greenhouse gases. The City General Plan Policy NCR 3.2.8 provides criteria for project-level streamlining and tiering (City 2018a):
Projects subject to environmental review under CEQA may be eligible for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions, provided they are consistent with the GHG reduction measures included in the GHG Strategy contained in the General Plan and ElR. The City may review such projects to determine whether the following criteria are met:
Proposed project is consistent with the current general plan land use designation forthe project site;
Proposed project incorporates all applicable GHG reduction measures (as documented in the Climate Change Technical Appendix to the General Plan EIR) as mitigation measures in the CEQA document prepared for the project; and,
Proposed project clearly demonstrates the method, timing and process for which the project will comply with applicable GHG reduction measures and/or conditions of approval, (e.g., using a CAP/GHG reduction measures consistency checklist, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, or other mechanism for monitoring and enforcement as appropriate).
Greenhouse Gos Emissions lmpocl Anolysis
a) Generate greenhouse gos emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may hove o significont impact on the environment?
Less than significant. To determine consistency with the City's GHG Strategy the criteria outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist are shown and discussed in Table 6, GHG Strotegy Checklist (City 2018c).
Table 5
GHG STRATEGY CONSISTENCY CHECLIST
o
a
a
Checklist ltem Consistent?
Port 7: Lod Use Consistency
A. The proposed project is consistent
with the City's 2035 General Plan land
use and zoning designations.
lf "Yes," proceed to Part 2 ofthe
Checklist.
Discussion
The project would be located within the footprint
of an existing building in an existing cemetery in
an area designated Open Space in the General
Plan and zoned Open Space and Conservation
District (OSC). According to the City Zoning Code
Chapter I-7.39, a cemetery is an allowed use in the
OSC zone with a use permit. While the project may
require a new conditional use permit, the project
would not require a General Plan amendment or
rezone. The project would be consistent with
existing project site use and land use designation
the General Plan.
HEL'X
Yes
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020
Checklist ltem Consistent?
Part 2: GHG Reduction Meosures Consistency
E-1: lmprove Building Energy
Efficien in New Devel ment
E-2: Water Heater Replacement in
Existi Residential
E-3: lmprove Building Energy
Efficiency in Existing Development
E-4: lncrease Use of Renewable
Energy in Existing Development
T-1: Reduce VMT Through Mixed and
High-Density Land Use
T-2: lmprove Streets and lntersections
for Multi-Modal Use and Access
T-31 Adopt Citywide TDM Program
T-5: Reduce Minimum Parking
Sta ndards
T-6: Require the Use of HighPerformance Renewable Diesel in Construction Equipment
T-8: lnstall Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations
W-1: lncrease Water Efficiency in New
Residential Development
Discussion
The project does not propose new buildings or
substantial modifications to existin buil
The project is not an existing residential development
The project's proposed equipment would be installed
within an existing metal shed and would not include
conditioned or occu build
The project's proposed equipment would be installed
within an existing metal shed. No expansion or retrofit of existi build are
The project does not propose, and the project site open space land use designation and zoning does not permit,
de develo ment and mixed uses.
The project does not include construction of new
streets or i rovement to existi streets
The project is not a residential, office, commercial
retail, public facility or school development. The project would not include new arki ces
The project would not include new parking spaces.
The project would require minimal off-road diesel
construction equipment. At most, a small excavator or
skid steer loader may be used for a few hours to
an area for a small concrete pad.
The project is not a residential development, does not
propose new parking spaces, and existing parking
s
aces at the building are less than L0
SW-1: lncrease Solid Waste Diversion The project would involve minimal construction activity and would not result in substantial construction waste
which could be diverted.
The project is not a new residential development and
the project does not propose new indoor or outdoor
water uses.
W-2: Reduce Outdoor Water Use The project does not propose substantial addition, alteration, or expansion to existing facilities or new
outdoor water uses.
Source: City 2018c
As discussed in Table 6, the project would be consistent with the project site general plan land use designation and none of the GHG reduction measures listed in the GHG Strategy are applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City's GHG Strategy and the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant.
HEL/lX
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020
b) Conflict with an oppticable plon, policy, or regulotion adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse goses?
Less Than Significant. As discussed in criterion a), above, the project would be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy. The GHG strategy was developed to meet the City's GHG reduction targets which were formulated to meet the statewide GHG mandates of AB 32 and SB 32.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.
SUMMARY
The project's emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would be below SMAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. Community health risks resulting from emissions of TACs from the project's operation of a crematory were evaluated in an HRA following OEHHA guidelines.
Project TAC emissions would not result in increased health risks beyond the SMAQMD thresholds and the impact would be less than significant. The project would not be a substantial source of objectional odors and odor impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not conflict an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.
Sincerely,
44*#" il EGlf.
Martin Rolph
Air Quality Specialist
Victor Ortiz
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Detailed Site Plan
Figure 3: Receptor Locations
Figure 4: Cancer Risk
Attachment A: Emissions Calculation Sheets
Attachment B: HRA ModelOutPut
Attachment C: Addendum to the Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
HEL'X Endronmontsl Plannlng Page 406
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2O2O
REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2O17.The 20L7 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January Available at: https://www,arb.ca.gov/cclscopinsplan/2030sp pp final.pdf. 201.5. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. Available at https ://www.a rb.ca.sov/toxics/rma/rmgssat. pdf .
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan - A Framework for Change. December. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.sov/our-work/proerams/ab-32-climate-chanee-scoping-plan/2008-scopinsplan-documents. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
https ://www.a rb.ca.eov/ch/ha nd book. pdf .
Folsom, City of. 2018a. 2035 General Plan. Adopted August 28. Available at:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/communitv/planning/eeneral plan/2035 general plan.asp. 2018b. 2035 General Plan Appendix A - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy.
Available at:https://www.folsom.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=34205. 2018c. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist. Available at:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/documents/Planning/Folsom-GHG-Reduction-Checklist-FlNAL.pdf lowa Environmental Mesonet. 2019. Sacramento Executive Airport Wind Rose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.aeron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=SAC&network=CA ASOS. tntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at:
https ://www. ipcc.ch/report/a r4lws1/.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2006. OSHA Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Hexavalent Chromium. Available at:
httns://www.osha /OshDoc/data General Fa lent chromium.odf Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oeh ha.ca.gov/airlcrn r/notice-adoption-a ir-toxics-hot-spots-program-gu ida nce-m a nua lprepa ration-hea lth-risk-0.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAaMD). 2O2Oa. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised April. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv,orslResidents/CEQA-Land-Use-Plannins/CEQA-Guidance-Tools' 2O2Ob. Electronic communications between HELIX Environmental Planning (Victor Ortiz)and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Venk Reddy); attachments to communications containing crematory emissions calculations. August and November.
HELIX Envkonmcntal Plaftnlnq Page 407
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020
2O2Oc. SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table. April. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.ors/LandUseTransportation/Docu ments/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf. 2017. Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. July. Available at:
http://www.airoualitv.orelProeramCoordination/Documents/Sac%20Reeional%202008%20NAA QS%2OAttain ment%20a nd%20RFP%20Pla n' pdf.
2014. AERMOD meteorological data files. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orglbusinesses/ceqa-land-use-planninq/ceqa-guidance-tools.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. Health Effects of Exposures to Mercury. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mercurv/health-effects-exposures-mercurv. Accessed November 2020. 2008. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources, 1.5 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion. Available at: https://www.epa.eov/sites/production/files/2020- O9/documents/l.S liquefied petroleum eas combustion'odf.
HELIX Envlrcnmantdl Pldnnlng Page 408
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Folsom Crematorium
Source: Base Map Layers 2013)
HEL'X Regionql Locqtion
7 (
t
(
. -- l"
rm
\ ELDoRADo
SACRAMENTO
SAN JOAQUIN
YOLO
AMADOR
SOLANO
CALAVERAS
SUTTER pLACER..
crI
\i*#'Si^,t3-1,#iio, _r.*G..
i
t
Project Site
M
tl,il|F
0 1 Miles
Envi ronmental P lan ning
Figure 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
Sf
{
A4oRA4;
(N) 2 X 5OO GALLON PROPANETANKS
-7
d- as.er,
LEGEND:
t
(E) STRUCTURE
nsrg? - -''
PAIEH
W@AYM@AY
a
(E) STRUCTURE
o
#
(E)
+
*\
\
\)./
:-ta
I,t
f"
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
*l
st
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
{
HEL'X Deloiled Sile Plqn
Figure 2 En v i r o n n ental Pl annin g
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)
0 300 Feet
HEL'X Environmenkl Planning
Receplor Locolions
@ ero;"* Boundary
* Crematorium Lpcation
Q comrnercial Receptor
C Residential Receptor
i
b_
c.
t+i
.,
Si. ?r'2;'.
.
gr ll € ""4.'
g=,ff
.o? ,'
!' .{
@a
CImooms
*
o*
o
a
o
.:
o"
a
-r'
@m
d
*d
c
s6
g
!
d*
@
\
t
@
@(D
@
e@s
"/i *, ,' € ,it
'*i i
I
Y
I
I
+1/
i: .ii
IJ
I
i-@@@
ED
''tl
Figure 3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
@ erolect Boundary
* Crematorium Location
O Point of Maximum lmpact
O Maximum Exposed lndividual Resident
Risk lsopleth
w 2 in 1 million Risk
-
1in 1 million Risk
:
E
Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
Source: Aerial {Maxar, 2019)
300 Feet {
HELIX Concer Risks
3 0
Envi ronm e ntal P lan ni n g
Figure 4
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Attochment A
Emissions Colculotion Sheets
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Crematory Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Emissions from Propane Combustion
KBTU/Cvcle 1,800
KBTU/Gallon 91.502
Gallons/Cvcle 19.672
Cvcles/Dav 2
Cvcles/Year 500
Emissions from Combustion of Human Remains
lbs/day lbs/yr
Maximum
Throughput 400 100,000
TotalEmissions
Pollutant
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
Emissions
(tons/vear)
ROG 0.1 0.01
NOx 1.2 0.15
SOx 0.4 0.05
PMlO 0.3 0.03
PM2.5 0.3 0.03
co 0.9 0.11
Notes:
1. Emissions factors for propane from. USEPA AP-42 Chapter 1, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion, Table 1.5-1.
2. Emissions from combustion of human remains provided by SMAQMD and are from USEPA Factor lnformation REtrieval (FIRE) Program Data System (3/08).
3. ROG fraction of TOC for propane combustion unavailable, ROG assumed to be equal to TOC.
Pollutant
Emission Factor
{lhs/t ooo sallx
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
Emissions
(tons/vearl
ROG3 7 0.04 0.005
NOx 13 0.51 0.054
SOx 0.054 0.00 0.000
PMlO 0.7 0.03 0.003
PM2.54 0.7 0.03 0.003
co 7.5 0.30 0.037
Pollutant
Emission Factor
llbs/ton12
Emissions
{lbs/dav)
Emissions
(tons/vear)
ROG 0.299 0.06 0.007
NOx 3.560 o.7r 0.089
SOx 2.r70 0.43 0.054
PMlO 1.130 0.23 0.028
PM2.54 1.130 0.23 0.028
co 2.950 0.59 0.074
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Substance Test Results {in lbs/lbs charge)1 lbs/hr lbs/year Acetaldehvde 3.64E-07 7.27E-O5 3.64E-O2
Arsenic 2.52E-07 5.04E-05 2.52E-02
Benzene 7.77E-07 3.54E-05 t.77E-02
Bervllium 1.14E-08 2.28E-06 1.14E-03
Cadmium 8.59E-08 t.72E-O5 8.59E-03
Chromium (Hex) 9.57E-08 1.91E-05 9.57E-03
Cooper 2.77E-07 4.34E-05 2.77E-O2
Formaldehvde 9.50E-08 1.90E-05 9.50E-03
Hvdrogen Fluoride 4.01E-06 8.02E-04 4.01E-01
Lead 5.77E-07 1.03E-04 5.17E-02
Mercurv2 2.77E-05 4.16E-03 2.77E+OO
Nickel 2.99E-07 s.98E-05 2.99E-02
Selenium 1.72E-07 3.44E-05 1.72E-O2
Toluene s.73E-06 1.15E-03 5.73E-01
Vinvl Chloride 1.85E-08 3.70E-05 1.85E-03
Xvlenes 9.63E-08 1.938-05 9.53E-03
Zinc 2.76E-O6 5.51E-04 2.76E-O1
Total PAHs 2.64E-08 5.28E-06 2.54E-03
Benzo[al anth racene 6.67E-r7 1.33E-08 6.57E-06
BenzoIalpvrene 2.45E-10 4.90E-08 2.45E-05
Benzolblfluoranthene 5.61E-11 t.72E-08 5.61E-06
Benzo Iklfl uoranth en e 5.06E-11 1.01E-08 5.06E-06
Chrvsene 3.49E-10 6.98E-08 3.49E-05
Di benzoIa,hlanthracene 4.52E-t\ 9.04E-09 4.52E-06
lden 5.39E-11 1.08E-08 5.39E-06
Total PCDDs 1.50E-10 3.00E-08 1.50E-05
2,3,7,8-TCDD 5.11E-13 1.02E-10 5.11E-08
2 7 7.49E-72 2.98E-10 7.49E-O7
7 7.77E-tz 3.54E-10 !.77E-07
7 HxCDD 2.55E-12 5.10E-10 2.55E-07
7 HxCDD 3.16E-72 6.32E-10 3.16E-07
1 7 D 2.42E-r7 4.848-09 2.42E-O6
Total PCDFs 2.31E-10 4.61E-08 2.31E-05
2,3,7,8-TCDF 3.43E-t2 6.86E-10 3.43E-07
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF r.97E-12 3.81E-10 1.91E-07
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 5.82E-72 1.16E-09 5.82E-O7
7.2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.78E-12 7.24E-09 6.18E-07
1.2,3.6,7,8-HxCDF 5.49E-12 1.10E-09 5.49E-07
1,2.3,7,8,9-HxCDF t.o7E-rt 2.75E-O9 1.07E-06
2.3.4.5.7,8-HxCDF 2.23E-72 4.45E-10 2.23E-O7
7 8-H 2.94E-77 5.89E-09 2.94E-06
7,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF r.79E-72 3.58E-10 1.79E-07
CREMATORY TAC EMISSIONS
Max hourly throughput (lbs) 200
Max annual throughput (lbs) 100,000
Notes:
1". Emissions factors provided by SMAQMD and are from CARB Test Report No. C-90- 004, Evaluation Test on Two Propane-Fired Crematories at Camellia Memorial Lawn Cemetery (Oct, 29, t992).
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Attochment B
HRA Model Output
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Residential Cancer Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc v\9044 tt/20/2O2O9:L7:O7 AM - Cancer Risk
REC
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R5
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R17
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R36
R37
GRP
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
NETID X
658172
658204.3
658177.6
658221.
