Folsom City Council
April 26, 2022

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 16,2022
Furthermore, neither the StaffReport nor the IS/MND discuss whether cremations at the proposed Lakeside Crematorium would result in an increase in memorial services either at Lakeside cemetery or elsewhere in Folsom. If cremations at Lakeside cemetery would result in an increase in services at other locations in Folsom (e.g., the funeral home on Scott Street), similar evaluations of potential impacts associated with vehicle trips, noise, parking capacity, neighborhood circulation and pedestrian safety and other factors associated with those services must be addressed.

6. The Staff Report and IS/MND fail to recognize the visibility of the existing shed and proposed modifications from public view locations (Folsom Boulevard) and the impacts of such visibility on visual quality and locally designated historic resources.

The ISAvIND aesthetics and cultural resources analyses are fundamentally flawed by failing to recognize that the existing structure is visible from public viewpoints including Folsom Boulevard and the bluffs on the north side of Lake Natoma, Page2 of the ISA4ND incorrectly states that "[t]ailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard prevent the site from being visible from that street." This is incorrect. The roof and upper portion of the structure in which the crematorium is proposed to be located and on which an exhaust stack would be installed is clearly visible from Folsom Boulevard near the intersection of Natoma Street. The February 15 Topical Responses Memo discusses that the "site of proposed modifications is already largely shielded by tailings piles and concludes that the site of proposed modifications is already largely shielded from public view due to the presence of dredge tailing piles and would remain so" and then asserts with regard to the exhaust stack that "[t]his physical improvement to an already existing metal structure would not significantly impact the visual character of the project setting" but without discussing locations from where the shed is visible, providing no discussion of the visual appearance of the exhaust stack or analysis of how the stack's would visually intrude on the quality of existing views, and no basis for a concludes that the impact would not be significant.

Figure 3 on the following page is a photograph of the viewshed toward the site taken Sunday, February 6,2022, from the south side of Folsom Boulevard just east of the Natoma Sheet intersection and facing northwest toward the project site. The project shed as well as a recently constructed larger shed are both clearly visible from this segment of Folsom Boulevard. Folsom Boulevard is a heavily traveled public road with and adjacent public light-rail line and bicycle path, all from which the existing structures are clearly visible and from which the crematorium exhaust stack would be visible extending 10 feet or more above the heights of the existing structures.

Between Folsom Boulevard and the structure are cobble mine tailings that are identified in the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory as import local historic resources. This section of tailings is one of the most prominent locations of representative historic mine tailings visible to the largest number of viewers anywhere in the City. The impact of the project's structural modification with the addition of the exhaust stack would be visible in public views from and near segments of Folsom Boulevard, light-rail passengers, and bicycle path users (cyclists and pedestrians) and must be identified and evaluated in terms of impacts to the quality of views of the tailings and impacts to the historic quality of the tailings viewshed. The visual intrusiveness and inconsistent character of an exhaust stack of any design would be visible to a large number of viewers and would substantially and adversely affect the quality of the viewshed, and would result in a significant projects specific impact and cumulative impact in consideration of the substantial view modification caused by the

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 16,2022
recently constructed shed. Mitigation, including alternatives to the proposed project, must be considered for this significant impact.

Figure 3. Viewshed from Folsom Boulard

7. The IS/UIND does not adequately evaluate potential impacts on nesting and foraging bald eagles and other special-status bird and bat species.

The Staff Report, ISAvIND, and Topical Responses Memo fail to provide any discussion or analysis of impacts to the annually active bald eagle nest located just 0.5 mile north of the project site and the potential effects ofthe project and exhaust stack on foraging behavior of the eagles or other protected bird and bat species. While the IS/IVIND discusses that effects of vehicles and workers at the site would not adversely affect migratory birds, the analysis does not address the potential effects on foraging activity of the furnace exhaust heat blast with an assumed exhaust gas temperature of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit ("F) and a gas exit velocity of 14.7 feet per second that would occur for up to 90 minutes up to four times a day. The furnace exhaust blast would have the potential to adversely affect foraging behavior and could also result in direct injury or death of individual birds, including bald eagles and other protected species.

8. The Staff Report and IS/NIND's consideration of fire risk is frighteningly dismissive and warrants a full evaluation and definitive determination by the City Fire Department and California State Parks.

The Staff Report and IS/MND consideration of potential fire risk associated with the project is insufficient. The discussion of potential exposure to wildland fire risks downplays and fails to provide a meaningful analysis of the project's potential fire risk. The IS/TVIND discusses

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 16,2022
that the "project site is located in an urbanized arca in the City of Folsom." In fact, the project site contains and is located immediately adjacent to substantial oak woodland areas and oak canopy adjacent to the building proposed to house an exhaust flume with an assumed exhaust gas temperature of 1,080 degrees Fahrenheit ('F) and a gas exit velocity of 14.7 feet per second.

Within and adjacent to the site are oak canopy linkages to the large oak woodland open spaces to the north, west, and south of the project. The applicant's rendering shown above, clearly shows tree canopy near the proposed exhaust stack location. The IS/IVIND states that, oothe project is not likely to cause any ignition, given that the crematory will not emit sparks." This conclusion is frighteningly dismissive. Evidence providing a definitive conclusion that the crematory - a facility designed for burning and with an exhaust stack emitting temperatures of over 1,000 "F - will not create an eminent fire risk Furthermore, the IS/MND discusses that the City Fire Department reviewed the project and did not raise any concerns regarding water supply or site qccess. This fails to address whether the Fire Department raised other concerns and even suggests some uncertainty of whether the Fire Department reviewed and considered the project at all. The Folsom Fire Department's specific consideration of the potential flre risk associated with the project must be provided and with assurances that the Fire Department has considered actual existing site conditions including the large new structure blocking emergency vehicle maneuverability near the project shed that was not identified in project drawings until just a few days ago.

The proposal to install and operate alarge furnace in an open space area adjacent to oak woodlands with residences beyond warrants specific review and documented feedback from the Folsom Fire Department specifically confirming that the Fire Department has carefully reviewed the project and all potential fire risk issues. Also, because the project site is immediately adjacent to lands managed by State Parks, similar definitive review and input from State Parks wildland fire experts should be documented and included in the analysis.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
F cA 95630
Page7 of7

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

IO:

Subject:

Cc:

U Laurent
Tuesday, February 15,2022 3:35 PM
Kelly Mullett; Rosario Rodriguez; Sarah Aquino;YK Chalamcherla; Mike Kozlowski; Kerri Howell;Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns
[email protected]; Drew Lessard; Elisabeth G. Lucas; [email protected]; Dale Kasler; [email protected]; Rhonda Lamoureux;[email protected]; Eileen Sobeck; Lydia Konopka; Steve Krahn; Ken Cusano; Lauren Ono; kcra-news-tips; DESK Crematory PUBLIC COMMENT: pics PRoVE deceit furnace issue €AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Folsom: whoever is in charge, if anyone
From: LJ Laurent, LNS Resident abutting furnace/LPG site February L5,2022
Re: HDC Staff APPROVAL recommendation to APPROVE this falsehood-laden application
Context: Neighbor took photos revealing fully the fraudulent documents filed by owners and filed by city with higher officials.

Clearly Health, Safety, and Fire Regulations mean Nothing to this city of "approve everything whether illegal & fraudulent in process."
COMMENTS in re pre-approved LPG tanks and furnace or multiple furnaces with Zero Access and Zero Water for explosions/fires.

Does our silent/ inactive City Engineer S. Krahn know the background and expertise of this Commenter?
Does S. Krahn anticipate Complaints against his License which requires him to Ceftify/Seal/Sign all approvals for New Projects?
Does it bother our silent engineer that there IS NOT ROAD ACCESS sufficient to handle Explosions of LPG which has huge blast range?
What does our City Engineer say about this Parcel having only a tiny 3" water supply line, with a 2" meter restriction?
As Sac Bee said on its first new style Front Page:
"Folsom what are you thinking?"
Folsom has NO Liability Insurance, and no Oversight agency since Northern CA selfinsured cities bumped city out.

What did this Igor applicant offer to the city for this PRE-Approval? How can the private citizens on the "judgment panel" think they have no personal exposure to potential Liability issues?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

City has no Liability Insurance to cover them. Why we wish to know, did the Staff in Development Pre-Approve this project?
Add to this another neighbor who is PhD in environmental issues, and clearly opposed.

Add to this the city actual/current members of this alleged 2nd Plan Commission or false Zoning Appeals Board are NOT posted at city website as this is written.

We know nothing about who is doing What lin Truth/reality] and what actual Imminent Physical Dangers they pose for entire city, Federal American River and federal Forests and Natl Historic Site.

How many humans can this city's pre-approved applicants kill with impunity? How much of Federal Assets can they destroy, pollute, and harm with impunity? I thank our neighbors for standing up against Secrecy, "scoff law" Folsom Officials, employees, and "consultants". ilI, city had a consultant file at CEQA SCH, an NOC Notice of Completion. Folsom CA never filed and Circulated properly a Notice of Intention to file Negative environmental impact Declaration.

We know what the world thinks about these behaviors, but why are those who profit so arrogant and insisting they are Above the Law.

Concerned abutting neighbor
Our neighbor who supplied these Comments and Photos Knows the Issues & dangers. I thank him and his extended family.

Our Firefighters should be thankful and proud of this wonderful new neighbor, Dave.

He's right: these pictures tell the entire filthy, dangerous, story. 2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

This picture wa$ taken January 13th, 2022. This is what the maintenance gt currently. The new storage shed is in the background and the existing shed metial securlty fencing surrounds the grounds and has a locked security gale Taillng Pile conditlon. lt has been disturbed ouer the years. {
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Thls picture was tal<en January 13th, 2022. Thls picture illustrates the curret malntenance grounds, sheds and security fencing. The metal shed on the ri proposed crernatory is to be inslalled.
{
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

This picture shows the propane tank pad right of the huilding under the large photograph was taken January 13th, 2022. The application site plan conftrn prnpane pad. ln addition, the site plan calls for 2 x 500 gallon tanks, not the tanks in the Negative Declaration text.
5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

This photograph taken January L3th 2021 displays another angle of the loca tanks pad. Blocked by a wooden fence, metal securlty fencing, a larEe redu metal shed.
{
6

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

This picture was taken on August 4th, ?0e1. This is Lakeside Memorial l-av \laldirnir Semenyuk, driving out of the cemetery with a 250 gallon propane tfl disturbing on many levels. lt is my opinion that the Caring Service is very cc outcorne o{ the Conditional Use Permit. lf indeed this tank is for the Crematr arrogant tor the Caring Seruice Group to shorru no discretion In their activities {
7

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 4, ?822
Historic Dlstrict Commissioners
City Council Members
City Manager
Kelly Multeff
My narne is Dave Higglns, I live across the street frorn Lakeside Memorial L proposed crematorium is to be built. Over the course of surnrner to the pres taken pictures of activity at the cernetery. I wish to share.

This picture was submitted by the Caring Service Group and Mllter Funeral I application for the Conditionai Use Permit to install a crernatory. Two years the rnetal storage shed and surrounding grounds looked like in 2-27-2A20. {
B

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard and San I
Folsom, CA 95630
From: Richard Perez
Sent: Tuesday, February 75,2022 9:29 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: CREMATORIUM
You don't often Bet email fro4f , Learn u/hv this.ls important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Commissioner,
Please Vote NO on a Crematorium in the Historic Folsom neighborhood. This is a historic area, around residents, beautiful trails, and a great touristic attraction due to Folsom's rich Nature. A crematorium should not be part of such beautiful scenery.

Sincerely,
Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, February 15,2022 9:35 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW:CREMATORIUM
dra Perez
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Bob LaPerriere
Monday, February 14,2022 3:23 PM
Josh Kinkade

LAKESIDE
CREMATORIUM PN 02-258 Staff Reports-Minutes.pdf; FOLSOM LAKES|DE.docx; Historic Cemetery Designation.docx; CREMATORIUM Excerpts.pdf
You don't often get email from Learn whv this is imoortant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Here is what I can submit at this time...if more current info is needed would need to schedule a Commission meeting which could take about a week.

Excerpts are from the Staff Report, page one attached below, about 2003 Bob LaPerriere
Bob LaPerriere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95855-5345
U RL: http ://www.coroner.saccountv. net/sccac/Pages/defau lt.aspx x
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

To Folsom Historic District Commissioners
City of Folsom Planning Dept
Date: February 15,2022
Re: Lakeside Cemetery
From: Dr. Bob LaPeniere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
"Lakeside Memorial Lawn" has not existed since 1850, but the multiple historic cemeteries that became merged as Lakeside did. Unfortunately, much of the history related to those cemeteries and burials has been lost over the past I % centuries.

I am writing regarding the plans to build a crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery. Due to COVID our Commission has not been meeting regularly, but I am attaching comments from 2003 that have represented the feeling of the Commission that such construction would be inappropriate so closely related to multiple cemeteries of historic importance, including one of our rare remaining Chinese Cemeteries. Also attached is documentation of our designation for Lakeside as a Historic Cemetery. I am not aware of the signage with that designation, which we provided, ever being erected on the site.

Please consider our concerns about the inappropriate location for a crematory Thank you
Bob LaPerriere
Chair Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
URL: http ://www.coroner.saccounty.net/sccac/Pages/default.aspx

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Historical Designation On the recommendation of the Commission, the Board of Supervisors has designated 21 cemeteries as "historic". This is phase I of the project, as there are many other historic cemeteries in Sacramento County.

Cemeteries designated were:

LBellview Cemetery

2.Union Cemetery

3.Lakeside Cemetery

4.Matthew Kilgore Cemetery

5.24th & Meadowview Cemetery

6.Chung Wah Cemetery
T.Elder Creek Cemetery

8.Rancho Murieta Cemetery (North & South) (2)
g.Sacramento Historic City Cemetery
1 O.Michigan-Bar Cemetery (Ione Road)
1 l.Sloughhouse Cemetery
l.Sylvan District Cemetery
1,2.Galt/AmoDistrictCemeteries (2)

13.Elk Grove Consumnes District Cemeteries (5)
l4.Fair Oaks District Cemetery
Sacramento County
Sacramento County
Folsom
Rancho Cordova
Sacramento City
Folsom
Sacramento
Rancho Murieta
Sacramento City
Sacramento County
Sloughhouse
Citrus Heights
Galt
Elk Grove
Fair Oaks
Plaques were provided for each cemetery, and we still have several to distribute.

The text of the plaque is as below:

THIS SITE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY

SACRAMENTO COUNTYAS A
HISTORIC CEMETERY.

HERE REST MANY OF TI{E MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO SAW TI{E BEAUTY

AND VALUE OF THIS LAND, CHOOSING TO SETTLE FIERE
AND BUILD TI{E COUNTY WE CMRISH TODAY.

PLEASE HELP US PRESERVE TF{ESE GRAVES, MARKERS,
AND LANDSCAPING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A}ID CEMETERY ADVISORY COMMISSION

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
I
PROJECT TITLE:

PROPOSAL:

RECOMMEITTDATION:

APPLICANT AI\TD OWNER:

LOCATION:

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:

Agenda ltemNo.l
PN02-258
HDC Mtg. l-15-03
Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow for the operation of crematorium
Denial
Lorin Claney
1201 Forrest Street
070-0082-014, 070-0130-002, 070-0130-004
Wt{ltdr/{/M

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ATTACHED REFERENCE MATERIAL: l. Vicinity Map

2. Site Plan, dxedl2/19/97

3. Project Description and Crematorium
Illustrations

4. Documentation from the Sacramento
County Historic Cemetery Commission

5. Lakeside Cemetery Research Paper
written by Sue Silver

6. Letters from the Public

7. Site Photographs
PROJECT PLANI{ER: Jane Talbot, Assistant Planner

BACKGROT'ND
The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit and Vaxiance for Mausoleums at Lakeside Memorial Lawn in 1991 (PC91-042). An amendment to the approval was granted in 1995 (PC95-033). That approval allowed for the construction of twelve mausoleums. To date, one mausoleum has been built and one additional mausoleum is under consfruction. An existing maintenance building, approximately 975 square feet in are4 is located along the south border of the cemetery. The front of the project site is mostly level with a slight to moderate downward slope towards the rear of the site. Lakeside Cemetery has a variety of mature deciduous and evergreen trees. The front of the cemetery, along Forrest Street, is bounded by a brick wall capped with wrought iron fencing.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachmerfi 4
Documentation from the
Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
rto counlty Cemetery Adviso ry S**ssio n
48oo Broadway, Suite roo
Sacramento CA 9582o
Dear Ms Talbot::

The sacramento county cemetery Advisory cornnrission is in receipt of yourNotice of public Hearing regarding PN 02-i58 Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1201 Forrest Steet.

The commission is charged with the duty to encourage the preservation and ilr;*;1io, of historical-cemeteries. We are currently preparinq a list of those cemeteries in Sacramento County, which should be considered historic. It is my opinion that Lakeview Cemetery *itt t" one of the cemeteries in Sacrarnento County that will be on the list that is to be presented to the Board of Supervisors for designation as an historic cemetery.

While no official action has yet been taken by either The Cemetery Advisory Cornmission or The Board oisupervisors regarding Lakeview Cemetery we ask that you consider the above mentioned conditional use permit in the context of Lakeview's historic significance and endeavor to prese,nre its historic elements.

