestricted areas, will be included in the "Irvine Ranch Open Space." o The final conveyance documents being approved by the Board of Supervisors and TIC's Board. This letter represents the understanding of the County as to the current status of our discussions related to the transfers addressed herein. It is not intended to be legally binding on any parties and any agreement to the transfers and issues herein will be subject to final approval by the Board of Supervisors and TICS Board. On behalf the County, we look forward to finalizing the conveyance. Slnce el ��_o Sc tt D. Mayer, Chief Real Estite Officer cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Michael Giancola, CEO Mark Denny, COO Nicholas Chrisos, County Counsel Steve Franks, Director, OC Community Resources Shane Silsby, Director, OC Public Works Stacy Blackwood, Director, OC Parks Page 2 of 3 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) ATTACHMENT 2 August 19, 2014 Jeffrey M. Oderman Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor Count% ol' Orange Costa Mesa, CA 92626 C a l i f o r n i a �714) 641-3441 {direct} Subject: Letter of Intent — Conveyance of RRM Properties, Ltd. Land to the County Scow t) Ma%at C'hicl Rcal Btatr OtliaF Dear Mr. Oderman: Your client, RRM Properties, Ltd. (RRM), has offered to donate 15.7 acres of land to the County for open space purposes. The land is located in Gypsum Carryon in the City of Anaheim; it is adjacent to property owned by the Irvine Company that is proposed for donation to the County, also for open space purposes. Donation of the RRM land would complement the Irvine Company's donation. On August 19, 2014, the Board of Supervisors considered RRM's offer and authorized me to communicate to you the County's intentions to accept the RRM land upon its fee simple title transfer, contingent upon the following: • RRM providing all required conveyance documents, including agreements, deeds, easements, legal descriptions and maps, title reports and hazardous material assessments. • The County completing a due diligence review of the documents and a companion due diligence investigation of the existing condition of the land, and successfully resolving any resulting issues. • The final conveyance documents being approved by the County Board of Supervisors, either concurrent with or subsequent to the County accepting the adjacent Irvine Company property. This letter is not intended to be legally binding on either party, and any agreement to the conveyance and issues herein will be subject to final approval by the Board of Supervisors. Oil luchalf the County, we look forward to finalizing your generous donation. Sir a 4�9,- 1 Scott D. Mayer Chief Real Lnstate Officer Y cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1k ti,,.t Bred I i,rr,1 Ib,or Michael Giancola, CEO "imt Alfa. l ahl.,rrtia 92701-u61 Mark Denny, CDC] Nicholas Chrisos, County Counsel 7"1 17140''=';"�" Steve Franks, Director, OC Community Resources 34 ilt' Fay (7141Xt il'eh.• Alvvk acgo► coo Stacy Blackwood, Director, OC parks Page 3 of 3 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) EXHIBIT C OFFICIAL RECORD Facility/Parcel Nos.: PR 1613-115, PR 16B-116, PR 16C-302, CLERK OF THE BOARD PR 23A-107, PR 24A-112, PR 24A-113, ORANGE COUNTY PR 24A-114„ PR 32C-107, PR 32C-1.08, PR 32C-110, PR 32C-111, PR 41 D-3 07, Z21-535, Z21-536 Irvine Ranch Lands (The Irvine Company) DONATION, CONVEYANCE & IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT (2014 Donation Lanni) This DONATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated and made effective as of Dezern 2q-01 , 2014, by and between THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("TIC'), and TIC LAND INVESTMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("TICLP'), and the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"). TIC and TICLI are sometimes herein referred to collectively as the "Company." TIC, TICLI and County are sometimes herein referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties" RECITALS WHEREAS, Company owns vast landholdings in Orange County, California, commonly known as the "Irvine Ranch." Substantial portions of the Irvine Ranch have been preserved for open space, including but not limited to the property that was conveyed by Company and its affiliates to the County on July 1, 2010 pursuant to Gift Deeds recorded as Instrument Nos. 2010000312152 and 2010000312153 and by that certain Fifth Amendment to Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (Limestone Canyon) recorded as Instrument No. 201000031215, each of which was recorded on July 1, 2010 in the Official Records of Orange County, California ("Official Records"), The Gift Deeds and Fifth Amendment referenced in the preceding sentence are collectively referred to herein as the 112010 Open Space Deeds" and the properties conveyed by the 2010 Open Space Deeds are collectively referred to herein as the "2010 Open Space Land." WHEREAS, subsequent to conveyance of the 2010 Open Space Land to the County, Company has determined it desires to donate to the County certain other property located in unincorporated portions of the County and in the cities of Anaheim and Orange (collectively, the "2014 Donation Land"). The areas within the 2014 Donation Land are described herein as the "Mountain Park Land," the "Irvine Regional Park Addition," the "East Orange Area I Land," the "East Orange Area U Land' and the "James License Area Land." The 2014 Donation Landis depicted on. Exhibit A; the first two pages of Exhibit A provide an overview of the location of the five land areas within the 2014 Donation Land, and the remaining pages of Exhibit A provide more detailed depictions of each of the areas. WHEREAS, in order to preserve the significant natural, ecological, scenic, open space, recreational and educational values of the 2014 Donation Land for conservation purposes (collectively, the "Conservation Values"), Company intends to record conservation easements over most of the 2014 Donation Laud prior to the donation of the 2014 Donation Land to the County. The portions of the 2014 Donation Land subject to such conservation easements is hereinafter referred to as the "2014 Open Space Land." Separate conservation easements (each entitled: "Grant Deed of Conservation Easement" and referred to in this Agreement individually as a "Conservation Easement" and collectively as the "Conservation Easements") shall be recorded over the open space portions of the Mountain Park Land, the JRC k 30209-4430\ 4825.44664609v 22 12/4/2014 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Irvine Regional Park Addition, the East Orange Area I Land and the East Orange Area 11 Land prior to recordation of the deeds for the respective properties included within the 2014 Donation Land. WHEREAS, because the 2014 ©pen Space Land is near or contiguous to the 2010 Open Space Land that is now owned and managed by the County, Company and County agree that it would be in the best interests of the residents of Orange County, California, if the 2014 Open Space Land was also owned and managed by the County to ensure the consistent management and preservation of the Conservation Values of the 2014 Open Space Land and to provide for enhanced educational and recreational opportunities on behalf of and for the benefit of all Orange County residents. WHEREAS, consistent with the desire of Company and County to achieve ownership and management of the 2014 Donation Land by County, the Parties are entering this Agreement to memorialize their obligations to effect the conveyance of the 2014 Donation Land to County. WHEREAS, without any obligation to do so and subject to the provisions of this Agreement, TIC is willing to donate to County, without consideration, all of the 2014 Donation Land, which donation shall be completed upon recordation of the Gift Deeds (as described below) for the parcels located within the Mountain Park Land, the Irvine Regional Park Addition, the East Orange Area I Land, the East (range Area iI Land and the James License Area Land. The parcels of land located within each of said areas are sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Gift Parcef' and collectively as the "Gift .Parcels." WHEREAS, TIC and TICLI each intend that the foregoing donations of the Gift Parcels qualify as charitable contributions under Internal Revenue Code Section 170, and County qualifies under Internal Revenue Code Section 170(c)(1) as a political subdivision of the State of California. WHEREAS, Company and County each desire to acknowledge, confirm and memorialize their understandings regarding (a) the donations of the Gift Parcels, and (b) their respective obligations concerning the conveyances of the 2014 Donation Land to County. NOW, THEREFORE, Company and County hereby acknowledge and agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Recitals; Trgrisaction Structure. The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. The following is a description of the overall steps in this transaction to implement the conveyance of the 2014 Donation Land to County as described in the Recitals, all of which shall take place through one or more closings as provided in Section 4 below. The conveyances of the various Gift Parcels shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement: a. Transfer of Mountain Par Land. TIC and TICLI shall convey, as their interests appear of record, the Mountain Park Land to County by means of the Gift Deeds attached as Exhibits B and C. A portion of the land described in the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit B will be subject to a Conservation Easement. The Gift Deed attached as Exhibit C will not be subject to a Conservation Easement but will be subject to other covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the body of the Gift Deed. b. Transfer of Irvine Regional Park Addition. TIC shall convey the Irvine Regional Paris Addition to County by means of the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit D. The Gift Deed for such land will be subject to a Conservation Easement. rna 30204-0430A 4W-t4gs-460avM 12/4r20to 2 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) C. Transfer of Fast ran a Area I Land. TIC and TICLI shall convey, as their interests appear of record, the East Change Area I Land to the County by means of the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit E, the Gift Deed for the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road attached as Exhibit F; and the Gift Deed for future East Orange Interchange Improvements and Santiago Canyon Road Widening attached as Exhibit G. A portion of the land described in the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit E will be subject to a Conservation Easement. The land described in the Gift Deeds"attaches! as Exhibits F and G will not be subject to Conservation Easements but will be subject to other covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the body of each such deed. d. Transfer of East Orange Area H Land and James License Area Land. TIC shall convey the East Orange Area II Land to the County by means of the Gift Deed attached hereto as Exhibit H, the Gift Deed for the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road attached as Exhibi[_I, and the Gift Deed for future Santiago Canyon Road Widening attached as Exhibit J. TIC shall convey the James License Area Land to the County by means of the Gift Deed attached hereto as Exhibit H In order to provide County with access to the East Orange Area II Land and the James License Area Land, TIC shall convey to the County an Easement Deed (the "Ernst Grange Area 11 Access Easement") in the form of Exhibit L attached hereto. A portion of the land described in the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit H will be subject to a Conservation Easement. The land described in the Gift Deeds attached as Exhibits I, J and S will not be subject to Conservation Easements but the land described in the Gift Deeds attached as Exhibits C and J will be subject to other covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the body of each such deed. e. Other Documents to be Recorded at Closing. As part of this transaction, the Parties have agreed to (i) terminate the Memorandum. of Agreement (Gypsum Canyon Channel) recorded in the Official Records on October 15, 2010 as Instrument No. 2010000542429 by means of a "Termination of Memorandum of Agreement" in the form attached hereto as Exhibit M. to be recorded priorlo the Gift Deeds described in subsections (a) through (d) of this Section 1, and (ii) amend the covenants and restrictions contained in the Gift Deed and Grant of Easements recorded in the Official Records on November 13, 2002 as Instrument No. 2002001019275 for the Santiago Canyon Landfill by means of the "Amendment to Covenants in Gift Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill)" in the form attached hereto as Exhibit N, to be recorded subsequent to the Gift Deeds described in subsections (a) through (d) of this Section 1. f. Assignment of James License Agreement to County. Concurrently with the conveyances to County described above, TIC will assign to County the rights and obligations of TIC under that certain License Agreement — Rancho De Santiago Picnic Area, with James Productions, Inc., dated February 11, 1993, as amended (the "James License Agreement"')_ Assignment of the James License Agreement will allow County to manage the licensee's activities relating to picnic, barbecue and group event operations on approximately 77 acres of the East Orange Area 11 Land as set forth in the James License Agreement. The assignment shall be effected by the execution of that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit D. 2, Company Obligations. The lands to be conveyed to County pursuant to the documents described in Section 1 above are described in the respective legal descriptions attached to Exhibits B through 1l; attached to this Agreement. The obligations of Company regarding such properties and other matters under this Agreement are as follows: a. Preparation of Legal Descriptions. Company, at its cost, shall cause the preparation of the legal descriptions for all Gift Parcels within the 2014 Donation Land and the Easement Deed attached as Exhibit L necessary for the conveyance of such property interests to County. JRC134209-0d3014M- 466A60$v 22 12J4n0la Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) b. Condition of Title. Company shall convey the 2014 Donation Land to County free and clear of (i) any monetary liens and encumbrances, (ii) any installment of real property taxes and assessments allocable to such land prior to the date the respective Gift Deeds for such land are recorded in the Official Records, and (iii) any other exceptions to title to which County has objected and Company has agreed to clear from title (the Designated Unacceptable Exceptions as defined below) as provided in Section 3.b below on or before the Closing Date (as defined below). Company's failure to clear any Designated