658216.2
65821L.2
658184.6
658186.7
558189.5
6581-94.3
658195.8
558103.2
658071.8
658060.4
658051.7
658043.L
658012.3
558000.9
657988.3
657977
657955.5
657954.9
657944.2
657933.3
657921.4
657910.8
657900.6
657888.2
657877.8
657866.5
657855.3
657844.t
657832.5
657820.3
657808
657791.5
657164
Y RISK SUM SCENARIO
1.30E-07 3OYrCancerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
9.7 I E-Og 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
t.O2E-O7 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
5.16E-08 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
6.25E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
6. 15 E-08 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH 3to70
7.50E-08 30YrCancerDerived_lnh-FAH3to70
7.55E-08 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
7.98E-08 30YrCancerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
8.82 E-08 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH 3to70
9.45E-08 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.65E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
5.80E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
5.87E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
5.62E-O7 3OYrCancerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
5.2IE-O-1 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.88E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH 3to70
4.7 7 E-07 30YrCa ncerDe rived-l nh-FAH 3to70
4. 58E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
4.42E-O7 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.25E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.LOE-A7 3OYrCancerDerived-l n h-FAH3to70
4.07 E-O7 30YrCa ncerDerived_l nh-FAH3to70
4.17E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.44E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
4.80E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
4.g3E-O7 3OYrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
4.44E-07 30YrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
3.19E-O7 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
2.97 E-O7 3OYrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
2.28E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived_l nh-FAH3to70
t.73E-07 3OYrCancerDerived-lnh-FAH3to70
L.34E-O7 30YrCa ncerDerived-l n h-FAH 3to70
1.06E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
8.38E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH3to70
6.80E-08 30YrCa ncerDerived-l nh-FAH 3to70
4.64E-08 3OYrCancerDerived lnh FAH3to70
4281577
428L599
428t68L
428t73r
428L738
428L758
4287790
428t798
428t8t6
4281838
4281851
4281928
4281960
428t973
428t986
4281998
4281990
4281983
4287975
428L966
4281958
4281949
428L940
428t932
428L923
42819L4
428L906
428t897
4281889
4281880
428L872
4281863
4287854
428L845
428t834
4281.834
428L8L4
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PROJECT TITLE:
Residential lncremental Gancer Risk
ooCJN
6 $t qt
o(>
ot
oC! rf
Eg
TRO\r z
=F
-to
F
€oN
t
a
o(o
o(\\t
o
ola)
cof{rf
657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300
0.5 1.0 2,4 5.0
HELIX Environmental Planning
SOURCES: COMPANY NAME:
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUTryPE:
Risk
scALE: 1:4,963
0l- - J0.1 km
PROJECT NO.:
11r21t2020 coF-32
MAx: DATE:
Risk in chances per million
COMMENTS:
AERMOD View - Lakes EnMronmantal Software
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Residential Chronic Risk
'FHARP - HRACalc vt9}44IL/20/2O2O 9:18:14 AM - Chronic Risk R7
REC
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R5
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R17
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R35
R37
GRP
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
NETID MAXHI
3.62E-03
2.72E-03
2.85E-03
1.77E-03
L.74E-03
1.71E-03
2.08E-03
2.10E-03
2.22E-03
2.45E-03
2.63E-03
1,.29E-02
L.6tE-02
1.53E-02
1.56E-02
t.45E-02
1.36E-02
1.33E-02
t,27E-02
1.23E-02
1.18E-02
L.t4E-02
1.13E-02
1.16E-02
1.23E-02
1.34E-02
1,.37E-02
t,23E-02
1.05E-02
8.27E-03
6.34E-03
4.81E-03
3.72E-03
2.95E-03
2.33E-03
1.89E-03
1.29E-03
X Y SCENARIO
658172 4287577 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658204.3 4281599 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658t7 7 .6 428t68L NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l nh
658221 428L7 31, NonCa ncerChronicDerived-l nh
65821.6.2 42817 38 N onCa nce rCh ro n icDe rived-l n h 65821L.2 42817 58 NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
658184.5 4281190 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658186.7 4281798 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
558189.5 428t8t6 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658194.3 4281838 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658196.8 428L851- NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658103.2 428t928 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658071-.8 4281960 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658060.4 428t973 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658051.7 4281986 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
558043.1 428L998 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658012.3 428I99O NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
658000.9 4281983 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657988.3 428L975 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657977 4281966 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657 966.5 428t958 NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
657 954.9 4281949 N onCa ncerCh ron icDerived-l n h
657944.2 4281940 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
557933.3 428t932 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657 921..4 4281923 N onCa nce rCh ron ic De rived-l n h 657910.8 428L9L4 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657900.6 428I9OG NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657 888.2 4281897 NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
657 877 .8 428L889 NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
657866.5 4281880 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657855.3 4281872 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657 844.1. 428L863 N onCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
657832.5 4281854 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
657 82O.3 4281845 NonCa ncerCh ronicDerived-l n h
657808 428t834 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
65779L.5 4281834 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
6577 64 42818L4 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PROJECT TITLE:
Residential Maximum Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard lndex
oo
C.l
coc{
l'
c)
N@c{rt
o
o
o)
@
c{$
E
-c
o:< zd
=6= e.r F\t f
o
oFcoNrf
c)o(o
coNs
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300
--l
0.020 0.050 0.100
CON4MENTS:
Risk in maximum hazard index
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAME:
HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:
Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,808
0t-
-t0.1
km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Worker Cancer Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc v19044 LU2O/2O20 8:5L:22 AM - Cancer Risk
REC GRP NETID X Y RISK-SUM SCENARIO
CL ALL 658281.4 428t574 1.04E-08 25YrCancerDerived-lnhSoilDerm CZ ALL 658296.2 4281585 9.41E-09 2sYrCancerDerived-lnhSoilDerm C2 ALL 658208.6 428L69! 1.30E-08 2sYrCancerDerived-lnhSoilDerm C4 ALL 658217.L 428t9LO 2.02E-08 2sYrCancerDerived-lnhSoilDerm
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PROJECT TITLE:
Worker lncremental Cancer Risk
o
e
c{ @N.tt
o
oo)
@
s
Foco
=6b$z
F
lo o
t.-
6 c{.+
o
(o
cof!<i
o
ro
@C.l $
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
6581 00 658200 658300
0.1 00 0.500
CON4IMENTS:
Risk in chances per million
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAI/IE:
HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:
Risk
SCALE: 1:4.963
0t-- ,,f 0.1 km
[/lAX: DATE:
11t2',v2020
PROJECT NO.
coF-32
AER[rOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Worker Chronic Risk
*HARP - HRACalc vL90447L|2O/2O2O8:52:49 AM - Chronic Risk
REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO
C1 ALL 65828t.4 4281574 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnhSoilDerm C2 ALL 658296.2 4281585 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnhSoilDerm CZ ALL 658208.6 4287697 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnhSoilDerm C4 ALL 658217.7 428L970 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnhSoilDerm MAXHI
8.37E-03
7.57E-03
1.05E-02
7.62E-O2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PROJECT TITLE:
Worker Maximum Non-Gancer Ghronic Hazard lndex
ct o
N
co(\rf
ooo(\6
(\l !t
oodt
co6t sf
E
c
L.o5 z6
l- =Rtf f
o
of\
F(\l
.n
(f
c) (o
co(\tf
657700 657800 657S00 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300
0.050 0.100 0-500
COMMENTS:
Risk in maximum hazard index
SOURCES:
1 COlilPANY NAME:
HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:
Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,808
0 r- --l
0.1 km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Soflware
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Acute Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc vI9O44 7t/2O/2O20 8:38:30 AM - Acute Risk
REC
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
R17
R17
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R26
R27
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R36
R37
c1
C2
c2
c4
GRP
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
NETID X
658172
658204.3
658t77.6
658227
65821.6.2
658211..2
658184.6
558L86.7
558189.5
658194.3
658196.8
658103.2
658071.8
658060.4
558051.7
658043.1
6s8012.3
658000.9
657988.3
657977
657966.5
657954.9
657944.2
557933.3
657921.4
657910.8
657900.6
557888.2
657877.8
657855.5
657855.3
657844.1
657832.5
657820.3
557808
657791.5
657764
65828r.4
658296.2
658208.6
658277.L
Y SCENARIO
4281,577 NonCancerAcute
428t599 NonCancerAcute
428L681, N onCa ncerAcute
42817 3I NonCa ncerAcute
42817 38 NonCa ncerAcute
42817 58 N onCa nce rAcute
428t7 90 NonCancerAcute
428L7 98 NonCa ncerAcute
42818LG N o n Ca n cerAcute
4281838 N on Ca nce rAcute
428t85t N onCa nce rAcute
428L928 NonCancerAcute
4281960 NonCancerAcute
428797 3 NonCa ncerAcute
428L986 N onCa nce rAcute
428L998 NonCancerAcute
4281990 N on Ca n ce rAcute
4281983 N o n Ca n cerAcute
428197 5 NonCa ncerAcute
42819 66 N onCa nce rAcute
4281958 N onCa nce rAcute
428t949 NonCancerAcute
4281940 NonCancerAcute
4281932 N o n Ca n cerAcute
4281923 N onCa nce rAcute
428L9t4 NonCancerAcute
428t9O6 NonCancerAcute
4281897 NonCa ncerAcute
4281889 NonCancerAcute
4281880 NonCancerAcute
428t872 NonCancerAcute
4281863 NonCancerAcute
4281854 NonCancerAcute
4281845 NonCancerAcute
4281834 NonCancerAcute
4281834 N onCa n cerAcute
428tgl4 NonCancerAcute
428t57 4 NonCancerAcute
4281585 NonCancerAcute
428169L NonCancerAcute
428L9tO N onCa ncerAcute
MAXHI
7.2LE-02
6.97E-02
9.60E-02
8.54E-02
8.64E-02
8.93E-02
1.03E-01
1.06E-01
9.55E-02
9.39E-02
9.03E-02
1.08E-01
1.16E-01
7.14E-OL
1.11E-01
1.07E-01
1.15E-01
L.2LE-01.
1.25E-01
1.33E-01
1_.44E-OL
1.53E-01
1.59E-01
1.72E-01.
1..74E-07
1.82E-01
1.92E-0L
t.tgE-or
1..79E-07
1..7gE-Or
r.67E-Ot
1.65E-01
7.62E-OL
1.98E-01
1.78E-01
1.57E-01
t.L7E-O1.
5.58E-02
5.51E-02
8.41E-02
7.37E-O2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PROJECT TITLE:
Non-Cancer Acute Maximum Hazard lndex
oooNoc{+
ooOt
@6t +
FoEO
gEb$z
=F
fg
F
6(\t
oo(o
o6t \i
oou)
€$t t
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East fml
658100 658200 658300
0.20 0.50 1.00
COMMENTS:
Risk in maximum hazard index
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAME:
HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUTryPE:
Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,963
0 r-=-- - t 0.1 km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
[sAC] SACRAM ENTO/EXE CUTIV
Windrose Plot [All Year]
Period of Record: 0L Jan 1970 - L4 Jan 20Lg
6.1 N-W
w
sE Summary
n: 444759
Missing: 17816
Calm: 20.6%
Generated: 14 Jan 2019 s Avg Speed: 6.6 mph
Wind Speed lmPhl
iI z-s I >r f, r-ro @ ro-r: I rs-ao I zo+
N
N-E
E
}W
- 4.9
-. 3.7
^ 2.4
1.2 t
I
I
,
i
i
I
I
t
I
j
I
I
J
i
I
t
J
I
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Gontrol Pathway
Titles
C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 H R/q\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\ Dispersion Options
lil Regulatory Default [-l Non-Default Options
Dispersion Coefficient
Rural
Output Type
lEl Concentration
fl rot"l Deposition (Dry & Wet)
E oo DePosition
f wet DePosition
Plume Depletion
E ooRemoval
fl wet Removal
Output Warnings
E *o outPut Warnings
l_L Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Options
Pollutant / in Time / Terrain O ons
project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software co - 1
AERMOD
Terrain Height Options
fl rrat p el.u"tuo
Exponential Decay
Option not available
SO: Meters
RE: Meters
TG: Meters
Pollutant Type
OTHER - MULTIPLE
Averaging Time Options
trtrtrtr trtrtrtr
1 tr tr
34 Hours
8 1224
l-L Annual
6 Period
2 Month
Flagpole Receptors
Ives E*o
Default Height = 1.20 m
11t21t2020 Page 428
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Control Pathway
Optional Files
f-L ne-start rite f-L tnit nte l-L Multi-YearAnalyses l--L Event lnput File IEI Error Listing File Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.err
AERMOD
Project File: ClUsers\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 2 11t21t2020 Page 429 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Source Pathway - Source lnPuts
Point Sources
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes'isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1
AERMOD
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Release Emission
Rate
ls/sl
Gas Exit
Temp.
IKI
Gas Exit
Velocity
lm/sl
Stack lnside
Diameter
lml
X Coordinate Y Coordinate
lml
Height
ImI lml
657967.00
Stack
4281782.00 50.33 5.97 1.00000 855.37 4.47 0.51
Source
ID
STACKl
Source
Type
POINT
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Source Pathway
Source lD: STACKl
Heights [m] ({0 to 360 deg)
1 0-60 deg
7Q-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
3.44 3.44
Widths [m] ({0 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
7Q-120 deg
130-180 deg
1 90-240 deg
250-300 deg
31 0-360 deg
12.51 14.85
'16.66
12.51 14.85
16.66 10.24
16.22 17.25
10.24 16.22
17.25 7.65
17.10 17.31
7.65 17.10
17.31 8.26
17.46 16.84
8.26 17.46
16.84 '10.81
17.29 15.87
10.81 17.29
15.87 13.03
16.59 14.41
13.03 16.59
14.41 Lengths [m] (1 0 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg
17.46 16.84
8.26 17.46
16.84 8.26
17.29 15.87
10.81 17.29
15.87 '10.81
16.59 14.41
13.03 16.59
14.41 13.03
16.66 12.51
14.85 16.66
12.51 14.85
17.25 10.24
16.22 17.25
10.24 16.22
17.31 7.65
17.10 17.31
7.65 17.10
Along Flow [ml (10 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg
-15.63
-12.12
-0.93
-1.82
-4.72
-7.34
-15.49
-'10.58
-1.1 I
-1.79
-5.29
-9.63
-14.88
-8.72
-1.41
-1.71
-5.69
-11.62
-14.41
-6.59
-1.59
-2.26
-5.92
-13.26
-14.07
-4.26
-1.72
-3.18
-5.97
-14.50
-13.30
-1.81
-1.80
4.01 -5.84
-1 5.30
Across Flow [m] (10 to 360 deg)
'10-60 deg
7O-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg
0.34 -5.84
-6.08
-0.34
5.84 6.08
-0.85
-6.39
-5,44
0.85 6.39
5.44 -2.02
-6.75
4.64 2.02
6.75 4.64
-3.21
-6.90
-3.70
3.21 6.90
3.70 -4.22
-6.85
-2.65
4.22 6.85
2.65 -5.11
-6.59
-1.51
5.11 6.59
1.51 AERMOD
Building Downwash lnformation
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Page 431 SO2 - 1 11t2112020 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Source Pathway
For Concentration
Unit Factor:
Emission Unii Label:
Concentration Unit Label:
1E6
GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Emission Rate Units for OutPut
project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes'isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 2
AERMOD
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (lf applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (lf applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian RecePtors
project File: ClUsers\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software REI - 1 1112112020 Receptor
Network lD
Grid Origin
X Coordinate lml
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate [m]
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis lml
Spacing for
Y-Axis lml
UCART1 657622.00 4281537.00 70 50 't0.00 10.00
Record
Number x-coordinate lml Y-Coordinate [m]
Group Name
(Optional) Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 I
I
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 65817'1.99
658204.25
658177.63
658220.99
658216.22
658211.15
658184.55
658186.65
658189.46
658194.31
658196.77
6581 03.22
658071.77
658060.39
658051.68
658043.07
658012.30
658000.94
657988.34
657977.03
657966.52
657954.91
657944.16
657933.29
657921.43
657910.81
4281576.80
4281599.32
4281680.58
4281730.59
4281737.74
4281758.13
4281789.89
4281798.48
4281816.10
4281838.45
428 1 850.98
4281927.78
4281 959.88
4281973.04
4281985.75
4281 998.03
4281989.53
4281982.74
4281974.95
4281966.32
4281958.41
4281949.27
4281940.37
4281931.72
4281922.83
4281913.81
56.25 56.72
56.34 57.89
58.30 58.69
58.01 58.07
58.09 58.23
58.27 55.35
54.86 54.92
55.07 55.31
53.82 53.45
53.12 52.45
51.82 51.24
50.78 50.35
49.89 49.47
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Receptor Pathway
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
20 40
41 657900.56
657888.20
657877.82
657866.46
657855.34
657844.'t0
657832.49
657820.26
657807.97
657791.51
657763.95
658281.43
658296.1 7
658208.56
65821 7.08
AERMOD
4281905.53
4281897.13
4281889.10
4281879.84
4281872.06
4281863.28
4281853.90
4281845.37
4281834.37
4281834.17
4281813.59
4281574.43
4281 585.05
4281690.93
4281910.37
49.05 48.45
47.97 47.51
47.00 46.48
46.03 45.60
45.10 44.60
43.54 57.67
58.20 56.99
58.57 Plant Boundary Receptors
project File: ClUsers\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 2 11t2112020 Page 434 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Filename: ..\Exec 10-14 NlMD.SFC
Format Type: Default AERMET format
Profile Met Data
Filename: ..\Exec 10-14 NlMD.PFL
Format Type: Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
fl WinO Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:
Potential Temperatu re Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 10.00 lml Meteorological Station Data
Stations Station No. Year X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m] Station Name Surface
UpperAir
2010
2010
SACRAM ENTO/EXECUTIVE ARPT
OAKLANDA/VSO AP
Data Period
Data Period to Process
Start Date: 11112010 Start Hour: 1 End Date: 1213112014 End Hour: 24 Wind Speed Categories
Stability Category Wind Speed [m/sl Stability Category Wind Speed [m/sl B
c
1.54 3.09
5.14 D
E
F
8.23 10.8
No Upper Bound
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 11t21t2020
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Output Pathway
Short Term
Averaging
Period
RECTABLE
Highest Values Table
MMTABLE
Maximum
Values Table
DAYTABLE
Daily
Values Table
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1oth
1 tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tI tr No
Tabular Printed Outputs
Gontour Plot Files (PLoTFILE)
Path for PLOTFILES: COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.AD project File: ClUsers\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software oU - 1
AERMOD
Averaging
Period
Source
Group lD
High
Value File Name
1 Period
ALL
ALL
1st
NiA
O,IH l GALL.PLT
PEOOGALL.PLT
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
HARP Project Summary Reportlt/2I/2020 10:12:35 AM
** *PROJECT INFORMATION ***
HARP Version: 19121
Project Name: COF-32 LAKESIDE CREMATORIUM HARP
HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:39
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrlD StklD ProlD PollD PolAbbrev Multi MWAF
75070 Acetaldehyde
71432 Benzene
7440417 Beryllium
7440439 Cadmium
18s40299 Cr(Vl)
7440508 Copper
50000 Formaldehyde
7664393 HF
7439921 Lead
7439976 Mercury
7440020 Nickel
7782492 Selenium
108883 Toluene
75014 Vinyl Chloride
1330207 Xylenes
744O666 Zinc
56553 B[a]anthracene
s0328 B[a]P
205992 B Ib]f I uoranthen
207 089 B Ik]f luora nthen
218019 Chrysene
53703 Dla,hlanthracen
193395 ln[1,2,3-cd]pyr
L7460r6 2,3,7,8-rCDD
40321764 L-3,7,8PeCDD
39227286 1-4,7,8HxCDD
57653857 1-3,6-3HxCDD
L9408743 1-3,7-9HxCDD
35822469 1-4,6-SHpCDD
51207319 2,3,7,8-TCDF
57I774t6 1-3,7,8PeCDF
57tt73I4 2-4,7,SPeCDF
70648269 1-4,7,8HxCDF
57Lt7449 1-3,6-8HxCDF
72978219 1-3,7-9HxCDF
60851345 2-4,6-8HxCDF
67562394 1-4,6-8HpCDF
55673897 1-4,7-9HpCDF
7440382 Arsenic
MaxHr Ems
(lbs/hd
7.27E-05
3.54E-05
2.28E-06
7.72E-05
1.91E-05
4.34E-05
1.90E-05
0.000802
0.000103
0.00416
5.98E-05
3.44E-05
0.00115
3.70E-06
1.93E-05
0.000551
1.33E-08
4.90E-08
1.12E-08
1.01E-08
5.98E-08
9.04E-09
1.08E-08
1.02E-10
2.98E-10
3.54E-10
5.10E-10
6.32E-10
4.84E-09
6.86E-10
3.81E-10
1.16E-09
L24E-09
1.10E-09
2.15E-09
4.45E'IO
5.89E-09
3.58E-10
5.04E-05
Annual Ems
(tbs/yd
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACK].