City of Folsom Historic Dishict Comrnission
50 Natoma Steet
Folsom, CA 95630
Atbr: Jane Talbot
Sincerely,
James A. Purcell, Chairman
Cemetery Advisory Commission
I
lwr*tri
ffi:* * $ qs&
,id
Vice Chair, Dr. Robert ra Perriere

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
oo
sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission
48oo Broadqay, Suite roo
Sacramento CA gS8zo
Ms. Jane Talbot
9!tvor Folsom Planning, lnspections and permitting Department 50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Dear Ms Talbot:

The sacramento cgu_1!^Boqrd of supervisors on June 12,2oo1approved ordinance No. scc-1193, which established rhe sacramento courity Cemetery Advisory Commission (The Commission).

The purpose of the advisory commission is:

1. To advise the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on citizen's concerns and issues related to cemeteries;

2. To provide recommendations to preserve, protect, and maintain cemeteries; 3' To make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding mechanisms for funding the preservation, protection and maintenance oi cemjteries and the appropriation of funds so raised; and 4' To encourage the preservation and designation of historical cemeteries.

January 2,2003
With regard,to number 4,,above, and in reference to
the proposalfor a crematorium at LakEside Cemetery
submitthe following:
your request for comments on
, The Commission would like to
The^ar99 incorporating Lakeside cemeIery,-the chung wah Historic cemetery, and the California State Dredging Tailings Park is possibly the only site in tnJ Stati of California that combines these important aspects of our heritage in one sr"liarea. Lakeside cemetey, !n fact, may be a grouping of lgth Jentury cemeteries, which would most likely fit the criteria currently being developed to dlfine a nistoric cemetery. lt is the opinion of The Commission that the addiiion of a crematorium on that site would have a negative impact on the historical significance of the area. lt is believed that a crematorium could be placed in an industrlalarea within Folsom to avoid the impact on the history of our countywide communig Ctair, James A. Purcell Vice Chair, Dr. Robert La perriere

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Ms. Jane Talbot
,Ja4uary 2,2003 ' Page?
o o
Area residents have notified our Commission that they oppose the placement of the crematorium on the site.

Research that has been provided to our Commission indicates that there have been instances in which monuments, and copings have been moved or destroyed, plot maps of burial locations are misplaced and that legal questions exist regirding tfre ownership of portions of Lakeside Cemetery. Further degradation of the historic value of the cemetery by the addition of a crematorium would only serve to lessen its cultural importance to the City of Folsom and Sacramento County.

Please contact us if we oan provide any other lnformation or support.

Sincerely,
James A. Purcell, Chairman
Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
cc Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

IO:

Date:

Attachments
Subject:

Bob LaPerriere
Josh Kinkade
Lakeside
Tuesday, February !5,2022 11:01:10 PM
Cemeterv bv SK2 docx.docx
You don't often get email from'
Here is an additional (individual) letter from one of our Commissioners. Thanks.

Bob LaPerriere
Bob LaPerriere
Chair Sacramento Cemetery Advisory Commission
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95865-5345
URL : http ://www.coroner.saccounty.net/sccac/Pages/default.aspx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February t5,2002
Folsom Historical Commission
To Whom it May Concern:

Back in 2003 there was a plan to originally build a Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery. Lakeside Cemetery is not 100 years old but was formed from smaller cemeteries dating back to the Gold Rush. As such, the current cemetery borders another cemetery occupied by the Chinese and is currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Chan Trust on a previously arranged agreement. The Chinese cemetery is a registered National Landmark and another close by has potential for a National Landmark nomination, The proposal could push nomination into oblivion.

With this going on, there has been no consultation with the Bureau of Land Management and the Chan Trust on how it will affect the National Landmark nomination. Lakeside Cemetery is an amalgamation of several cemeteries, their records are rathervague, and there are issues of this proposal being built on other existing burial sites that are difficult to pinpoint. There could be a destruction of different cultural groups that are historic in nature without the Chinese community or others being able to give their input. This proposal would adversely affect the historic features and burials of the Chinese, Euro American and other interested parties that may be buried there. This could potentially be a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the California Graves Protection Act, in which six or more burial sites is considered an official cemetery.

This late notification of this meeting has not allowed the Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Board due diligence to respond in a timely manner to the meeting taking place on February 16,2022. ln the past we were against this same proposal taking place at this cemetery. I consider this is a historic cemetery and the records for this location are poor in nature and the possibility of disturbing the graves ofthedeadishighlyirregular. lnthepastgraveshavebeendestroyedduringconstructionphases.

Yours,
StephAnie Kadle
District 2
Sacramento Cou nty Cemetery
Advisory Commission

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Attachmerrt 4
HELIX Topical Responses to ISAvIND Comments

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Memorqndum
HELIX
1 1 Natoma
Environmental
Street, Suite
Planning,
155
lnc. HEL'X
Folsom, CA 95630
916.365.8700
www. helixepi.com
Date:

Project:

RE:

Enyironmsnfa I Planning
February L5,2022
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Topical Responses to Comments (public review draft lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarationl
Aesthetics
Neither the project site nor the surrounding areas are scenic vistas due to the presence of existing nearby commercial and residential developments. Further, neither the project site, nor views to or from the project site, have been designated as important scenic resources by the City of Folsom or any other public agency. Additionally, the site of proposed modifications is already largely shielded from public view due to the presence of dredge tailing piles and would remain so. Therefore, the proposed development would not interfere with or degrade a scenic vista, and no impact would occur.

The crematory would be placed inside a metal structure that already exists on the property and is already mostly shielded from public view. The only external modifications would be the addition of two 25O-gallon propane tanks on a concrete pad near the edge of the building and the addition of a small exhaust stack to the roof of the shed. This stack would be approximately 19.5 feet above grade and would project approximately 10 feet above the existing roof of the shed. This physical improvement to an already existing metal structure would not significantly impact the visual character of the project setting. An existing wooden fence would shield the propane tanks from view from the publicly used areas of the cemetery.

Air Quality
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for long-term operation of the proposed crematory were calculated using propane combustion emissions factors from the USEPA AP-42 Compilation of Emissions Factors Chapter 1.5, and crematory emissions factors provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), which combined USEPA AP-42 data and the USEPA Factor lnformation Retrieval Program.

Potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during operation of the proposed crematory were analyzed after consultation with the SMAQMD and in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidonce Manualfor Preporation of Heolth Risk Assessments.

Localized concentrations of TACs were modeled using Lakes AERMOD View version 9.8.3 and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) version L9t2t. SMAQMD provides two sets of

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February 15,2022

meteorological data files for use with AERMOD: one for the Sacramento lnternational Airport and one for the Sacramento Executive Airport. Data for the Executive Airport was recommended for use by SMAQMD staff (provided by Venk Reddy on 8/28/20791'
Though it is uncertain whether the exhaust stack will include a rain cover, for the purposes of dispersion modeling, assuming a rain cover is installed on the crematorium exhaust stack is the more conservative approach. The rain cover would limit the initial dispersion of the exhaust gases, thereby resulting in increased concentrations near the source. Without a rain cover, the exhaust may travel farther, but would result in decreased concentrations in any given volume of air. These decreased concentrations would result in decreased exposure and health risks.

HELIX's coordination with Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) began in August 20L9 when HELIX's Senior Air Quality Specialist, Victor Ortiz, reached out to SMAQMD Air Quality Engineer, Venk Reddy, via phone. Ongoing coordination via phone and emailwith SMAQMD staff, including Venk Reddy, Karen Huss, Steve Mosunic, and Brian Krebs, continued through the end of October 2021. lnitial coordination included discussion of SMAQMD approved methodologies, models, and emission factors for use in quantifying emissions and risks associated with crematory operations' Mr. Reddy provided Mr. Ortiz with the SMAQMD approved toxic air contaminant (TAC) emission rates and the recommended meteorological data for use in the AERMOD dispersion model. ln the late spring of 2021., Mr. Reddy and his team conducted a review of HELIX'S AERMOD and HARP modeling files used in the health risk assessment (HRA). All comments made by Mr. Reddy following his review dealt with confirming manufacturer specs included in the modeling. ltems specifically called out, including exhaust flow rate, physical dimensions of the equipment, and hourly burn rate, were provided by Hartwick Combustion Technologies, lnc.

The HRA examined risks to the human population as required by CEQA. Both inhalation of gaseous TACs and oral consumption of deposited TACs were examined. The exposure duration was set to 30 years beginning with infants in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy, in accordance with OEHHA guidelines. All risks were found to be below the CEQA significance thresholds.

Criteria pollutant emissions are compared to the SMAQMD thresholds of significance, which are established with the goal of helping the SMAQMD attain the ambient air quality standards. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. By resulting in emissions less than the thresholds developed to attain the standards aimed at protecting the most sensitive populations, the project's criteria pollutant emissions are not expected to result in adverse health effects on said populations' Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The presence of the nearby historic Chinese cemeteries was acknowledged in Section 5.1 of the required confidential cultural resources technical study prepared for the project, which was used to support the lS/MND. However, these cemeteries are not located within the project area. At their closest points, the Chung Wah Cemetery is located approximately 263 feet southwest of the project area, and the Young Wo Cemetery is located approximately 847 feet north of the project area. The local historical significance of the Lakeside Cemetery itself and its origins and historic use extending back to 1846 were addressed in Section 3.5.4 of the confidentialculturalresources study prepared forthe project.

HEL'X
Inrba.-,!td!i8' I'uttilf

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February 15,2022

The use of a crematorium would be exclusively within the boundaries of an existing facility in the modern portion of the cemetery. The cemetery complex in the immediate area already reflects several different religious or cultural funerary practices, including Chinese, Jewish, Masonic, Odd Fellows, and others. lntroducing a crematorium is not the first time a new funerary practice was introduced to the cemetery area.

The project would not create an adverse effect on significant historical cemeteries and resources. The project area does not contain any historicalgraves or interments and the confidential cultural resources survey of the project area failed to identify any historic or cultural resources within its footprint. No changes to the existing adjacent or nearby cemeteries or mine tailings will occur as a result of the project. The crematorium equipment will be housed within an existing shed and there will be no visible or physical change to the surrounding area. None of the features of the historic or modern portions of the cemetery will be affected.

The visibility of the proposed stack does not have a direct effect on the historicalsignificance of the historic cemeteries, especially as there is no visible exhaust and no deposition of cremated remains. The qualities that make the cemeteries significant are the aspects of integrity of setting, feeling, and association (according to the National Registration Form for the Chung Wah cemetery). The footprint of the proposed project is minor and would not result in an impact on the project site's integrity, setting, and feeling.

Hazards and Emergency Evacuation
The City of Folsom Fire Department provides fire protection services. There are four fire stations providing fire/rescue and emergency medical services within the City of Folsom with a fifth station planned near the eastern city limits. Station 35 is the nearest station to the project site and is located at 535 Glenn Drive, approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. Station 36 is second nearest to the project site and is located at 9700 Oak Avenue, approximately 2.3 miles north of the project site. The project site is easily accessible to fire service personnel. Consistent with the City's Multi-Hazard Emergency Management Plan, the City of Folsom maintains pre-designated emergency evacuation routes along major streets and thoroughfares.

The project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Vegetation on the property is irrigated and includes maintained lawns and well-spaced trees with a generally open canopy and limbs pruned near ground level. Furthermore, the project is subject to standard structuralseparation requirements from the Fire Department with regards to the crematorium's distance to the propane tanks and potentially flammable material, Land Use and Planning
Cemeteries are a permitted use within the OS/P Primary Area upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) per Section 17.52.550 of the FMC. The subject cemetery has been in operation since the 1800's and pre-dates the requirement for a CUP. The cemetery did receive a CUP for operation of a mausoleum in 1995. The proposed crematory would be operating as an accessory use to the existing cemetery not as a stand-alone business.
ln this case, the cemetery is the primary or principal use and the applicant is proposing a crematorium as an accessory use to the existing cemetery. As proposed, the crematorium would be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to that of the existing cemetery. lt would provide a service related to and HEL.X
l'!r!,,u{trti{d ltlirillrnf

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February t5,2022

supportive of the service already provided by the cemetery and mausoleum. lt would be located on the same lot and in the same zoning district as the principal use. lt would be owned and operated by the same people who own and operate the existing cemetery and mausoleum. As such, a crematory can be considered as an accessory use subject to a CUP.

HEL'X ffir,ngl*e6{6r0

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Attachment 5
Draft Minutes from February 16,2022 Historic District
Commission Meeting

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
ilr'C)ll-,t5(])tS4t
aJr:ilrrci,vl:

DRAFT

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES
February 16,2022

ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING
5:00 p.m.
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, Galifornia 95630
GALL TO ORDER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION: Mark Dascallos, DanielWest, John Lane, Mickey Ankhelyi, Justin Raithel, John Felts, Kathy Cole {$![f: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: Loretta Hettinger addressed the Historic District Commission regarding the Zoning Code Update Home Occupations item going forward to the Ci$ Council on March 8,2022.

MfNUTES:The amended minutes of the January 19,2022 meetingwere approved Oath of Office Administered to John Lane

NEW BUSINESS

1. PN 19-182. Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Conditional Use Permit. Mitiqated Neqative Declaration. and Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram A Public Hearing'to consider a request from lgor Semenyuk for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a crematory to operate in an existing metal structure situated within the Lakeside Memorial Lawn cemetery located at 120'1 Forrest Street. The zoning classification for the site is OS/P, while the General Plan land-use designation is OS. An lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade / Applicant: lgor Semenyuk)

1. Beth Kelly addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

2. Steve addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

3. Loretta Hettinger addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

4. Janice B. addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

5. Deborah Grassl addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

6. Nicole Gates addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

7. Mariko McGarry addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

8. Sharon Kindel addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

Historic District Commission
February 16,2022
Page I of3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

9. Daniel & Ashley Martinez addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

10. Tracy Wetzel addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

11. Helen Walsh addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

12. Stephanie Kadle addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

13. Marie Gonzales addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

14. Sean Gates addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

15. Marie Sims Rice addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

16. Mary addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

17. Greg addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

18. Victoria Foster addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

19. Dennis Kasbian addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed pOect.

20. Joy addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

21. Laura Fisher addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

22. Kim Higgins addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

23. Kyle & Breanne Higgins addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

24. Peler Lucyga addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

25. Tim McGarry addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

26. tsaac addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

27. Owen addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

28. Erika Hamer addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

29. Jennifer Lane addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

30. June Chan addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

31. Gharles Noble addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

32. Daron Bracht addressed the Historic District Commission commending Commissioners and Ci$ Staff.

33. Steve Walsh addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

34. Brian Pacciotti addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

35. Jill Hamer addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

36. Pat Binley addressed the Historic District Commission in opposition to the proposed project.

COMMISSIONER RAITHEL MOVED TO ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM, PER ATTACHMENT 11; AND MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE pERMtT (pN 19-1S2) FOR OPERATTON OF A CREMATORTUM WITHIN AN EXISTING 1,071-SQUARE FOOT METAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1201 FORREST STREET, WITHIN THE LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CEMETARY AS ILLUSTRATED IN ATTACHMENTS 5 AND 6, WITH THE FINDINGS (A-K) AND CONDTTTONS (NOS. 1-30)
COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Historic District Commission
February 76,2022

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

COMMISSIONER LANE RECOMMENDED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION UNDER'MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS'':
'31. A Davis lnstruments Vantage Vue, Vantage Pro2 or similar weather station shall be installed on the shed on which the crematory machine is proposed prior to installation of the crematorium to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department."

COMMISSIONER WEST RECOMMENDED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION UNDER'MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS'':
"32. The proposed stack shall be subject to Design Review approval subsequent to obtaining a permit from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)."

COMMISSIONER RAITHEL AND COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION, WHICH LEAD TO THE FOLLOWNG VOTE:

AYES: RAITHEL
NOES: DASCALLOS, WEST, LANE, ANKHELYI, FELTS, COLE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

MOTION FAILED
COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO DENY THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING:
"The use applied for is detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City because introduction of this use will impact the historical character of the existing cemetery and historical use of the area."

COMMISSIONER LANE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH CARRIED THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: DASCALLOS, WEST, LANE, ANKHELYI, FELTS, COLE
NOES: RAITHEL
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
MOTION PASSED.

PRINCIPAL PLANNER REPORT
The next Historic District Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 16,2022.

RESPECTFULLY SU BMITTED,
Kelly Mullett, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
APPROVED:

Historic District Commission
February 16,2022

Kathy Cole, CHAIR

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Attachment 6
Public Comment Letters Regarding the Applicant's Appeal

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Elaine Andersen
Wednesday, March 23, 202211:20 AM
Josh Kinkade
Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium - City Council Meeting 4/12/22 ----Original Message---
From: Adam and Katie Musfelt Igyahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 11:19 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; kerri@atlanticcorrosionengineers,com; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium - City Council Meeting 4/12/22 [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://a ka, ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification.l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,
We, Adam and Katie Musfelt, are unable to attend the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium meeting on April t2,2022.

We would like to go on the record and say that we strongly oppose the building of this crematorium.