Unacceptable Exception from title shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement by Company, but shall only be a condition to County's obligations pursuant to Section 5.b below. Except as provided in the preceding sentences of this paragraph and subject to Company's representations and warranties in Section 8 below, Company shall convey the 2014 Donation Land subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way, easements and other uses or matters of record or apparent from, a reasonable inspection of the 2014 Donation Land or known to County, other than for the matters specified in the respective Gift Deeds for the 2014 Donation Land. C. Title Insurance. Company shall pay for the cost of the premiums for (1) ALTA Standard Policies of Title Insurance for the portions of the 2014 Donation Land referenced in subsections (1) through (iv) and (vi) below in the amounts specified below, and (II) an ALTA Extended Coverage Policy of Title Insurance for the portion of the 2014 Donation Land referenced in subsection (v) below. In addition, Company shall pay for a Tie -In Endorsement (which endorsement aggregates the insurance coverage under said policies for any loss or losses with respect to{the properties covered by the policies described in each subsection below) to the title policies described in subsections (i) through (iv) and (vi) below: i. Mountain Park Land: Title Insurance in the amount of Four Million. Forty Thousand Dollars ($4,040,000) for the land conveyed by the Gift Deeds to County for (A) the Mountain Park Parcels Subject to Conservation Easement, and (B) the Weir Canyon Road Extension Parcel, which land is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 46024$3(29), Update 6, dated as of November 14, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit P. ii. Irvine Regional Park Addition: Title Insurance in the amount of Sixty -One Thousand Dollars ($61,000) for the land conveyed by the Gift Deed to County for the Irvine Regional Park Addition, which land is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 4711164(29), Update 2, dated as of November 20, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as .Exhibit ; iii. East Orange Area I Land: Title insurance in the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($1,760,000) for the land conveyed by the Gift Deeds to County for (A) the East Orange Area I Land Subject to Conservation Easement, (B) the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Orange Area l Land, and (C) the East Orange Interchange Improvements & Santiago Canyon Road Widening in East Orange Area I Land, which land is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 4442079(29), Update 3, dated as of November 20, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit R; iv. East Orange Area 11 Land. Title insurance in the amount of Three Million One Hundred Forty -Three Thousand Dollars ($3,143,000) for the land conveyed by the Gift Deeds to County .for (A) the East Orange Area 11 Land Subject to 3RQ 30209-04M 4M-"66-4608v 22 12/4i2(Yi 4 4 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Conservation Easement, (13) the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Change Area 11 Land, and (C) Santiago Canyon Road Widening in East Orange Area H Land, which land is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 4439337(29), Update 4, dated as of August 19, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit S; V. James License Area Land. Title insurance in the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Eighty -Seven Thousand Dollars ($2,587,000) for the land conveyed by the Gift Deed to County for the fee to the James License Area Land, which land is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 4758602(29), Update 1, dated as of November 20, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2'; vi. Access Road in East Orange Area 11: Title insurance in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the easement conveyed by the East Orange 11 Access Easement, which easement area is covered by that certain Preliminary Report issued by First .American Title Insurance Company under Order No. 4758618(29), Update 1, dated as of November 14, 2014, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit U; d. Condition of Pro erty. Company has provided to County, without warranty, (a) Transfer Disclosure Statements for all of the 2014 Donation Land, (b) hazardous materials assessments for all portions of the of the 2014 Donation Land which were previously used as range land or for dry farming, and (c) Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for all portions of the of the 2014 Donation Land which were previously used for purposes other than range land or dry fanning (e.g„ sand and gravel operations in portions of the Mountain Parr Land, picnic operations on portions of the East Orange Area II Land, etc.). The Transfer Disclosure Statements, hazardous materials assessments, and the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments are sometimes referred to herein collectively as the "Environmental Assessments" and have been provided as a convenience to County and are not intended to be a substitute for County's own due diligence review. Subject to any matters that County has requested to be corrected and that Company has agreed, in writing, to address prior to the Closing Date, and except as provided in the Condition of Title section above, TIC and TICLI shall deliver the 2014 Donation Land to County pursuant to this Agreement in its "as is" condition as of the date of Gift Deeds referenced herein. By accepting the 2014 Donation Land, County acknowledges that it has had adequate opportunity to review the Environmental Assessments and to inspect and test all portions of the of the 2014 Donation Land to the extent County has deemed to be appropriate. County acknowledges that Company has not made any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the condition of such land or its suitability for any use. Company shall have no duty to inspect the 2014 Donation Land and no duty to warn County or any other person of any latent or patent defects, conditions or risks relating to the Property. e. LLability for Hazardg_q Materials. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.d above, nothing contained in this Agreement or in any of the deeds recorded pursuant hereto is intended nor shall anything in this Agreement or any of said deeds be construed to transfer to County or its successors or assigns or to relieve Company or its successors or assigns or predecessors in title of any responsibility or liability Company or any of its predecessors in title or any of its successors or assigns now has, has had or comes to have relating to hazardous or toxic substances or materials (as such terms as those used in this sentence are defined by statute, ordinance, case law, government regulations or other provision of the law). Furthermore, County may exercise any rights it may have under law to bring an action, if necessary, to recover clean-up costs and penalties paid, if any, from Company or any others who are ultimately determined under applicable law to have responsibility for said toxic or hazardous materials condition on the 2014 Donation Land. Notwithstanding the foregoing, County shall be and remain liable JRC 342"3 M 4825.44664608v 22 1214/2014 5 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) for any hazardous or toxic substances or materials that are released upon or under the 2014 Donation Land by County or any of County's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents (including its contractors and subcontractors), invitees or representatives. f. Delivery of Documents to County. Promptly after Company and County have concurred on the condition of title and all other matters relating to the content of the applicable Gift Deeds for the various Gift Parcels within the 2014 Donation Land, Company shall deliver to County the Gift Deeds and Easement Deed in the forms attached as .Exhibits B - L, inclusive, the Termination of Memorandum of Agreement in the form of Exhibit M, and the Amendment to Covenants in Gift Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill) in the form attached as Exhibit N, all of which have been signed and acknowledged by TIC and TICLI, where applicable. for recordation. Company shall also deliver to County three duplicate originals the Assignment & Assumption Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit 0, which has been signed by Company. 3. County Obligations. The obligations of County regarding the conveyance of the 2014 Donation Land and other matters under this Agreement are as follows: a. Review of Le ai Descriptions. County has completed its review of the legal descriptions for each of the documents attached as Exhibits B -_L, and has approved of the form and content of such descriptions prior to execution of this Agreement. County acknowledges and agrees that each of the legal descriptions attached to such deeds are correct and comply with applicable Government. Code exceptions to the California Subdivision Map Act. b. Review of Conservation Easements &. Condition of Title; Additional Title insurance. County has completed its review of (1) the Conservation Easements (including the Easement Documentation Reports applicable to each of the Conservation Easements), and (ii) the preliminary title reports listed in Section 2.c above (collectively, the 7reliminary Title Reports"). County has approved of the content of the Conservation Easements and of the Easement Documentation Reports. County has advised Company of the title exceptions listed in the Preliminary Title Reports that are not acceptable to County (collectively, the "Unacceptable Exceptions"), and Company has advised County as to which Unacceptable Exceptions that Company will cause to be cleared from title on or before the Closing Date (the "Designated Unacceptable Exceptions"). The Designated Unacceptable Exceptions are listed on .Exhibit it County has agreed to accept the 2014 Donation Land subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way, easements (including without limitation the Conservation Easements) and other uses or matters of record or apparent from a reasonable inspection of the 2014 Donation Land or known to County, other than for the Designated Unacceptable Exceptions. In the event that County desires to obtain additional title insurance beyond what is provided by Company under Section 2.c above, County shall be responsible for ordering and obtaining any such title insurance at its own cost and expense. C. Review of Environmental Assessments. County has completed its review of the Environmental Assessments provided by Company pursuant to Section 2A above, and has agreed to accept the 2014 Donation Land subject to the matters described in the Environmental Assessments. d. Execution, Recordation and Delivery of Documents. County shall execute and, where required, acknowledge each of the Gift Deeds and the Easement Deed in the forms attached as Exhibits B - L, the Termination of Memorandum of Agreement in the form of Exhibit M and the Amendment to Covenants in Gift Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill) in the form attached as Exhibit N. and the three duplicate originals of the Assignment & Assumption Agreement attached as Exhibit O. Provided that Company has recorded the four Conservation Easements referenced in the Recitals and after approval of this Agreement and all exhibits by the Parties, County shall record Exhibits B - N in the Official 3RC 30209-0430\ 4825-4466 4508v.22 12/4nO 14 6 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Records in accordance with recordation instructions mutually acceptable to Company and County, and sign all three duplicate originals of the Assignment & Assumption Agreement attached as Exhibit D and deliver to Company two of such fully signed duplicate originals of the Assignment & Assumption Agreement. C. Acknowled ent of Receipt of Gins. County shall cooperate with Company by performing the following actions. i. Acknowledging receipt of the donation of the two Gift Parcels within Mountain Park, and signing Internal Revenue Service form 8283 (Non -Cash Charitable Contributions) and any other tax -related forms or documents reasonably requested by Company with respect to such Gift Parcels (i.e., Mountain Park Parcels subject to Conservation Easement and the Weir Canyon Road Extension Parcel); ii. Acknowledging receipt of the donation of the Gift Parcel for the Irvine Regional Park Addition, and signing Internal Revenue Service form 8283 (Non -Cash Charitable Contributions) and any other tax -related farms or documents reasonably requested by Company with respect to such Gift: Parcel; iii. Acknowledging receipt of the donation of the three Gift Parcels within East Orange Area 1, and signing Internal Revenue Service form 8283 (Non - Cash Charitable Contributions) and any other tax -related forms or documents reasonably requested by Company with respect to such Gift Parcels (i.e., the East Orange Area I Parcel subject to Conservation Easement, the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Orange Area 1, and the East Change Area I Interchange/Road Widening land); iv. Acknowledging receipt of the donation of the three Gift Parcels and the James License Area Land within East Orange Area 11, and signing Internal Revenue Service form 8283 (Rion -Cash Charitable Contributions) and any other tax -related forms or documents reasonably requested by Company with respect to such Gift Parcels (i.e., the East Orange Area 11 Parcel subject to Conservation Easement, the fee underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Orange Area 11, the East Orange Area 11 Road Widening land, and the James License Area band); and V. Acknowledging receipt of the donation of Company's rights under the James License Agreement referenced in Section Lf above that is assigned by Company to County, and signing Internal Revenue Service form 8283 (Non -Cash Charitable Contributions) and any other tax -related forms or documents reasonably requested by Company with respect to the donation of such assigned interest. 