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
sTACK1
STACKlsTACK1
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACK].
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
sTACK1
STACKl
sTACK1
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
L
t
1 t
1 1
1 1
t
t
I
L
1 t
1 t
t
1. 1
t
I
1 1
!
t
1 1
T
1 t
1 1
1 1
7 I
1 1
1 t
t
7 7
1 1.
T
1 1
L
1 1
I
1 !
t
1. t
1 1
7 t
t
T
L
L
t
t
1 1.
1. 7
1 1
1 1
1 1
L
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0364
o.0777
0.00114
0.00859
0.00957
0.0217
0.0095
0.401
0.0517
2.77 0.0299
0.}fi2
0.573
0.00185
0.00963
0.276
5.67E-06
2.45E-05
5.51E-05
5.06E-06
3.49E-05
4.52E-06
5.39E-06
5.11E-08
t.49E-07
t.77E-O7
2.55E-07
3.16E-07
2.42E-06
3.43E-07
1.91E-07
5.82E-07
6.18E-O7
5.49E-O7
1.07E-06
2.23E-07
2.94E-06
1,.79E-07
0.0252
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
*X*POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH 17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH19252
Official:True
PollD PolAbbrev
75070 Acetaldehyde
71432 Benzene
7440417 Beryllium
7440439 Cadmium
18s40299 Cr(Vl)
7440508 Copper
50000 Formaldehyde
7664393 HF
743992t Lead
7439976 Mercury
7440020 Nickel
7782492 Selenium
108883 Toluene
750L4 Vinyl Chloride
1330207 Xylenes
7440666 Tinc
56553 B[a]anthracene
50328 BlalP
205992 BIb]fluoranthen
2O7089 Blklfluoranthen
218019 Chrysene
53703 Dla,hlanthracen
193395 ln[1,2,3-cd]pyr
t746016 2,3,7,9-rCDD
4032t764 1-3,7,8PeCDD
39227286 1-4,7,8HxCDD
57653857 1-3,6-3HxCDD
I94O8743 1-3,7-9HxCDD
35822469 1-4,6-3HpCDD
5r2073L9 2,3,7,8-TCDF
57\174LG 1-3,7,8PeCDF
571t73I4 2-4,7,8PeCDF
70648269 1-4,7,8HxCDF
57LL7449 1-3,6-SHxCDF
72918219 1-3,7-9HxCDF
60851345 2-4,6-8HxCDF
67562394 1-4,6-3HpCDF
55573897 1-4,7-9HpCDF
7440382 Arsenic
lnhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL
0.01 0.1
8.4 15
510 0.5
0.021
0.042 0.008s
0.91 0.27
470
27 100
55 240
lnhChronicREL
t40
3 0.007
0.02 0'2
9 14
OralChronicREL lnhChronicSHRREL
300
3 0.002
0.0005
0.02 0.04
9 0.6
0.2 0.03
0.014
20 300
700
0.00016
0.011
0.005
0.06 0.06
0.39 3.9
0.39 0.39
0.039
4.1 0.39
130000
130000
13000
13000
13000
1300
13000
3900
39000
13000
13000
L3000
13000
1300
1300
t2
t.2
12 I.2
7.2 0.L2
4.7 1.2
130000
130000
13000
13000
13000
1300
13000
3900
39000
13000
L3000
13000
13000
1300
1300
1.5 37000
180000
22000
0.2 4.00E-05
4.00E-05
0,0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.004
0.0004
0.0013
0.00013
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.004
0.004
0.015
1.00E-08
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-07
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
3.30E-07
3.30E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-07
1.00E-07
1,00E-07
1,00E-06
1.00E-06
3.50E-06 0.015
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD lnput File:
AERMOD Output Filei
AERMOD Error File:
Plotfile list
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
AcuteGLCList.csv
AcuteHRAlnput.hra
AcuteNCAcuteRisk.csv
AcuteNCAcuteRiskSum ByRec.csv
AcuteOutput.txt
AcutePathwayRec.csv
AcutePolDB.csv
ResCancerCa ncerRisk.csv
ResCa ncerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResCancerG LCList.csv
ResCancerH RAI nput.hra
ResCancerOutput.txt
ResCa ncerPathwayRec.csv
ResCa ncerPol DB. csv
ResChronicG LCList.csv
ResChronicH RAlnput.hra
ResChronicN CChronicRisk.csv
ResChronicNCChro nicRiskSumByRec.csv
ResChronicOutput.txt
ResChronicPathwayRec.csv
ResChronicPolDB.csv
WorkCa ncerCancerRisk.csv
WorkCa ncerCa ncerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkCancerG LCList.csv
WorkCancerHRAlnput.hra
WorkCancerOutput.txt
WorkCa ncerPathwayRec.csv
WorkCancerPolDB.csv
WorkChronicG LCList.csv
WorkChronicH RAlnput.hra
WorkChronicNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkChronicNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkChroni cOutput.txt
WorkChronicPathwayRec.csv
WorkChronicPolDB.csv
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Attochment C
Addendum to the Folsom Lokeside
Cremotorium Project Air Quolity ond
Greenhouse Gos Emissions
Assessment
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 150
Folsom, CA 95630
916.365.8700
www. helixepi.com
HEL'X
Env i ro n m e ntal P I an ni n g
November 5,202t Project 02576.00032.001
Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom, Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Subject: Addendum to the Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Dear Mr. Johnson
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. (HELIX) completed the Folsom Lokeside Cremotorium Project Air Quality ond Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment in July 2021 (HELIX 20211. Following the completion of the July 2021- analysis, Caring Services Group (Applicant) has requested alterations to the operating hours and number of daily cremations to occur on site. This Addendum provides an updated analysis based on these alterations.
PREVIOUS ANATYSIS
The July 2021 letter report assessed the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project (project), including a health risk assessment (HRA) to evaluate potential community health risks from the project's emissions. The analysis was prepared to support environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The analysis assumed a maximum cremation process rate of 200 pounds per hour, 400 pounds per day, and 100,000 pounds per year based on information provided by Applicant. The project's emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors were found to be below Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) thresholds and result in a less than significant impact. Community health risks resulting from emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from the project's operation of a crematory were evaluated in an HRA following the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)guidelines. Project TAC emissions were found to result in less than significant impacts. The project was not found to be a substantial source of objectional odors and odor impacts were disclosed as less than significant. The project was found to be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy and GHG emissions impacts were disclosed as being less than significant. The project was found to not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact was disclosed as less than significant.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,2021,
REVISED ANATYSIS
As discussed previously, the Applicant has requested alterations to the operating hours and number of daily cremations to occur on the site. The Applicant has requested an increase in the daily process rate from the previously analyzed 400 pounds per day to a new value of 800 pounds per day. There are no changes to the project that would affect the construction analysis previously conducted. The analysis that follows focuses on daily operational emissions.
The HRA previously conducted to evaluate potential community health risks from the project's TAC emissions relies on the maximum hourly emissions rate and the average annual emissions generated by project operations. The hourly cremation process rate was previously set based on the maximum hourly capacity of the crematory; therefore, there is no change to the hourly process rate or maximum hourly emissions. The Applicant has not requested alteration to the total number of cremations to occur per year; therefore, there is no change to the annual cremation process rate or average annual emissions profile. Therefore, the potential health risks from the project would remain the same as previously disclosed.
Melhods
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 (USEPA 2008), and crematory emissions factors provided by the SMAQMD, which combined USEPA AP-42 data and the USEPA Factor lnformation Retrieval Program (SMAQMD 2O2Oa)' Air Quolity lmpocl AnolYsis
Operation of a propane-fired crematory would be considered a new stationary source of emissions' The project may be subject to SMAQMD's Rule 2OI, Generol Permit Requirements, and Rule 202, New Source Review. The project would be required to implement best available control technology (BACT) for the minimization of emissions. BACT for crematories is incorporated into the product design in the form of controls which ensure maintenance of the correct temperatures and cycle times, and a secondary combustion chamber which ensures oxygenation and complete combustions of all fuels. As described in the Methods sections, above, criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for longi-term operation of the proposed crematory were calculated using propane combustion emissions factors from AP-42 and crematory emission factors provided by SMAQMD. The project's calculated criteria and precursors operational emissions are compared to the SMAQMD thresholds in Table L, Operotionol Criteria Pollutont and Precursor Emissions, and the calculation output sheets are included in Attachment A to this letter.
HELIX Envlrcnnenlal Plannlng Page 442
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Project Emissions SMAQMDThreshold
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,202L
Table 1
OPERATIONAT CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS
Pollutant
Exceed
Threshold?
Daily Emissions per doy)
ROG
NOx
co
SOx
PMro
PMz,s
Source: SMAQMD 2O20a; SMAQMD 2020b
As shown in Table 1, the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SMAQMD daily thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
SUMMARY
The project's daily emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would remain below SMAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. All other quantified emissions and significance determinations remain unchanged from what was presented in the July 2O2L Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quolity ond Greenhouse Gos Emissions Assessment.
Sincerely,
--i -'
L- -*-
Victor Ortiz
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:
Attachment A: Emissions Calculation Sheets
HELIX
No
No
No
No
No
No
0.2 65
2.4 65
1.8 None
0.9 None
0.5 80
0.5 82
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,2027
REFERENCES
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2O20a. Electronic communications between HELIX Environmental Planning (Victor Ortiz) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Venk Reddy); attachments to communications containing crematory emissions calculations. August and November. 2O2Ob. SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table. April. Available at:
http://www,airqualitv.orgllandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources, 1.5 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion. Available at:
https ://www.epa.gov/sites/prod uction /fi les/2020-
09/documents/1.5 liquefied petroleum sas combustion.pdf.
HEL'X
Envtonnenl?,l Ptannlfig Page 444
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Crematory Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Emissions from Propane Combustion
KBTU/CycIe 1,800
KBTU/Gallon 91.502
Gallons/Cvcle 79.672
Cvcles/Day 4
Cvcles/Year 500
Pollutant
Emission Factor
llhs/1000 Balll
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
ROG3 1 0.08
NOx 13 7.02
SOx 0.054 0.00
PMlO 0.7 0.06
PM2.54 o.7 0.06
co 7.5 0.59
Emissions from Combustion of Human Remains
lbs/day
Maximum
Throughput 800
Total Emissions
Pollutant
Emissions
{lbs/dav)
ROG 0.2
NOx 2.4
SOx 0.9
PMlO 0.5
PM2.5 0.5
co 1.8
Notes:
l-. Emissions factors for propane from USEPA AP-42 Chapter L, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion, Table 1.5-1'
2. Emissions from combustion of human remains provided by SMAQMD and are from USEPA Factor lnformation REtrieval (FIRE) Program Data System (3/08)'
3. ROG fraction of TOC for propane combustion unavailable, ROG assumed to be equal to Pollutant
Emission Factor
llbs/ton)2
Emissions
(lbsldav)
ROG 0.299 o.r2
NOx 3.560 1.42
SOx 2.r70 0.87
PMlO 1.130 0.45
PM2.54 1.130 0.45
co 2.950 1.18
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Appendix C
Tribol Consultotion Record
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
RP Cons Inc.
ENVIR N SII 1'AN1'
January 8,2021
Robert Edgerton, AICP CEP
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, California 95630
RE: Triba1 Consultation Record for Comptiance with Assembly BilII 52 and CEQA for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Proiect, City of Folsom
Dear Mr. Edgerton:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), requires that the City of Folsom provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA review, and consult with tribes that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) defines California Native American tribes as "a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004." This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. For the City, these inciude the following tribes that previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing:
r': Wilton Rancheria (letter dated January 13,2020);
n lone Band of Miwok lndians (letter dated March 2, 2016);and e United Auburn lndian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria (letter dated November 23,2015).
The purpose of consultation is to identify Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be significantly impacted by the proposed Project, and to allow the City to avoid or mitigate significant impacts prior to project approval and implementation. Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA AS:
Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
20 20-162 Fol so m Crem otori u m
2525WarrenDrive r Rocklin, CA95677 r Tel:(916) 782-9tOO r Fax: (916) 782-9134 r www'ecorpconsultinq.com
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 , for the purposes of this paragraph the lead agency shallconsiderthe significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Because the first two criteria also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators and can only be identified by a culturally affiliated tiibe, which has been determined under State law to be the subject matter expert for TCRs.
CEQA requires that the City initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements summarized above, the City carried out, or attempted to carry out, tribal consultation for the Project. The methods and results of tribal consultation are summarized below, and a copy of the complete non-confidential administrative record is provided in Attachment A.
1.0 SUMMARY OF CONSUTTATION
Within 14 days of initiating CEQA review for the Project, on November 25,2020, the City sent Project notification letters to the three California Native American tribes named above, which had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC. Each tribe was provided a brief description of the Project and its location, the contact information for the City's authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation.
1.1 lone Bond of Miwok lndiqns
The lone Band of Miwok lndians did not respond to the City's notification letter, and therefore, the threshold for carrying out tribal consultation with that tribe under PRC 21080.3.1(e) was not met.