Our quality of life will have a significant negative impact if this crematorium is allowed to be built; families and businesseswill sufferrepercussionsforyearstocome. Pleaseconsiderthefutureofthisneighborhoodbypreserving the historical and cultural integrity of it and voting no on the crematorium.

Thank you,
Adam and Katie Musfelt
L

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, April 1, 20223:31PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
From: Bert p
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 3:tS PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
You donlt often get email
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe,
Dear Elaine Anderson,
l, together with my neighbors at Lake Natoma Shores, a community next to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery am asking you to halt the proposed construction of a crematorium there. The crematorium will be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, the Historic District, and the American River Parkway. This area resides near many outdoor activities promoted by our city as family-friendly, safe, and "distinctive by nature". lt entails a farmers market, outdoor concerts; city-sponsored festivals, and sits adjacent to the American River Parkway that is actively used by many walkers, runners, and bicyclists daily. The Parkway seryes as a window to the naturalworld, for allthose that live and visit Folsom. ln researching the toxicity impacts of a crematorium I went to the National Collaborating Center for Environmental Health and found the following information, as per an article written in the US National Librarv of Medicine:
"Cremation is a combustion process whereby a casket and human remains are incinerated at a high temperature in a closed chamber. The process of corpse cremation generates numerous harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. These pollutants are carcinogenic and could have severe effects on human health and the surrounding environment." (*).

It is of great concern to me that scientific papers have been written proving that the emissions from crematorium incineration are toxic. And that the level of toxicity is a danger to people's health and well-being, has destroyed surrounding watersheds & water quality, and is of great harm to the natural environment. So improvements in the burner's design do not mitigate the fact that it does emit pollutants, and if installed, will negatively impact this area for generations.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The proposed crematorium owners may see a viable commercial need for such an operation, but I portend, it is not in the Historic District, adjacent to a residential neighborhood and a State Parkway. lt is best suited for a heavy industrial park where the zoning and utility systems can better accommodate any toxic air emissions, toxic water runoff, and any potential fire danger that may transpire by such an operation.

Please consider our concerns and let that serve as your guide foruvard Sincerely,
Bert Pittari,
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
Patricia Zuccaro
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
(*)"Toxic atmospheric pollutants from crematoria ovens: characterization, emission factors, and modeling"
>Environ Sci Pollut Res lnt. 2o2o Dec
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, April '1, 20222:32PM
Josh Kinkade
Subject: FW: Crematorium proposal
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2O222:3LPM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; kerri@atlanticcorrosionengineers,com; [email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <mkozlowski@folsom,ca.us>
Subject: Crematorium proposal
SomepeopIewhoreceivedthisrnessagedon'toftengetemaiI*"[',,amwhvthtsistqn CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My name is Breanne Higgins and I am opposing the proposal for The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium. I am a resident of the Preserves Neighborhood and have many family members and friends within this small community. So this is very important to me. I am opposing it for many reasons: quality of life, cultural insensitivities, and not belonging in a historical district.

This has already affected my quality of life and consumed my time. lt has been difficult, as many of us have careers, young children and households to maintain. I have a 21 month old and am 36 weeks pregnant. I should be looking up baby names, but instead I find myself researching crematoriums and city council meeting dates. Our neighborhood is a tight knit community with many young children. Should our kids have to see white puffs of smoke and know that a body is burning in a storage shed. At the age of 7 should you really know what a crematorium is? ls that age appropriate? There is a big difference between living near a cemetery and living next to a crematorium. Being next to a cemetery is peaceful, somewhere you show respect, it's quiet and green. lt's wonderful to see family's come to visit buried loved ones. A crematorium is loud with the noise of propane tanks being transported in and out. The sight of smoke indication a body being burned. Although the propane tank is "not anticipated" to be seen, there is no guarantee. As a neighbor I don't want to hear this, see this or smell this. Do you think someone visiting a deceased loved one at the cemetery does? Can YOU gaurtenee me that there won't be any smell? Can lgor gaurtenee this, would he put it in writing? My husband, Kyal Vongunten spoke during the Historical Commissioners meeting suggesting the environmentally friendly aquamation instead of cremation. We are offering different alternatives and locations to his crematorium. lt just doesn't belong in a neighborhood, especially one within a historical district.

The crematorium hasn't even been out in yet and it is distributing our lives. lf this is approved, lcan guarantee once I smell the scent of burning bodies, I will call and report it. Every time, ln the Historic District meeting, it was reported that residents living next to crematoriums did call to report "smells." Nothing is guaranteed about not having a smell associated with the burning of a body. Another resident of the Preserves neighborhood, Sean Gates, mentioned during the Historic District meeting that we can smell the Kikkoman's food plant on certain days. This is true. The Kikkoman's Food, lnc. building is less than 1 mile away from my house. One can only assume, with the right wind, that the smell of burning bodies from the proposed crematorium would be present at not only my house, but on Sutter Street, which is I

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
within a mile radius of the proposed crematory. Do we really want our visitors who are enjoying the business on Sutter Street saying "What is that smell?"
The Chung Wah Cemetery, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is in the center of our neighborhood. The Chung Wah cemetery is less than a .2 miles away from the proposed crematorium. As a historic/sacred site, it should be preserved and protected. Recently, The Murer House was also listed as a National Register of Historic Places. We as a ci$ should respect and protect these unique additions to our neighborhood'
I have thought about the pros of putting this crematorium in our neighborhood. lt is really just convenientior lgor. lf Folsom needs a crematorium, place it in a properly zoned area. Not in open space within a historical district. Do we really bend for one person? What does the city get out of piacing a crematorium in a historic district within a residential area so close to Sutter Street? Sure, there ire other crematoriums in residential areas, but are they in a historical district? No, they are not.

Why? Because they don't belong there. lt's not appropriate.

Please vote NO to the proposed crematorium being placed in the preserves neighborhood. Protect our historic district.

Thank you for your time,
Breanne Higgins
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

March 22,2022
To Whom it May Concern,
I live with the Preserve neighborhood, and I recently learned from my neighbors that the Lakeside Memorial Lawn (owned by the Caring Service Group) has applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds.

I live at 1357 Young Wo Circle. The region where the crematory will sit (currently a shed) is within about 400-500 feet from our home. My wife Dawn, and our twelve-year-old son Austin, have lived here for 12 years-we enjoy the lake, our wonderful neighbors, and the Folsom historical areas nearby. The Chinese cemetery in our neighborhood is an awesome tribute to the past Chinese immigrants. Unsurprisingly, we prefer our current situation, and we prefer to not smell or breath the output from the crematorium.

Although our personal situation is obviously import to our family (me), the message of this letter concerns the greater public good of conserving history and ecological landscapes (us).

I understand the societal need for crematoriums-we need them. However, it makes more sense as a community to keep industrial operations separate from neighborhoods, historical regions, and precious ecological reserves. There are societies that have chosen a hands-off approach to regulation. ln one large US city, I recall seeing a brothel, chemical plant, churches, and residences all in the same neighborhood, Folsom is not like this at all-we have a planned community that includes some of the best parks, bike paths, historical districts, and neighborhoods in the country. Thus, people move to Folsom and will continue to move here in the future due to our desirable planned community.

Yet what will residents think if they internalize the brand of "distinctive by nature", come to enjoy our historical district, and then learn that the city allowed an unattractive industrial process to occur directly in the heart of the most precious area of the city?
I strongly believe that the Folsom Historical District and others need to work together to ensure that our city follows its brand-we are distinctive by nature. Moreover, we are distinctive by our historical treasures. Let us work together to live our distinctive and precious brand.

Best,
Brian Paciotti
Ph.D. Ecology, UC Davis. M.S. Healthcare lnformatics, UC Davis MedicalCenter lvorns Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 22, 2022
Folsom City Council Members
Re: LakesideCrematorium
As you are aware, The Proposed Lakeside Crematorium is being appealed by the applicant. You are also aware that this is a sensitive issue for the Historic District, especially the Preserve/Natoma Shores Neighborhood.

The Preserve Neighborhood is a community bound together by strong relationships and common interests. This proposed crematorium has in the last year and a half put our small community on edge and diminished our quality of life.
lf you haven't been in the neighborhood for awhile I suggest you come and visit. Walk around and reacquaint yourself with the Lakeside Cemetery, Chung Wah Cemetery, Young Wo cemetery, Dredger Diggings Preserve, Veterans Hall, Murer House, Lake Natomas, the bald eagles, our small park and of course, the Residents.

I am available anytime to act as your tour guide if you so choose. I am acutely aware of the Brown Act and will not put you in a compromising position. Email, text, phone or just come by and ring the bell.

Thanks for your time
Dave Higgins
Fo st.

Cc: Mari Peshon

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

March 24,2022
Extension of Appeal Hearing for Lakeside Memorial Cemetery Ms. Anderson,
I was recently made aware of the rescheduling of the appeal hearing for the proposed Lakeside Memorial crematorium. lt is my understanding you granted the rescheduling to April 26,2022. This is in violation of FMC

17.52.710 titled Appeal Hearings.

According to FMC 17.52.710, this appeal hearing needs to be heard on April 12,2022.

On February 22,2022 the applicant, lgor Semenyuk submitted a handwritten request for appeal well within the 10 day appeal period. After the 10 day appeal period lgor Sementyuk was allowed to resubmit a more detailed application for appeal. This too is a violation of the appeal process.

The ignoring of Codes and Ordinances and Procedures is disturbing. The special treatment lgor Semenyuk and the Miller Funeral home is receiving is blatant.

Please rescind the rescheduling and reset the Hearing to April 12,2022.

David Higgins
Folsom resident

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Monday, April4, 20227:26 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Please vote NO on the Lakeside Crematorium Proposal From: lsaac Monica
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2O229:47 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <ykchalamcherla@folsom'ca'us>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected],us>
Subject: Please vote NO on the Lakeside Crematorium Proposal Some people who received this message don't often getemail Leqfn wh!{ this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern with the City of Folsom leadership, The Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium proposal is deeply troubling to me and my family. The Caring Service Group is not a small business and states outright on their website that they're in the business of buying up and aggregating small funeral home businesses. This model further distances the business from its community's concerns and it shows with the "lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2021.

The TAC (Toxic Air Contaminants) assessment in Appendix B of the "Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2O2L is flawed and irresponsible. Most specifically in terms of the evaluationoftheimpactto"sensitiveReceptors". ThereportbyHelixEnvironmental Planningnotesthefactthatthe adjacent residential houses are as close as 450 feet which is not that far! That's about the width of 5 or 5 lots in our neighborhood. 5 houses down the street. The report makes it sound like the combustion stack is remotely located away from our neighborhood which couldn't be farther from the truth. I walk the neighborhood regularly with my 1 and 3 year old children and it's a short walk from the closest house to the proposed site which is where my son likes to occasionally ride his balance bike. The Historic District Historical Society write-up of the cemetery (https://www.folsomhistoricalsocietv.orslpost/lakeside-cemeterv) concludes with 'The next time you are in town I highly suggest you take a visit to the cemetery; the older burial sites are beautiful, and its quiet location makes a perfect Fall afternoon walk." This will certainly change when there are constant emissions adjacent to the cemetery and increased vehicular activity carting the deceased to and from the crematorium "shed".

The report also neglects to recognize the American River Bike Trail that is adjacent to the proposed site where numerous people of all ages including sensitive groups, i.e. elderly and families with young children religiously use the trail' The proposed industrial process does not fit within the open space plan of the adjacent area which should not be used for a pollution buffer zone, it's a recreation area. While using the trail, the folks that are exercising are going to be subject to toxic emissions while breathing heavily which is an even more sensitive time to be outside which is why the Air Quality Board recommends restricted exertion levels of people depending on levels of air quality, especially sensitive groups. 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The assumption that the meteorological data used from the Sacramento Executive Airport station, almost 20 miles away, which regularly gets the delta breeze where the planned site does not, appears to be laughably unethical. The canyon near the proposed site has significantly different geography and often has stagnated air that collects along the river trail which can be confirmed when exercising along the trail in the summer and winter months where the air is perfectly still and the combustion gas from leaf blowers from the adjacent business parking lots simply stagnates right on the trail. ln addition to the overuse of leaf blowers, the trail users will now get to look forward to breathing in toxic hydrocarbon and heavy metal combustion products combined with new unpleasant smells. The near-zero initial vertical gas velocity assumption of the stack configuration in the source parameters paragraph will only exacerbate the emissions settling issue on the trail and adjacent neighborhood. The 500 meter radius geography sample used in the analysis is not enough to capture the adjacent yet substantial cliffs in the region and could be interpreted to be an attempt to replicate geography near the airport which would also be unethical in terms of being non-representative.

For a city that wants to define itself as distinctive by nature, this is a far cry from the current mission statement. The benefits to the community are substantially outweighed by the safety risk and miss-use of the planned site.

It's been noted by the Folsom Historic Commission that nearby crematoriums exist and they have been shown to have issues from time to time as shown by the historic commissions own research. Equipment breaks down and we don't want to be subject to issues when they inevitably rise. I ask why would the commission assume this project would be any different?
The first time a request for a Crematorium came up many years ago, the Historic District did not believe the historic site was appropriate for this kind of activity and nothing has changed except for the aggressiveness of the applicant.

This project was chosen to evaluate the CUP based on essentially the general welfare of the neighborhood or city but the charter of the commission is first and foremost to protect the historic and cultural character of the city's Historic District. Thisisadistinctindustrializationoftheareawhichwilldegradethecharacterofthedistrict.

It already appears that the applicant has created the pad for the propane tanks as if this has already been approved. The application is based on equipment in a metal shed but it has been communicated by the applicant at the last public comment session with the Historic District Commission that the intent is actually to improve the structure as well for inevitable viewings. lt appears that wool is being pulled over the eyes of the approving boards and this is not the end of the development.

The fencing has been improved and gates have been constructed in preparation for installation. There is now a fence that has been improved that further restricts access to the Chung Wah historical cemetery. lt would seem logical that the commissions' energy would be better spent enhancing access to Chung Wah and Showing a better connection with our past rather than allowing further restricting of access for an industrial process.

The crematorium will only increase the toxins that already surround us, we don't need more. The world needs less CO2 emissions and with low to zero emissions technology available, this project doesn't make sense for the community. This is further industrialization of a quaint location. This will not be limited cremations in a shed.

The project site is currently within the Open Space/Public Primary Area of the Historic District (OS/P), with an underlying zoning of Open Space and Conservation (OSC). Does adding industrial equipment, of which is an air emitter, to the area continue to comply with the idea of open space and conservation? I encourage the commissioners of the board to reconsider and follow the precedent of the previous rejection of the same proposal. Do you care if you get cremated right here in Folsom or not? There are several local crematoriums to 2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
choose from and the carbon footprint to get there is in the noise so there is no environmental benefit of having one in the requested location,
The Historic Commission evaluation criteria was as follows: " The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will or will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City" - The peace and comfort of the neighborhood will be violated with inevitable smell especially when equipment breaks down.
- The industrialization of the site will be injurious to the properties cultural/historical significance going back to the violation of the Chung Wah cemetery in the first place - time to stop that cycle - The need to disclose the industrial site near a residential neighborhood will undoubtedly hurt property values thus be injurious to property and the neighborhood.

I strongly encourage the Folsom City Leadership to reevaluate the applicant's intentions to monetize a currently quaint property with a toxic industrial process directly adjacent to a family oriented neighborhood and world class nature trail Sincerely,
lsaac Monical
IFong Ct
Folsom, CA 95530 I
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

It.ii-i-iili'"1r:llT!'r,:LL:,Fil(i'"ri$IFi
:ilrri Fi[i:a'::il ri.1 :: i di[}
Februarv 23,2A22
Council Memhers
Toxic Air Contaminants {TAC's}
Atieeh*d is fitI sx{T$iief}t {*rfleie i:riiuerniilg tl",e toxi['ity associaied vdith cremations. During the Historic District Commission hearing comments were rnarle *:anc*rning lhe Flelix Repnrt and A.ir Quafify Disf"riet stanrJarrJs far emissions resulting in a less than significant impact. The findings were accepted a.s th€y *hrrriid b*. Tlie issue of Toxie Air Corrtatitin*nis {fAei in the }SlMNtr was covered by Josh Kinkade in his presentation. However. I believe the topic was dismissed. The TAC's metals and inorganics listed in the IS/MND; Ftieiels, ( mercury, arsenic,beryllium, earlmium, chrcmiurn, €opp*r, hyrlrogen fluoride, lead,nickel' selenium)
VO$'*{ f:enzene, i'?luene, xyl€nes, vinyl chlotides}.

Aldehydes,
Paty aromatic Flydrocarbsns, {PAHSi
Polychlorinated Dihenzod ioxins
Polych lorinated Di benzofurans
These TAC's are not a Air Quality Bqard concern, These JIQ'g faii under the EpA, The Sac County Air Board's mission is carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfr"ir disxide, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibiiify reducing particle emissions. The ISIMND defined mercury in a generic form, naturally occurring.

The [Sftvtt{D does ngt disquss vaporized mereury, Meicury when vaporiaed becomes a deadly concern along with the other TAC's listed and should not be released in a residential neighborhood. This health risk is unexceptable.

Please read this document,
Yl^
- -t . \J^. .