4. Closing. Company and County shall cooperate and use best efforts to cause the various deeds and other documents described herein to be executed, and for all Gift: Deeds to be recorded (collectively, the "Closing"), no earlier than December 29, 2014 (the "Closing Date"), subject to Company's right to have the Closing Date as to some or all of the Gift Parcels (as determined by Company) extended until a date no later than June 1, 2015 in Company's sole and absolute discretion. The Parties shall meet and confer to coordinate various matters respecting closing, including but not limited to the recordation of some documents on different dates and whether the Closing Date should be extended in the event that all conditions to closing have not been met. Company shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if the Closing does not occur by the Closing Date. JR0 30204-0430148254466-4608v 22 1 /412014 7 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) 5. Conditions Precedent to CIosina. a. Conditions to Company Obligations. Company's obligation to perform under this Agreement shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of all of the fallowing: i. County approval of the legal descriptions for all of the Gift Parcels included within the 2014 Donation Land; ii. County approval of this Agreement; iii. County approval of the Environmental Assessments referenced in Section 3.c above; iv. County approval of the four Conservation Easements and other matters affecting title to the 2014 Donation Land; V. The four Conservation Easements have been accepted by the Grange County Parks Foundation and recorded in the Official Records; vi. County shall not be in default of any material obligation under this Agreement and no event shall have occurred that would constitute a material breach of County's obligations under this Agreement; and vii. Company's receipt of evidence substantiating that County will accept the terms of the Assignment & Assumption Agreement attached as Exhibit Q. b. Conditions to_ County Obligation s. County's obligation to perform under this Agreement shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of all of the following: i. The legal descriptions for all of the Gift Parcels included within the 2014 Donation Land shall have been approved by County Real Estate; H. Company skull have satisfied its obligations under Sections 2.b and 3.b above to clear the Designated Unacceptable Exceptions from title to the 2014 Donation Land; iii. County shall have approved of the Conservation Easements; iv. The four Conservation Easements have been recorded in the Official Records; V. Company shall not be in default of any material obligation under this Agreement and no event shall have occurred that would constitute a material breach of Company's obligations under this Agreement; and vi. First American Title Insurance Company shall have agreed to issue to County the title reports and endorsements described in Section 2.c of this Agreement. 6. Closing Costs. The Parties agree that the closing casts related to the conveyance of the 2014 Donation Land pursuant to Exhibits B - L shall be handled as follows: JM 30209-0430t 4M-4466-4609v 22 12AW14 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) a. Prorations. There are no prorations of taxes or insurance anticipated with this closing. Company and its affiliates shall be responsible for payment of all taxes on the 2014 Donation Land for any period of time prior to vesting of title in County. b. Title Insurance Premiums. All premiums for title insurance policies relating to the 2014 Donation Land as described in Section 2.c above shall be paid by Company and its affiliates. C. Recording Fees and Documentaa Transfer Tax. The cost of recording fees and documentary transfer taxes, if any, related to the conveyance of the 2014 Donation Land to County and the recordation of the Termination of Memorandum of Agreement and the Amendment to Covenants in Gift Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill) shalt be paid by Company. d. Legal Fees. Each Party shall pay for its own legal fees and expenses incurred in negotiating, documenting and closing this transaction. e. Preparation of Exhibits. Company shall pay the cost of preparing the legal descriptions and any other exhibits attached to the deeds described in this Agreement. f. Preparation of ALTA Survey. Company shall pay the cost of preparing the ALTA Survey required in connection with the issuance of the ALTA Extended Coverage Policy of Title Insurance described in Section 2.c of this Agreement. 7. Matters Related to Donation of Gift Parcels and Other Rights. The following provisions relate to the donation of the Gift Parcels, the Easement Deed, the Termination of Memorandum of Agreement, and the Amendment to Covenants in Gift. Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill), the assignment of Company's interest in the James License Agreement described in Section Lf above, and tax matters related thereto: a. Effect of Recordation of Gift Deeds to County. Upon recordation in the Official Records of the deeds in the forms of Exhibits B -- L in the Official Records, the Gift Parcels for respective land areas comprising the 2014 Donation Land and the Easement Deed for the East Orange H Access Easement as described in such deeds will be deemed donated by Company to County. b. Effect of Recordation of Termination of Memorandum of Agreement. Upon recordation in the Official Records of the Termination of Memorandum of Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit M, the Memorandum of Agreement related to Agreement D07-041: Gypsum Canyon. Channel shall be deemed to be removed from record title to the Mountain Park Land. C. Effect of Assignment of_Rights. Upon the effective date set forth in the Assignment & Assumption Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4, Company's rights under the Jaynes License Agreement will be deemed donated by Company to County. d. ponative Intent. Company and County have determined that conveyance of the Gift Parcels and Easement Deed to County will provide a significant public benefit to residents of Orange County and to the public at large, and such Parties acknowledge and agree that the Gift Parcels and Easement Deed will be donated by Company to County for no consideration. Further, Company and County have determined that the assignment of Company's rights under the James License Agreement described in Section IX will result in the transfer of valuable rights and revenue stream to County (which will defray costs incurred by County in the operation and management of the 2014 Donation Land), and the Parties acknowledge and agree that such rights will be donated by Company to County for no consideration. County hereby confirms that the transfers by TIC and TICLI of their respective interests in JRCt 30209-043014925- 466-4608v 22 12/Q014 g Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) the foregoing Gift Parcels, Easement Deed and license agreement are gifts to County, without consideration, and that such gifts are not a condition of any past, current or future approval, entitlement or benefit sought by TIC or 'T`ICLI from any governmental agency. Representations and W aa-nh'es: a. Unrecorded Encumbrances. Except for those documents provided to County prior to the execution of the Gift Deeds, Company represents and warrants to County that there are no unrecorded encumbrances (including but not limited to liens, leases, easements or licenses) on all or any portion of the 2014 Donation Land that will remain as encumbrances on such property after Closing. Notwithstanding the above, said representation and warranty is not applicable to those cases where Company has no knowledge of such unrecorded encumbrance. The representation and warranty under this Section shall survive the Closing for a period of twenty-four (24) calendar months from and after Closing (the "Survival Period') such that any claim based upon a breach of this representation and warranty shall be actionable or enforceable if and only if written notice of such claim and the applicable details of such breach are given to Company within the Survival Period. b. Remaining�Unacceptable Exceptions. The Unacceptable Exceptions that will remain on title to the applicable portions of the 2014 Donation Land after the Closing Date are identified on Exhibit W (the "Remaining Unacceptable Exceptions"). The Remaining Unacceptable Exceptions are the various agreements and declarations previously entered by TIC and its affiliates with governmental entities regarding the development of land owned by TIC or its affiliates. Company hereby represents and warrants to County that TIC and its affiliates will not take any action that would trigger financial or other obligations on County relating to the 2014 Donation Land based upon conditions or requirements imposed by the Remaining Unacceptable Exceptions. Except as otherwise set forth below, Company acknowledges that TIC or its applicable affiliate (or its successor) that is a signatory to the applicable Remaining Unacceptable Exception will be responsible for any and all obligations contained in the Remaining Unacceptable Exception existing as of the Closing Bate, and that County shall not be responsible for any such existing obligations; provided, however, that if (i) County fails to comply with its obligations under the Gift Deed attached as Exhibit G with respect to conveyance of right-of-way for the East Orange interchange, or (ii) County uses or allows others to use the 2014 Donation Land in such a manner that creates or triggers an obligation under any of the Remaining Unacceptable Exceptions, County shall be responsible -- and TIC and its affiliates shall have no responsibility -- for any such obligation under the Remaining. Unacceptable Exceptions created or triggered by such use of the 2014 Donation, Land. County acknowledges that County will be responsible for obtaining any approvals from applicable governmental agencies that may be required in connection with County's use of the 2014 Donation Land. The Parties acknowledge and agree that except as provided above in this Section, TIC and its affiliates shall not have any obligation with respect to conditions or requirements that may be imposed by any governmental agencies in connection with the use of the 2014 Donation Land after the Closing Date. 9. Miscellaneous. a. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. b. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No person or entity other than the Parties to this Agreement shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement, either express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than the Parties to this .Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. 1RO 3W-043M 4825-4466-4608v.22 12AM 14 10 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) C. Governing LAw and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and be governed by the laws of the State of California, and each Party hereto consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of California, for the County of Orange, for the purpose of any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement. d. Authority to Sign. Each person signing this Agreement on behalf of a Party hereto represents and warrants to the other Parties that he/she has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement for such Party and that this Agreement, when so executed and delivered, will be a binding obligation of, and enforceable against, such Party in accordance with its terms. C. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given by one Party to the other hereunder shall be in writing and given by personal service, express mail, Federal Express or any other similar form of airborne/overnight delivery service, or by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the Party at its respective address as follows: If to County: OC Parks 13042 Old Myford Road Irvine, CA 92642 Attn: Director, OC Parks e-mail: stacy.blackwood@ocparks.com ocparks.com If to Company: The Irvine Company LLC 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Sr. Vice .President, Entitlement & Government Affairs e-mail: dmiller@irvinecompany.com With a copy to: The Irvine Company LLC 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92664 Attention: General Counsel e-mail: gcnotices@irvinecompany.com Notice may also be given by e-mail to any Party pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1633.15, as amended from time to time, by sending to the e-mail address provided above, provided that receipt of such transmission shall be confirmed by follow-up notice within seventy-two (72) hours by another method authorized in the first sentence of this subsection. Any Party may from time to time, by written notice to the other as provided above, designate a different address which shall be substituted for that specified above. If any notice or other document is sent by mail as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed served or delivered seventy-two (72) hours after mailing thereof as above specified. Notice by any other method shall be deemed served or delivered upon actual receipt at the address or e-mail address listed above. f. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and every term and provision hereof, g. Waiver. Any waiver of any rights under this Agreement shall be effective only if in writing, signed by the waiving Party. No waiver by either Party hereto of any breach, default or condition shall be considered to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach, default or condition. JR0 342N-043014825-446611608v 22 1214aO 14 11 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) h. Construction. The captions used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof,. i. Incorporation of Exhibits. The following exhibits attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference: Exhibit A: Depiction of the 2014 Donation Land Exhibit B: Gift Deed for Mountain Park Parcels Outside of Weir Canyon Road Extension Parcel Exhibit C: Gift Deed for Weir Canyon Road Extension. Parcel in Mountain Park Exhibit D: Gift Deed for Irvine Regional Park Addition Exhibit E: Gift Deed for East Orange Area I Land Subject to Conservation Easement Exhibit F: Gift Deed for Fee Underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Orange Area I Land Exhibit G: Gift Deed for East Orange interchange Improvements & Santiago Canyon Road Widening in East Orange Area I Land Exhibit H.- Gift Deed for East Orange Area II Land Subject to Conservation Easement Exhibit 1: Gift Deed for Fee Underlying Santiago Canyon Road in East Orange Area II Land Exhibit J: Gift Deed for Santiago Canyon Read Widening in East Orange Area II Land Exhibit K: Gift Deed for Names License Area Lana Exhibit L: Easement Deed for East Orange Area 11 Access Easement Exhibit M: Termination of Memorandum of Agreement Exhibit N: Amendment to Covenants in Gift Deed (Santiago Canyon Landfill) Exhibit O: Assignment & Assumption of Tames License Agreement Exhibit P: PreIiminary Title Report for Mountain Park Land Exhibit Q: Preliminary Title Report for Irvine Regional Park Addition Exhibit R: Preliminary Title Report for East Orange Area I Land Exhibit S: Preliminary Title Report for East Orange Area 11 Land Exhibit T: Preliminary Title Report for Tames License Area Land Exhibit U: Preliminary Title Report for East Orange 11 Access Easement Exhibit V: List of Designated Unacceptable Exceptions Exhibit w: List of Remaining Unacceptable Exceptions IRO 302"3014825-4466 4608v 22 12ianA14 12 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) j. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all ofwhich together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. k. AM;Mdment. This Agreement may not and shall not be deemed or construed to have been modified, amended, canceled, rescinded, terminated or waived, in whole or in part, except by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Entire _Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter addressed herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and County have entered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. "CUMp"IAT I, THE YRVM COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Exece `Ji Sy: sistant Secretary TIC LAND INVESTMENT LL+C, a Delaware limited liability company M OUT ice p' Yoslud a `" ssistant Secretary JM 3a2rM3-O43D14825-4466 4608v.22 1214/2014 13 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) (County Signature Wage to Agreement] "CD COUNVY OORArNGE, a political 1 s ivision of t"S taf California Scott D. Mayer U Chief Real Estate Officer Per Minute Order dated November 18, 2014 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of County Counsel Orange County, California By: ]Deputy Date: - -17- //V1,41 JM 30209443014M-4466.4608Y 22 1214,2014 14 Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Depiction of 2014 Donation Land 10.30.x4 Exhibit A (page i of 2) 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 #I) EXHIBIT D Figure 4. Fire ignitions frorn the original report are shown as orange flarnes, while the new ignitions are blue. There area total Qf to6 f►re ignitions. 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. Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) EXHIBIT E Investigative Report on Development of a State Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon December 15, 2021 (Update #1) Susana Barrios From: Philip Bettencourt <philip@bettencourtplans.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:55 AM To: Public Comment Cc: 'Robert Brower Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cemetery Master Plan Implementation You don't often get email from philip@bettencourtplans.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. City council members and staff, I am writing to support the proposed action items on the July 23rd City Council agenda f or implementation of the new public cemetery and veterans cemetery southeast of the intersection of the 91 f reeway and 241 toll road. (I am a long -ago Anaheim real estate of f icial having served as president of the Anaheim Hills Planned Community Association, vice president of the Anaheim hills real estate development arm Texaco- Anaheim Hills, Inc., and a member of the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Council. I know the neighborhood.) The proposed public cemetery and veterans cemetery master plan is awell-craf ted solution to serve the public interest of a wide range of citizens and veteran families. Philip F. & Meredith Bettencourt Real Estate Development Planning I Stewardship Newport Beach I La Quinta I RivCo 1 Phi lip@ Bettencourtplans.com From: sanjay shah Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:46 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 RU Ject: EXTE�PUBLICMMENT: 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 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sanjay -----Original Message ----- From: Priscilla Yu Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 4:18 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. Hello, 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Priscilla Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Jennifer Maguire Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 4:24 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] Listen to the constituants: 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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. Sincerely, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Wickersheim i Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:11 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Wickersheim Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:12 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Priyal Ohri Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 5:38 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Aline Young Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:12 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, From: premierhi Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:36 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 <JMBarri a@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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 current cemeteries project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the E I R 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 finding 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, Thankyou, Eric Hill Premier Home Inspection, Inc. -----Original Message ----- From: Sharon So Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:54 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Yorba Linda Residence Sharon So Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: victoria tejeda Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:42 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Victoria Tejeda Resident Yorba Linda Sent from my iPhone From: Tegdeep Kondal Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:24 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 current cemeteries project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the E I R 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 finding 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, Te dee Kondal Yorba Linda, CA 92887 -----Original Message ----- From: Danielle Wang Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:24 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----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: 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Tracy Prout Yorba Linda Sent from my iPhone From: tonycabanilla Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:42 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 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. Please, DO NOT accept 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, Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device -----Original Message ----- From: Jen McCool Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 5:05 AM To: Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cemetery [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. Being that all these projects that are pr000sed have seperate meetings this project still does not address adding traffic and stopping traffic for funerals to the bottleneck from OC to the IE. I think residents are open to improving things but not when it would affect daily life. I get Irvine company three this property out as the residents don't want it there which is much better equipped. This is a high wind and high burn area. The winds in this particular location are also unbearable. The rezoning in this particular area or even the thought needs to stop. Irvine should carry out the project there where it's equipped. Please consider holding meetings where it makes it easier for residents to attend I. Last meeting it took 47 min in traffic to get too and since meetings are early most residents are unable to attend. Maybe send out cards to 92808 residents. From: Celo Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:24 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, From: Raymond Chu Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:48 PM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 current cemeteries project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the E I R 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 finding 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, -----Original Message ----- From: ucrgrad (null) Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:05 AM 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Ta nya From: rtillmo Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:07 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 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my Galaxy From: ericmhill Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:35 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 current cemeteries project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the E I R 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 finding 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, Thankyou, Eric Hill From: Lin Wu Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:13 AM To: Ashleigh Aitken <AAitken@anaheim.net>; Carlos A. Leon <CLeon@anaheim.net>; Jose Diaz <JoDiaz@anaheim.net>; Norma C. Kurtz <NKurtz@anaheim.net>; Natalie Meeks <NMeeks@anaheim.net>; Natalie Rubalcava <NRubalcava@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net> Cc: Cynthia @ward -associates. net; Nicholas J. Taylor <NJTaylor@anaheim.net>; Berenice Ballinas <BBallinas@anaheim.net>; Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net>; k.rivers@orccd.com; maribel@maribelmarroquin.com; nhatch@fea.net; t.deutsch@orccd.com; 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 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, -----Original Message ----- From: Rupal Parekh Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:36 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone From: Enad Fakhouri Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:30 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Enad -----Original Message ----- From: Fotis Borovilos Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:34 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Fotis Borovilos Anaheim, CA 92808 -----Original Message ----- From: Alicia A Parra = Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:24 AM 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, -----Original Message ----- From: Medi Abbis <mabbis@abbisadvisory.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:25 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 [You don't often get email from mabbis@abbisadvisory.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: P Kennedy Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:57 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Pat Kennedy -----Original Message ----- From: Alexis De La Cruz♦ Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:04 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 [You don't often get email from earn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Concerned Citizen -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Kibbe Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:52 AM 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Tom Kibbe Yorba Linda, California 92887 Sent from my iPhone From: enadfakhouri Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:29 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 i MBarri a 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 Tern 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 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 Tern Rubalcava, Dear Council Member Natalie Meeks, and Dear Members of Anaheim City Council: I am 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 current cemeteries project. For instance, Geotechnical Firm Geosyntec in their report indicated a number of significant flaws of the E I R 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 finding 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, Enad Fakhouri -----Original Message ----- From: Stefania Andreetta Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:08 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Stefania Andreetta Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Dr. Marek A. Suchenek Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:12 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Dr. Marek A. Suchenek Bryant Ranch (Yorba Linda) reident -----Original Message ----- From: Dirty Jeff - Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:57 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: David Cuan Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:56 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Michelle Higgins Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:36 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Michelle Higgins Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 -----Original Message ----- From: Michele Vincent Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:55 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Michele Vincent Sent from my iPhone From: Greg Gelnar Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:31 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 -----Original Message ----- From: Ruby Talawi Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:26 AM 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Karina Cooke Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 7:03 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 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Trac and Karina Cooke resident (21+years) (10+years) Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: cyrus pourhass Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:43 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 and lives of nearby residents. This in itself goes against the CEQA requirements that stipulates involvement of 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 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 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 finding 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, Cyrus Pourhass Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Daniel Clem Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 9:24 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 <JMBarri a@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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Dan Clem Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Patrick Edwards■ Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 6:22 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Patrick Edwards Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Cong Vo Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:55 AM 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Cong Vo Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 10:54 AM 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Rivas <steve@wphomeloans.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:22 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 steve@wphomeloans.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Steve Rivas -----Original Message ----- From: Janet Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:57 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Shaun - Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 1:06 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Maureen Dawson Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:37 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Maureen Dawson From: Indika Sekera Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:53 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 -----Original Message ----- From: Sneha Patel Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:49 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 at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sneha Patel -----Original Message ----- From: Vicki Custodio Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 1:31 PM To: Jose M. Barriga <JMBarriga@anaheim.