1.2 UA|C
On December 11,2020, and within the 30-day response timeframe, the City received an automated email from the United from UAIC that acknowledged receipt of the City's notification letter, thanked the City for consulting with UAIC, and attached the tribe's consultation record for the project. The response did not include any information on TCRs and indicated that the Tribal Historic Preservation Department would review the Project and respond; however, no further communication was received from UAIC. Because the tribe failed to provide comments or engage with the City pursuant to PRC 21082.3(d)(2), the City considers this consultation requirement complete.
1.3 Willon Roncheriq
On December 1,2020, and within the 30-day response timeframe, Wilton Rancheria representative Mariah Mayberry responded to the City's initial notification letter by email requesting to formally initiate c)
ECORP Consulting, lnc.
Lake side C re mato r i u m P roject 2
January 2021
2020-162
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
consultation under AB 52 on the Project. ln her response, Ms. Mayberry stated that the tribe would like to discuss the type of environmental review that is being conducted for the Project, Project alternatives, any significant effects, and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that the Project may cause to tribal cultural resources. Ms. Mayberry also requested a copy of the cultural resource assessment and results of the record search. Although she did not indicate or suggest that there are TCRs within the Project Area, Ms. Mayberry provided Wilton Rancheria's recommended mitigation measures for TCRs.
On December 14,2020, the City formally initiated consultation with Wilton Rancheria by inviting Ms.
Mayberry to a virtual meeting on December 17,2020.1n the City's initiation letter to the tribe, Associate planner Josh Kinkade further clarified that the purpose of the Project is to remodel an existing shed, and that there will be no mass grading or excavation associated with the Project. Additionally, Mr. Kinkade provided a link to the Cultural Resources lnventory Report, prepared by ECORP Consulting, lnc. (2020) and a copy of the meeting agenda. Mr. Kinkade requested that if Ms. Mayberry is unable to attend that she contact him to reschedule the meeting to another time that is mutually agreeable.
On Decembe r 15, 2020, Ms. Mayberry contacted the City to indicate that she is unavailable to meet at the scheduled time. The City offered another meeting on January 5,2021, at 8:30 a.m. On January 4,2021'Ms.
Mayberry contacted the City and asked that the meeting be scheduled for 10:00 a.m. instead, and the City accepted. After Ms. Mayberry or any other tribal representatives failed to report to the meeting at the scheduled time, the meeting was terminated by the City after 20 minutes. At approximately noon on January 5, Ms. Mayberry emailed the City to request availability for January 6, and the City offered 3:30 p.m. for another meeting. Ms. Mayberry did not attend the meeting and did not respond to the City to reschedule again. Because the tribe failed to engage meaningfully with the City after a reasonable and good-faith effort composed of multiple attempts to meet with the tribe, pursuant to PRC 21082.3(dX2), the City considers this consultation requirement complete. Should Wilton Rancheria, or any other culturally affiliated tribe, submit public comments, the City will consider them in accordance with Section 11(b) of AB 52; however, after completing the required notification and consultation procedures specified in AB 52 and the PRC, the City has not been provided any information about TCRs that could be affected by the proposed Project. Therefore, the determination of impacts to TCRs is drawn from other lines of evidence, as summarized below.
1.4 RecommendedFindings
lnformation about potential impacts to TCRs was drawn from the ethnographic context, the results of a search of the Sacred Lands File of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and the results of a cultural resources inventory prepared by ECORP (2020). The methods and results of these efforts are provided in ECORP 2020 and are hereby incorporated by reference. ln summary, the ethnographic information reviewed forthe Project, including ethnographic maps, does not identify any villages, occupational areas, or resource procurement locations in oraround the current ProjectArea. ln addition, the Sacred Lands File failed to identify any sacred lands or tribal resources in or near the Project Area' The cultural resources survey did not reveal any Native American archaeological sites within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area. Finally, as summarized above, two of the three tribes notified of the Project responded to the City's offer to consulU however, none provided any information about TCRs in the ECORP Consulting, lnc.
Lakesid e Crem atori u m P roiect
3 January 2021
2020-162
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Project Area. This is not unexpected, as the Project is in a highly disturbed environment and does not involve substantial ground disturbance. As noted in the City's initial notification letter and follow up correspondence with tribes:
"the purpose of this project is to remodel an existing shed to install crematory equipment inside of it, which is a high-temperature furnace with associated equipment. The existing driveway area adjacent to the shed will be subject to minor improvements, but there is no mass grading or major excavation associated with the remodeling of the shed. There will be no new construction of buildings or structures" (Josh Kinkade to Mariah Mayberry, December 14,2020).
ln reviewing the lines of evidence summarized above, this Project will not have an impact on known TCRs.
There exists an extremely low potential for the discovery of previously unknown TCRs during Project construction, but if TCRs were to be encountered, the Project activity could result in a significant impact. lmplementation of unanticipated discovery procedures, as provided in mitigation measure TCR-1 below, would reduce that impact to less than significant.
TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. lf potentially significant Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. lf deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of lnterior's Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.
lf you have any questions, you may reach me by phone at (916) 782-9100 or by email at LWestwood @ecorpconsulti ng.com.
Sincerely,
/,;u***
Lisa Westwood, RPA
Vice President and Director of Cultural Resources
Attachment A: Non-Confidential Tribal Consultation Record ECORP Consulting, lnc,
Lakeside Cren atoriu m P roject 4
January 2021
2020-162
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
REFERENCES CITED:
ECORp Consulting, lnc. 2020. Cultural Resources lnventory Report for the Lokeside Memorial Lawn Storoge Shed Project, City of Folsom, Colifornio'
EC0RP Consulting, lnc.
Lakeside Crematoriun Proiect
5 January 2021
2020-162
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
ATTACHMENT A
Non-Confidential Tribal Consultation Record
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Folsom Crematorium
AB 52 Log
City received a general request letter dated November 23,2015 from United Auburn lndian Community City received a general request letter dated January !3,2020 from Wilton Rancheria.
City received a general request letter dated March 2, 2Ot6from lone Band of Miwok lndians.
November 25,2020: lnitial notices were mailed to UAIC, lone, and Wilton Rancheria. The 30-day response window closes on December 25,2020.
December 1,2O2O: City received an email from Ms. Mariah Mayberry with Wilton Rancheria formally requesting consultation under AB 52. ln her response, Ms. Mayberry requested the opportunity for a tribal representativeto participate in cultural resource surveys and requested copies ofall cultural resource assessments and results of record searches. The tribe also provided their recommended mitigation measures to the City.
December !!,2O2O: City staff received an email from UAIC containing a PDF form that acknowledged receipt ofthe notice of opportunity to consult on the project, but the tribe did not request nor defer to engage in consultation.
December L4,2020: City initiated consultation with Wilton by email, invited to consultation meeting on 12 / t7 . W ilron req uested to resched u I e lo L / 5 / 2O2L.
January 5,2027: City held consultation meeting, however Wilton did not attend.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
U'//*,2
.ffi ffi ffi. "ffi ffi,
MrwoK United Auburn lndian Communi$
MRtou of the Aubum Rancheria
Gene Whitehouse
Chairman
John L. Williams
Vlc6 Chalrman
Danny Rey
Secretary
Brenda Adams
Treasurer
Calvin Moman
Councll Member
November 23,2015
City of Folsom Representative
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: AB 52 Notification Request, California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code section 21080.3, subd. O) Request for Formal'Notification of Proposed Projects within the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria's Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation Dear City of Folsom Representative:
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), The United Aubum Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria, which is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area within your agency's geographic area ofjurisdiction' requests formal notice of and information on proposed projects for which your agency will serve as a lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a map that depicts the ancestral territory that the UAIC is haditionally and culturally affiliated with. UAIC's haditionally and culturally affiliated geographic area is supported by, and has been developed through, multiple lines of evidence inctuCing oral tradition, history, ethnography, geography, linguistic, kinship, biology, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, other relevant information and expert opinion, and Congressi[nal action tfriigtr the Auburn Indian Restoration Act of 1994 (H.R. 4228 UCB'dl).
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), and until further notice, we hereby designate the following person as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes of receiving notices ofproposed projects from your agency:
Lead Contact:
Gene Whitehouse,
Chairman
10720 krdian Hill Road
Auburn, CA 95603
9t6-883-2320
Tribal Office '10720 lndian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883-2380
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Copies to:
Jason Camp
Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cer
lOT20lndian Hill Road
Aubum, CA 95603
(s30) 883-2320
j [email protected]
Marcos Guerrero
Cultural Resources Manager
lO72O Indian Hill Road
Aubum, CA 95603
(s30) 883-2364
mguerrero @aubumrancheria. com
We request that all notices be sent via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt and that your notices speciS a lead contact person for your agency. Following receip and review of the information yont ug"tt"y provides, within the 30-day period outlined in Public Resources Code section 2108b.3.1, subd. (d), the UAIC may request consultation, as defined by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3-2 to discuss issues including the type of environmental review to be conducted, project alternatives, significant effects of the project and mitigation measures for any project impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources' For your information, UAIC's policy is to be present during projoct cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surueys, to identif tribal cultural resources. UAIC's policy is also to be proviied all existing cultural resource assessments, including the request for and results of any records search thaimay have been conducted prior to the initial survey or consultation meeting. Finally, UAIC's general policy is preservation in place and avoidance of tribal cultural ,"ro,rrJ.r, and any subsurface testing or data recovery must not occur without first consulting with UAIC and receiving UAIC's written consent.
We recommend that your agency retain this correspondence in your permanent files. If you have any quesfions or need additional information, please contact Marcos Guerrero, Cultural Resources Manager, at (530) 883-2364 or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Gene Whitehouse,
Chairman
CC: Jason Camp, THPO
Marcos Guerrero, CRM
Cynthia Gomoz, NAHC
Tribal Office 10720 lndian Hill Road Aubum, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883'2380
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
UAIC Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation (for the purposes of California AB 52)
This area includes all of Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter and Yuba counties as well as portions of Butte, Plumas, San Joaquin, Slerra, Solano, and Yolo counties. any
Nol€: Vvhilo we make €very €ttorl to ideniify Tribel Cultursl ResourcBs that exist within lhe UAIC Geographic Aroa of Traditional and CulturalAlliliation, il is highly probebl€ lhat there are additional, older sites lhat we have not yet identified due to r€stricted access or olh6r toagons or that agricultural or construction activili€s have diskibuled burials and cultural materials beyond the previously known boundaries of theso sites. Even il these materials aae in a disturbad condition, ihey still relain cultural value to UAIC and should be resp€ctod and protected. Because of this, thorough survey wilh a qualified Native American Monitor to confirm site boundaries and search lor unknown sit€s is critical. This survey should be conductsd after consult8tion with ihe Tribe snd prior to the tinal d€termination ol the type of environmental document to be used. a
4 +
i,.
{
i
+
,{lll'l:
\
+
4 I
I
:
I
l'.i ,
on
*rir
I lrr , t: :2'l ) r, 't'-
ffi UAIC Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation. - The UAIC Goographic Ar€a ol Traditional and Cullural Allilialion boundary line is dashed to indicate thal the boundary may change as ettiliatod resources ers discovsr€d or add€d, lor example Vall€y and Sierre Miwok lonilory oxtonds terlhot 3outh.
Legend 0 510 20 l r----Miles
m8p no
commsncing any archa€ological activities in or around Sensilive areas. or
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Wilton Rancheria
9728 Kent Street, Elk Grove, CA 95624
January 13,2020
City of Folsom
50 Natoma St
Folsom, CA 95630
REz California Environmennl QualiLy Act Pubtic Resources Code section 27080.3, subd. (b) Requestfor Formal Nofficotion of Proposed
-Projects Within Wilton Rancheria Tribe's Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural AffiIiation
Dear Sir or Madam,
As of the date ofthis letter, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080'3.1, subd. (b), Wilton Rancheria, which is fadiiionally and culturally affrliated with a geographic area within your agency's geographic area ofjurisdiction, iequests formainotice of and information on proposed projects for which !o,riui"nry will serve as a lead ug"n"y under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq'
pursuant to public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), and until furthernotice, we hereby designate the following person as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes ofreceiving notices ofproposed projects from your agency:
Aftn: chairman Raymond c. Hitchcock / Director
Ralph Hatch Wilton Rancheria, Cultural Preservation
Department
9415 Rancheria Drive
wilton' cA 95693 crd@vgilton$nsheriansn. gov [email protected] We request that all notices be sent via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt. Followingreceipt and review of the information your agency provides, within the 30-day period prosoribed by Public Resources Code section 210803.1; su6a.'(A), tire Wilton Rancheria may request consultation, as defined by Public Resources Code section ztoiiO.r.t, subd. (b), pursuant to Pubtic Resources Code section 21080.3'2 to mitigate any project impacts a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources.
Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact our lead contact person listed above.
Respectfully,
Wr{afrl
Ralph Troy Hatch
Executive Director of Cultural Preservation
p. (916) 683-6000 o f. [916) 683-6015 Page 457 o www.WiltonRancheria-nsn'gov 04/26/2022 Item No.8.
tF
t2 March 2016''
, $Je
'H'|r' .#4"
for Tiibal Consullntion Pttrsuant
d!l;
&,
to the California Envirorunental
City of Fojgom
Communlty Development DePt
David Millbi Director
50 Natoma St.
Folsom Calif. 9563S,,
a,i
RE:
section 21080.3.1, subds. (b), (d) and (e) for City of Folsom Altematives
lneasures
$ig-nificant the project
The lone Band of Miwok Indians also requests consultation on the Resources Code section 2108A3.2, subd. (a)):
l! Type of cnvironnrettal teview necessary
of tribal includins any regulations,
rssources
of'tho on tribal culturel
ultematives measures for
ing, but not
#'i@ffi::Y
quality Act (CEQA), Public &
n
3 G
discretionary topics listed below(Public
biu.your agency to
We:mly recommend,
(l) Avoidance nnd prcscrvation of ilre rssoutces in placc, pursuant to Pullic Resg$€: Code section 21084.3, ' ' including, hrut not lirnited to, planning uncl construction, geotechnieil;lestsr Srtility locltion, and pedestrian surv€ys to avoid harming the resources (including water, endangereil *ibal plani resdrlrcos, and endangercd animal renources), and to protect thc cultural and naturat context, oi plannirrg gieenqpac6, parks or other open spgce, to incorpomte rhe lescurces witlt culturally nppropriaie protection an{ manogernent oriteria; p(J gox 6,ll ,t52 surh Stfcot .plynrouth.cA ?5d69.rr, 209-2d$-$800'ror ?o9;2.1$'$ll2 www,lonamlwok.org
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
fj,tc,i..
;a[#* *L*6rp
nf/.
(2) Treating the resources with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the.Sfrces, including but not limited to the following:
gprotectingtheHli['":iffi,i,:r#::-JJ:rnrtt'"'*soudit'i
.iflffi:::llE ,n" confidenrialir-v of the resource ,4F:
(3) Perniffint conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culfurally appropriate management gri.teqa for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or placcs on all or part of the "area of'projcct effeot" (APB), including; (4).|lgtecting the rcsotnce
rj,i:,,, "d#pq
Add'itionaily, rhc lonc naoa offit
sgs"ss$ments that have been completcd
,.''but'not,linrited,to:
tr"".,^..,,,.*^, lndians would like to rsceive any cultural resou 1,. The results'of any record search that may luve been I'Iistorioa I Resources Information System (CI{US)'
rF Notrttcattoillt mended by the
unreaorded are present
of the Califomia
or adjacent to
provided by.tlrs
cultural
to' detennine whether previoqqly
#,T"iltrtlHP*'
3 o
lnformntion
G Notification of whether the probabilily is low, moderate, or high that cultural APE
G Notification s0arch indicnte$ a low, modelate or
resources I APE
Informatioir
.1.r" .