I ftiit tK f uu
Kim Higgins
At least please review page 6 of this document

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
,l??t?} t 1F Fi.i r&gru ffnfiarh.ft t+filDt-4.{ir$*}1 *'ft\he - ,iahi) id}df f:i}ra+r1Hr$ttl-SeBr}E ar{

JOHN IUIUIR GREEN BURIAL

SANCTUARY
a beautifulgreen burialin a spectacular location

WHY CREMATION IS NOT A GREEN GHOICE
1O Green Bgasong-lh Avqld thc Ttlxlcily of-ersffirtioq
1, Merculy Vapor6. This is the #1 lethal toxin in crematory vapors. Currently, no crematories have adequate filters for mercury or the rnany other heavy metals, plastics, and dioxins that are emitted in the vaporization of a body. Most mercury vapors are due to the mercury-silver dentalfillings (eight on average in each body) thatare liguified and vaporized into the air from each cremation. With overa million bodies cremated each year, that's a lot of toxic mercury in the air that we breathe.

2. Alzhelmerb Disease (#3 cause of death in the U.S.l and other neurological diseases such as ltlS, ALg, Parklnson's Dlsease, Depression, etcare caused largely by mercury build-up in the body over 2O-40 years. Unlike cyanide poison which has an immediate effect, mercury has a long half-life in the brain. Mercury 2tZU22, ti:58 Ah,l
Paos i ol ?7
htt ps://grsenbu rials anctuary,comlril ry. cremation- is- not-g re6n/ Page 1318 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
contarflination is due to mercury dentalfillings, coal mininS, and... you guessed lt, cremation vapors. The United Nations 2019 estimates show that 680,000 pounds of mercury is emitted from dentalamalgams into the wastewater and air annually' Even if all nnercury fillings were removed prior to cremation, most human bodies, including children's, have unsafe levels of mercury in the liver and other organs.

According to science, no amount of mercury is considered safe in any amount or form"With the rise of cremation in America we have seen an epidemic in neurological illnesses. (Watch the Youtube video "Evidence of Harrn" by Dr. Boyd Haley, who originated the chelation medication Emeramide to pull mercury safely out of the body of those suffering from neurological diseases')

3. Cllrn+te Shsxg*: Cremation is a huge climate change contributor: each cremation uses about 28 gallons of fuel and releases about 540 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Estimates from the UK say their cremations contribute about 160/o of total climate emissions, There are no statistics by the EPA, though 70% of westerners unknowingly choose cremation, mis-informed by the industry to believe it is "green" because of decreased land use. About 1..7 Billion pounds of COZ are enritted evei'y year !n the US elone from ebout a million cremated bodies.

Planting thousands of Legacy Trees at the site of a plot helps to reduce our carbon footprint and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere back into the earth.

4. f*ercury cos?taffii*ation of our global envirsu;ent. Mercury is knclvn to travel long distances, and biologists are finding mercury in alarming levels infarreaehing piaees arourrd the -r.rlanet. Folar lrears in the arctic nour have Feali bioaccumulation of mercury, Mountain lions and deer are drinking mercurycontaminated fcg dropiets, and showine high levels in their fatty tissues in coastal areas of California, and mammals in the eastern U.S. and Europe also have high levels in their blood and fur,

5. lnd*stry diseases relatec! ts*lere$rr-:ise - Crernatory rinotnurs, biologists and other handlers of mercury tainted mammals, dental workers, mortuary and morgue workers are all showing evidence of chronic illness from mercury vapors ,111pi:';itrr'rtrl','ilitl'ii.li\ttzti '.GCi1:!iti\: ' r€l lal,U, 1',-; 1'1 r'1r'':i1/ -',, ,., r.'lri: &1 i

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
that arc r.ising in air pollution, through skin abs+rption, in officevapors and v.'ithin the air surrounding the site of mercury contamination. They suffer from higher rates cf neurological rlisease as well as rates of acute aird chronic respii-aterry disease,
6, A positive reason to choose an alternative like Green Burial is Restor*tE*:rcf the Earth's Soil. Giving your body back to the earth after a lifetime of food, water' sustenance and enjoyment of nature's bounty helps restore therich agricultursl biome that America has enjoyed over three centuries. Scientists predict that the topsoil across the U,S. will be-depleted by 2060 at the rate we continue to use it.

Even though bodies contain contaminants, experts maintain that mercury and olher heavy metals rorilltrickle down intothe soilto form deep minesfrom where they originated. The safest place for mercury is actually back into the soil to be returned deep into the earth.

7. Y*i:rWatbt - Green burial has the least cost of allfuneralchoices at $lkto SBk onaverage, compared with cremation costs of $6,OO0 and conventional cemetery costs of $7,000 to $2O,000 or more'
B. Censewatlanag?d Restoratia:i af l*ature -;1legala;rd beautifuS se+se ef place for your body to be held in a natural reserve that your descendants can visit.

Location of your plot is through GPS, and Conservation certified eemeteries have a long-term easement for nature to return to its beautiful state. Planting a Legacy tree or other native tree of your choice can help restore native forests to be enjoyed by many future generations. Conservation burial meadows can help restore pollinator meadows, wildflower meadows, and habitat and food for a wide variety of wildlife. Many certified green burials are open to the public on weekends for quiet enjoyment of the naturalsurroundings and a rlew aplrreciation of cemetery use. Since there is no use of pesticides, herbicides like RoundUp, or embalmirrg fluicls, the local watershed is free of toxin rurroff as found in conventional cemeteries. No concrete or steel vaults are used for the sole purpose of lawn care as in conventionalcemeteries. Saving these resources could hl1l):.iir,.e ill/ iir;'i5ar'! iuaiVrUnr;, l,r-Cfer'raUOl';1 'r':'t'gler tri Page 1320 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
ossist with rebuitding failing infrastructures across the U.S. g. The enly ne*-texic, truEy green choice i$ Eleethe*re is green krurisl. So-called 'alternatives" sf Alkaline Hydrolysis {"rrvater crernation"}, Human Gornposting, and Convention*lCrennation all are extnennely poiluting in their lack of responsibie rnercury handling, hazardous waste disposal, and housing of hazardous waste sites in resicJential neighborhoods and industrial sites, These expose the public to dangerous availahility of mercury in the form of vapor, contaminated wastewater, and naturatdisasLer unpre6laredtress irr tl"re event of wildflre, earthquake, ot otl'ret environnnental Cisasters"
1O. T*king tirrre f+r *at$rai grE=f, *ni+"F'rt,lext *f * beautifu! f'*nerel En:-oature. l'4ost green cemeteries don't put a limit on how long you and your family can take alongsicle a green grave-side burial. Memorial Halls with spectacular views of nature can remind us of its eternataspect and the naturalcycle of life and death.

As John Muir wrote in !869, in "My First Summer in the Sierrasn, " Anoiher glorious Slerra day fn which one 5geffis to be drbsoJved and absorbed and sent pulsr'ng onward we know not wlrere. Life seems neither long nor short, and we take na more heed to save time or nrake haste thm do the trees and stars. Ihis is true treedom, a good practtcal sort of immartal$-- One is constantly reminded of the infintte lavishness and fertility of Nature .,. no particle af her ntaterial is wasted or wotn out. lt is eternally flowing f rom use to use, beauty to yet higher beauty; and we soon cease to bment waste and death, and rather rejolce anel exult it'r the intperishable, unspendable wealth of the unlverse,,,[We] faithfully watch and waft the reappeannce of everything that melts and fades and dies about us, feelrhg sure that its next appearance wrll be befferand more beautiful that the last " Add itio nat statistics relati ng to cre matio n po llutio n:
s Th+ Envircnmenfal Protcction Agerrcy estimntes serrrntoriums emit 320 pountls af mercury per yesr, while activists say the real figure cortld be as high as three tons in 2007. A review of a stuclS' done by the EPA that estimated emissions fi'orn dent:r.l arnalga.m hns since been underestimated. The United Nations Environmental Programme current (2019) accounts ;,;iirj i;q'!r{ 'ri'."li.llt,iiclua, i,{J;*/t l' , l(11";111r'rr rs I rri filfig;l/ li ;:.ltt,i 'l ii n' Page 1321 ''
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
indicate that 340 tons (680,000 pounds) of mercury is discharged into the environment from dental amalga6. 100 tons of which enters the waste stream. From cremation, tooth loss, human waste and infectious waste are released significant releases, and it was detetmined that sremation is the most citical because of the invisibility ofvapors into the ait without adequate or appropriate filters.
r Merc[Lv in dental amalgams has been bannecl in Denmark, Norrtay and Srvedeu. Holever il. is estimated by the EU EPAthat 1,500 torrnes (200.000 pounds) of mercury is lreld in htnnan lrodies agcl will be releascc{ in cremation. with 75% of 500 nrilliorr EIJ residertts having had mercury fillings in their older gener:ations, 1,500 tons (3 million pouncls) total mercury in their bod ies to becorne crem ated. I'Ittp : 1/wn w. eea.e u t'opea.e rr/p u bl icatio rr s r Overall tlie US has u51o/n cremation rate. rnfiile Oregon and Washington har'e 70Va rctes nroslly due t<l the rnytlr in adve,rtisinglhat crematir:n saves on cerncterl' land une ancl is therefore "g!:eef',I{owever. Ne1:tune Societ}. the largest funeral monopoly ir: the lJS. rl'ill not comment about higilr fossil fuel. use or about meroury vapot emissions, c.lairning jnslead ttral:
crematiort is'ogreen".
e 340 tons of clental,nerour!'in the n,or:lcl is dtnrrperl di.r:ectl-v into u,asl:e water sysfe,ms,34l.trns iit minimum in the tI.S, In 2008, ttre average Eutopean held 2-5 gralns of mercuty in their bo<Iies, r,vhile lhe allowable amounls are zero grams.
. For an excellent discussion of the link between mercury vapors itt the environment and the link with Alzheimer's Disease (the 3rd lar$est cause of death in the US), watch the documentary
"livic{eiice olHai'rn" a 1'ontubc r,idscr b:'AD researchcr Dr Bo5'd ll;ilc1i PhDand@ Sarucsm
This is a docurnentation of Dr Haley's 26year NIH career linklng mercury toxicity with Lewy bodies in Alzheimer's Disease and other neurologicaldiseases. 2!2ti't!, h:58 t\r.4
PnCe S ,.)i i;t https://.q reenbr r r ral3ifrctuar,,,,comArrhy-crematior'-i9- llot-g rsgn/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
!t is csmffionly thought that crernation is m+re enrrironrnentelly-f riendly because it seems ta simptify the funerallburial process ancj minlmizes land usefor cerneter.ies and their inherent pollutants, Hcwever, research shows the faets which reveal disturbing Ffohlems for the environment.ln our research into the effects of cremation on the environment, there was a strange leck of studies, particularly by the EPA and U.S. government'
^ln2fil2.,the EPA Crematorium Working Group reported that oematoria are significant ":
ssurcea of mercury, dioxin, and particulate matter. Incineration of bodies, body parts, and infsctiols altl clrernotherapeutic wastes collectively reptesent the second latgest lEnorvn sollrct) of dioxin and rnercnry poltution in tlre US. The W'ortrd Health Organizatiorq the US EPAnnd other public herrlth. experts ccrrsider auy le.rel, uo matter ltorv lorv, of er,uissi.orls tf mercury, dioxins, firrans, and partioulate rnaffer frorn incineration to he a threat to human lrealtlr. Vulnerahle populations such as babies, chilclren, wor.nen of ohildbearing age, m-dthe elderty are particutarly at risk from exposure to these toxins. EmFloyees who work in these eirvirorrmerf$, as well as those popul.ations who live neeu'the sottrce are crxposed to higher levels of these pollutants.The effects of mercury vflpor sxposure can last long affer the expsspre has endcd, While fypical symptorcs ancl signs, such as tremors, gingivitis ancl salivation may quickly disappear after exposure has stopped, mechanisms of longJasting or re.a1ote effec.ts have nert been investigaterJ. This is possibly dtre to the darlllitg* sattsed by merc1try vapor exposurc remaining for a long period of timc, or by merctlry remaining i;1 tlre trady aud contiruirg to cau$e adverse efTeets, or to tLt+ prior exposlrre ${tlneho}t' stimrrlnting aging resulting in poorer netrrobehnvioral perfiormance.

The final report ofthe Senate Crematoria Study Committee was prepared in 2012.'This report noted that while there are emissions of other chemicals during the cremation process, mercury is of the most concern to commrmities nenr crematoliums. Wben lnercttly is btlnredr i{ becomes a colorless and odorless gas that cnn travel long distances. While mercury exposure has the potential to cauce a variefy of health problems, the brain and kitlrreys are especially vulnerable. According to Dr. Anne Summers ofthe University of Georgia, there is no known lower level for toxicity of merctrry, and soientists clearly agree that mercury 111r'l ,Jcr llhr' . i ,nr 'iln {.ionifi ,!ir .iii'i/l li, -1/ i l:.. li .ll i?i

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
toxicity can lrave serious consequences on human health,'o (from Meratry Contatninationfram Dental Amalgam,z0l9)
Amy Cunningham,a "green" funeral director of Fitting Tribute FuneralServices (and Crematory) in the Greater New York City area writes in her well-known blog:
'Cremation takes up less land and might save some money' but here's the downside with some crematories: it takes a lot of fossil fuel to heat that retort (or cremation chamber) to 18OO degrees F and keep it heated for two to three hours...

Then perhaps, if you are not satisfied with the answers you'regetting and your family is open to changing plans quite dramatically, consider the love of my life (sorry Steve)-Green Burial. Pine box, Or simple shroud. Drive out of the city and convene in a green cemetery. Let your loved one descend into the soil naturallywithout chemicalsor vaults or barriers to Mother Nature." More studies and research have been done in Europe in recentdecades as the rate of cremation has increased slowly over the last century. Several articles reveal periodic surveys of literature over twenty years that showed a largely unregulated industry by the US Environmental Protection Agency. At the grassroots level, citizens in both Canada and in over 35 U.S, states have set up blocks and ordinances, built a library oJ research for other states to refer to and assisted in tocal initiatives to deconstruct or prevent the further building of crematories.

Severat studies in the last two decades have shown a correlation between local crematories and stillbirth, anencephaly, and increasingly widespread air pollution containing toxic gases. Finally, a visit to the Crematorium will show you that both the time a family can say goodbye to their loved one's body and naturally move through the letting-go process is very minimized and tends to make the grief process interupted.

Gremation involves a box or casket containing the body to be placed in a steel incinerator and heated to temperatures from 7600 to 2100O F, Atthe highest temperature, most of the body is vaporized and oxidized as water within about 'ti21l22, A:5?' At\n https:/l!rreenbr-iliillrancltlary,comlwlry-crematiorr is"r.lot'rlreell/ Page 1324 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
two hours. However, gases released are then temporarily held in a second metal chamber or ,,filrcr" and then released to the outside air through an exhaust system.

It is commonly thought that crematories have ufilters" *adjacent storage tanks that are supposed to catch and "hold" toxins such as mercury. The EPAs answer to this has been to add a second "chirnney" in effortto somehow ucatch" some of the toxic vapor$
,Gaseous emissions are by far the greatest source of crernation pollution and thus far the only crematorium waste that is regutated. ln addition to harmless compounds such as water vapon emissions includel
c the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
r extremely toxic mercury vapors
r toxins and carcinogens of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide; , volatite acids such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, both of which form during vaporization of plastics and insulation
. compoundssuch as benzenes, furans and acetone are also emitted and react with HCI and HF under combustion conditions to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (pCDDs)and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), both of which cause cancer' ,rThese and mertury are of speetal concern because they are susceptible to bloaccumulatlon,l,
An estimated one-third of all air-borne mercury pollution is due to the cremation of bodies containing mercury from dentalamalgams in the deceased person's mouth.ln a "summary of References on Mercury Emissions from Crematoria, Septemb erZ1,ZQ!2",Jon Reindl, P,E. investigated studies in both the U-S. and Europe for three aspects of cremation: mercury emissions, deposits in filters and chimneys, and mercury found in cremains (cremation ash):
"Crematoria represent a signiticant saurce of meratry emissions to the //lll27 6:li8 Atl
t'.gF I n{ hitl]s J,'ciecnli[itirls;nc tua;' nom/ivh7-crernalion r'"'nnt- i]r€E'l/ Page 1325 r7 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
erqirantnerit.lf'lizile estimaies of the guantifies vary significantly, it appears that each crematian releases between 2 and 4 grams, with the maximum seen by this reviewer at 8.6 graffis in an individual crematiott in Switzeilai,'d. There has been an increase in the number of cremations annually and forecasts include both a further increase in the nurnber af erematians aver time ancl an irrcrease in the amaunt af mercury released in the next few decades due to an increase in the number of the deceased having a larger number af their own teeth with amalgam restorations. This increase is expected to be follawed by a decrease in mercury emissions frorn industrialized countries as the next generation at people has both fewer cavities and an increased substitution of amalgam restorations with restorations that do not use marcury."
"ln the US, a mercury flow worksheet developed for Region V of the EPA estimates that in 2O05, just under 3,000 kilograms of mercury were released to the environment from cremation to the US. Bender estimatesthat this will increase to 7,7OO kilograms by 2O2O."
"Most of the mercury from crematoria is released into the ail although some rnay collect on the walls of the oven and chimney. Soil surveys have shown that while there is often an elevation of mercury in the topsoils near crematoria, most (over 99%ol of the mercury emitted to the air does not settle to the soil in the nearby area, but is instead added to the general atmosphere, Mercury levels in the ash have been only rarely tested, and have been shown to be negligible in those tests." One wondered what the blood and tissue levels of air-borne mercury is in crematory industry workers who breathe in mercury fumes every day. "Mencury emissions from crernatoria are regulated in few places in the world, although the amount of regulation is slowly growing. Possible control of mercury from crematoria includes the removal of teeth with amalgam restorations before cremation, the use of selenium capsules to bind up the mercury and exhaust gas capture systems. The effectiveness of the selenium capsules is controversial and the effectiveness of the exhaust gas capture systems is not well documented." 'fl rtZ ' tj:llil /1M
Filta'l of r/'
htlrrs lrgreen[iliialsEn.-iuai'/cor]i/rvhir-ijternatior;-is-i,r'1 g1;6;,n7

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Although laws now require crernaterriums to place mercury storage tanks on their incinerators, most of the toxic residues are released. These also include toxic ri-retals or pigstics that can leach into tire aii' and tirei'i waiet, causing a pub'lic health concern. One study of the Cremation Association of North America found that "fiiteringcrentatariurnfunres has iittle effect otr tire toxii'rs releasecJ." lti lnelia, where outdoor cremation has been the norm for thousands of years, air pollution is i6 the top five lrighest percent in the world. Meanwhile, nlore research needs to be done ln the U.S. to assess these very real effects of crematory air pollution. in addition, there is the issue of cremation remains and their dispersal irrto the ai"i, "Cremains are often sprinkled somewhere in memorial, releasing whatever corTlpouri<Js and toxins found in tlrerrt back into tlre envircnment in a fornr that is easily picked up by wind or wate6" writes Huffman. A scientific method for analyzing crernains is X-ray diffraction and has found that "calcified compounds within cremains can contain metals such as lead, boron' cadmium' chromlum, Cobalt, eopper, tin, lithium, lftagnesium, ffiangenese' nEckel, aRd strontium.