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] OC Veterans Cemetery [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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. My Vietnam War veteran/husband and I wholly support a local veterans cemetery. We know that as we age it will impossible for us to visit the other one at the Riverside veterans cemetery. Driving the freeway will not be in our long term future. Thank you Sent from my iPhone 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 Tern 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 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 Tern 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 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 Susana Barrios From: Lou Correa Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:55 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Anaheim City Council 07.23.24- Public Comment Attachments: Rep. Correa - Item 11.pdf You 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. Hello, Attached is the public comments from Congressman Correa. I Eta 1\ I I III 1] I K 111 LOU CORREA Tuesday, July 23, 2024 Anaheim City Council 200 S Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear Mayor and Council, I write today in support for the construction of a Veterans Cemetery in the City of Anaheim on the Gypsum Canyon site to establish a proper final resting place for our Nation's Veterans in Orange County. Orange County is the largest county in the state of California without a Veterans cemetery. Our Veterans and their families must travel long distances outside of our county to visit their loved ones and be laid to rest. With the release of the California Department of Veterans Affairs feasibility study earlier this year for the Gypsum Canyon site, it marks a significant step in making a Veterans cemetery in Orange County a reality. The City of Anaheim has the opportunity to move forward and turn one hundred and fifty-seven acres into a final resting place for our Veterans. I ask that you stand with our Orange County Veteran Community and vote to approve this project. Respectfully, J. LUIS CORREA Member of Congress -----Original Message ----- From: Jenny Truong Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:37 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 <JMBarri a@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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Sent from my iPhone -----Original Message ----- From: Aaron Pourhassanian Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 5:06 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 [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] 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 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 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. The reasons of my opposition 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 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 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 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 finding 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, Aaron pourhassanian Yorba Linda ca 92887 Sent from my iPhone Susana Barrios From: Truong, Marlena <Marlena.Truong@sen.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 4:10 PM To: City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Senator Umberg Letter of Support Attachments: Umberg Letter of Support_AnaheimCCMeeting 07.22.2024.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed You don't often get email from marlena.truong@sen.ca.gov. 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. Hello, Please see attached Senator Umberg's letter of support in regards to item #11 for tonight's city council meeting. Thank you, Marlena 7ruong District Representative Senator Thomas J. Umberg, 34`" District Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center 1000 East Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 220B Santa Ana, CA 92701 Tel: (714) 558-3785 1 CAPITOL OFFICE 1021 O STREET. SUITE 6530 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 �916) 651-4034 DISTRICT OFFICE 1000 E. SANTA ANA BLVD., STE. 22CS SANTA ANA_ CA 92701 1714i558-3785 WwW.SENATE.CA.GOV,UMBERG SENATOR.UMBERG( SSENATE.CA.GOV July 22, 2024 Tallifarniar $tate -$mate SENATOR THOMAS J. UMBERG THIRTY-FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT Mayor Aitken and Councilmembers 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Dear Mayor Aitken and members of the Anaheim City Council: STANDING COMMITTEES JUDICIARY CHAIR ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HOUSING MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS TRANSPORTATION I am writing in support of efforts to move forward with a veteran's cemetery in Orange County. As a veteran and spouse of a veteran, establishing our own veteran's cemetery in Orange County has long been one of my top priorities. Along with Assembly members Sharon Quirk -Silva and Tom Daly, I am proud to have secured $25 million in state funding to build a cemetery befitting the sacrifice of our veterans and their families. I ask that we all work together to see this project through to completion and encourage further efforts to make this dream of so many a reality. Sincerely, Thomas J. Umberg California State Senator, District 34 Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Wednesday, July 17, 2024 9:54 AM [EXTERNAL] Every pastor church people in that church should be investigated 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. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8nlltdKKJN/?igsh=NzgyYTkOY2YyNg== Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Thursday, July 18, 2024 8:20 AM [EXTERNAL] Threatening my family 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. https://www.avvo.com/attorney-reviews/92646-ca-dennis-osullivan- 94354/review confirmation/2444138 Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto [EXTERNAL] Fwd 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martindale Hubbell Customer Support<infomartindale(�bmartindale.com> Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 9:33 PM Subject: Your Case Has Been Received - Case Number: - To: Thank you for contacting Martindale-Avvo. This response is to assure you that we have received your message and you have been assigned Case - Please do not reply to this automated e-mail. Your satisfaction is very important to us, and we appreciate the opportunity to assist you. All requests are worked in the order that they are received. You can expect to hear from us within 1 to 2 business days about your request. We appreciate your patience. If you need immediate assistance please contact us at 1-800-526-4902. Sincerely, Martindale-Avvo Customer Support Toll free: 1-800-526-4902 8:30 am - 6:00 pm EST, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Approved: Your review of Dennis O'Sullivan is now live. 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Avvo <email mail5.avvo.com> Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 2:15 PM Subject: Approved: Your review of Dennis O'Sullivan is now live. To: Your review has been posted on Avvo Dennis O'Sullivan Mr o Sullivan is it true that you threatened to kill my sister and your daughter and my sister -because you told him not to go to court when you two separated and divorced don't lie to me now you got your first review let me know this is her brother Ruben Greg Soto she told me not to tell my dad because he would have killed you but I didn't tell him now I'm asking you as a man did you do that you mother _ 1 Get started Move forward About Avvo Ask a free question Find a lawyer Our company Research a topic AvvoStories blog Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Ruben Soto Friday, July 19, 2024 6:02 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ruben Soto Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2024, 5:57 AM Subject: To: <email _ mail5.avvo.com> Mr Soto here I wantyou to know that I sent all your messages emails to people with authority that I know so I hope this is a real site because there's no picture on Dennis Sullivan O'Sullivan so if you're playing games with me you will be exposed Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Craig A Durfey Wednesday, July 17, 2024 12:51 PM [EXTERNAL] Active commuting: Cycling to work linked to enormous health benefits 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. I thought you would be interested in this story I found on MSN: Active commuting: Cycling to work linked to enormous health benefits - https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/active-commuting-cycling-to- work-linked-to-enormous-health-benefits/ar- BB1 g9onS?ocid=socialshare&pc=DCTS&cvid=b9ac5324a03549288bb99afabed c0462&ei=44 Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: d u rfeycra ig Wednesday, July 17, 2024 9:44 PM [EXTERNAL] Suspect in Garden Grove DUI -related hit-and-run charged with vehicular manslaughter after boy dies 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. 07-17-2024 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. https://www.govi nfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27. pdf new website socialemotionalpaws.org Suspect in Garden Grove DUI -related hit-and-run charged with vehicular manslaughter after boy dies. 1 A 29-year-old Santa Ana man accused of driving with a blood alcohol content nearly three times the legal limit was charged Wednesday, July 17, with vehicular manslaughter after a 5-year-old boy critically injured in a Garden Grove hit-and- run died a week after the crash, the Orange County District Attorney's Office said. The hit-and-run occurred the evening of July 7, when a family of five was struck and injured by a black 2003 Toyota Camry as they rode a -bikes on Haster Street near Twintree Lane in Garden Grove. Both parents had bike trailers attached to the e-bikes, with the father, 27, carrying his 5-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter while the mother, 25, rode in front with the couple's 7-month-old daughter. The suspect, Ceferino Ascencion Ramos, fled the scene after driving into all five family members, according to a witness who called police and followed Ramos until he was arrested roughly a mile from the crash, officials said. Ramos, who had a blood alcohol content of .22% during his arrest, faces additional felony charges including driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury, driving with blood alcohol of .08% or more causing bodily injury, and hit and run with injury, the District Attorney's Office said. He's due in court for arraignment July 25. All five family members were hospitalized. The couple's 5-year-old son, Jacob, was removed from life support after being in a week-long coma without any brain activity. His father remains in a coma after suffering a fractured skull and bleeding in the brain. The mother and 7-month-old girl were released from the hospital with minor injuries, along with Jacob's 6-year-old sister after undergoing surgery for her injuries. Prosecutors have also charged Ramos with two felony enhancements of causing brain injury and great bodily injury. If convicted on all charges, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years and four months. Suspect in Garden Grove DUI -related hit-and-run charged with vehicular manslaughter after boy dies - Orange County Register (ocregister.com) N Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: d u rfeycra i year -old Jacob died a week after being hit by the intoxicated driver while on a bike Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said a boy like Jacob GARDEN GROVE HASTER STREET.pdf 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. (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. https://www.govi nfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website socialemotionalpaws.org Man Who was Driving with Blood Alcohol Content Nearly Three Times Legal Limit Charged with Vehicular Manslaughter after 5 year -old Boy Dies a Week after Hit -and -Run Crash that Critically Injured His Father, 6-Year-old Sister Boy's mother and 7-month-old sister also suffered minor injuries after being hit while on a family bike ride in Garden Grove. SANTA ANA, Calif. - The Orange County District Attorney's Office has upgraded charges against a man accused of having a blood alcohol content nearly three times the legal limit when he ran into a young family out on a bike ride, critically injuring a 5-year-old boy, his 6-year-old sister and their father. Five -year -old Jacob died a week after being hit by the intoxicated driver while on a bike ride with his parents and two young sisters in Garden Grove. The boy's father remains in a coma after suffering a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. A driver who witnessed the crash followed the driver after he drove away until police stopped him. Ceferino Ascencion Ramos, 29, of Santa Ana, was charged today with one felony count of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated for killing 5-year-old Jacob who was riding in a bike trailer with his 6-year-old sister being pulled by his dad's bike. Ramos is also facing one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury, one felony count of driving with blood alcohol of .08% or more causing bodily injury, and one felony count of hit and run with injury. Ramos has also been in charged with two felony enhancements for causing brain injury and paralysis and one felony enhancement of great bodily injury. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years and four months if convicted on all charges. On Sunday, July 7, 2024, Angel Ramirez and Angela Hernandez-Mejia were riding a -bikes with their three young children just after 7 p.m. in Garden Grove on Haster near Twintree Lane. Angela was in front with the couple's 7-month-old daughter being pulled behind in a bike trailer and Angel was pulling a trailer with their 5-year-old son Jacob and 6-year-old daughter inside. A witness saw the family riding on the right side of the road as Ramos drove into all five members 2 of the family before he drove away. The witness called police and followed Ramos until police could catch up to them and arrest him. Ramos had a blood alcohol content of .22 nearly three times the legal limit of .08. Jacob remained in a coma without any brain activity until being removed from life support a week after the crash. Angel remains in a coma after he suffered a fractured skull and a brain bleed. The couple's oldest daughter has been released from the hospital after undergoing surgery for her injuries. The little girl turned seven years old the day after the collision. Angela and the couple's 7-month-old suffered minor injuries. "A five -year -old boy's summer days should be spent playing outside, telling silly jokes, laughing and being loud because that's what little boys do, not laying in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine fighting for their life because someone decided the next beer was more important than Jacob," said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. "This is a crime that should have never happened, and it is something that this family will never recover from. Jacob is so much more than another drunk driving statistic, but as a result of the selfish decision of a stranger to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, five -year -old Jacob has become another casualty of a crime that is completely preventable." Senior Deputy District Attorney Devin Campbell of the Homicide Unit is prosecuting this case. 3 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TODD SITT ER. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE Date: July 17, 2024 Kimberly Edds Case #: 24WF1884 Director of Public Affairs Office: 714-347-8405, Cell: 714-504-1917 media@ocdapa.org Man Who was Driving with Blood Alcohol Content Nearly Three Times Legal Limit Charged with Vehicular Manslaughter after 5- year-old Boy Dies a Week after Hit -and -Run Crash that Critically Injured His Father, 6-Year-old Sister Boy's mother and 7-month-old sister also suffered minor injuries after being hit while on a family bike ride in Garden Grove. SANTA ANA, Calif. —The Orange County District Attorney's Office has upgraded charges against a man accused of having a blood alcohol content nearly three times the legal limit when he ran into a young family out on a bike ride, critically injuring a 5-year-old boy, his 6-year-old sister and their father. Five -year -old Jacob died a week after being hit by the intoxicated driver while on a bike ride with his parents and two young sisters in Garden Grove. The boy's father remains in a coma after suffering a fractured skull and bleeding on the brain. A driver who witnessed the crash followed the driver after he drove away until police stopped him. Ceferino Ascencion Ramos, 29, of Santa Ana, was charged today with one felony count of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated for killing 5-year-old Jacob who was riding in a bike trailer with his 6-year-old sister being pulled by his dad's bike. Ramos is also facing one felony count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury, one felony count of driving with blood alcohol of .08% or more causing bodily injury, and one felony count of hit and run with injury. Ramos has also been in charged with two felony enhancements for causing brain injury and paralysis and one felony enhancement of great bodily injury. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years and four months if convicted on all charges. On Sunday, July 7, 2024, Angel Ramirez and Angela Hernandez-Mejia were riding e-bikes with their three young children just after 7 p.m. in Garden Grove on Haster near Twintree Lane. Angela was in front with the couple's 7-month-old daughter being pulled behind in a bike trailer and Angel was pulling a trailer with their 5-year-old son Jacob and 6-year-old daughter inside. A witness saw the family riding on the right side of the road as Ramos drove into all five members of the family before he drove away. The witness called police and followed Ramos until police could catch up to them and arrest him. Ramos had a blood alcohol content of .22 nearly three times the legal limit of .08. Jacob remained in a coma without any brain activity until being removed from life support a week after the crash. Angel remains in a coma after he suffered a fractured skull and a brain bleed. The couple's oldest daughter has been released from the hospital after undergoing surgery for her injuries. The little girl turned seven years old the day after the collision. Angela and the couple's 7-month-old suffered minor injuries. "A five -year -old boy's summer days should be spent playing outside, telling silly jokes, laughing and being loud because that's what little boys do, not laying in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine fighting for their life because someone decided the next beer was more important than Jacob," said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. "This is a crime that should have never happened, and it is something that this family will never recover from. Jacob is so much more than another drunk driving statistic, but as a result of the selfish decision of a stranger to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, five -year -old Jacob has become another casualty of a crime that is completely preventable." Senior Deputy District Attorney Devin Campbell of the Homicide Unit is prosecuting this case. Susana Barrios From: durfeycraig Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:50 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Eyes on the Street: Hollywood Boulevard Bike Lanes are Open and example from the city of Santa Ana CA Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. ` unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message. 07-18-2024 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website socialemotionalpaws.org To whom it may concern This story of many to identify ways to minimize vehicles contact increase safety below with city of Santa Ana image with strong safety separation city of Santa ana bike lane images https://www.google.com/search?q=city+of+santa+ana+bike+lane+images&riz=1 C1 ONGR_ enUS1031 US1031 &oq=city+of+santa+ana+bike+lane+images &gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBg gAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAI QIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigAdIBCT E4MjE5ajBgN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF- 8 Eyes on the Street: Hollywood Boulevard Bike Lanes are Open The Hollywood bike lanes project, already very much in use, is also already being criticized by commenters at Nextdoor and other social media By Joe Linton 3:20 PM PDT on July 17, 2024 Share on Facebook Share on X (formerly Twitter Share on Reddit Share on Email Hollywood Boulevard's new parking -protected bike lanes. Photos by Joe Linton/Streetsblog Q This article supported by Los Angeles Bicycle Attorney as part of a general sponsorship package. All opinions in the article are that of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of LABA. Click on the ad for more information. Construction has not quite wrapped up, but eastbound and westbound parking - protected bike lanes are now open along Hollywood Boulevard. These are the initial part of several interconnected complete streets upgrades for one of L.A. city's most iconic and most transit -rich corridors. The bike lane striping is in, though city crews are still adding finishing touches: green striping in conflict zones, repainting some parts of existing crosswalks, etc. The bike lanes are a bit longer than what the city Transportation Department (LADOT) had announced for the first phase. The project limits announced had been 1.9 miles from Gower Street to Lyman Place; the east end was extended past Lyman to the six -points intersection (Virgil Avenue/Hillhurst Avenue/Sunset Boulevard/Sunset Drive), so there are now 2.1 miles of new bike lanes. Below are photos of Hollywood Boulevard taken yesterday afternoon. 3 The east end of the Hollywood Boulevard bike lanes is currently at the six -points intersection at Sunset Boulevard, Hillhurst Avenue, and Virgil Avenue At right turn pockets before intersections (and a couple narrower blocks at the 101 Freeway) protection drops. The conflict areas feature striped green pavement, but remain the least comfortable places when bicycling on Hollywood 4 Large green -striped merging zone where Hollywood Boulevard turns, just west of Vermont Avenue Parking -protected bike lanes on Hollywood Boulevard across from Barnsdall Art Park 5 First bike lanes to serve Hollywood's Thai Town EI 6 Though the white striping is nearly all in place, some additional work is still pending. In the foreground, the scraped area will receive green pavement. To the right are circular marks where plastic bollards will be installed. The current west end of Hollywood Boulevard's bike lanes - at Gower Street The project, already very much in use, is also already being criticized by commenters at Nextdoor and other social media. Readers who appreciate the safety upgrades might want to counter those comments by offering gratitude to project proponents at LADOT, the city Bureau of Street Services (StreetsLA), and L.A. City Councilmembers Hugo Soto -Martinez and Nithya Raman. https://la.streetsbiog.orgl2O24107117leyes-on-the-street-hollywood-boulevard-bike-lanes- are-open Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Craig A Durfey Subject: [EXTERNAL] Protected+Bike+Lanes+Shift+into+ High +Gear+from +City+of+Santa +Ana 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. Read more: https://www.santa-ana.org/protected-bike-lanes-shift-into-high-gear?name=protected- bike-lanes-shift-into-high-gear Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: d u rfeycra [EXTERNAL] Do parents have a right to record private meetings with school officials? A Mass. dad is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. 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. 07-19-2024 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website socialemotionalpaws.org To whom it may concern Do parents have a right to record private meetings with school officials? A Mass. dad is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. 1 Massachusetts dad who recorded video in superintendent's office wins First Amendment appeal (bostonherald.com) Massachusetts father who recorded video in superintendent's ... Murbanactive.cahttps://www.urbanactive.ca > 2024/07/17 > vefms 3 days ago — A federal appeals court has sided with a Gloucester parent who recorded and posted a public interaction in the district superintendent's office, ... https://www.boston.com/?post_type=post&p=29834902 A federal appeals court has sided with a Gloucester dad who recorded and posted a public interaction at the district's superintendent's office, declaring qualified immunity to school administrators a "textbook First Amendment violation." 3 days ago N Susana Barrios From: jodiemosley Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:41 AM To: Public Comment Cc: Scott Eden; Anaheim Sporn; City Manager; Kathy Tran Subject: [EXTERNAL] Thank you Officer Scott Eden!! 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. I would like to publicly thank officer Eden for his outstanding and committed work in closing the slaphouse/drug house/squatters on Glenholly drive in district 1 recently. Out community is so grateful, he was there helping us all the time and got it closed. Until there is a better system in California, these places are out of control and ruining decent neighborhoods we are thankful for our Officer Scott Eden who worked very hard. Thankyou. Jodie Mosley Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Susana Barrios From: Kathy Chance Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:40 AM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request removal of Chief of Police RICK AREMDARIZ (No control on 4th of July) You 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. I respectfully request the removal of Anaheim Chief of Police, Rick Aremdariz. Chief Aremdariz had no control over the City of Anaheim on the 4th of July, even after several months of planning, and caused our city to be placed into dangerous and fire -hazardous conditions. I request his removal immediately. His team, after months of prep and training for the 4th of July along with Anaheim Fire, failed our city and placed all of us in danger. I am in receipt, and have reviewed, the 20 PAGES of Fireworks Complaint Calls for the ENTIRE city of Anaheim to Anaheim Police from WED 7/3 - SUN 7/7, 2024. All Calls from my tract in District 1, 92804 to Anaheim Police Dispatch were CANCELED, other than one of which officer(s) stated they saw nothing (July 4th). Anaheim Police and Anaheim Fire ignored all of the pre-4th illegal fireworks concerns that were placed online on their website devoted to this issue. As well, the majority of Fireworks call complaints throughout the entire city were CANCELED! I request the City Council to ask for an investigation and agendize for the Chief of Police and the Anaheim Fire Chief to explain WHY they had absolutely NO CONTROL on the 4th of July, during council! Of 20 PAGES of city-wide complaints, APD issued only 28 citations. This is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! COMPLETE FAIL! Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Craig A Durfey [EXTERNAL] Safe Routes to School Program 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. 