,lil*l
,
2. The fesults of any archaeoiogical inventory survey that was conducted, including:
O eny rcport that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggeited mitigatiou m€asures O All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerqy objects; such information shopld be placed in a separatc confidential ddi{endum, and not be made t
,available for public disclosure in accordance with Govermnent Code Section 6254.10' .pO. Eox 6?9 ,252 Buih Slrool .Plymoulh.CA 95669otr'209-245-5800.rox 2O9-245-3ll2 wv/w.lgnomlwok.org )'
2 , -joii lr '\i
,i:ul , i,
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
'Ihe lone Band of
contaot tho Cultural Cornmittee of the lone Band of Mi
Ttiank you,
Randy Yonemurh
Cultural Committee Chair
P.O. Bdx 699
9252 Bush St., Suite 2
Plymouth, CA 95669
Tel. (209) 24s-s800
to begin consultation within 30 days of your reccipt of this letter, Please -"ffi:
f
f
y.ffi..r
.,,if,1$''
$mPll: # 't1
po 80x 69q 9252 Burh stroo! . PlyrnoulhrcA 95669'rn.2A0-2.45-5800.fdr r09-?..l$"31l? www,lOnomlwok'Otg 3 Page 460
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
{0000
$ft|nt,
n drotDt
trftr tltm
r!fitr
u$u
nufll'
d,ltr illlr t!llt
ru'[r
Fa160!r0
frut
r!!l$It
nlro'l
Is!
l.lilil
Flltrrr
rfllr
rru$
ltulrt[tQ
gtralllllr
rclulr
r0'liGS
r|tnlil|Eo
illlrqor
r6'llur il0lto0
IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDTANS
INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
og3tr>'
\
\
(t
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
Planning Mann.tler
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6206
Scott Johnson < [email protected]>
Thursday, April 18, 2019 8:53 AM
-
FW: New Contact Info
FYI
Wo9
Irr! aF F$I.#fie'[
tttt H*t tp [t [rTiltE
@ www.folsorn ca.us
From : Cynthia Tu rner <Cynthia @ionemiwok.net>
Sent: Thursday, April L8,2Ot9 8:41AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: New Contact lnfo
Good Morning
We received your letter; Randy Yonemura is no longer our Chairwoman at the lone Band Of Miwoks The new contact is Sara D. Setshwaelo - Chairwomen
Thank You,
Cynthia Turner
Admi n istrative Assista nt
Office: (209) 245-5800 x403
Cell: (209)418-8435
lone Bank of Miwok lndians
9252 Bush Street
PO Box 699
Plymouth, CA 95669
1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
November 25,2020
Il"-r{} E- *$ ffiS,i{
Sara D. Setshwaelo
Chairwoman
Ione Band of Miwok Indians
9252 Bush Street
P.O. Box 699
Plymouth, C495669
RE: Notice of Opportunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Chairwoman Setshwaelo
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located aI l20l Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.
Assembly Bill52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby noti$ring you of an opportunify to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.
In accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the Cify of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630 You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or at916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.
Thank you and we look forward to your response.
Respectfully, pffi,t&
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
November 25,2020 It''(D tr-Fl&t'1{
Gene Whitehouse
Chairman
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria
10720 Indian Hill Road
Auburn, CA 95603
RE: Notice of Opporlunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Chairman Whitehouse:
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Foruest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the exisling mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 are Io determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.
In accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Depattment, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630.
You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or a|916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.
Thank you and we look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Pfrrfl"L
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95530
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
November 25,2020 II"l{} 3- ** r$$'fl
Ralph Hatch
Director of Cultural Preseruation Department
Wilton Rancheria
9415 Rancheria Drive
Wilton, CA95693
RE: Notice of Opportunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Director Hatch:
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the CaliforniaPublic Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.
In 4ccordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630 You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or al916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.
Thank you and we look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
frfr-fl"a
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
WWW.FOtSOM.CA.US
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
RE:
itr() it- Fi '{} bil
November 25,2020
Raymond C. Hitchcock
Wilton Rancheria
9415 Rancheria Drive
Wilton, C495693
Notice of Opporlunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160)
Dear Chairman Hitchcock:
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.
In accordance with Section 21030.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630 You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or at916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.
Thank you and we look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
H6-[& Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
A1 .0
LAKESIDE MEMORIAL
LAWN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
lEv
DESICNS
VADIMANKO
7844 MADISON AVE
STE lM FAR OAKS. CA
95628
916-3122131
[email protected]
,i,',,,,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK
)700?600010m0f,sc
523591 SO, f,/ 12!2 ACRES
ZONING
W
FOLSOM, CA 95630
1201 FORREST ST
IN
PROJECT DIRECTORYDESIGNER
VAOIMANKO
LEV DESIGNS(9 1 6)31 2-21 3 1
vankoObvdesisns.com
OWNER
SHEET INDEX
SHEET DESCRPNON
BUILDING INFORMATION ABBREVIATIONS
SOUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN
SPECIAL INSPECNONS
DEFERRED SUBMITTALS:SEPARATE PERMIT
VICINITY MAP
N.l.s.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
42.0 I-AKESIDE MEMORIAL
LAUJN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
lEv
DESIGNg
VADIM ZANKO
7M MISON AVE
SE 1 M FA1R OAKS, CA
95628
91d3122131
[email protected] il
PATCH LEGEND:
PROPER1 UN€
gEIre ARA
E!SNNG
n
t--*'-l /# eoel \'\ _- *,' -i9:-
-a \r\r\
-:- \-
\ \-
\
sTooP/lNtre
EXEiTftEE
/
I
I
I
i
&1&\ _
\
\
\
\
t
I
t
/-g l6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -./
t'
.*i ,.
-/
-* - {i, '2Y .'' il ./ l" ../' ../- ./l
-.'
I
I
I
I,t\
lr
I'\ ii tt
'
t\
1\ t\
t\l\I r\
I
-/^
:i'i l'
'fl'
".t
"7
$3l
/
*09 +. . , 'i,r:,I.' :. :l-s3r.
' t. , ."ii ':
,,
r.- --*- "'uRto^,1\
., sf
I d- -(.
I
I
4 .g -J_]
.v'
t/
{
@
+
rlVtrETAI I qlTtr PI AN {tr - EOr
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
s(i a,! ler)e4,@
A2.1
lEv
DESICNS
VAOIM ZANKO
784 MADISON AE
STE 106 FAIR OAKS, CA
95528
916-312-2131
[email protected]
,i,i,,i'
LAKESIDE MEMORIAL
LAWN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
S1
(N) 2 X 5oo GALLON PROPANE TANKS
P
d-- aa.es,
6o, sl
LEGEND:
-\
(E) STRUCTURE
nat9 - -/'
PAIOH
UEtrreqbnretREE
a
(E) STRUCTURE
o
+
(E) PARKI
.q e'
o '!r'
I
'if"
I
/
l
I
I
I
(
I
I
_l s, vl
a, I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
I
{
(E) SHED
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
A3.0
'il;iiG;;iliLAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CEMETERY 1201 FORREST ST FOLSOM cA 95630 07002600010000 lEv
DESICNS
VADIMANKO
7844 MADISON AE
STE 106 FAIROAKS, CA
95628
916-312-2131
suppod@lev&signs.@m
,:i1i
(N) CREMATORY
(N) COOLER
?o
(E) SHEO
4 r^rt 4r nrr
FLOOR PUN NOTES: LEGEND WAI LEGEND
lo,adjdoi : ondio!. - PUN AR4 SOUARE FOOTAGE BRSKDOWN: rytsTtNG SHEDffiA 1.071 SA. FT.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
CrttJ o{ fttsom
bD $.|4fov\ta- 9trzet
leort, of\ Q6u7o
*s
#] 4
f*rs
tr
;'1 r il $ ffiss"s#s
arn4 oF FWgbt^A
5o Mfror*'{A gT.
FoLSot't I CA 96IDZD
hene Nhilelnoq.s€
lol ao lndian m"'lt BA . Auburn
,
ch 96bb3
Jason Cam P
Io1 Jo /ndia.n tlif Pd.
Ar^brr Fh r CA qq663
tc01i 7gs0c f{0v 25 zC2tJ f"t,qiL€n rfi0ir zlp c0sE 85S7;i !"*y, i:t s
i *j #-- -*,#
". k-_ ff l-rs Pf)STACF
s2 1F $ fififr"$Ss DCCj 1 796fiC uC\r 25 2020
MAII."FS FRCM Zitr CSDE 95S77
TTEo .!
dmr!
m
rqE
trt E
cl
rrr
ru
TT
tfrr
4*i
j^"{e
ilr{salri tr,E:E;l{i lqt
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Clh o* Fotoorrr
50 NAttw!^ Strael
Folson, CA g6tr3}
CKV pF FoLgou
bb tJPrfD f,4A. ST,
FoLiot4, cA gSCeZD
a, {'}
J
$*
it, xt&
,6s+rEs . ^$' '"
- rt r-L-t-F .. Tc* g US FOSTAGEo2 1P $ 000.500 0001 1 7s600 Nov 25 2020 I!{AILHD FROI,I ZIP CODE 95677
Sara- D. Se'lcshwa/.lo
Qtqt Bqsh S4net
P0 BoX bqq
Pttlvrro lLfif^, 0A 95bb?
MAP4oS Ghtg?eso
lDT zo lydtqn lkll f"l .
AU8UPN, cA 95bo?
fl13
F(4d
t&
02 '1 P0001 1 79600 hl0v 25 2020
I,IA|LED FROM ZIP CODE 95677
$ 000.500
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
orrY aF FOLtof\t
W NAtoMle bTpee.f
?a/.io.^^ ,CA l6blo
grtq oF FoLgora tJD NAtDllA Sf,
Far-soF,t , cA ?qb\o
#?4Ju
F.{,t}=
.!'-
-d_ it+" glr$pcsTAc["
.12 1P $ 000.s0s 000x 1 7s60n hjov ?5 2020
M,qILCD FROI*1 ZiP CODE S5677
PAL{MoND c. +{tTcHCoeF q4r5 FANCHEOTA ptl-.
WtLT-oN, eA AEUq?
nALPH l+ATc+{
?qtg' €ANc+teEtA DE.
wturbN r CA iStoiS
-t"
; iir-:T:J+
: tt* 5 IJS POSTAGE
o? lP $ 000.50CI 80cl 1 796s0 hJov ?5 2020
I"'?AiLFO F'ROM ZIP CODE 95677
I
{4{nqJ
t-" ffiil
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Postmark
Hsre
A.x
El Agent
D. lsdeliveryaddr€ss from ltem
lf YES, enter d€livery address below: E No
r Complete items 1,2, and 3.r Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you.
I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if permits.
1. Micle Addressed to:
&ene t'$a*ehousa
lo'rao lndian l{tl( 84,
&utbqrn, CA le csot
iltffilt ilil ililll llll llll ll lll llllll ll ll lll
l.lu- r{l
-.0
mr!
m
r{
E:] EI
E]
Br!r
ru
rrr{E] r!
95S0 9402 5809 0034 9782 65
2. Article Number
811 e1?0 t10ll, 3?31, hatl,
3. ServiceTypeO Adult Signatulg
Restric'ted Deliv€ry
Certifi€d Mail Resldcted Delivery
tr Collect on Deliverytr collect on Delivery Restricted Deliveryn lnilred Mail Mail Bestrictad DefNerY
n Priority Mail Express@tr RegisteEd MailnB R*iste€d Mail Restricted , Pelvery r{fieturn Reeipl ior
- Msdhedise
tr signatuc confirmaiiontuE Signature Confimation
Restricted Dslivery
I
Delivery $
D9l;verY
Roquir6d
Mall R€stict€d
Adult
nc#F€d
f Adult glgnatuG
F€ceipt (hardcopy)
R@iPt (elstonic) $ _-.---
$
-*--
l'iir.,r i
our website at information
for lnslruclions
PS 2015U.S. Postal Service
CENTITIED MAIL@ RECEIPTDomestic Mail
bv Pinted c. En
COMPLETE THIS SECT/ON ON DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION PS Form
, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt '
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
ffry0"'
Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Subject:
10,2020 1 1:'12 AM
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
1-Mitigation-Measures-CEQA-Avoidance.docx; 2-Mitigation-Measures- CEQA NativeAmericanMonitors.docx; 3-Mitigation-Measures-CEQA-Discoveries.docx; 4 _Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_Construction_Worker_Awareness-Training 04-19-19.docx Follow up
Flagged
I
Tha n ks,
Josh Kinkade
A.s.sociate Planrrcr
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6209
lrr r *t rol,g{tI'[
@ www. folsom. ca . us
M
rot*s{}1t:
ISh'Ir*G rFIlATf,
Flnd sutmo!al
From: Cultural Resource Department lnbox <[email protected]> Sent:Tuesday, December 7,2O2O 12:31 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <jkin [email protected]>
Cc: Cultural Resource Department lnbox <[email protected]> Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
CAUTTON: 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,
Good afternoon,
This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(a), including the type of environmental review to be conducted for the projec| project alternatives; the project's significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources. As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment. 2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. lf tribal cultural resources are identified within the project area, it is Wilton Rancheria's policy that tribal monitors must be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. ln the letter Josh Kinkade is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (916) 683- 6000 ext. 2023 or email at [email protected] to begin the consultation process.
Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected.
Sincerely,
Mariah Mayberry
Wilton Rancheria
Tel: 916.583,6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.583.5015
9728 Kent Street I Elk Grove I CA | 95624
mmavberrv@wiltonra ncheria-nsn.gov
wilton ra ncheria-nsn.gov
3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
4:26 PM
Robert Edgerton elixepi.com)
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
Josh Kinkade
A.s.sociote Plonrter
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 9'16.461.6209
ffi*
@
FffSI"ffiffin'fi t Fr f *r
:tF1 thGTrlt lill| lla"$tr
O I @ **r.rotro,n.cu.r,
rflt,sfiiu
I.$}ilh(; tlPniTT
Flnd out rnsru.l
From: Josh Kinkade
Sent: Monday, December 14,2O2O 4:25 PM
To: Cultural Resou rce Depa rtment lnbox <crd@wilton rancheria-nsn.gov> Cc: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project Dear Ms. Mayberry,
Thank you for your response, below, regarding the above-referenced project. We appreciate the tribe's interest in this project and welcome the opportunity to discuss this project in further detail with you. We are hereby initiating consultation with you under Assembly Bill 52 by inviting you to a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams at 8:30 a.m. on December 17,2020.If you are unable to attend, please contact me to schedule an altemate date.
In order to facilitate our discussion, I would like to provide some additional infotmation to you. First, the purpose of this project is to remodel an existing shed to install crematory equipment inside of it, which is a high-temperature furnace with associated equipment. The existing driveway area adjacent to the shed will be subject to minor improvements, but there is no mass grading or major excavation associated with the remodeling of the shed. There will be no new construction of buildings or structures.
Second, as requested, below is a link from which you can download a copy ofthe draft cultural resources technical report for the project, titled "Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, Folsom, California," prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Novemb er 2020). Please note that this report includes confidential information that is restricted from public distribution by state and federal law. If you are having trouble accessing the documents, you may have to open the link below in Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge. Let me know if the link isn't working. https ://ecorpconsultingmv.sharepoint.com/:f:/p/lwestwood/EhToOu3F6Y5IvGZuP8lACEoB5nGBTfeXGXTV445bLeBiRA?e:OonlEf
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
The link above also includes the link to the virtual meeting and will include a copy of the meeting agenda. If you have any questions, I can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone af (916)'461-6209. Thank you and we look forward to consulting with you.
Josh Kinkade
,4.ssrrcirrfe ItIunrt t:t'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
o:916.46i.6209
Fhiffiffiifr,ry.ffiffi
S S @ *ww.fotsom.ia.us
B& t (}l,lcll\t
/"f.-llllG t Fl}nI],
Flnd oll! nqra!
From: Cultural Resource Depa rtment lnbox <crd@wilton rancheria-nsn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December I,2O2O 12:31 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Cc: Cultural Resource Department lnbox <crd@wiltonranche > Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
CAUTIONt 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.
Good afternoon,
This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52 We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 2L080.3.2(a), including the type of environmental review to be conducted for the project; project alternatives; the project's significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources' As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment' 2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. lf tribal cultural resources are identified within the project area, it is Wilton Rancheria's policy that tribal monitors must be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. ln the letterJosh Kinkade is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (916) 683- 6000 ext. 2023 or email at [email protected] to begin the consultation process.
Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected.