Metals such as arsenic and selenium, though present in a live human body, are volatile ancl decompose qilickly uporr burrrirrg... I have fourld no studies crf whether or not sprinkling cremation remains could have a significant impact on the levels of metals in thesoil." Often the ashes are then stored in metalurns or other non-biodegradable receptacles, and then buried in cemeteries which are already over-filled. Many cemeteries, particularly in larger US cities, as wellas in Japan and Europe have reached maximum use. ln London, a space crisis led to proposais to reoBen olclgraves to create more space for the burial of cremains and thedeceased,
"Not attthatremains is bone. There may be nrelted metal lumps trom missed jewelry, casket furniture, dental fillingq and surgrcal implants, such as hip re"1;lacements. Breast rmplants do rtot have to be rernoved before cremation Large items such as titanru m hip replacements (which tarnish but do not melt) or casket hinges are usually remaved before processing, as they may damage the processo r, (lf they are misse d at first, they must ultimately be removed befare l2l! ') iii,,tl i-itl i'ttlri'i(,ieerrl]iliiirlsifir,tttaiy.coni/, ihv-cr6l'laiir11-i\'in:y'' i.l(c enl Page 1327 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
processing is complete, as ifems such as titanium ioint replacements are far too durable to be ground.) lmplants may be returned to fhe family, but are more commctnly sald asferrauslnan-ferrous scrap metal. After the remains are processe d, smaller bits of metal such as tooth fillings, and rings (commonly known as gleaningsl aresieved aut and may later be interred in common'consecrated' graund in a remote area of the cemetery."
While cemeteries may have the illusion of holding consecrated ground, they are actually sites of heavy metal waste that accumulate over time and which cause leaching downstream, especiallywhen located adjacent to natural water sources such as creeks, rivers, and oceans as is more common in older cemeteries.

On a ft1ore positive note, Comnrunity Awareness Network {CAN!) is an informal grassroots organization that advocates on the local, state and national levels for change in the way tlre crematoly industry ii'r Amerisa is being operated and regulated. lt "educates communities about the real nature of toxins in crematory ernissions and what they can do to succeed when faced with the challenge of preventing or stoppinga crematory from operating in a residential area or near schools and daycare facilittes."
As of 2015, CAN has grown to 55 individual cornmunities in 35 states. Originally, it started as a small group of volunteers and then grew to 700 residents who organized a protest that successfully proved to their county plarrning departrnent that their town was too densely populated to accommodate a crematorium. They believe no more communities should have to absorb another crematory that is unsafe for public health and the environment.

The CAN Website reports:
"Vy'hen first faced with this daunting task, it was noticed that there ate communities who had challenged crematories near their residential areas... but with varied results. Wanting to learn from the success stories, and the failures, many hours were spent online searching blogs and forums of newspapers around ;111t22 t\:58 hirl
FiFG 11 nl t7 illinsJlgr':inJ)l;'ialsanrltt;'r".cot;I/whl"flrer'l,lllor, i';-r'rrt-ilre*r't/ Page 1328 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
the country. The successfulcommunities all had onething in common: solnesne in that community was willing and able to stop everything else they were doing and devote tlreir €fiergy to finding the data, and these voluntary warricrs rnativated their neighbors to act. These communities fought back and won - but at a huge cost. The cost was so great to most of these "activists/advocates" that once tlre fight was over, they mostly just wanted to go back to their normal lives, Who could blame them? The fight is exhausilrrg. The only reward is vuinning - preventing or stopping or even closing down a crematory. There is no financialgain, only the stop,loss Frever'tiorr of property devaluation and keeping one ffiore pollution source away. For the communities that have lost - the cost to their health, homes, and happiness has no measure. How can you measure that? lt was decided that no community should ever have to re-invent the wheel when faced with a crematory near their homes. No community should win or lose based on whether or not there is a volunteer activist among them. No more communities should have to spend months of research just to determine if the crernatory is going to be unsafe and then prove that to their local government authority." ls it not strange that a government agency such as the EPA would not preventatively or even extensively study the toxic emissions of cremation? Why is the crematian industry largely unregulated when there elearly aretoxic gas emissions? With cremation reaching an all-time high of nearly 5O-7Oo/o,and with humanitys huge impact on the environment worldwide orrer the last two centuries, the mercury and gaseous emissions of our cremains must now be extensively studied, and existing crematoria must be regulated by local, state or federalagencies. Further building of crematoria should be halted while alternatives for our deceased and their descendants and environment should be put first. Alternatives include green burial which allows for the natural return of our bodies to the earth.

Finally, cremation does not allow for the necessary time essentialfor the natural tetting-go and grief process that is made "real" for people with burial. People tend to "send away" the body, or if they actually visit the Crematory, there is a short l ,' ., 7 1 !\lv1 hTtpi flglrePrrl:i,fl.rli;inciilii'V..or'l/iith:'-j:lPrl'r'llloll-i4-:1nl-gt.'r'nl' Page 1329 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
arnount of tinne to "say goodbye" to thelr lo'red one's body. Numerous experlences and videos show how there is limited time at a crematory. The "industrial" enviisnffient of cement walls and stee!ovens has little an:biance sf enroti*nal safety for the grieving person or family. The grief process then tends to be aborted 6r put off for some other time when it is rrr$re "c,Jnvenient".,Although some families have a memorial prior to cremation there is often still a lingering feeling of difficulty accepting that a loved one has died, .A grief that is complicated from a sudden loss, traumatic accident or suicide becomes even more difficult v*rhen the body is boxed away and cremated befcre a person can fully accept it and come to terms with the surrealfeeling, numbness and other feelings specific to these types of loss.

With mernorialization and burial, there is ntuch ffiore time to see the bsdy, tend to it, and bury a beloved in a finatgoodbye with an attitude of acceptance and in a timely way, Grave-sidefunerals elso allow for the irrfluence of nature, where vse can see that everyone is given the gift of both birth and death in the natural life cycle. With the t'.t'enty-year-old natural burial lticyefilent, which is really a return ts ancient million-year-old traditions, there is much more involvement by the family to be involved in natural deathcare, evell if a funeral horne is involved. The movement invites people to spend up to 3 days being with their loved one in a home vigil, home funeral, and natural rites of passage that ease and more quickly healthe grief process.

Lelercneep
B$ferenceo$ Msrcqry ln Gremfitlon
Bernhoft RA. "fvlercury taxicity and treatment: a re.view of ttre literature'lgggl&l-gl Envi ron mentalgCId. Publ ic Hea[th 2012.
hiin JilfF:qhr,ital'::rnr.ii;.ri rl)'illf l':r i ii:rili,ilOli l':-f 'r r:ls'riii' i.,, (.i .jr .rl..r'l

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Carson, Rachel Silent Spring: The Classic That Launched the Environmentpl Movement New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Mariner Books, ?l}Oz(SOtft Anniversary edition)
Hyman, Mark. MD "How To Rid Your Body of Mercury and Other Heavy Metals" ntU*cUet t'hYrJan-ep$ 4bhsgmg oS/1 e /
gthQr-@;Skik UIAS-Jglsrcove[JouJrhea lth/
Itzkoff, Dave. Robin New York: Henry Holt and Company, A New York Times Book, 2018.

Queen, Sam and Betty A. Chr-onic. Mercury Toxidty.JlenlblqpeAgattrgtan-Endemic Disease
Doctor's Guidefor Lifestyle Counseling (Book 1), Queen and Company Health Communications, lnc., September 1, 1988.
[An excellent reference text for the health professional ancl vlctim lnterested i n learning more ebout m6rcury toxlcity is Chronic Mercury Toxiclty: New Hope Ag ainst an Endemic Disease. DoctofE Guide for Lifestyle Counseling by H.L. Queen (1988). ThE book describes the lnsldlousness of hg problem and, more importantly, outllnes protocols for proper use of intravenous vlhmln C and other trsatmen t modalities."
-
$andrc Denton, M.D. from Heafth Consciousness, June 1989/ [tne Ooof can be recommended aE a suitab]e complement of the general practtioners library.."the information, provided in this book wlll help physicians to realize that thoee important first steps in lifestyle counselinglhelping patients to g€t rid of heavy metal excess--are of a gr€ater importance than ha8 generally been aseum€d."
-
V. Bencko ln the Joumalof Hyglene, Epldemiology, Mictobiology and Immunology, S4, 1990, No. t.
;'..,iit{rsr. $4ort+n, D.P.[4. Elpnrunts oi'SAnE€I Hampton Reads Publishing Co., November 1999. "Signs and Symptoms of Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam" Sourced from K. D. Jorgensen, "The Mechanism of Marginal Fracture of 21211122,6t58 AM https://greenburialsanctuaf y.com/why-cremation-is-not-green/ Oaaa 1A al 7a Page 1331 04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Amalgam fillings," Acta Odont Scan, 23 t1965):347 .
"A Comprehensive lntegfative Medical approach to Mercury detoxification and functionalrehabilitation" in Reference Guide: Detoxification Therapeutics for Heayy-$detatg. Toxic Chemicals and other Neufotoxins". See:
lltfns/#Vwwnnlhfldc.conl/liFrarvldetq4-foLljfe-glflEs-2'aCdi!;resour$es/FF:3.eq& comprehensive-irqgonJpqch-t?;rrlgjcr{fy-d$toT-eF4-fqF$Jion?l-teh?hilililtion Mercury snd the AleheimeCs Epidemic
Andreoli, V.;Sprovieri, F. "Genetic Aspects of Susceptibility to MercuryToxicity: An Overview" lnternationalJournAlpf Vol
t4,20.L7.

Bento-Abreu A, et al. "The neurobiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" EJLJ Neurosci Vol3L, 2OLO.

Bernhoft RA. "Mercury toxicity and treatment a review of the literature" JgufiaLgf FnvirangrcfltBl and Public Health 2012.

Bj6rkman L, et al. "Mercury in human brain, blood, muscle and toenails in relation to exposure: an autopsy study" Environ Health Vol.6, 2OO7- Campbell, S.R., Haley, Boyd E", Khatoon, S. and Slevin, J.T.'Aberrant GTP Tubulin lnteraction in Atzheimer's Disease. Annals of Neurology-Vol.26,210-215,1989.

Cassels, Caroline "Mercury Exposure May Contribute To Alzheimer's Risk" Mpdscane, Dec,2,2010.

Cernichiari E, et al. "Monitoring methylmercury during pregnancy: maternal hair predicts fetal brain exposure" Ngu.fgtgxicology Vol. 16,1995.

Drum DA Tre toxic biometals destroying your children future?' Biometals Val.22, 6:58 AM
15 nf ?7 https: //greenburialsanctual )/.com/why-crematior'r-is' not- greery' 2.121122, Paqe Page 1332
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
2009
Ely, JTA "Mercury lnduced Alzheimer's Disease: Accelerating Incidence?" BuIletin Enviro! Contqfn Toxicol. Vol 67, 2OOL.

Geier, David A. etal.'A Cross-Sectional Studyof Blood Ethylmercury Levels and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults and the Elderly in the United States" Journal of Alzheimer's Disease V ol. 7 2, no. 3, 2OL9.

Gunnersen, D, J.and Haley, Boyd, E. "Detection of Glutamine Synthetase in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Alzheimer's Diseased Patients: A PotentialDiagnostic Biochemica| Marker" 119-49.:11953,1992.

Farina, M, Rocha JBT,Aschner M "Mechanisms of methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity: evidence from experimentalstudies" Life Science Vol.89, zOtL.

Guzzi G, et al. "Dental amalgam and rnercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought" Arq J Forgnsic Med Rathol Vol.27,2006.

Haley, Boyd E. and Pendergrass, JC. "Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain tubulin GTP lnteractions: Similarity To Observations in Alzheimer's Disease" in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials, I nternptional Sym@ Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart- New York, 1995.

Haley, Boyd E. and Pendergrass, J.C. "lnhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine5- Triphosphate lnteractions by Mercury:Similarityto Observations in Alzheirner's Diseased Brain in Metal lons in Biological Systems V34" Mercury and lts Effect$ on Environment and Biologg Chapter 16, edited by H. Sigeland A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker |nc.,1996.

Haley, Boyd E. et al, "Mercury Vapor lnhalation lnhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarityto a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain" ?-121122, 6:58 A\4

https :/igreenbu rialsanctuary.corn/why -cremation-is- not-green/ Page 1333 04/26/2022 Item No.8.

N eu rotox i co I o gy. Vol. 18, No. 2, 3L5 -324, L997 .

Haley, Boyd E. "The Relationship of the Toxic Effects of Mercury to Exacerbation of the Medical Condition Classified as Alzheimer's Disease. Nordic,Journal of @une-July2003.

Haley, Boyd E. et al. "Mercury Toxicity Presenting As Chronic Fatigue, Memory lmpairment and Depression: Diagnosis, Treatment, Susceptibility and Outcomes in a New ZealandGeneral Practice Setting" Neurg.Endocf,ingl LetterF Vol27, No.4, 4L6-423,2006.

Haley, Boyd E, 'A Look atthe 2OOG FDA Hearing On the Safety of Dental Amalgams and Possible Toxicological Concerns" $deglicall&litasl-5, October 2006.

Haley, Boyd, E. "The relationship of the toxic effects of mercury to exacerbation of the medicalcondition classified as Alzheimer's disease." MeclicalVedtas VoL4, LSilO-L524,2007.

Haley, Boyd, E et al.'Amelioration of Acute Mercury Toxicity By a Novel, Non-Toxic Lipid Soluble Chelator: Effect on Animal Health, Mercury Excretion and Orgnn Accumulation in Adult Rats" ToxicplqgicalAnd Environmental ChemistryVol.94, No.3, 616-640, 2Ot2.

Haley, Boyd, E et al. "New Science Challenges Old Notion That Mercury Dental Amalgam ls Safe" To-icologicalAnd.,,Environrnental Chemistry.VolO, No.0,1-8, 2013.
lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicolog;y. "MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND DENTAL MERCURY SUMMARY AND REFERENCES" DECCMbET 22,20T6. ffi/qtnggtenl/udP
Summarv,pdJ
2121122,6:58 AM
Pase 17 ol 27 https://greenburialsanctuary coln/v/hy-cremation-i5-not' green/ Page 1334 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. A COMPREHENSIVE

REVIEW OF THE TOXIC EFFECTS OF MERCURY IN DENTAL AMALGAM FILLINGS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEAffH" October 24L9. httos:/ffiles.iqelFt,orslwn-cnfltent/90lgpds/Comr'rehgnsive.RqvlFW-,PSFtal:

Mercl&y,p.rff
lncludes a reference list of 5L7 science journalarticles in support of the link between mercury dentalamalgams and adverse health reactions. lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) Position Paper against Dental Mercury Amalgam Fillingsfor Medicaland Dental Practitioners, Dentalstudents, Dental Patients, and Policy Makers Originally Released on April 16,2013 First Update on March2,2OI6; Second Update on July 23,2019.

Johnson FO and Atchison WD "The role of environmental mercury, lead and pesticide exposure in development of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" Neurotoxicolggy Vol. 30, 2009.