11YADbAIyz1 Craig Durfey To whom it may concern. Below are resources to out what is safe route to school, https://youtu.be/Shc BvYETDmc?si=oewkAfZ-gxXtBz2j Jul 26, 2018 Palo Alto is a nationally recognized leader in helping encourage more families to choose safe and active school commutes. Check out our new Public Service Announcement about Palo Alto's Safe Routes to School program and learn how you can join the movement. Safe Routes to School Program (youtube.com) Biking in Palo Alto: A Safe Routes to School History Lesson Bing Videos V1188 1 16:9 1 Christian - Recurring Royalties - Hook 2 (_youtube.com) With the help of parents, almost 48 percent of Palo Alto students bike to school. Palo Alto has some of the highest levels of bicycle commuting in the country and this video is the story of how biking to school became the preferred transportation method of choice for many Palo Alto residents. Safe Routes to School - City of Palo Alto, CA The Safe Routes to School Program contains a local community partnership between the City, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Parents Teacher Association (PTA). The partnership mission is to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often. Biking in Palo Alto: A Safe Routes to School History Lesson With the help of parents, almost 48 percent of Palo Alto students bike to school. Palo Alto has some of the highest levels of bicycle commuting in the country and this video is the story of how biking to school became the preferred transportation method of choice for many Palo Alto residents. Introducing Safe Routes To School Sep 11, 2020 What if there was a way to improve students' health, attendance, and academic success, while reducing the chaos of pick-up and drop-off, helping the planet and potentially saving money for your district? Introducing Safe Routes to School! Safe Routes to Schools Short (youtube.com) Maria A intro for Palo Verde PTA (67) Maria A intro for Palo Verde PTA - YouTube The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). Our mission is to advance safe walking and rolling to and from schools and in everyday life, improving the health and well-being of people of all races, income levels, and abilities, and building healthy, thriving communities for everyone. Safe Routes to School - Palo Alto Council of PTAs (paloaltopta.org) What is Safe Routes to School? The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). Our mission is to advance safe walking and rolling to and from schools and in everyday life, improving the health and well- being of people of all races, income levels, and abilities, and building healthy, thriving communities for everyone. Walking or rolling to school gives children a sense of freedom and responsibility, allows them to enjoy the fresh air, and familiarizes them with their neighborhood while getting them to school alert, refreshed, and ready to start their day. The first step in getting to school safely is choosing the right route. The City of Palo Alto provides Walk & Roll Maps, which are designed to help parents and students explore healthy, active commute routes to and from school. In addition, PAUSD students receive extensive road safety training. This includes: K-2 Pedestrian Safety, the third grade Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum (including the on -bike Bike Rodeo), the Eighth Grade Getting to High School event, and various refreshers and assemblies. Walking & Rolling I Safe Routes To School (paloaltopta.org) Active transportation is any form of human -powered transportation that promotes physical activity; this includes: walking, biking, skating, using a wheelchair, and accessing public transportation. If you do any of these to get to work, school, shopping centers, or anywhere else you travel to and from, then you participate in active transportation. Using active modes of transportation is important for a few reasons: it increases routine physical activity, reduces our carbon emissions, and has an overall improvement on people's health, happiness, and quality of life. OVERVIEWOCTA is looking to constantly improve active transportation facilities countywide. Not only do these efforts enhance public health throughout Orange County, but also ensures everyone has access to effective modes of transportation. Bettering sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and green spaces —such as, parks and planting strips —holistically promotes more efficiency and use in multimodal active QUICK LINKS OC ACTIVEOC BIKEOC WALK 0 Documents OC Active Fact Sheet 2019-12-23 OC Active Report 2018-12-10 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-8-14 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-8-17 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-7-6 OC Active Transportation Update Staff Report Sources http://gohumansocal.org/Documents/Tools/Too[Box_OCFacts.pdf http://www.atpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Complete%20Streets%20Benefit%20Pubtic%20and%20Envir onmentat%20Health.pdf http://www.ochealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015AHOC_ATVision.pdf http://www.ocheaIthaIliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AHOC_Active-Transportation-Toolkit- FINAL.pdf Spring Court USA Workout and Fitness Classes & Training Programs www.ocheaIthaIIiance.org https://socialemotiona[paws.com/blog-post-1 Educational Tools to Empower You! Get to know me! please see my first website socialemotionalpaws.org socialemotionalpaws.com Safe Route To School ect,ect. https://socialemotiona[paws.com/bicycles-%2Fwa[king-safety Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Craig A Durfey Saturday, July 20, 2024 12:08 AM 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. 07-19-2024 Craig Durfey To whom it may concern. Below are resources to out what is safe route to school, https://youtu.be/Shc BvYETDmc?si=oewkAfZ-gxXtBz2j Jul 26, 2018 Palo Alto is a nationally recognized leader in helping encourage more families to choose safe and active school commutes. Check out our new Public Service Announcement about Palo Alto's Safe Routes to School program and learn how you can join the movement. Safe Routes to School Program (youtube.com) Biking in Palo Alto: A Safe Routes to School History Lesson Bing Videos 1 V1188 1 16:9 1 Christian - Recurring Royalties - Hook 2 (youtube.com) With the help of parents, almost 48 percent of Palo Alto students bike to school. Palo Alto has some of the highest levels of bicycle commuting in the country and this video is the story of how biking to school became the preferred transportation method of choice for many Palo Alto residents. Safe Routes to School - City of Palo Alto, CA The Safe Routes to School Program contains a local community partnership between the City, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Parents Teacher Association (PTA). The partnership mission is to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often. Biking in Palo Alto: A Safe Routes to School History Lesson With the help of parents, almost 48 percent of Palo Alto students bike to school. Palo Alto has some of the highest levels of bicycle commuting in the country and this video is the story of how biking to school became the preferred transportation method of choice for many Palo Alto residents. Introducing Safe Routes To School Sep 11, 2020 What if there was a way to improve students' health, attendance, and academic success, while reducing the chaos of pick-up and drop-off, helping the planet and potentially saving money for your district? Introducing Safe Routes to School! Safe Routes to Schools Short (youtube.com) Maria A intro for Palo Verde PTA (67) Maria A intro for Palo Verde PTA - YouTube The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). Our mission is to advance safe walking and rolling to and from schools and in everyday life, improving the health and well-being of people of all races, income levels, and abilities, and building healthy, thriving communities for everyone. Safe Routes to School - Palo Alto Council of PTAs (paloaltopta.org) What is Safe Routes to School? The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). The Palo Alto Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program is a partnership between the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Parents Teacher Association (PTA). Our mission is to advance safe walking and rolling to and from schools and in everyday life, improving the health and well- being of people of all races, income levels, and abilities, and building healthy, thriving communities for everyone. Walking or rolling to school gives children a sense of freedom and responsibility, allows them to enjoy the fresh air, and familiarizes them with their neighborhood while getting them to school alert, refreshed, and ready to start their day. The first step in getting to school safely is choosing the right route. The City of Palo Alto provides Walk & Roll Maps, which are designed to help parents and students explore healthy, active commute routes to and from school. In addition, PAUSD students receive extensive road safety training. This includes: K-2 Pedestrian Safety, the third grade Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum (including the on -bike Bike Rodeo), the Eighth Grade Getting to High School event, and various refreshers and assemblies. Walking & Rolling I Safe Routes To School (paloaltopta.org) Active transportation is any form of human -powered transportation that promotes physical activity; this includes: walking, biking, skating, using a wheelchair, and accessing public transportation. If you do any of these to get to work, school, shopping centers, or anywhere else you travel to and from, then you participate in active transportation. Using active modes of transportation is important for a few reasons: it increases routine physical activity, reduces our carbon emissions, and has an overall improvement on people's health, happiness, and quality of life. OVERVIEWOCTA is looking to constantly improve active transportation facilities countywide. Not only do these efforts enhance public health throughout Orange County, but also ensures everyone has access to effective modes of transportation. Bettering sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, and green spaces —such as, parks and planting strips —holistically promotes more efficiency and use in multimodal active QUICK LINKS OC ACTIVEOC BIKEOC WALK 0 Documents OC Active Fact Sheet 2019-12-23 OC Active Report 2018-12-10 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-8-14 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-8-17 Active Transportation Update Staff Report 2017-7-6 OC Active Transportation Update Staff Report Sources http://gohumansoca1.org/Documents/Tools/Too[Box_OCFacts.pdf http://www.atpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Complete%20Streets%20Benefit%20PubLic%20and%20Envir onmental%20Health.pdf http://www.ocheaIthaIliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015AHOC_ATVision.pdf http://www.ochealtha Iliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AHOC_Active-Transportation-Toolkit- FINAL.pdf Spring Court USA Workout and Fitness Classes & Training Programs www.ocheaIthaIIiance.o https://socialemotiona[paws.com/btog-post-1 Educational Tools to Empower You! Get to know me! please see my first website socialemotionalpaws.org socialemotionaIpaws.com Safe Route To School ect,ect. https://socialemotiona[paws.com/bicycles-%2Fwa[king-safety 4 Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Craig A Durfey [EXTERNAL] WHAT IS AUTISM? 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. 07-20-2024 Craig Durfey Autism is a life-long developmental disability, which affects how people act on a wide-ranging spectrum. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13654847/autism -reversed -symptoms-reduced -you ng-age- study.html?ito=email_share_article-factbox Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: d u rfeycra ig Saturday, July 20, 2024 9:10 PM [EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT REQUESTING BE AGENDIZE CA STATE LAW TRAFFIC VIOLATION FOR BICYCLE DIVERSION PROGRAM. 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. 07-20-2024 (P.R.D.D.C.) PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN CRAIG A. DURFEY FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C. SOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS.COM FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY U.S. HOUSE OF CONGRESS H2404 - HONORING CRAIG DURFEY FOR HIS FIGHT AGAINST AUTISM ... Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkq/CREC-2003-03-27/pdf/CREC-2003-03-27.pdf new website socialemotionalpaws.org Mayor Steve Jones 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 1 (714) 741 - 5000 City Council 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 (714) 741 - 5000 City Lisa Kim City Manager 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 (714) 741 - 5000 President Teri Rocco Garden Grove Unified School District 10331 Stanford Ave. Garden Grove, CA 92840 Phone: (714) 663-6000 GARDEN GROVE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Dai Vu Engineering, Traffic Engineer 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 Office: (714) 741-5189 E-mail: daiv@ggcity.org Maria Parra Planning Services, Division Manager 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92840 Office: (714) 741-5323 E-mail: mariap@ggcity.org Dr. Gabriela Mafi Superintendent Garden Grove Unified School District 10331 Stanford Ave. Garden Grove, CA 92840 Phone: (714) 663-6000 CA State Senator Janet Nguyen 301 Main Street, Suite 212, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; (714) 374-4000 Assemblyman Tri Ta N 14361 Beach Boulevard, Suite 211, Westminster„ CA 92683; (714) 379-0970 Congressman Lou Correa Rancho Santiago Community College Building 2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319 Santa Ana, CA 92706 (714) 559-6190 Rep. Michelle Steel 10805 Holder St. Suite 225 Cypress, CA 90630 Phone: (714) 960-6483 Police Chief Amir El-Farra Garden Grove Sheriff Don Barnes Orange County Sheriff's Department 560 N Flower Street Santa Ana CA 92703 DEAR MAYOR JONES Request your support to place consideration to create a City policy to address the Bicycle Fatalities, injuries, operating violation per vehicle codes as of now that I'm not aware Of having AB-902 Traffic violations: diversion programs. Please review the information below from CA State committee analysis to the benefits by increase education ect. AB-902 Traffic violations: diversion programs.(2015-2016) Existing law specifies the penalties for a violation of the Vehicle Code or an ordinance or resolution adopted under the Vehicle Code, including the imposition of fines, fees, and forfeitures, and imprisonment, as specified. Existing law also specifies procedures related to the imposition of those penalties and the disposition of fees, fines, and forfeitures. Existing law provides that a local authority may not allow a person who has committed a traffic violation under the Vehicle Code to participate in a driver awareness or education program as an alternative to the imposition of those penalties and procedures, unless the program is a diversion program for a minor who commits an infraction not involving a motor vehicle and for which no fee is charged. This bill would instead allow any person of any age who commits an infraction not involving a motor vehicle to participate in a diversion program that is sanctioned by local 3 law enforcement. The bill would eliminate the requirement that such a program charge no fee. The bill would make other technical, no substantive changes. 1) Purpose. The author states that when a bicyclist is ticketed for a moving violation in California, he or she receives the same monetary fine as someone driving a motor vehicle. With court fees added, a stop sign violation can cost around $200, while running a red light can cost as much as $400. Unlike most drivers, bicyclists are not required to receive training or education and are often unaware of local traffic ordinances. The author states that ticketed bicyclists should be allowed to attend a class at a "bicycle traffic school" and have their fine reduced, which would turn a purely monetary penalty into a valuable educational opportunity. These programs would enable bicycle advocates and educators to work directly with local police departments, help clear up common misconceptions about bicycle law, and provide guidance on what types of violations should be targeted to have the biggest positive impact on safety. 2) The more you know. An October 2014 report by the Governor's Highway Safety Association found that bicyclist fatalities increased 16% nationwide between 2010 and 2012. California suffered 338 bicyclist fatalities during that period, the highest number in the country. The report additionally noted that in the past 37 years, adult bicyclist fatalities as a share of total bicyclist fatalities have increased from 21 % to 84%. To reduce bicyclist/motor vehicle collisions and the resulting injuries and fatalities, the report recommended, among other things, "education of bicyclists and motorists about lawful and otherwise appropriate behavior regarding motor/bicyclist interactions." The author states that this bill would provide an opportunity for this type of education. 