Sincerely,
Mariah Mayberry
Wilton Rancheria
Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.601-5
9728 Kent Street I Elk Grove I CA | 95624
m m avberrv(owi lto n ra ncheria-nsn.gov
wiltonrancheria-nsn
3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
ryber
11,2020 3:36 PM
fW: lateslOe Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation Thank you for consulting with the UAlC.pdf
I
From
Sent: Friday, December 7I,2O2O 3:35 PM
To: Robert Edgerton (RobertE@ helixepi.com) <roberte@ helixepi.com> Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation FYl, UAIC responded with a simple acknowledgement that they logged in our letter - no response regarding consultation yet.
t
From: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Sent: Frid December 2020 3:31 PM
T
Cc: Scott Johnson <sioh [email protected]>
Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation I
Here is another letter that came in.
Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
;l.ssoc'ic le |' I ntt t u' r
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6209
grt Y aF F{}L#ffih'g f I sl l H !1lY r Hf }lfrTUF l'
os@ www. folsom. ca . us
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
B?I
r{lI,5Qu
t,(J:l\{.i t i'l}Al l:
Find oqt mqrol
From: DoNotReolv@aub ru rnra ncheria.com <DoNotReplv@auburn rancheria.com> Sent: Friday, December Lt, 2O2O 2:14 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation CAUTIONI 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.
The United Auburn lndian Community thanks you for your commitment to consultation for the following project:
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160)
You will find a copy of your consultation submission attached foryour records.
OurTribal Historic preservation Department will reviewthe project and respond as soon as possible. lf you need to speak with someone regarding the project or your submission, please contact the Tribal Office at (530) 883-2390.
The United Auburn lndian Community is now accepting electronic consultation requests and project notifications. To learn more, click here.
**This is an automated email. Replies to this address will not be received Nothing in this e-mail is intended to constitute an electronic signature for purposes of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), 15, U.S.C. SS 7001 to 7006 or the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of any state or the federal government unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this e-mail.
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Thank you for consulting with the UAIC
Please complete one form for each notification.
How to submit a consultation notification or project update 'l . One form must be completed for each proiect.
2. Forms cannot be saved and completed at a later time.
3. lnclude all relevant project information.
4. Upload file attachments. Multiple files can be attached.
5. Submit form.
6. You will receive a submission receipt via email when submission is complete. UAIC prefers our online submission form over certified or hard copy letters.
Contact the Tribal Office at (530) 883-2390 for questions or concerns. Ask for Tribal Historic Preservation or use the contact form located on our website.
Contact lnformation
Gonsulting on
Behalf of *
Second Point of
Contact
City of Folsom
Lead Agency, Consulting Firm, Tribe
Mailing Address Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Postal / Zip Code
Point of Contact for Josh Kinkade
Consultation * Primary Contact Name
PointofContact [email protected]
_ ..* Emarl
State / Province / Region
l- Yes
ls there more than one point of contact for this project? Regulatory
Consulting Under* This project fall under the following regulatory requirements:
C Federal G State of California C Federal and State
l. Other
California
Regulations
Select all that apply
17 Assembly Bill 52 (PRC 521080.3.1)
l- Senate Bill 18
l- Environmenial Quality Act (CEQA)
l- Forest Practice Rules
l- CaIMGPRA
l- Assembly Bill 168
f other
*
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Project Notification lnformation
Project Name *
Lakeside Memorial Lavr,n Storage Shed (PN 20-i60)
Please include Name and Reference Number (if applicable) *
lhrs ts a 6 NewProject
f Public Hearing
{- Notice of Availability (NOA)
(. Other
Project Description
Location
Please include a brief project description
Please include county, city, and address (if available) Project Documents
Documents u to this form are secure and only accessible the Tribal Historic Preservation team Notification Attach notification letters or announcement 12022020 Folsom Lakeside Memorial Lalvn Storage
3b0.5KB
Shed.pdf
50mb maimum upload size (Per file)
Attach project reports, project descriptions, or supporting documents 50mb maimum upload size (Per file)
Reports
Location Map Attach maps and location files. Shape files are preferred File extensions allou,red: pdf, jpS, png, km4 lpk, dbf, prj, shp, abn, sbx, xnl, shx, cpg NOTE: 50mb maximum upload size (per file).
C Mtice of Preparation (NOP)
f Existing Project
C Request for lnformation
Send Submission ReceiPt To
17 Primary Contact l- Secondary Contact F Different Email "**This form submission page is offered for the convenience of consulting agencies, developers, and their respective consultants. UAIC reviews all submissions received, but makes no guarantee that submission via this online form satisfies any particular consultation or notice requirement that exists under state or federal law.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
AGENDA
City of Folsom and Wilton Rancheria AB 52 Consultation Meeting for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project
Date
Time
Location
Host:
January 5,2021
l0:00 am
Microsoft Teams
Josh Kinkade, City of Folsom, (916) 461-6209
Meeting Objective: for the City of Folsom to share project information with the tribe and receive information from the tribe about potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to inform the CEQA document.
Overall Goal: for the City to make a decision about the project in a manner that is mindful of, and takes into consideration, impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Agenda:
1. Introductions
2. Project Orientation and Overview (City)
o Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
o Project Description
o Type and Scope of Environmental Review under CEQA
o Alternatives and Design Options Considered
o Anticipated Project Schedule
o Summary of the Cultural Resources Survey (transmitted electronically to Wilton Rancheria on December 14,2020)
3. Discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources (Wilton Rancheria) o Any Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project Area? If so:
' Description and Location
' Significant Effects, if any?
' Opportunities to Avoid, if present?
. Mitigation Measures for any Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Impacts, if they will occur?
4. Action Items
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
p Seach
fl Mrvo*ft Of6ce Home X i Lakeride Crenararium - AB 53 ' X { iii 'rtppr p EcoRP(ultvral Fes.,. E ['oDSAFE 0 Cffi(e]65 . f/ekotetotheCc.. trX
Lisa Westrr'Jood
B Myfiles
3 xecent
f. Shared
$ Recycte binShared libraries
@ T uptoau '-' tl1 Sha.e ?: Copy link ! Download tz* Automate . 1- \^r+ iLl My files Lakeside Crematorium - AB 52 Transfer Folder ,:' D Name
ili -zozr---r 6z-tolsom cremaioriun- 1 1 -:3-102...
l;'-i -'Aqenda-AB 5 J \1eeri ng-bk€sios (f em ato rr... 0jl \leetiag Link.doc]:
Modified
!es;-fiin,.,ii i il l\i{ iEr' rlaarraii eg,l
tereroe,; ar jrlt r'\,i
Modified By
ii:i i'19:i'.rr:dl15E lj;e-.tro;x
irs- i/:iv.oeJ
File size Sharing
--i Slatd"'5ha':1
r 5h:'€.1
freate shared {ibrary
Get the QneDrive epps
Return to claisic on€Driv€
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FreeConferenceCal I Services < noreply@freeconferenceca ll.com > rys,202110:1eAM FreeConferenceCall.com Detail Report
See The Top 3 Reasons People Contribute and Learn How Our Community Helps Us Keep FreeConferenceCall.com Free
Learn
More
Account lnformation
Date:
Dial-in number:
Access code:
Account:
January 5, 2021 1 0:1 0:23 AM
E 912) 770-5505
967306
#s5002 1 20
Audio
+1 916 461 6209 - CITY OF FOLSOM
+1 916 316 1456 - LISA WESTWOOD
+1 916 7829100 - ECORP SUGNET
+1 916 365 8700 - HELIX
tr
tr
tr
E
10:10:23 AM
10:10:35 AM
10:10:37 AM
1 0:1 0:48 AM
10:18:49 AM
10:18:46 AM
'1 0:18:45 AM
10:18:48 AM
9m
9m
9m
8nr
Number of attendees:
foll minutes:
4 35m
Note: All times in Pacific Time
Ihank you for choosing FreeConferenceCall.com, the most recognized conferencing brand on the planet. Enjoy the conference? ReferA Friend today f you have any questions, please call our Customer Service Department at (844) 844-1322 or email us at [email protected].
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
FreeConferenceCall.com
) O Box 41069 Long Beach, CA 90853
ret:l Ef te+a) 844-1322
:ax: (562) 432-5250
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Appendix D
Mitigotion Monitoring
ond Reporting Progrom
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LAKESIDE MEMORIAT IAWN CREMATORIUM
purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public Resources Code Section 21081,.6, requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be established upon completing findings. CEQA stipulates that "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." This MMRp has been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.5 of CEQA to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during the construction and operation of the project, as required. A table (attached) has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the MMRP. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, monitoring/mitigation timing, the responsible person/agency for implementing the measure, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The City of Folsom is the lead agency for the project under CEQA and shall administer and implement the MMRP.
The City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition' The City shall rely on information provided by the project site observers/monitors (e.g., construction manager, project manager, biologist, archaeologist, etc.) as accurate and up-to-date and shall provide personnel to field check mitigation measure status, as required.
LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
MtlGATIoN Morutrontruc AND REPoRTING PRoGRAM
1 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This page intentionally left blank.
LAKESTDE MevoRrnl Lawru Cnrvarontuv
MrrGAT|oN MoNtroRrNG AND REPoRTtNG PRocRAM
2 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
MITIGATION MON]TORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
Verification of
Compliance
Date
AIR
Mitigation Measure AIR-01: lmplement SMAQMD's Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.
City approval of grading and/or improvement plans for the proposed project shall include the following SMAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control Practices: . All exposed surfaces shall be watered two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads. . Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways shall be covered. . Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. . Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to l-5 miles per hour' . All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots shall be paved as soon aspossible. ln addition, building pads shallbe laid as soon as possible aftergrading unless seeding or soil binders are used. . Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes (as required by the state airborne toxics controlmeasure [Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site. . Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer's specifications. The equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determine to be runn tn r condition before it is o rated.
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during construction.
City of Folsom;
P roject
Applicant;
ConstructionContractor
lnitials
Reporting /
Responsible
Party
Monitoring / Mitigation
Timing Mitigation Measure
LAKESI DE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
Mr|GAT|oN MoNrroRtNG AND REpoRTtNG PRocRAM
3 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
QualifiedCu ltu ra I
ResourceMonitor;
ConstructionContractor
City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
QualifiedCu ltu ra I
ResourceMonitor;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during construction.
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during construction.
Mitigation Measure CUL-01: Avoid impacts to previously unknown archaeologicalresources.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activity, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to develop and deliver a contractor awareness training program to construction supervisors. The purpose of the training is to ensure that contractors areaware of the need to limit their activity, including equipment storage, staging, parking, and ground-disturbance to only those locations identified as work areas on the official site plans.
Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activity, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the installation of temporary high-visibility exclusionary fencing along the toe of existing mine tailings features adjacent to the shed. The fencing shall remain in place until all project activities are completed. City inspectors shall include a verification of the fencing during all required inspections. ln the event that exclusionary fencing has failed, the construction supervisor must re-install or repair the fence within 24 hours.
Mitigation Measure CUL-02: Minimize impacts to any previously unknown archaeological resources during construction.
lf subsurface deposits believed to be cultural in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a SO-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterior's Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained toevaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notificationsshall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
lf the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.lf the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a culturalresource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediatelynotify the City to consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate aa
LAKESIDE M EMoRIAL LAWN CREMAToRIUM
MrrcATroN MoNtroRtNG AND REPoRTTNG PRoGRAM
4 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
QualifiedCultural
ResourceMonitor;
ConstructionContractor
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during construction.
treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 1506a.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1-) is not an Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 1506a.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
Mitigation Measure CUL-03: Avoid and minimize impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains.
lf subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a SO-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterio/s Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professionaljudgment. The following notificationsshall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
lf the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect thediscovery from disturbance (AB 26411. The archaeologist shall notify theSacramento County Coroner (per $7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of 57050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, 55097.98 of the California PRC, and Assembly Bill264Lwill be implemented. lf the Coronerdetermines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project ($5097.98 of the PRC), The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. lf the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (55097.94 of the PRC). lf no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury theremains where they will not be further disturbed (55097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate lnformation Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easemen! or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the propertv is located (AB 264Ll.lf the Coroner determines that the remains are a
LAKESTDE MEMoRTAL LAWN CREMAToRTUM
MITIGATIoN MoNIToRING AND REPoRTING PROGRAM
5 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
TRIBAT CULTU RAL RESOURCES
City of Folsom;
Native
American
Representative/
Monitor or
Qualified
Cultural
ResourceMonitor;
ConstructionContractor
Prior to and during
demolition andconstruction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during demolition orconstruction.
human but are not Native American, then the Coroner will direct subsequent steps to address the discovery. Work may not resume within the no-work radius untilthe City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been co to its satisfaction.
Mitigation Measure TCR-01: lnadvertent discovery of TCRs. lf potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes thatrequested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluationand treatment, as necessary. lf deemed necessary bythe City, a qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of lnterior's Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribalvalues are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.
LAKESTDE MEMoRTAL LAWN cREMAToRtUMM rlGATtoN Mor.ttroRtttc nruo RrpoRrtruc PRocRAM 6 JANUARY 2022
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Historic District Commission
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Conditional Use Permit (PN 19-182) February 16,2022
ATTACHMENT 12
lmages of Grematoriums Adjacent to Residential
Uses in the Region
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
lr r"
t j t
I
t'
r
I
1I
I
t*
I{
rl
T
b.J
i
I t
'tt
i
t4 ...
tt
i._. -l
.ft
(f
', ri t
NORTH SACRAMENTO FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY (SACRAMENTO) "l
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
F!- vn
SIERRA VIEW FUNERAL CHAPEL AND CREMATORY (FAIR OAKS)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
- * - ,-r4-"
ar {h T Ui+rt['1 .t*f*t a*
*.q
EVERGREEN MEMORTAL (SACRAMENTO)- VtEW FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCE
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
t
t
I'
i ti t..*
+
lr
ft
,
$l \i,
'
.:"
1 I!
e
1 F*W
t
.4
r
I
i.
{
II
.*
t
t
LGI t"- l
?.'i:
,'d*F.f. .rt
l;t
,
:F
!
*
'g
frr
'r l'
'ru
a.
I
a
EVERGREEN M EMORIAL (SACRAM ENTO)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
ST. MARY'S CEMETERY AND FUNERAL CENTER (SACRAMENTO)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
SACRAM ENTO M EMORTAL LAWN (SACRAMENTO)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
AERIAL OF MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY (FAIR OAKS)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
$J'
t
"_ {f
t
t
'r.t,l '1rl#'
I
s
..-k,-
*
AERTAL OF SUNSET LAWN CHAPEL OF THE CHIMES (SACRAMENTO)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
* qr-
#q'
lr
t
/,
*-, tst',
t,t
a f,fr
Q*'I ,r "1
-l
j t 'lt *-"
&
rtr
hi 11
s ?qF5
F,-
hr
I
AERIAL OF EAST LAWN MEMORIAL PARK (SACRAMENTO)
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
LAKESTDE COLONIAL CHAPEL (MARYSVILLE)- RUN BY APPLICANT
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
t
CHAPEL OF THE TWIN CITIES (YUBA ClrY)- RUN BY APPLICANT
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
JONES MORTUARY (LAKEPORT)- RUN BY APPLICANT
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Historic District Commission
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Conditional Use Permit (PN 19-182) February 16,2022
ATTACHMENT 13
Public Gomments Received Prior to Staff Report
Publication
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Dear sirs,
I use the Folsom trail systems very regularly for fun and health. The Folsom Historic District is a unique treasure with renowned trails, quality eating and entertainment venues. When lvisit (at least twice per week) I often stop for a bite to eat after biking the trails. Should this crematorium be allowed to operate, I will be forced to consider alternate locals for my recreational biking. I simply will not tolerate smoke and ash from burning bodies in my health regiment, Most in the bike club, I belong to, feel the same way. Please be mindful of the jewel you have made in developing Historic Folsom as a tourist and recreation hub. lf this plbn is allowed to progress, I and my friends will be taking our recreation dollars elsewhere. Thank you. I am confident you will make the right decision here.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cherniski
A'" 74,
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
PR,OTECT
FOLSOM
HlsroR,lc
DISTR,ICT
Sincerely,
a7z
Dear Historic District Commissioners'
I AM:
-(-Htgx R,tsK FoR AtR, QuALlrY HEATTH lMPtlcATloNs'
-..I PANTNT OR CAREGIVER, OF A CHIlD OR CHILDREN.