Leistevuo J, et al. "Mercury in saliva and the risk of exceeding limits for sewage in relation to exposure to amalgam fillings" Arch Environ He?lth Vol.57,2OO2.

Magos L. "Review on the toxicity of ethylmercury, including its presenceas a preservative in biological and pharmaceutical products" JAppllgxic.gl Vol.2l, 200L.

Mount C and Downtown C. Slzheimer disease pro8ress or profit Nature Med Vol, t2,2006.

Mutter J "ls dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission" J Occup-[decltrQxicgl Vol. 6, ?OLL.

MutterJ and Yeter D. "Kawasaki's disease,acrodynia, and mercury. Cutlf Med 2121122,6:54 A|l

https://g reenhurialsanctuary. com/urhy-crematton-is-not-gre€n/ Page 1335 04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Chem Vol,Ls,zOtL,
Mutter J. et al. 'Alzheimer disease: mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator" @ Vol25, 2OO4.

Mutter J. etal. ?malgam studies: disregarding basic principles of mercury toxicity" lntJ Hyg Environ Health Vol.2O7,2OO4.

Mutter, J. et al. "Does inorganic mercury play a role in Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review and an integrated molecular mechanism" IQUmaIgf Afzheimer's,?OLO.

Mutter, J, et al. "Mercury and Alzheimer's Disease" Fortschr Neurel P,sychiatr. Vol 75, No. 9,2AO7.

Mutter, J. et al. 'A Hypothesis That Mercury May be an Etiological Factor in Alzheimer's Disease" lnterjrationalJournalof EnvironrnentaiEaseareh an-d"Publjc Health. Dec.2OL9.

Nielsen, Jesper B. and Grandjean, Philippe, "Mercury in Hair - But From Where?" The Lancet Vol353, February 6,1999.

Park, Jung Duck and Zheng Wei. "Human Exposure and Health Effects of lnorganic and Elemental Mercury. Journalof Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2Ot2; 45, No. 6,2Ot2.

Pigatto, PD Costa , A & Guzzi, G 2O!8, 'Are mercury and Alzheimer's disease linked?" Science of the Tota| Environment Vol. 613-614,2Ot8.

Ruggieri, F.; Majorani, C.; Domanico, F.; Alimonti, A. Mercury in Children: Current State on Exposure through Human Biomonitoring Studies.lnt J. Envirqn. Res.

Public Healttt Va\.74,5L9,2AL7 ,
2121122,8:59 AM

ht tps: //g reenburialsanctua ry. com/why- cremal i on-is- llot- g r€en/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Sun, Y., Nfor; O.N., Huang, J.etal. 'Association between dental amalgam fillingsand Alzheimer's disease:a population-based cross-sectionalstudy in Taiwan"Alz.8gs IhenPv\t ol. 7, 65, 2oL5.

Walach, H., Mutter, J, and Deth,R. "lnorganic Mercuryand Alzheimefs DiseaseResults of a Review and a Molecular Mechanism"Science-f,Iired Nov.2014.

Weiss, Bernard. "Lead, Manganese, and Methylmercury as Risk Factors for Neurobehavioral lmpairment in Advanced Age", Special lssue: Metals And Alzheimer's Disease.lnternationalJournalof Alzheimel's Diqgase Dec.2010.

World Health Organization.lnternational Program on ChemicalSafety. "lnorganic mercury: Environmental health criteria" 118. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.

Tahir,et al. "Low dose mercury toxicity and human health" Environmenl Toxicology and Pharmacology- Vol. 2O, Sept 2005.

Mercurv in Cremation Va@esi
Batchelder, Philip Donald, "Dust in the Wind? The BellTolls for Crematory Mercury" Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, Vol.2, lssue 1., August11, 2010, 45 pages.

Berglund, Sandor, "Kvicksilverutslipp fr6n krematorium" [Mercury emissions from crematoriuml, NSD [a Swedish newspaper], April 12,2OO8. http://www. nsd.se/a rkiv/2O 0 I I O 4 I L2l Nyheter/3551348/Kvi cksi lverutslo/oE4ppfrkrematorium.aspx "Blood and Hair Mercury Levels in Young Children and Women of Childbearing Age
- United States,1999", MMWR Weekly, Vol.5O, No.8, March 2,2OOL htto://www.cdc.gov I mmwr / oreview
2121122,6:sa AM

https;//green bu ri a lsanctu a ry, com/erhy-cremation- is-rlot- grs€n/ /m mwrhtml/m m5008a2.htm

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Burton, V. J.'Too much Hg" NAture Vol351, June 27,L99t.

Cain, Alexis, et. al, "Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury lntentionally Used in Products in the United States" Joufnal of Jnduslrial Ecoloqy Vol. 11, No. 3, July 2007.

Cain, Alexis, "Estimating Mercury Releases Resulting from Use of Dental Amalgam", Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee" US Senate, May 26, 2010,4 pages.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,'AirToxicology and Epidemiology. All OEHHA Acute, S-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (chRELs) Dec.18, 2AO8" http://oehha.ca.gov/airlallrels.htm I Carns, Warren T., Dexter, Matthew A., and Stockwell, Peter B., "Mercury in Crematoria Using Atom ic Fl u orescence S pectrometeqy'' I nternational Envjr! n m ental Tech n ol o gy, Sept/O ctober 2OLO, 49 -5 0.

Carrler-Pzutl@y Bil I Ai med at Crer,natoriu mq'. Portlqnd, Press Hsrdd$ZS$S,
httn;/lrlressherald.majnetodav.c0lnlnews/Statehousel0SO525bill.shtml?, quruevz?s2a,
Cowger; Scott, Sn Act To Limit Mercury Emissions from Crematoria", Maine Legislature. http:{ian,us.State.me.us/leFis/LpwMaberWeb{su,nlmqry.asp? lD=280017861
Craft, David, "Crematory Toxic Emissions lnventories, Risk Assessments, and Risk Reduction Measures", Monterey Bay Unified Air Polution Control Districtand membe[ a subcommittee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA)Toxics Air Rlsk Managers Committee (TARMAC), February 27, 2At2, 54 pages.
2121122,6"58 AM
Paae 2l ol z7
htt ps://greenburia lsanctu a ry. com/w hy-c16nration-ls- not-green/ Page 1338 04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Departmentfor Envirenment, Food anilFuralAffairs {Defra,llKX2gl2}.Process Guidance Note 5/2 (12).Statutory eu , fenruarv ZOIZ, Se pages,
u idance/notes/ p$notes/dogq qrerlts
Dummer, T J B, Dickinson, H q and Parker, L,'Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes around lncinerators and Crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England,1956-93" Journal of Epidemiology-& CommuniWHealth Vol.57, No.6, June 2AO3.

Edwards, Rob, "Your fillings will live on after your death .., to kill the environment" Sunday- H era [d Online (i n the U K), Febru ary tL, Z.AAL, und .hts?s -N
Available on the lnternet for purchase
through http//pqas b. pqa rch iver.com/smgpu bs/
Enviro nme nta I P rotect ion Agency, itttp:ttvvwt v,ee4. qov (official document on mercury vapors)
EPA, "Mercury in Dental Amalgams" (2010)
h[to:/twww.eq?.gp jA
EPA (1997a1,"9O Source Test Procedures", in Locating And Estimating Aa( Emissions From Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds, EPA-4541R-}7- OL2,L997,72pages on the lnternet
at
EPA (1997b), Mercury Study Reportto Congress Volume ll: An lnventoryof Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States, EPA-4521R-97'004, 1997. On the lnternet at http://www.eoa.sov
2121122,6;59 AM
Paae 22 ol 27
https://greenllurialsanctuary.comlwhy-cremation-is- not-green/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

EPA, (1997), Mercury Study Reportto Congress, VolumeVll: Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States https://www.epa.govlsites/production/files/2O15-09/documentsrlolumeT.pdf EPA (1999), Emission Test Evaluation of a Crematory at Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx, NY September 1.999, EPA-4541R-99-049,3 volumes,1355 pages.

Great Lakes RegionalPollution Prevention Roundtable, "Great Lakes Mercury Emission Reduction Strategy" December 7,ZOLO, 133 pages at htto:/wvyUg.elrupnorF4 iF$ign*, neducJ,ion-stratgsup3t Kunzler and Andr6e, M, "More Mercury From Crematoria" Naturg Vol. 349, February 28, 1991, pages 746-747.

Maccabee, Paula, "Testimony in Supportof Minneapolis Ordinancesto Reduce Mercury Emissions, Spills and Discharges" Just Change Consultingfor Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, May 1, 2006.

Mills, Allan, "Mercury and Crematorium Chimneys" NahJfg Vol. 346, August 16, 1990.

NieschmidL R. K. and Kim, N. D., "Effects of Mercury Release from Amalgam Dental Restorations during Cremation on Soil Mercury Levels of Three New ZealandCrernatoria" Bulletin of EnvironmentalContAlninatlon and Toxicology,Vol 58, No. 5,L997,
Felndl, John. (compller) "SUmmarv of Refglences o V..]Embgiansjfsm Crempluria"
January L2,2Ot5. Retired P.E.from Dane County Department of Public Works, Madison, wsconsin joh n.rei ndl @att.netReuter News,'Pull Mercury From Mouths of Dead [Proposalof the Swedish 212112?, G:58 AM

https ://greenburialsanctu ary, corn/\rrhy-cremation-is- r''lot- g reen/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

NationalChemical lnspectorate Forthe Removalof Teeth Prior To Cremation.l May21, zOO4.And KEMI, "The Swedish Chemicals lnspectorate has not Proposed to havethe Teeth of Deceased Persons Extracted", May 25,2AO4.

Weier, Anita, "Cremat[on Adds to Mercury Load" The CapitalTime$-page 4& May 3l,zao4
World Health Organization, Internet page on mercury,
nnn:Ytwww.wno,l
Beferences on [Ulercu4y in Deathcare Workplegeg
Arenholt-BindsleV D., "Dental Amalgam - Environmental Aspects" Advances in Dental Resealch September 1992, pages L25-L3O.

Basu, M. K, and Wilson, H. J., "Mercury Risk from Teeth" Nature Vol 349, Jan.1O, 1991, page 109.

Bender; Michael, "Testimonyto the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearlng on Assessing EPA's Efforts to Measure and Reduce Mercury Pollution from Dentist Offices'". Mercury Policy Project/Tides Center, May 26,2OLA,8 pages.

City of Palo Altq CA, "Dental Offices and Mercury", specifically, "Dental Mercury: A Cornparison of Waste Management Practices for the Dental Office" httn:/lryww.citvJlaloa ltn.c4 ps/c legtrthav/4gntal.html Doughty, Caitlin. Snuob Getp ln Your Ey.es & Other LesEsns ftem the Srematory-. W.W. Norton Publishers,2OL4. Pages: 22,49,106, 108, 112, and page 22L(The Art of Dying chapter).

Maloney, Susan R., Phillips, Carol A., and Mills, Allan. "Mercury in the Hair of Crematoria Workers" IheLaosgl Vol. 352, November 14,1998. 212U22,6:58 AM

https://EleenbUrialsarrctuary com/why-cremation -is-not-greenl

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Vandeven, Jag "Mercury Use inthe Dental lndustry", ENVIRSN internetional Corporatlon, Envlrenmenta I l"awjnstitute Ja nuary 2A 05.

Warwick, R,, O'Connor, A.& Lamey, B. "Mercury vaFor exFosure durlng dental student training in amalgam remova[ J Accup Med Toxicol 8, 27 (2ot731.

Beferences on Mercury ln The Envirunrnent and Msnmfllfii Ackerman, JJ et al. "Mercury Gontamination ln Residentand h4lgrant Songblrds and Potential Effects on Body Condition.FnVtlg!€oilufian Vol. 246, 2O19.

Ali, Hazrat, Khan, E. and llahi, L uEnvironmentalehemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bi oa ccu m u I at i o n' J q UrpEl, p, f ,fi hg mislf y 2OL9 .

Bank, M.5., Crocker, J. 8., Connery B.& Amirbahman, A.'Mercury bioaccumulation in green frog and bullfrog tadpoles from Acadia National Park" Envj-fpn*IgXl.q9j, Chem. Vol.262OO7.

Bechshoft, T., et al..Hair Mercury Eoncantrations in Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Family Groups" Envifon. SSj,.Tsg-hnp,[ Vol. 50, 2016.

Cossaboon, Jenniferet al, "Seal L4olting Alters Nearshore Mercury Gycling" Proceedings of the Nqtional Asad,emv-gf-S-clences. Vol 1L2, No.39, Sept 2015.

Durkalec, Maciej et al. Jan. "Bioaccumulation of Lead, Cadmium and Mercury in Roe Deerand Wild Boars.from Areas with Different Levels of Toxic Metal Pollution" Vol.9,2Ot5.

May, Jason, et al. uMercury Bioaccumulation in Fish in a Region Affected by Historic Gold Mining" US Geological servlce, 1999,
Newman, J., Zillioux, E., Rich, E., Liang, L. & Newman, C. "Historical and Other ,,r,, /, rr 5ti j j i

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Patterns of Monomethyland lnorganic Mercury in the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi)"" ArEh. Errvirr:n. Col gnnr..Ipxiu:L Vol. 48, 2004.

No6l, M.et al."Grizzly Bear Hair Reveals Toxic Fxposure to Mercury through Salmon Consumption" firryiror] Sgi-Teclrnol. Vol. 48, 2Ot4.

Obrist, D. et al. "Tundra uptake of atmospheric elemental mercury drives Arctic mercury pollution.'" Nature Vol. 547, ZQLV.

Phillips, Carol, Gladding, Toni, and Maloney, Susan "Clouds with a Quicksilver Lining'" Clrqnrist ry irt$rililiit556, 1994,
Ritchie, C. D, et al. *Mercury in fog on the Bay of Fundy (Canada)" Atmos.

Environ. Vol.40, 2006.

Swaddle, J. et al. "Exposure To Dietary Methyt-Mercury Solely During Embryonic and Juvenile Development Halves Subsequent Reproductive Success in Adult Zebra Finches." Joufnal ef Env,irgtjnr,prrtalSciencejrnrlTgchnologyVol.52,2018.

Weiss-Penzias, RS., et al. "Marine fog inputs appear to increase methylmercury bioaccumulation in a coastal terrestrial food web" Scientifip Reoorts Vol 9,2019.

Wolfe, M. F., Schwarubach, S. & Sulaiman, R. A. "Effects of mercury on wildlife; A com p rehensive rev iew" Env i r"on. Toxicol. CJieln. V ol. L7, 199 8.

Rgf qenssspnGrcenlrashhg.htheqpathlndustryDoughty, Caitlyn. Snioke Ggts In You[,Eves: AfrcLl0therLessgrs From I'he CfsnutorlA New York: W.W. Norton Publishers,2015.

Greenspan, Mirtam. Healing Throughlhe-Dark Emotir:ns: The lit'isdrrm of #.tief.

F'eatand Despair'"Global Healing ln a Brokenhearted World" Bostom Sharnbhala 2004,242-265.
2121122,6 88 Atl

https ://greenburial6anctuary,com/',ylry-cremation- is-not-green/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Elaine Andersen
Monday, March 21, 202210:34 AM
Josh Kinkade
Subject: FW: Lakeside crematorium
---OriginalM
From: Marie
Sent: Monday, March 27,202210:34 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside crematorium
[You don't often get email fro Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderlde
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am Marie Gonzales and my husband and I have been living in the Preserves for over L0 years. We have a lovely neighborhood and I love my small community. I have asthma and I had thyroid cancer 4 years ago so I do not have the best respiratory system. I love the clean air that we breathe and love to keep it that way. I know lgor has presented his views on how there's no concern for us as to air quality but cannot believe there will be 0% toxic emissions. Just like the HCD has voted no to this project, please let me have trust in that you'd do the same. ln a poll that somebody did on FB chat, a large percentage of our local residents do not place a lot of emphasis on being cremated here in Folsom, a lot answered they did not care where they were cremated. I know a lot of people may think what's the big deal, but I think they are thinking, "oh l'm glad it's not in my neighborhood!". Nobody is going to say, "Oh how lucky are those people living next to the crematorium ! I wished I lived therel" Will you? Thank you for being so understanding. Marie Gonzales
Marie Sent from my iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Glose @
r.,, trt E
[email protected] I [email protected]. us Sarah Aquino I UO""folsom.ca.us @ mr<[email protected] CclBcc;
Subject: Crematorium
Council Members,
After reaching out to Dr. Bob Laperriere, of the of the Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission, he answered a few of my questions after the Historic Commission meeting regarding the historical site designation of the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. Here is our email question and answer text (receiv ed 2119122 at 1 0:52pm):

Me: Do you know the date the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery received its historic designation?
Bob: Do no have the date handy but it was over 10 years ago.

Me: I feel that the owner/applicant, lgor Semenyuk, is trying to downplay the sites historical significance. During the Commission meeting he said to the best of his knowledge it was not a registered historical site, and that it didn't have historical significance.