3) Creating a new industry? While there are currently a large number of traffic violator schools in the state serving drivers, bicycle traffic schools are not common. According to the author, bicycle diversion programs exist in Irvine, Huntington Beach, Santa Cruz County, Marin County, and Sonoma County, as well as at the University of California (UC) Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, Stanford University, and California Polytechnic State University. These programs provide education and, in some cases, a fine waiver or reduction. The author states that these programs are able to operate due to technicalities in the AB 902 Page 3 law that do not apply to most areas, or which most police departments are 4 willing to accept. Many local police departments and organizations that wish to implement programs to divert bicycle offenders from court to a bicycle education program, however, have been stymied by existing law. By expanding the existing diversion program exemption from minors to all ages, this bill will help local agencies achieve that goal. To help ensure that bicycle offenders are diverted to valid programs, this bill requires the diversion program to be sanctioned by local law enforcement. file:///C:/Users/cadur/Downloads/201520160AB902_Senate%20FIoor%20Analyses.pdf hope all Orange County Cities who haven't yet to enact this effort to increase education opportunity to reduce fatalities, injuries. Thank You Craig Durfey 5 Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Craig A Durfey Monday, July 22, 2024 8:13 AM [EXTERNAL] 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting 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. 07-22-2024 Craig Durfey To whom it my concern City Council meeting dated 07-14-2020 Where many issues were concerns youth school safety, mental health, to Active Transportation Safety. Over many, manyyears P.R.D.D.C. Has address by advocating social media, mental health to bicycle, Pedesterain safety. On 07-2020-07-14 noted time frames I spoke to address this concern some four years ago raised how seriously flawed unable to address over manyyear letters were expressing the risk Active , injuries, to naming the Rail to Trail. https://youtu.be/Phktvb4z-fE?si=SYdTwwT9MQhJ-x-p 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(youtube.com) About seven minutes from start to 17 minutes where he's speaking ggusd of school violence July 1 st press release 2020 to monitor school threats 19 minutes The orange county sheriff dept request to create a north/west insmart acetum at 19/48 chiefs about the numbers of school violence During 2018 to 2019 at 21 /02 GGUSD 8 campus reported school violence then 2019 to 2020 at 21 /10 reported 42 campus reported school violence At 21 /42 -time frame Garden Grove Chiefs in of his report then mayor jones spoke about ad hoc committee was Stephanie Klopfenstein at 23/01 At 29 minute Bui talks about school violence at19/47 minutes mass shootings 30/minutes Bui talks about numerous children hu Strick walking program for children safer crossing have seen several accidents at 30/30 -time frame Public comment at 46/50 -time frame minute I speak about public safety at acacia/ nelson as a death a public safety then at 47/40 my time was up, they shut me down though my time of three minute were up they did seem to care. 2022-06-28: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting public comment a former traffic commission can't change anything they had to go to the city council ends at 15/31-time frame minutes Video starts at 2/46/01 -time frame JUNE 23 2020 council meeting City Traffic Engineer, Dai Vu, introduced this item and a PowerPoint presentation was provided by Spencer Reed with consultants Fehr & Peers. The presentation overviewed SB 743 and the intent of the legislation for managing congestion and reducing greenhouse gas with appropriate development and promotion of active transportation including walking and biking. 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(voutube.com) Starts at 43/46 minutes 48/ end of time for public comment by me + 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(youtube.com) 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting at 2/20 minutes about Mr Dips requesting a youth commission 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(youtube.com) 2020-07-14: -time frame City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting Craig Durfey at 3/32/12-time frame public comment LOS presentation was done before public comment city is not address my concerns bike/walking traffic safety ends at 3/36/03 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(youtube.com) 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting At 4/06/50-time frame Council discussion to name the trail from Nelson to Brookhurst Ends at 4/32/43 2020-07-14: City of Garden Grove City Council Meeting(youtube.com) Thank You Craig Durfey Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Friday, July 19, 2024 9:58 PM [EXTERNAL] Harvest Church feeding the homeless 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. Today driving in the parking lot and stater Brothers across from harvest Church or they kick me out because I was homeless and jobless they said I had to get a job and get a place to live if I wanted to serve there Vincent Bueno the pastor that I first talked to you when I started attending there now today a young gentleman I'll talk to you said now they're feeding the homeless at harvest Church what do you know more money in my pocket when I sue them and shut them down Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Saturday, July 20, 2024 3:52 PM [EXTERNAL] Burden to your family to taxpayers to America and United States 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. https://www.facebook.com/100094259776148/posts/pfbid031 HEDAQH48AuoHLVcLQv7tHfFineS2dkr5 VFiyF9v9JcrULpMTjxLj5L5RnhvwsYtl/?sfnsn=mo&mibextid=VhDh1V Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Reposting your Facebook post 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ruben Soto Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 8:39 PM Subject: Reposting your Facebook post To: <donald.wagner _ ocgov.com> Mr Don Wagner name is Ruben G Soto have a lot of abuse being done to me by Churches by your police Anaheim Orange county by a mayor in Fullerton now I talked to City council in Anaheim Ashley the mayor an express my concerns on comments that she makes me talk now I'm telling you and I'm also hooked up with Todd spitzer the district get pretty attorney of Orange county and I have a case coming up that Fred the mayor of Fortune put against me for communication device annoying and harassing him when I've just been trying to get help with family law did to me in Riverside cuz I'm drugs took a four years you send me to a drug program they're hoping I overdose on drugs I work that boring aircraft in Long Beach the C-17 program military a whistle blue then because everybody doing drugs and drinking working on a government plane I've been kicked out of churches and first responders belong to harvest churches but they need to keep their mind on crime never mind about what's going on in the church now they kicked me out of harvest Church which first responders attend and three times and that's a sanctuary you cannot do that that's against the law they're supposed to help me so now I'm connected with Michelle still a congresswoman Washington DC with you with Todd spitzer mayor's in California mostly ladies emailing you again separately I'm connected with the FBI it's all document Washington DC or temp to murder family law and the police abuse and killing my dad without getting him 24-hour care he had I'm going to keep on plugged until I get this done with your corruption in your courthouse all the way to Riverside county San Bernardino county and Orange county I've been arrested many times and didn't do no crime my record my rap sheet looks like I'm a real criminal none of it is true Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto 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. What is the Harvest Bible Chapel scandal? Accusations, sabbatical, and firing from Harvest Bible Chapel. Over time, former Harvest members, elders, and staff have accused MacDonald of bullying, sexual harassment, authoritarian behaviour and lack of transparency in finances, as well as misappropriation of church funds. https://en.wikipedia.org> wiki > Ja... Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto 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. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9dCCNWONTc/?igsh=MTc4MmMVnnl2Ng== Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Code enforcement not being enforced in Anaheim 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ruben Soto Date: Sun, Jul 21, 2024, 3:56 PM Subject: Code enforcement not being enforced in Anaheim To: <sfrias _ anaheim.net> My mom lives in Anaheim Anaheim California 92804 and I've told the people on the 5th floor at work as secretaries about too many people living in one dwelling and there's cars parked over on the grass the neighborhood is like a parking lot there's no place to park when I used to go visit my mom there and no one does anything about it so now I'm telling you sir no one's enforcing the law the code enforcement law because you can only have so many people living in one dwelling it's environment hazard it's not good for the children living with a bunch of people especially growing up men lot of people are turning there houses into a one room with a bathroom and renting them and probably not paying taxes in my mom's neighborhood that's why there's so many cars in there they're also making their garage into a bedroom so people can rent it and live in it so now I tell you and I hope you take care of this situation I've been trying to get this done for years and no one pays attention to me so I hope you do your job they tell me it's in incorporated or unincorporated so you can't do nothing about it or somebody can cuz somebody's not enforcing your code enforcement you have a good day I hope you contact me soon sir cuz I have concerns about the safety of them children in that neighborhood and a lot of illegals living there doing illegal work under the table kind of stuff not paying taxes please get back with me as soon as possible or your earliest convenience once you investigate this neighborhood thank you very much A concerned citizen of United States of America that's me Ruben Greg Soto Susana Barrios From: Sent: To: Subject: Ruben Soto Monday, July 22, 2024 11:46 AM [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Lawyers are evil [ ref:!00DF0068rp.!5003w01 mDTZx:ref ] 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ruben Soto Date: Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Lawyers are evil [ ref:!OODF0068rp.!5003w01 mDTZx:ref ] To: <ratings0bmartindale.com> Thanks for the information I'll go ahead and do that On Mon, Jul 22, 2024, 7:44 AM Ratings mailbox <ratingsCclmartindale.com> wrote: Dear Ruben Soto, Thank you for your email. We don't handle complaints against attorneys since we are not a Bar Association. If you have a complaint you should report it to the local Bar Association. On the other hand, if you were a client, you could submit Client Reviews for this attorney on their profiles on lawyers.com or martindale.com. Please let us know if you need further assistance. Regards, Rhod --------------- Original Message --------------- From: Ruben Soto Sent: 7/19/2024 12:33 AM To: ratings a martindale.com Subject: Lawyers are evil 1 Yes I did what are you going to do about it you want to contact my niece and my sister I give you the information if you want to I'll give them their telephone number not a problem that guy should be in prison if you did Rhod Customer Support Martindale -Hubbell 121 Chanlon Road, Suite 110 New Providence, NJ 07974 Customer Service Line: 800-526-4902 Customer Service email: infoObmartindale.com ref:!OODF0068rp.!5003w01 mDTZx:ref Susana Barrios From: Ruben Soto Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 12:57 PM 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. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story fbid=pfbid02vnSDtuFSrbNcRLB3XxNbl Gg5C6EnsTzr5ASmZD xh84re1 No6pAEhozNmDXSN9pUy1&id=100064814105277&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=6aamW6 Susana Barrios From: Rob Bermond Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 1:50 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Disney contract negotiations You 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. Dear Mayor and Council Members, As an Anaheim resident and Cast Member, I am deeply invested in the outcome of the current negotiations. I don't want to go on strike. Disney doesn't want us to go on strike. And I believe it's in the city's best interest that we not go on strike. I am prepared to strike if necessary. Is the city prepared? I would like to urge you to support workers and residents and urge Disney to negotiate in good faith and come to the table with an offer we as Cast Members and magic makers deserve. Thank you for your consideration. Rob Bermond Susana Barrios From: Sean Drexler Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 2:03 PM To: Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment City Council Meeting You 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. Hello Mayor and City Council, My name is Sean Drexler and I am an Orange County resident. Last month, unionized Disney workers filed charges of unfair labor practices against Disney for interfering with their ability to get a fair contract, including unlawful intimidation, surveillance, and disciplinary threats for wearing union buttons. Last week, Disney workers voted overwhelmingly to strike after a huge march outside of the park. If Disney executives reject their workers' contract negotiations, these workers could very well go on their first strike since the 1980s. Anaheim City Council has the power and duty to push Disney executives to agree to a deal that's fair and just. I urge the council to do all it can to push Disney executives to come to the bargaining table with proposals that are appropriate and deserving given the profits Disney workers create for the company. Sincerely, Sean Drexler Susana Barrios From: Bob Olea Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 6:04 PM To: Natalie Rubalcava; Ashleigh Aitken; Jim Vanderpool; Natalie Meeks; Stephen Faessel; Mike Lyster; Berenice Ballinas; Theresa Bass; Daniel Hernandez; Public Comment; Carlos A. Leon; Jose Diaz Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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. Good evening everyone I have a suggestion for the city companies and businesses should stop charging $.25 $35 to further credit card payments outrageous, and we do something to stop at Anaheim Sent from my iPhone