AN INDIVIOUAL TA'HO INTENDS TO HAVE CHILDREN' -7ovr'n rHE AGE of 65 AND vuINER'ABLE" Yv;ii uionniso Agour THE sAFETY & tEGAcY oF HlsToR,lc Fotsotvl" _Zirdnrf iorlirnnrD ABOUT f Xlfrrt*t FlRr RtsK cAUSED BY LP rANKs lN OPEN SPACE.
I write to you with great concern about Lakeside Memorial Lawn's application for a conditional use permit to install and operate a crematorium. Lakeside Memorial Lawn's project site is designated as open Space and includes historical burial grounds' ln reviewing Lakeside Memorial's application for a condition use permit, the following concerns require your attention and action on the community's behalf:
TOXICITY IEVELS UNSAFE FOR CI{ILDR,EN, VULNER.ABLE
The lnitial Study by HELIx Environmental Planning, lnc. notates levels for harmful toxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Such toxins become the most dOngerouswhen voporized.The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes' The report designates the levels as "not significant"'This applies onlyto averaSe, healthy adults' The study f alls to report signif icant arrd potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing chlldren, elderly, and those wlth existing health conditions in the neighboring community'
NONCONFOR,MING USE OF OPEH SPACE
The proposed crematorium would be installed and operated in designated open space that is notzonedfor commercloluse.Thousands of families, children, park visitors, trail and lake users will be inequitably impacted by nonconforming use of the land' This will harm the living to prof it off of the dead. With only one way in and out for emergency vehicles' One f ire will harm thousands. Such an operation does not belong in ony child's backyard' AtR QUALITY, SMELL, PARTICUTATE MATTER MAKING HISTOR'Y
The Folsom Historic District is treasured for its legacy of community, architecture, and natural appeal. Poor air quality, smell, and toxic particulate matter will cause lastlng damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community. Visually, the shed, smoke, and heat waves are incredibly out of character for the District' Scent will be detected for miles' even if not visible, A permanent pollutant, foul smell and toxins will leave a damaged legacy' PROTECT HISTORIC FOLSOM. PROTECTTHE VULNERABLE. NO CREMATORIUM' Contact lnformation
Vote [O on
Lakeslde Memorlal
Lawn Crematorlum
ou-, {-{e r
uol Fs isleh- L/{ @Ja-.Lao , Corl
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Johnson
Thursday, August 26,2021 9:28 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Folsom Crematorium proposal - in opposition
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: Anne Trim
Sent: Thursday, August 26,20219:'J,6:27 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: Folsom Crematorium proposal - in opposition
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why 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.
Dear Scott
Thank you so much for all that you do to serve the community of Folsom. I am a resident and frequent (twice weekly) user of the Lake Natoma trail system with much appreciation for nature. I have obtained your contact information through a website that aims to share preferences on opposing the Lakeside Crematorium proposal. lwould like to express my interest in leveraging a more win-win opportunity for development in our community by exploring alternative options for the crematorium site.
Quick list for your reference on why a win-win situation is beneficial:
o Retail sites that sit vacantly would appreciate the revenue and lease commitment where residents and nature are not impacted
r Lake Natoma is one of the remaining lakes in Folsom with consistent water flow, animals, trails, and a ppreciation of visitors
The Precautionary Principle (Friis, 2019) in terms of Environmental Health states the four aspects should be exhausted in respect of new or further development:
1) Taking preventive action to harm the environment, people, or wildlife 2) Shifting the burden of proof
3) Explorealternatives
4) Public participation in the decision
lwould respectfully like to implore you to explore alternatives if not already in pursuit. There are retail leasing spaces that sit vacant with no residents, beautiful nature, or athletics nearby that a crematorium could be accommodated in Folsom. The win-win is that a crematorium could be placed at a vacant retail location while not disturbing residents or trail enthusiasts.
1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Folsom has a trail system that invites residents and visitors to explore and with the imposing threat of a crematorium built.in the prime location of the trail, it would be a disadvantage to Folsom to lose the inviting vistas and Historic Folsom revenue for diners/ pedestrians.
References
City of Folsom (20211. "Lakeside Crematorium Draft lSMND", https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/6087/637553756605700000' Friis, R. H. (2019). Essentials of environmental health (3rd ed). Retrieved from https://content,ashford.edu. 2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
fi
I )
r'-*t\t. -t\
i; ,r ";f
I
(ru85*
+-*-\
\ 'l
d
A*
I
,a
*
t'.r
-,af
\y,'
\r'''{
i"
/=\
{b- "A/
f =\D I
*tq."
,f"eu*
\
.H-.t Ttt
;-l
!1
\,
J
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
,p
/
GA'51'4:I ""*
-itr4w.ttrT:3
-'ri5' -- - -- -- - -'1.:t
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Johnson
Friday, luly 23,2021 8:13 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Concern Regarding Historic Area
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S10
Get Outlook for Android
From: Ashley Martinez
Sent: Friday , July 23, 2O2!, 7 :48 AM
To: Scott Johnson
Subject: Concern Regarding Historic Area
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:
I would like to start by sayrng how much my family adores this town (particularly historic) and appreciates the work that has gone inlo maklng it such a wonderful place to live. We moved into The Preserve in zotT and chose an older home over newionstruction because of the amazing location. Being able to walk to Sutter Street, paddle board to Negro Bar and utilize the endless miles of trails has been worth every penny. -
We have two children who are rz and ro that have spent the last 3 years playrng basketball at the park, searching for turkeys and deer at sunset and endlesi hours biking around the neighborhood. We have raised them to value natuie, community and their health. They spend many hours outdoors, playrng together or on family walks/rides. brr"tr through all of the Covid uncertainty, the hardest weeks for us were those where they could not play due to smoke and poor air quality. The ability to decompress in nature was greatly healing to our family.
We enjoy hosting outdoor gatherings- the first thing we addgd to our home was a covered patio area to expand our lMng .pu"" fo include the outsfue. Having come from the Midwest, we have a true understanding of how beautifufthe weather is here- even in the summer heat. We have a whole house fan and windows are open most evenings to allow the delta breeze to cool everything down.
While I atterided the meeting with Igor and I greatly appreciated his patience in hearing questions,(and even some erratic accusations), I im stilligainst a crematorium being placed so close to where my children play, enjoy nature and even read outdoors. Having lived in Rancho Cordova next to a rendering plqlt: I can attest to beln! told that I would NEVER smell it, that ihere were very high quality filters being ran at all times and that we c6uld always call the city with a complaint. I can also attest to the fact that we DID often smell it, normally during weekends or dinneihours- when it was very unlikely that someone would come to check that regula:tions were being followed. There were even times when we could smell it with all of our windows closed, "oitting
in through the-stove ventilation. I was told this was a result of wind changes that caused the cloud to rest ov"er o..t t
"ilghborhood.
While the smell was offputting, what concerns me more is what we DON'T smell but is still lingering in the air. The proximity of this to where families call home and children play is concerning. f6" rt"ay that was done was based on two burns a day but Igor himself said there was no way to know how-many woulil actually be done on any given day. This is not acceptable,, in my opinion.
Over the three years that we hive lived here, many families with young children have moved in and more have brought new [fe to this neighborhood. I imagine that many of them have the same concerns for their little 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
ones lung development. I have been so happy to see our neighborhood revitalized by new families with children movingin - it feels very unfair to be putting something like this in an older residential community. I cant imagine that this would even be suggested in an area like The Palladio.
I appreciate your service to our city and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ash Mortinez
St
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Barbara Krieger
RE/MAX Gold
lnt*nt Blvd.!
Sacramento, CA 95834
September 13,2O2L
Re: Lake Natoma Shores
Dear City of Folsom,
I recentlv listeri a nronertv in tlte l:eautitul Historical t)istrirl of Lake Natolna Shores. VVe had our first ;;ilil;tiih; d;ft;ht "hl it'* aeent called antJ left ms a message tellins me her clients loved the t
"mu
#O wintea io iit;"ln tr't Hiitoric Distri(t, but had one concerrt lhe nranted to ask me aLrout. wh;; T iirr*rr i.uirlr.'k, itro iaict trer uuyers weie worried abaut the crernatnriurn going in rrext door. i Liuiri'teO the situatir:n io tre, unU let her know her client* could check with eity planning f oj nrore ;"{il;;ti;"iO-o",t t ."'iiii'ttt"V toilowed up or not, but they etrded up not submitting an of{er specifically because of the crematorium.
I also had an open hsuse tlre first weekend on the nrarkst..Several,peoplecanre through, end therc il;; ;il"t *ir*r1 ero.;t;i oiLrv"is *['o w*re all concerned about the ciematorium. "tlrey_1jl_ly_Y.uj_ ^-
ine tro*L, but-t nivei iieard frirm them nor their agents.agq!Jr. Out of all the neighbors;r-nq glq1l.qt"fl ;;;;i; ih;f iir"ultiou[h, ihere *as.only one perion who.,liked tha hotrso and did not care about the lreriiatorium. Uowevcilher husband wai not wirh her. When she left, -she told me she was going to i*f f f.tir" unout the f,oiLoe to see ii itrev could ;:ure hase it, I never heard from her again either' I anr not a Folsnnr resident, but anr writing this letter out of concern for the neighborhood,. Liaving oersonallv ,uon *uuru i*ef'u buvlr that wllked through thir beautiful home get tur rred off f ront tlte ii*riil j"iii;dl; -l";ri;n"U"ijr.io of an undesirable irernalcrium should concern cvery single ;;'61;l;;;;tire "t'it'?ii;;pt;;ih; "earby
homes and the neishborhood itself ar an entitv. I wonder ;fr;it;;i;; h;;;ii"t ftAih*'.urt etery dwn*r to get this far in the plannins phase.cf the. project, a-rtiiiitiiiG;tdua; anO iou* erics of ihe Folsorn residents and groups, who.should not have io ir;iibi; ii",r"iiiirr[iwitfi;Gh a ttri*at white living in suclr a popr.rlar,.sophistir:ated and historicallv p*til,;d;rea. t am absolutely astonished that this is nccurring at all. please don,l lresital.e to c$ntact nre if yau need f urther infcrmatinn.or. details of my e.xperienct'. I arn ,
"fti.frine the text cr:nversation betwcbn myself and tlie first agerrt,{*i.t11,l]9t_L*-tTiTiqlLYjy,lhowec' tlre houib first with tlre buyers who decided rtot t<l write an ofter. I am also attacrrrng tne lc,cKDox showing acrivity r,n* *u;* bo*n on the rnarket. Besides my operr ll"_ulll, lll*jg,ltil.l*l :l1t:,1- other afient shdwing, (during the open lrouse] .cinctr.we went orl the market' anct sllc woulcl not lell ;;;hi;h;; Uuycri?ti'A nor iubrnit'an cffer. There have been no other inquiries since' Thank you for time, and hopefully your deep concern for what is happening under your watch.
Sincerely,
/t'' ,/ tru/'lr'
l'J
t',.r' y' ./'/t{.y !- -"1
Barbara Krieger, Realtor
REIMAX 6old Real Estate Agent
License #01317657 Since 2001
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
tl Verizon ?
(o
Thank you!
1:59 PM nt 99% |', '
i' 1
1 . |- ri-:
, .l{- l,f i.,"
- 91-h; .. .-)l:J li
'il'lit -.
til?iiaf} 8r. A|ls
4,., . rr
a.
Will do
Yeah it was a bit of a concern for
them I'm sorry!
Yep you're good to go tonight on
Fong Street
Thank you tool Let me know how it
goes
Did they get spooked bY the
crematorium bY fong st? Just
curious cuz l'm gonna write a letter
for the neighborhood C
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
nn'",-',""lil'*ii'li.i",;.,ii",,iijJl'#",i;l[::#Slliil*nr* rurrl r$ri€d '!{d 00:/.
pue
l lV
g619 uanmlsq lp1-g-669-/LB 1e aorl-1;o1yoddn5 atclng 1re1uo3 'AoI rnoA qlrn xcqAal e pgar cslg,{eu noA
'!14;1oe
xoqAalio fuc}sltl a1o;dutur e ;o3
.rua.;s,{s err1ng aql q}rr\A cuiiga ue pn"irop*A n,..eq feqi s,{o1 iol d}rnqce 6utmoqs fo s1ep 06 }sed aql s6ol1s lodai slqi ul uorleuuo'ui aql 4 rtf i ,il i ){:j :-'
l'
ll{rcr!l.rij<jllirjj.. le}o.l
iltcl ilt-r 1_i_
\a) Lli/_.!i:)ril
?\id 00:iJ1,
t, i ijrtz i tii
lrjc
j Oir Zq.q il{'JZi?,t,!:
aleo
irrnslr: f
i11t:;gi :iuta lpnl,
J;-)ltu1l
su!t{')lr:fJ Dlnr; XYlir! :ll
>-Err-LlrllL'f'l i.,lll.l XVlr'Jj:]|1
63lJJ0 ouotld
"reFiouAex
i-us'sr:1-;r,r7t1 illt:i I
ah*i.: ;.i u r t-rii:t';1
iai:iat r;1 t)ll,:1.'t;q
-reploq{ey
: i,6 , ii!l!J
Ur;5 i,'i,l r: !
teUe5 Aoy
auoqd o3!l{cl
i i / ill-r
- .jill-i.rti; lrj.rt'.ljri11 :tuaii"rY
tt?f; iittt'i i:i ajx:J1l:l ; !i r'rir:iri'l e-t:!j
jrtrt1
'19
r;;:::iit:sty
i;;;5ne;eirig
s] ira lio-l '.11.;.r;'1;)q,i. $ii::!'111
:1i')1'ldi]:'{
*ir*1€ij s*clsr"l
{ri! q,tt$A Atd{}{iJ&qrl#}'i
ii-'ii1;i,..i
\ r!rrr:liiI i
r,:'i1i11 .1
1,,., t | .iiJilltjV
!.:'i-,, i: :
, ,1,: i:$-:
iilr
jr.:i,,,;r1. r:r:
ff 3MW:clt-tg
i.J
i.r* ;!
.cg
A3I ;r I3 :: 1*
* A; t,*nr,' r; -
13 I # ix {*
erdn9
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
August\ 2021
'iirr'; .t' {n'ra,/ecl
Ll t/t uJ f't t,t ,.: /1
,un,d (,/q {Lr,,,ci/
.t
J
''',ra,
kC
ldortn'i,'53'latft^
/
Itl Emf v r
& !')
Ir
Barbara Manwell
1310 Fong Street
Folsom, CA 95530
Mike Kozlowski
Mayor City of Folsom
50 Natoma St.
Folsom, CA 95ftlO
Dear Mike,
My name is Barbara Manwell. I have lived at !fong Street since November 1995. lt is important that you understand my opposition to a crematorium being installed at the Lakeside Cemetery in my neighborhood. The majority of houses in the Preserve subdivision have at least one person who is at risk for breathing polluted air: children 14 years or younger and Seniors 65 Years or older.
The City is aware that homeowners have opposed a crematorium in the past. The developer has stated it will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and the needs of the entire City must be considered. This is a question of the air I breathe, the air a 92 year old woman out for her daily walk breathes, the air a toddler taking her first steps breathes, the air a group of Seniors meeting for yoga three days a week in the Young Wo Park breathe, the air three boys racing through the neighborhood on bikes breathe. We are an outdoor group of citizens.
The developers' declaration has information to support his application from the manufacturer of the crematorium, Hartwick Combustion Technologies, and HELIX Environmental Planning. Both businesses receive money from the developers. This is not reassuring to me.
lgor Semenyuk, representing Lakeside Cemetery in our recent ZOOM meeting happily informed the participants in the informational crematorium meeting that he had recently sold his property in Old Town for 5800,000. Making a profit is important to this business man' Having safe air to breathe is important to me.
Please deny Lakeside's application for a crematorium'
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Manwell
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: No Crematorium
Friday, August 6, 2021 8:22:48 AM
From: bob lu
Sent: Sunday, August L,202L 1:38 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: No Crematorium
You don't often get email Learn why 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.
Ms. Andersen,
Ss longtime residents of Natoma Shores, we are asking you to not allow our beautiful neighborhood to be destroyed. The prospect of having a crematorium in the Lakeside Cemetery is very upsetting and is wrong for so many reasons. For starters, our home is a "Receptor" and we are very concerned about the pollution and the health hazards associated with it. Such a facility should not be built this close to a residential neighborhood. ln addition, this will lower the property value of our homes. How will we be compensated? lf there are health issues arising from the smoke will we be able to be compensated for that as well?