Bob: I can see where he is not clear on "registered" as it is not on the State or National historic designation...only the designation that our Commission requested of the board of supervisors. However it is difficult to not believe or deny the historic significance of the cemeteries that "became" Lakeside and date back to the 1800's in addition to the adjacent Chinese Cemetery. We did give a large aluminum sign to the Funeral Home to post at the cemetery with its historic designation on it but do not recall ever seeing it posted.
2127122, s:41 AM
Page I of 2
https://mail.google.com/mail/mu/mp/903/#co

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Bob LaPerriere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
[email protected]
(916) 481 -4525 (voice)
(916) 712-8991 (text)
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95865-5345
During the 2116/22 Historic District Commission meeting (at the 4:46 mark) the applicant, lgor Semenyuk, states, "this is not an historical cemetery." Glearly, he is mistaken. His partner Lorin Claney's father purchased the funeral home in 1962, so Lorin Claney had been a part of the family business when the funeral home received their designation and plaque.

The "Complete Sacramento County Cemetery List" from the Sacramento County Advisory Commission states there are many historical parts of Lakeside Gemetery. These historic portions of Lakeside MemorialCemetery include: Babyland, Citizens, Cook, Jewish, Masonic, and Oddfellows cemeteries. There's also a guestion of historic Negro Bar Cemetery being a part of Lakeside.

Also, according the The Miller Funeral Home website they state: " Miller is also proud to own and operate Lakeside Memorial Lawn, Folsom's only active historic cemetery. With headstones and burials dating back to 1846, Lakeside remains a beautiful memorialto Folsom's citizens both past and future." More so, in 1995 the United States Department of the lnterior National Park Service also entered Chung Wah Cemetery in the National Register.

I have contacted the list of historic cemeteries that Dr. Bob LaPerriere included in his letter to the Historic District Commission. I reached out to all of them, and none have a crematory on their historical site. I have included the email corrcspondence. Why put a crematory on this historical site? Does Folsom really want to have the only crematory on historic grounds? Once it's in, it's forever.

The Lakeside MemorialCemetery has Historic Designation! Let's protect it! Thank you for your time,
Nicole Gates
Mew Gmail in: Mobile I Older version I Desktop
@ 2021 Google
2127122,5:4'1 AM

https://mail.google.co m/mail/mtr/mp/9o3/#co

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Fll*lorlcrl Daslgnniion On thl'ruconrnrurdutiun ol'ths ('untnrissiuu, lhtt Bourd *l' Supr.n'isors hn..r tlcsignatr.'d 2l ccmctcrics us "hislrlric", This is phusc I ol'thrl projcrt, us thcrc ilrc nrany othcr historic cclnrulcrics in $ucramcnlu {'outtly. ccrrrr"tcricr* dr"signirlcd wrlre: .t:,?,x-*1fl,.rf,t'*,:Jl;,1t:':* l,llcllviuw('trrrrtury llucrurnqtttu(irunty6lucrernefun"{ -::''^feftife' vrf u*J l,tJllirrn ('cntclcty llucrrutrsrtto (.'utntly fr[ai - onlvt '16 rlrrrve';'\onc I ].Llkuxirlc ('olnclury liclstnr P
4,Mulllr$w Kilgon: ('$utstsry Ruttcho ('e'tnhrr'* - No c reitratsr'q (erncr-il 1"d 5,2{llr & Mr:udpwviuw ('snlulury !{ilcliurrcnhr f ity - NID rrlgflre.{-o,'q -DeFON|(-T ,. {r ('hung Wuh ('cnrctr.ry lirrlsrutr 6 ' {ilnc'reu\
?,li16rr ('rcrh ('crttcttry l;r'rr,;;;",,6 - gc, crcnncuF '1 ' l tr\rc "t l :1 FPd ' lt4l tl,Run$lroMurictn('*niutcry(Norlh&$rlulht{ll Rnllr;hoMrrieln-Nlscv,rntnft{j (!n6;I-i?s-) $.Sue ratncntu llistrrric ('ily ('ctrrtlury ilucrntttulllu ('ity - N.) cff drnhLla'J (( y1ll ,'.'i,lI (l.Mithigun.lsirr ('cnri:lcry (lonc Rnlrtl llucrunutttrt ('lrunry - No (-rcm,'ti,t1 ( t *:::1") I l.Slougf,huus$ ('{mrtcrv Sloughtrou*ri * Nr, C '.c n^{x,t.r;r'rl ( r vvtc\.': '1t15) Lsyluln Dinrrirt ('cmclury ('ilrus llciglrrs - r-tt, crPnzrrx{'oli (::ttt a/;rl) 1l.(itlf /Arnu t)irtricl ('sttt$lsri$$ (l) (iult - Ntr crcrtrn'{trr.4 ( encr"l 'rl?')^ -\ lS,lilk (irolc ('unt*ufttr$r t)isrriut ('curclsri$H (5) [ilk (iruvr' - r.tb (rrrmc.l-u,l4 (enncu t rl ?s) I4.F'uir Oukx l)lstrie I ('cnruttry liurr (tukr .- Nlo(fe6n,,r*u,r11 (ctmfrr t 4'r'r) Pluqucs wcr$ providud lbr cuuh $L'nrctcry,lnd wc slill hilvl'sqvcrirl to distrihutc.

Thc tr:xt ol'tlrc pluqr,rc is as buluwr
rHNS'TH II'IS BEfrN IIE#IGN,{TEO frT
'l'|C 8.1 ill E Fl Tlj, C 0 I t N T l' rLf ,'l
ITI.TTilNft'CEfiTETERV,
illilrli ltti$l'MAHY rit; Tllli Mt;,N, wrlMt;,N ANII('lll[.[)FliN wl;(]r{Aw Tllli ltli^tJl'Y AND VAl.tJli Ornlls [,AN[], ('ll(x)slN(i T(l .qliil'Lli lltiltli ANlr lltJll.l)'nll'i c'()tJNTY wli ('lllililsll'rilll^Y, I'1. liA$ti I I lil-l' t I li I'lillsli ltv li'il I l1l'ifi (l ltAV F.$. MAH K liRs, ANt t l-AN t)lt('A P IN(i Ft)t{ F tl'f t lRlr ( illN litt A'l'l( lN.s, r,tl.ll.llilf tIrr{{ilrNIf ltr Hlt I}l $ul,Ixt'lilrfls
,1ru { t.il}:.1,}:tf .Un.lsilltl t.Uil$llillr}t

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
'y+ / '.t-. A, ^-tr,.,r " A'ltr r^ t'ow1 A,tI^,
fr4cr t.+het,tt (r igo ra c a,rn u"w"r3 - Na cr e Ynalart urY) Fro m : Steve Harriman s h arritna n@c ityof ra nch oco rd ova.org Subject: RE: Crematory question
Date; Feb 22,2022 at 10:40:59 AM
To: nicole higgins niki-higgirrs@yalroo,com
Hi Nicole:

There is not a crematorium at Kilgore Cernetery. The City contracts with Green Valley Cemetery and Mortuary and they have a crematorium. They can be reached at 916 985-8844.

Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Thanks! Steve
Steve Harriman, Operations and Maintenance Division Manager City of Rancho Cordova Department of Public Works
{9to3.t!-s210
-----Original Message-----
From: nicole higgins
Sent: Tuesday, February 22,2022 9:06 AM
To: Steve Harriman <sharriman@cit@g>
Subject: Crematory question
Hello,
I was wondering if your cemetery has a crematory on the premises? Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

F ro nr:

Subject:

Date:

To:

Cc:

Dennis Buscher
Re: Sloughhouse Cemetery
Feb 25, 2022 at 6:49:55 PM
niki-higgins@ya hoo.com
eg hs@el kgrove historicalsociety,co m
Hi Nicole
I am a Board member of the Elk Grove Historical Society and also a Trustee for the Elk Grove Cemetery District.
ln answer to your question, Sloughhouse Gemetery does not have a crematorium in their cemetery nor do any of the 5 cem6teries in the Elk Grove Gemetery District.

While the Elk Grove cemeteries are not designated as historic yet, they do date back to the 1870's. The Rancho Muieta cemeteries also do not have a crematorium.

I would think that the zoning laws would be very restrictive forthe placement of a crematorium for the cremating of bodies. Check with the County of Folsom to see what restrictions there are for a crematorium. lt sounds like the cemetery your concerned about is privately owned, so they may have rights that public cemeteries do not.
ln the Elk Grove Cemetery District, we do have Niche Banks for the placement of ashes in 4 of our 5 cemeteries. These niche banks are about 5 feet high.

Sloughhouse does not have a niche bank.
lf you have any other questions, please let me know.

Dennis Buscher
Znd VB EG Historical Society
From: nicole
Date: Fri, Feb 25, atl
Subject: Sloughhouse Cemetery
To: <gghs@elk@com>
YS Ranch o Murie*2,(\+9)
3!1p Michiqan Aar (?arm{ {hnc[n Muvreta\
CemeU;y.es )
* tt SloughouS€
* ft vrc qns{€ CaYrsu mne5
\
Att have no Uemalories
Hi,

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
*q Sac Crq ternrl.Y- No eremafurl
From: Lorl Bauder [email protected]
Subject: RE: City Cemetery lnformation
Date: Feb 23, 2022 at 8:04:36 AM
To: nicole higgins
Hi, Nicole;
l'm sorry we do not have a crematory on site. Lori
Lori Bauder
Cemetery Manager
1000 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95818
Cell: 916-201-6254
-----Original Message-----
From: nicole higgin
Sent: Tuesday, Feb 24 ZU'ZZ 9:49
To: Lori Bauder <LBauder@cityofsacfa >
Subject City Cemetery lnformation
Hello,
I was wondering if the Sacramento Historic City Cemetery had a crematory onsite? Thanks
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From: Sylvan Cemetery office@sylvancemetery,com
Subject: Re: Crematory
Date: Feb 22,2022 at 9:55:37 AM
To: nicole higgins
No, we are the cemetery only.

Sylvan Cemetery Distdct
(91S)Jzs*aQg
On 1lresday, February 22,2022,09:3*38 AM PST, nlcole hlggins <niki_higgl0ggyghgg.Cg00> wrote:

Hello,
I was wonderlng lf you havs an on-slte crematory at the Sylvan Dlgtrlct Cemetery? Thanke,
Nicole
Sentfiom my iPhone
*t Lr-)
SVlvara Ceme k"Y No cre rn(}'tro13

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From : [email protected]
Subject: RE: Cremetory
Date: Feb 22,2022
To: nicole hlggins
Good afternoon Nicole,
We are solely a cemetery. There is no crematory on site.

Have a wonderful afternoon. We are here is you need any more assistance.

Kristi
-Qliginal
Message----
From: "nicole higgins"
Sent Tuesday, tam
To: galarn@saficom,net
Subject Cremetory
Hello,
I was wondering if there is a crematory on the premises of the GalUArno district cemeteries?
Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone
J&- I2
Ga'l+ / hvno Di:tvie t Ceme+€-{ r€5
- No LY€rYratoT
at 1:50:15 PM

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From : info'[email protected]
Subject: Fair Oaks Cemetery lnquiry
Date: Feb 22,2022 at 9:41:06 AM
To:

We do not have a crematory on site.

Fair Oaks Cemetery District
elQ-966-161q
7780 Olive Street
Fair Oaks, CA95628
s\q
Fair Ca kS Dr*tn c+ Cewtetra - No cr€ua,lo3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
2126122,6:35AM
Cemeterv
24th & Meadowview
Cemetery
Alder Creek Cemetery
Complele Sacramento County Cemelery List
Coroner
Complete Sacramento County
Cemetery List
This list of Sacramento County Cemeteries is a project in progress/development. Data on many is limited or non-existent. Accuracy of entries may need to be verified. We will appreciate any comments, additions, corrections, additional information, documents or photographs relating to these cemeteries.

Please respond to the Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission at:

Dr. Bob LaPerriere, Vice-Chair
Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
Phone: (916) 874-9103
Email: [email protected]
(please include your email address for correspondence)
Categg4tf
No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
Notes More lnformation
Cemetery
History
see Prairie City Cemetery
Cemetery History
see Quiet
Haven
Arlington Cemetery No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
Kinney School Cemetery
Prairie City Cemetery No longer exists - no
Monument remains
B'nai lsrael Cemetery No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
Sroftftfi Burials ft+169#Er exists - nossibtv Notes More lnformation httpsJ/corcn€r.saccounty.gov/socac/Pages/Completesacramento0ount!/C€meteryL'rst.aspx?Paged=TRUE&p-Column2=Cemetery or Burial Site in Sa... 115

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
2126122,6:35AM Complete Secramonto County Cemetery List ";p;?.riy;;;;.[;-
-'
No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
No longer exists -
or partially relocated
New Helvetia Cemetery No longer exists - possi
or partially relocated
St. Rose's Cemetery No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
Cook's Bar Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Daylorl Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Dry Creek District Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Georgetown Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Grand lsland Chinese Possible other alias or
Cemetery unknown site
Granger Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Hoit Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Nathan Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
see 24th and Meadowview Possible other alias or
Cemetery?? unknown site
see Michigan Bar Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Sloughouse Cemetery # 2 Possible other alias or (?)
unknown site
Stage Station Burying Possible other alias or
Ground unknown site
Strait Family Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Sutterville Cemetery Possible other alias or
Cemetery 0Ekgstn site Notes More lnformatlon
https://coroner.saccounty,gov/sccadPages/GompletesacramentoCountyGemstoryList.aspx?Paged=TRUE&p-Column2=Cemebry or Buriel Site in Sa... 215 Buckeye KnollCemetery
Mormon lsland Cemetery
Negro Bar Cemetery Gnow
Lakeside??)

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
2nil22,6:39AM
SanJuan Cemetery
Sheldon Cemetery
Spooner Family Cemetery
Walltown Cemetery
Babyland
Bellview Cemetery
Citizens
Cook
Eagles
Elk Grove IOOF Cemetery
Elk Grove Masonic Lawn
Grand Army of the
Republic (CivilWar)
Jewish Cemetery
Knights of Pythias
Knights of Pythias
Masonic
Masonic
Masonic (Old)
Oddfellows
Cemeterv
Comdete Sacramento County Gemetery List
name Cemetery
With an alternate see Sylvan Cemetery
name
With an alternate see Pleasant Grove
name Cemetery
With an alternate see Michigan Bar
name Cemetery
With an alternate see Wilson Cemetery?
name
Within another
cemetery
Within another see Quiet Haven
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another see Eagles & Knights of
cemetery Pythias
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
see Lakeside
Within another see Elk Grove
cemetery
Within another see Sacramento Historic
cemetery
Within another
ssE#sry
see Eagles & Knights of
Pythias
see Hilltop Cemetery
see Elk Grove Cemetery
see Sacramento Historic
City Cemetery
see Lakesid
Notes
A
More lnformatlon
see Lakeside
Lakeside
see Lakeside
see
htps'J/coroner.saccounty.gov/sccac/Pages/Compl€tesacramenloOountyCemeteryllst.aspflPaged=TRUE&p_Column2=Wilh an altemats nameEp_Ti... A5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
2126122,6:35 AM
Walnut Grove Chinese
Cemetery
Barton Family Cemetery
Chinese Cemetery-Folsom
Complete Sacramento County Cernetery List
Possible other alias or
unknown site
Site in Sacramento County
Site in Sacramento County
(Young Wo)
Site in Sacramento County
r 31-60 l
) (;emeierv Advisorv.Comffssion
) Brochures
) Cemetcry_Dlslrlcls
) s4cramento countv lndigent
Burial Sites
) Sacramento County-Deaths
1850-1933
> Burial Database, Sacramento County Cemqtery-
> $acramento Gountyeemeterv tist
) ponlhi8sion Contact lnforfnslioil
> lJsefullinks
Cemetery-Folsom
Chung Wah Memorial Site
https://coroner.sacrcounty.gov/sccac/Pages/ComplstesaqamentoCoun$/€emeteryList.aspx?Paged=TRUE&p-Column2=Cemetery or Budal Site in Sa ' ' ' 3/5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

NFS Fom t0-900
(Oct 19901
Unltcd Steto Department of the lnterlor
Nadonal Park Scrvlcc

NATIONAT REGISTER OF HISTORIC PTACES

REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name ol Property
OMBNo. 1002+0018
ili.t., I't
historic name: Chuno Wah
othor name/site number: Sza Yrrn/Sem Yun

2.locatlon
street & number: Ilfinmn Q]rc] vinini#w
code: -.lQ\- county: Secremento
El not for publication
tr vicinity
code: 067- zip code: , 9E
city/town: Ealaam
$tate: Callfnrnil

3. Statc/Fcilcral Agcncy Cortillcation
As thc dosionated authority under thc National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby cartifY that ttri$ :€t nomlnation tr rcquest lor detcrmination of oligibilitv m6ets the docqnentation standards lor reglstering propartios in the ttittonat Rcoistcr of Hlstorlc Placas and msets thc procadutel and profeesional teEuircments sot torth in 36 CFR Part 60. ln my opinion, the property F meot6 tr doca not mcet th6 National Register-criteria. I recommand that this ploperty bs considered signlllcrnt tr statewide I locally, (o see continuation sheet for additional comments.l 6 California of Historic Presenvation
State or Federal agency and bureau
ln my opinion, the proporty E meets Et does not meet the Natlonal Feglster criteria. ltr See continuation sheet.) Signature of or other officlal Dete
State or Federal egency and bureau

4. National Park Scrvicc Gertlllcation
I hareby certily that this ptoperty is:
\f$orcC ln thc National Resister 7 s Sse continustlon shgst o determined eliglble for the National
Register
tr See continuatlon sheet.

E determined not eliglble for National
Register
ct rsmovod from the National Register
'{ of Keeper Date
tr other (explainl:

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
lo:

From:

Subject:

Date:

I
Elaine Andersen; kerri(oatlanticcorrosionengineers.com; Sarah Aquino; Rosario Rodriouez; YK Chalamcherla; Mike Kozlowski; Josh Kinkade
Crematorium Council Meeting Change
Friday, March 25,20224:46:23 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email Learn why this is important
Members of the Council,
Our lives have been on hold and turbulent for one greedy business and their "business opportunity."
This has cost us time, money, sleepless nights, our real estate, and our health. In fact, a neighbor had a health event while in a conversation about the crematorium! Our neighbor has no fight left, and is very upset over thatfact. This is a neighborhood in turmoil! "The Folsom City Council is dedicated to ensuring Folsom's high standards for public health, safety, and quality of life."
Why is The Caring Services Group allowed to add to their appeal after the deadline? Why are they allowed to extend the hearing date when the municipal code says the meeting has to be within a specific time frame? Why is the applicant getting extra hand holding? What's the point of municipal codes if they aren't followed?
Why weren't the citizens notified of the meeting date change? We have been in contact with the Council, Clerk, and Planning Department this whole process. Why aren't the residents being kept up to date...transparency?
Please move the hearing date back to April 12. That's our kids spring break at school. When we heard that the crematorium meeting date was over spring break we cancelled our vacation to attend the meeting. It's too expensive to purchase tickets again. We stopped our lives for this. Please consider the residents as well in this process.

Thank you for your time.

Nicole Gates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Wednesday, March 30, 202210:19 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside Memorial Crematory: Please Vote No
---Origi nal M essage----
From: Patrick Nooren
Sent: Wednesday, March 30,2022 9:21AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Patrick Nooren <pnooren@biddle'com>
subject: Lakeside Memorial crematory: Please Vote No
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentification'l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To City Manager Anderson.

Hello. My name is Patrick Nooren and I am a longtime resident of El Dorado Hills. My wife and I are currently in the escrow process on a house in Folsom directly across from Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery!fong St.). Our intent is to live there with our disabled daughter, Dutch, who has Pallister-Killian Syndrome (PKS) and is compromised in a number of ways, including respiratory issues and being wheelchair bound' This leads us to "why" we are moving. We are looking to downsize into a single-story house with a short, flat, walk to Sutter Street...a rarity in the adjoining neighborhoods..,andl Fong is perfect! While performing my due diligence I came across the upcoming vote on the crematorium and, as a result, I have read each of the "Helix" studies, including the Greenhouse Gas and Emissions study (and amendments). The results of these studies indicate the environmental impact would be statistically insignificant, but fall short of indicating there would be "no impact." ln fact, my particular home at!Fong would be within the zone of elevated emissions.

Should this vote approve the crematorium, I will, unfortunately, not be able to continue with the purchase of this, the perfect home. I simply cannot risk the elevated emissions and the potential for a negative impact on my extremely vulnerable daughter.

Please vote no.

While there may be some potential for additional Folsom tax revenue, it is far outweighed by the potential negative ramifications to nearby property values, the Sutter Street experience (and potential odor) and, unfortunately, the health and safety of those who would live nearby with compromised health.

Thank you

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Patrick M. Nooren
President
Biddle Consulting Group, lnc
n .outlook.com /?url=htlp%3A%2F%2Fwww.biddle.com%2F&amp;d ata=O4o/o7COL%7Ciki nkade%40folsom.ca.us%7C90d79ed9c9dc46fd805e08da12715 c29%7C7cfb4b4a254c47b48448af7t335fd6co%7CO%7CO %7C637842575334t34134%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVC|SMnO%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Wo4GOxXlbmlENyfrlMVtxUc%2BJVcFCNOS3jVzdyDzwYoo/o3D&amp;reserved=0 I
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcginstitute .org%2F&amp;data=04%7COL%7 Cjkinkade% Ofolsom.ca.u s%7C9Od79ed9c9dc46fd805e08da127L5c29%7Clcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7L335fd6c0%7C0%7 CO%7C637842575334I34L34o/oTCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTilSlklha WwiLCJXVCI6MnO%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=88mRA3jYFmzqGqpqGAToZTmDjepmcSdrp5%2FbASVFjz8%3D&amp;reserv ed=0 I
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.testgenius.com%2F&amp;data=O4o/o7COL%7 Cjkinkade%4Ofolsom.ca.u s%7C9Od79ed9c9dc46fd805e08da127I5c29o/o7Clcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7L335fd6c0%7CO%7 COo/o7C637842575334134L34%TClJnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklha WwiLCJXVCI6MnO%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=g2TYrT85J8gRDXYh4hpxYnGtiKPNrahBT0PqcwWYuSE%3D&amp;reserved= 0 lrong St. (hopefully)
Folsom, Ca 95530
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

March 23,2022
Elaine Anderson, City Manager
Keni Howell, Mayor
Rosario Rodriguez, Vice Mayor
Sarah Aquino, Council Member
YK Chalamcherla, Council Member
Mike Kozlowski, Council Member
RE: LakesideCrematoriumApplication
To the Folsom City Manager and Folsom Council Members:

I am a resident in The Preserve neighborhood, which is directly across the street from Lakeside Memorial Lawn. I am writing this letter to request that you deny Caring Services Group's appeal to build a crematorium at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, and uphold the decision of the Historic District Commission that was reached on February 16,2022, denying the Applicant's conditional use permit.

There are several details regarding the appellant's Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration QSA4ND) that do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Among the shortcomings, the IS/IVIND does not address key environmental safety and health issues that may significantly affect the sumounding community, despite that fact that there is substantial evidence indicating the potential for such significant effects. It would be very important to achieve a well-informed project review by preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) with all the relevant environmental topics where potential impacts could occur, sufficient substantial evidence to describe the nature and magnitude of potentially significant effects, and feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts.

A summary of the CEQA inadequacies is presented below:

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The explosion risk and consequences in the event of explosion from two 25O-gallon propane tanks are not analyzed. The potential for an explosion is dismissed as not likely without evaluation or evidence. Although there is a low probability of an accident, there would be high impact if it in fact occurred. As an example, the following story is from the website news feed of MTI Industries, a manufacturer of fire alarms, regarding the explosion of a2lD-gallong propane tank in Prunedale, Monterey County.

Propane TankExplodes in Prunedale, 2 Injured (Jul 28, 20lI) Prunedale, CA. Two people are injured after a propane tank exploded in Prunedale Thursday morning, said the North County Fire Department. The propane tank held 250

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
gallons ofpropane. The explosion happened around I I am on the 500 block of Strawberry Road. Both of the victims were taken to the hospital with minor to moderate injuries. Fire fficials say that there was a leak in the propane tank that ignited and caused the explosion. Witnesses say that they couldfeel the explosion all the way across the street. According to the fire department, the explosion sent a shockwave thlough the house that blew out the windows and shifted the walls of the house.

The concussion wave of explosions can be modeled to address how far damage would occur. The concussion may affect the homes in our neighborhood and travelers on Folsom Boulevard. Also, there is no analysis of exacerbation of wildfire risk if an explosion occurred. All these topics should be addressed in an EIR, because impacts may be significant. The analysis in the environmental study needs to backed by evidence, analysis, and modeling. If a significanthazard is identified, feasible mitigation must be implemented.

2. InaccurateAJnstable Project Description. The project description appears unstable and potentially flawed. For CEQA compliance, a project description must be accurate, and it needs to be stable during the course of environmental review.

The IS/IVIND says no family gathering will occur as a reason to not provide facilities for gathering. This premise if flawed, because it conflicts with the stated objective that the crematorium is designed to serve the customs of the families seeking cremation. Several cultures seek to have family members gather at the cremation site. Facilities would be needed to accommodate them (e.g., a turnaround for a hearse and dropping off family, parking including handicapped spaces, broad walkways to the crematory, seating on the grounds around the crematory).

Also, the ISA4ND says no sewer is needed but does not comment on the sanitary needs of the employees working there. Where are comfort stations nearby for employees? Recognizing the likelihood of demand for family gathering, how will the sanitary needs of visitors be accommodated? This is a shortcoming of the project description that could overlook potentially significant environmental impacts related to sewer construction, such as increased tree removal.

The IS/IVIND states a fixed estimate of the rate of cremations (l or 2 per day, 500 per year), which is misleading because it does not assume growth in demand. It is reasonable to conclude that the stated rate of cremations is likely underestimated in the future, based on the evidence that there are no local, nearby alternative crematories and the Folsom/eastern Sacramento County/southern Placer County region is projected to grow substantially. In fact, the document takes credit for the lack of nearby facilities through an estimate of reduced vehicle miles traveled to more distant sites, because the surrounding communities and funeral homes would logically use this closer facility. The document acknowledges growing demand with nearby populations over time, but does not account for the growth in demand in the environmental analysis by failing to provide future projections of cremations per day or per year based on that growing demand. Without such a demand-driven estimate, the analysis is short-sighted, inaccurate, and potentially well understated for 5 years, 10 years, or more, in the future.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

A revised accurate, credible, and stable project description is needed to address these issues and provide adequate environmental review. With an accurate project description, environmental analyses will likely need to be revised and corrected.

3. Air Qualitv/Toxic Air Contaminants: If the demand is substantially higher than 500 cremations per year in the future, as questioned in the previous item, the air quality and toxic air contaminant estimates would also be underestimated. Higher emissions may result in significant health impacts, and it is important for neighbors to be able understand the nature and magnitude of potential health impacts. A more detailed study and non-technical explanation of potential health impacts, and if needed feasible mitigation, should be prepared and included in an EIR.

4. Noise: The analysis of noise impacts is without evidence substantiating the noise level generated by the crematory. There are no facts confirming "roughly" estimated noise generations, no evidence from other similar facilities, no document cited in the text, nor any description of noise reduction features. The document says the estimate is "rough", which means it appears to be qualitative, maybe even arbitrary. Noise measurements from other crematories would be easy and cost-effective to obtain as the basis for accurate noise modeling; such measurements are standard practice in CEQA noise studies. Recognizing the early (7:00 am) and late (10:00 pm) operation, the noise impacts during otherwise quiet times of day may be significant, especially single-event noise, or short-term noise during the hour or so of burning.

Noise impacts, particularly during quieter times and reflecting growing demand, should be provided in an EIR with feasible mitigation for potentially significant noise effects.

These are the details regarding the appellant's Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that I believe do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on this noncompliance, I would ask that the Applicant's conditional use permit to install a crematorium be denied, upholding the Historic District Commission's vote on February 16.

Sincerely,
Salwa Kasabian
lron"st street
Fol cA 95630

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

IO:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Monday, February 28,20227:44 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: No Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
From: Sean Gates
Sent: Sunday, February 27,2022 3:26 PM
To: Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: No Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
Somepeoplewhoreceivedthismessagedon'toftengetemailuofLearnwhythisisimoortant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Council Members,
I live in the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood with my wife and two young children. This is a wonderful neighborhood.

Each house shows pride of ownership. I can look out my front windows and see slivers of Lake Natoma. We have neighborhood access to the trails and lake. The bald eagles fly over my house and perch at the Lakeside Cemetery' Putting a crematory in the historic cemetery will change all this. I don't want to look out my back windows and see "puffs of smoke" per lgor's words. I want to enjoy the beauty of the cemetery out my back windows. Lake view out the front windows and smoke puffs out the back window. What a contradiction.

I don't want to have to close my windows while 90 minute cremations are happening. I don't want to tell my kids to come in the house and stop playing with the neighborhood kids because the crematory is running.

This effects our quality of life.

During the tht/22 city council meeting there was much concern for the preservation of the oak trees with the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 2 Subdivision Project. Ten minutes was spent discussing grading concerns, buffering, and the probability of survival of one oak tree. I hope the Council gives the history at the cemetery, Historic District, open space, and residents of The Preserves/Lake Natoma Shores community as much time, concern, and thoughtfulness as the oak trees received.

Thank you,
1 Sean Gates

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Terrv Sorensen
lorrest Street
Folsom, CA 95630 I
April3,2022
City Council
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Conditional Use Permit
(PN-1e-182)
Hearing Date: April 26, 2022
Dear Councilpersons:

This letter is submitted in opposition to the request of applicant Igor Semenyuk (hereinafter, Applicant) for a conditional use permit (hereinafter, C.U.P.) allowing the operation of a crematorium on the premises of Lakeside Memorial Lawn, a historic cemetery located in the City. Numerous grounds have been raised in opposition to Applicant's request by various members of the community, but this letter will focus on only one ground; to wit: thatApplicant's assertion that "the crematorium, as proposed, is an appropriate accessory use to the existing cemetery" is without merit and therefore cannot provide the basis for the issuance of the C.U.P. sought by Applicant. (emphasis added.) Applicant's argument that the proposed crematorium should be allowed based solely on its "accessory use" status is set forth on pages 9-10 of the Historic District Commission StaffReport issued by the City. Basically, the argument advanced is that the existing cemetery is the principal (or primary) use of the property whereas "the proposed crematorium would be operating as an accessory use to the existing cemetery not as a stand-Alqqg business." (emphasis added.) In support of this argument, the StaffReport relies on Section 4.46 of California Land Use Practice (2021) "Primary and Accessory Uses" by Adam U. Lindgren & Steven T. Mattas which reads as follows: "A primary or principal use is the main use to which the premises are devoted and the primary purpose for which the premises exist. Primary uses may be permitted by right or may be conditional uses subject to a CUP. Accessory uses are structures or activities that arc subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the primary use; contribute tot he comfort, convenience, or necessity of the principal use; and are located on the same lot and the same zoning district as the principal use.... By definition, an accessory use must be associated with a principal use and cannot be established without a principal use." (emphasis added.)
Obviously, reliance on Section 4.46 in support of the argument advanced in the StaffReport is misplaced in the fact setting a hand, and fatally so. Clearly, the proposed crematory operation could be established and function fully on a non-cemetery property, its existence and operation not in any way dependent on an underlying cemetery business. This is made clear by the City's finding onpage22 of the StaffReport that, of the 16 crematoriums cunently operating in Sacramento County, only five are located within cemeteries.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Accordingly, and to quote the Lindgren & Mattas work relied on in the StaffReport, the operation of a crematorium on the cemetery property in question would not, "by definition," constitute an accessory use. To the contrary it would be operating as a stand-alone business. As such, Applicant's attempt to piggy-back its way to C.U.P. status by way of the proposed crematorium's ooaccessory use" status must be rejected, and the request for a C.U.P. denied.

Respectfully submitted,
/sl
Terry L. Sorensen
dglTS
email: City Councilpersons and City of Folsom Staff
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Nicole G
Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:43 AM
Elaine Andersen; Sarah Aquino; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; YK Chalamcherla; Rosario Rodriguez; Josh Kinkade
No crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Council Members,
I have sent previous emails but none have touched on the emotional toll this has taken on me and my family, This proposed crematorium is effecting our sleep and mental health. I used to be a sound sleeper, but recently I am such an insomniac over thoughts and nightmares of the crematorium coming in. I write and research when I should be sleeping. l've been getting migraines for the first time in my life. I realize this sounds dramatic, but it's very true. This is the definition of stress.

I am so proud of my neighbors and family who are fighting so hard against this. I am not trained and educated to fight a city and business. I am, however, a mother, wife, daughter, sister and auntie to other families that live in the Preserves. I want my children, niece, and future niece/nephew living in a neighborhood where propane trucks aren't constantly rattling in. I don't want them knowing that when they see a puff of smoke or smell the smell of cremation they need to stop playing basketball or riding their bikes to come home and close the windows. I tried to shield my young kids about what we were fighting against in the neighborhood. This didn't last long with all the protest in the neighborhood. This has effected our quality of life alreadyl
I drive around with "No Crematorium" magnets on my car. Everyday I take them off when l'm picking my kids up from school, I don't want to traumatize other kids the same way mine are being traumatized. They shouldn't have to know at an elementary school what a crematorium is.

I love the peaceful cemetery with animals. I have nothing against cemeteries or cremation, but this is not the right location for it. The cemetery was here before the neighborhood, but the neighborhood was here before the proposed crematorium.

Should this crematorium proposal pass, I will call to report every time there is odor. I will call every time there's smoke. I will call if there is after hours burning. I will call if ANYTHING from Lakeside disrupts the neighborhood.

I would like to add that I personally collected numerous signatures on the petition from people inside the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood who use the trail to Lake Natoma that's located on Young Wo Circle. lt's not just the people in this neighborhood who don't want the crematorium here, it's people from the greater Folsom area that use the neighborhood for recreation. Please listen the the public outcry! Folsom's City Council motto, " The Folsom City Council is dedicated to ensuring Folsom's high standards for public health, safety, and quality of life." I will protect my children's quality of life. Please help me protect it. I hope the council keeps their motto in mind during their vote.
1 Thank you,

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Nicole Gates
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

This page is intentionally left blank.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.