I hope you would honestly consider how you would react if the crematorium was built in your neighborhood and not allow this to happen.
The Barnett FamilylV'oung Wo Circle
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Johnson
Tuesday, February 8,2022 9:06 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Concerned Historic District Resident - Lakeside Memorial Lawn ScottA. Johnson, AICP
P lut rr irtgt )tl u n at1 <' t'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6206
ih ]Fffi]LffiffiNtr
E ITY O P
Dr5l ttsCTiVF. Ff l{4TUFf:
$s@ vrjglr;. iqlSollt.ca.L|Q
From: Ben Gamache
Sent: Tuesday, February 8,2022 9:02 AM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; m.dasca llos@ya hoo.com Subject: Fwd: Concerned Historic District Resident - Lakeside Memorial Lawn Some people who received this message don't often get email ftotE Learn whv 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.
Dear Historic District Commissioners:
I am writing to express my deep concern at the conditional use permit submitted by Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by Miller Funeral Home, to install a crematory.
The Historic District is the crown jewel of Folsom. lts history, incredible landscape, unique shopping and dining experiences, and community provide so much to the city of Folsom. The thought of a crematory burning 800 pounds of human bodies per day will have untold negative physical, environmental, and fiscal implications that will damage both the city and the community.
Our air quality in the Valley has been the worst on record. How can we justify adding more particulate, more carbon, to our already hurting environment? How can we justify putting the citizens at risk? How can we tarnish the shining gem that is Old Folsom?
I implore you and the other staff members to consider all that is to be lost by granting this permit. I thank you for your consideration and welcome any feedback.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Sincerely,
Ben Gamache
Historic District Home Owner
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
August 2,2021
Dear Mr. Josh Kincaid,
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 Old Town District and the American River Parkway. This area is part of Folsom's historic district and resides near many outdoor activities promoted by our city as family friendly, safe and "distinctive by nature". lt entails a farmers market, outdoor conceds; city sponsored festivals and sits adjacent to the American River Parkway that is actively used by many walkers, runners, and bicyclists daily. The Parkway serves as a window to the naturalworld, for all those 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 Library 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 water sheds & water quality and is of great harm to the natural environment.
The proposed crematorium owners may see a viable commercial need for such an operation, but I portend, not in the Old Town 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 generated by such an operation.
Please consider our concerns and let that Serve as your guide fonruard.
Sincerely
?"a
Bert Pittari
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
^Jl f,ln t u-rt*" jzt'<'c'tt-t-crPatricia Zuccara
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
(*)"Toxic atmospheric pollutants from crematoria ovens: characterization, emission factors and modeling"
>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2o2o Dec
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Elaine Andersen
Friday, January 14,2022 B:28 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium
From:BertpSent: Friday, January 1,4,20227:29 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Crematoriu m
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv 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.
January 14,2A22
Dear Ms. 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 Old Town District, and the American River Parkway. This area is part of Folsom's historic district and 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 serves as a window to the natural world, for all those 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.
1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
The proposed crematorium owners may see a viable commercial need for such an operation, but I portend, not in the Old Town 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 generated by such an oPeration.
Please consider our concerns and let that serve as your guide forward.
Sincerely,
Bert Pittari, Patricia Zuccaro
Resident Lake Natoma Shores Resident Lake Natoma Shores (*)"Toxic atmospheric pollutants from crematoria ovens: characterization, emission factors, and modeling"
>Emvirom Sci Pollut Res lnt. 2o2o Dec
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
I
Dear People in charge
I am writing in response to the notice that the Folsom Cemetery is planning to install an Crematorium. I have a home that is on YoungWo circle that would be adversely impacted.
I have a daughter who lives on Sunrise Boulevard near the Sacramento Rendering Plant, and when it is in production the fumes it produces make it unbearable to stay out side. From what I understand the crematorium would not have an air scrubber, which would put all of lower Folsom [that includes Sutter StreetJ in the direct path of the same noxious fumes thatcome from the Sacramento animal rendering plant! I understand thatthe disease Mad Cow syndrome came from cows eating food made of other dead cow carcasses. What will fume and ash from Human crernation do to other Humans who breath in these by products.
Today we are told to wear N95 Masktogo outinto forestfire smoke that has invisible particles, how will we feel safe that we are not being exposed to the same toxic and more lethal by products. I would also like to know how the curators of the Muir House Museum, and the Chamber of Commerce of Sutter street would feel about the impacts of these fumes on Tourism in their areas.
After reading the city planning commissions report on the impacts of this new project, I would like to know if the commission has taken a field trip to crematory to actually see it impact to adjacentareas. In reading the commissions report, on page 19 of 11 , section D leaves a question as to whata substantial number of people are and if wind conditions are taken into account I was also quite surprised atthe number of pounds of toxic chemicals and elements per hours of use that would be released into the atmosphere, as listed on page 27of 5L of this same report.
Home owner on Young Wo Circle
Bob Baker, phone number
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 4,2022
City of Folsom
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Pam Johns - [email protected]; Josh Kincade - [email protected] SUBJECT: Lakeside crematorium - comments on Initial Study/NIND Dear Ms. Johns:
This letter provides my comments on the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Initial Study/\4 iti gated Ne gative Dec I aration (I S/TVIND) date d I anuary 2022' l. The IS/NIND correctly identifies the City Council as having approval decision authority for the project; but is contradicted by the public hearing notice. As limited by the City Charter, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is an advisory commission only and does not have the authority to make a final approval decision. This is recognized in the ISA4ND on page 7 (section 5.0, "Required Approvals") which specifically states that the "Folsom City Council" will act as the lead CEQA agency and consider approval of the project entitlements. However, the public hearing notice issued for the project discusses that an appeal would be required for consideration by the City Council. The public hearing notice incorrectly identifies the HDC has having final approval authority and should be corrected to be consistent with the City Charter limitations on HDC authority.
2. A design review application is required but has not been submitted. The proposed shed modification requires design review pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) section 17.52.300, "Design Review," which requires design review for, "B. All exterior .
renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures" and FMC Section 17.52.310 provides design review application submittal (including design review application fee) requirements. The ISAvIND does not identiS design review as a necessary entitlement and the project application on the Community Development Department's Pending Development Applications is only for a use petmit. An application for design review containing the required submittals must be submitted and design review application fees paid before the City provides further processing of this project. Importantly, such design review would then consider whether the building that would undergo a substantial expansion of use to house the proposed crematorium is consistent with Historic District design standards and guidelines or if the design of that structure requires additional modifications to comply with Historic District design standards and guidelines.
3. The IS/NIND incorrectly identifies the project as consistent with the General Plan, yet the General Plan has no land use designation for either a cemetery or a crematorium, therefore the analysis cannot tier from the General Plan EIR. The ISA4ND incorrectly states that the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Open Space. A review of the General Plan intent for the Open Space land use designation reveals that there is no basis for concluding that a crematorium is consistent with the General Plan Open Space land use designation. The General Plan
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 4,2022
mentions "cemeteries" just one time and crematoriums not at all.1 Table LU-5 of the General Plan (page 2-7) defines the Open Space designation as, "The Open Space land use designation encompasses the preserved natural open space areas of Folsom." Throughout the General Plan, policies encourage that development incorporate areas of open space. It is unreasonable to suggest that the intent ofthose policies is that such open rpu"" ur"ur could or might be used for siting a cemetery and a crematorium.2 The IS/NIND interpretation and the subsequent analysis which tiers from the General Plan EIR are fundamentally flawed. The IS/TVIND must be revised to eliminate the erroneous statements about General Plan consistency, and the impact analyses must fully evaluate the project without attempting to tier from the General Plan EIR. Further, while FMC section l7 .52.550 identifies "cemeteries" as a permitted use in the Open Space/Public primary area of the Historic District (subject to a conditional use permit when proposed by a private entity), the FMC does not extend the definition of cemetery to a crematorium. Furthermore, the FMC is subordinate to, and may not conflict with, the General Plan, therefore, expanding the unspecified FMC definition of a cemetery to include a crematorium would even further stray from the General Plan's Open Space definition and is impermissible.
4. The IS/MND must identify whether the project would involve public attendance at services at the Lakeside Memorial cemetery and/or other locations within the City and, if so, define the parameters and evaluate impacts associated with such services.
The ISAvIND provides no information on whether cremations (up to 4 per day and 500 per year) would or could be attended by family, friends, or other members of the public.
If no such attendance will be permitted, a condition of any use permit for this project must specifically state that such attendance is prohibited and must include a mechanism to ensure the prohibition is enforced. Alternatively, if such attendance will be petmitted, the IS/I\,IND must be revised to discuss the maximum anticipated attendance at each cremation and evaluate the impacts associated with vehicle trips, noise, parking capacity, neighborhood circulation and pedestrian safety, effects on other services and activities at the cemetery, and other factors associated with public attendance. Fuftherrnore, the IS/\4ND does not discuss whether cremations at the proposed Lakeside Crematorium would result in an increase in memorial seryices 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.
5. The IS/NIND fails to recognize the visibility of the existing shed and proposed modifications from public view locations (Folsom Boulevard) and the impacts of such visibiliff on visual quality and locally designated historic resources. The ISA4ND 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. Page 2 of the ISA4ND incorrectly states that "[t]ailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard I The single General Plan cemetery reference pertains to Noise Compatibiliff Standards (Table SN-l) which is unrelated to establishing land use designations and uses 2 Example: Policy LU 3.1.1 - "Encourage mixed-use development in nodes located at major intersections that include housing, open space, and offices." The IS,A4ND's interpretation would suggest that the expectation of that policy is for those open space areas to be eligible for siting a crematorium.
Page2 of 4
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 4,2022
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 flume would be installed is clearly visible from Folsom Boulevard at the intersection of Natoma Street. Furthermore, 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. In fact, 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 modification to the existing structure would visible in the background of these tailings 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.
6. The air quality and health risk analysis does not use best available information and requires more certainty regarding project design. The air quality and health risk analysis circulated with the ISA{ND uses a wind rose (wind direction information) from the Sacramento Executive Airport. The Sacramento Executive Airport is nearly 20 miles from the project site and is more strongly influenced by the Delta and Central Valley wind patterns than the project site's location along the American River corridor near the Sierra Nevada foothills. More representative wind flow data from a location nearer the site (e.g., Mather Field) is available and should be used for any air quality and health risk assessment conducted for the project to ensure that locally accurate wind directions and speeds are used in the analysis. Furthermore, the health risk analysis states that the analysis assumes a rain cover will be installed on the crematorium exhaust stack.
However, the application and representative photograph of the exhaust stack do not discuss or identiff the intent for such a cover. Ifa cover is not present during operation of the crematorium, the emissions and resulting health risk analysis conclusions would vary from those presented in the ISAvIND. Clarification and certainty for this project design component is needed. If the rain cover is to be in place during cremations, an analysis of potential localized effects of downdraft on memorial lawn visitors while cremations should also be provided.
7. The IS/MND does not adequately evaluate potential impacts on nesting and foraging bald eagles and other special-status bird and bat species. The IS/IVIND provides no discussion of 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 ofthe eagles or other protected bird and bat species. While the IS/\4ND 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 1,080 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. This analysis is necessary to determine if the project would adversely affect this bald eagle nesting and foraging area or otherwise adversely affect other special-status bird or bat species that may use the area.
8. The IS/NIND analysis of fire risk is inadequate and warrants a definitive determination by the City Fire Department and California State Parks. The ISA4ND analysis 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/\4ND discusses that the "project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Folsom." In fact, the project
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 4,2022
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 ISiMND states that, "the project is not likely to cause any ignition, given that the crematory will not emit sparks." Evidence providing a definitive conclusion that the crematory - a facility design for burning and with an exhaust flume - will not emit sparks or other hot particles of potential ignition source is needed. Furthermore, the ISAvIND discusses that the City Fire Department reviewed the project and did not raise any concerns regarding water supply or site access. This begs the question of whether the Fire Department raised other concerns and even whether the Fire Department reviewed and considered the project.
The project proposal to install and operated a large furnace in an open space area adjacent to oak woodlands with residents 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.
Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
CA 956 0
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 7,2022
City of Folsom
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Pam Johns - [email protected]; Josh Kincade - [email protected] SUBJECT: Lakeside Crematorium - Supplemental Comments on Initial Study/lVIND Dear Ms. Johns:
On February 4,2022,I submitted a letter with comments on the Lakeside Crematorium project Initial Study/\4itigated Negative Declaration (IS/IVIND). In my February 4 comments I expressed concerns with, among other things, visibility of the project shed and fire risk. Having viewed the property more closely with physical observations from Folsom Boulard and review of aerial imagery available online, it is evident that the IS/MND fails to disclose critical information related to existing conditions at the site that are relevant to the project environmental impact analyses.
Figure l, "Excerpt of IS/MND Figure 3 Detailed Site Plan," on the following page is an excerpt of the ISA{ND Figure 3 to which I have added red linework and labels. Figure 2, "Photograph of Existing Site Conditions," on the following page is a photograph I took on Sunday February 6, 2022, from the south side of Folsom Boulevard just east of the Natoma Street intersection and facing northwest toward the project site. The black linework on Figure I shows what the IS/MND considers to be the existing site condition. However, as illustrated in red, there is another building adjacent to the project shed and located near or on the property boundary that is not identified or discussed in the ISA4ND. As shown on Figure 2,that building is a metal structure that is taller and larger in footprint than the project "shed" illustrated on Figure 1.
Review of aerial photograph on Google Earth indicates that sometime in2020 ot 2021 a concrete pad was installed and the second metal structure was erected. That the structure is one or very near the property line and within 5 feet or less of the project shed.
This additional structure provides a substantial constraint to the ability of emergency response vehicle access to areas surounding the project shed. Since the IS/MND fails to identiff the structure, the IS/MND also fails to identiff its use and fails to consider the implications of this strucfure and its constraint on emergency access. Furthermore, the presence of this structure and its bearing on the project's cumulative visual and other impacts must be considered in the environmental review.
An understanding of the project site's actual existing conditions is necessary for any meaningful review of the project's impacts. The ISAvIND's failure to even acknowledge the existence of the largest building on the properfy, let alone consider it in the impact analysis, warrants substantial revision to the IS/MND to adjust the analysis to account for this structure.
Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
Fo cA 95630
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 7,2022
FIGURES
(E) SHED
(N) 2 X 500
i' ',i
EXISlINGTREE
_-':_1-
-. -:"-- -7
--t
*
dPATCH
ru
EXSTING
WAIJ(WAYiDRIVEWAY
ST@P^ANDING
FF'N
Structure
(E)
LEGEND;
PROPER1Y LII'IE
EXISTINGAREA
ANEAOf WORX
New Metal
STRUCTURE
l;
Figure 1. Excerpt of IS/I\{ND Figure 3 Detailed Site Plan Figure 2. Photograph of Existing Site Conditions
Page2 of2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bob Delp
Friday, September 24,2021 10:21 AM
Pam Johns; Josh Kinkade
Sari Dierking; Elaine Andersen
Re: Lakeside 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.
Pam and Josh
I remain interested in receiving your input on the questions and information about the proposed crematorium requested in my emails below. The feedback I'm requesting is related to basic information about the project that is fundamental to your Department's review of the project, so it's unclear why you would not be able to easily provide it or post it to the Pending Development Applications webpage. (lt is troubling, to say the least, that your Department maintains a webpage specifically named "Pending Development Applications" and yet for some reason the project application isn't posted and it seems you are unable to provide it upon request even months after an lnitial Study was prepared and circulated.) After reviewing the General Plan specifically to identify its intent for the Open Space land use designation, it is obvious that there is simply no basis for concluding that a crematorium is consistent with the General Plan Open Space land use designation. Your Department's interpretation (as presented in the April 2021 lnitial Study) is incorrect and could have long-term damaging consequences regardless of the outcome of the currently proposed crematorium project. lf you actually have a solid basis for your interpretation, not only would I and others in the community like to see that, but I would also request that you take that interpretation to the City Council for their concurrance in advance of further consideration of the current or any other individual cemetery or crematorium project.
You must be aware that the General Plan mentions "cemeteries" just one time (and crematoriums not at all), and that is in reference to Noise Compatibility Standards (Table SN-1) having nothing to do with land use designations. Table LU-S of the General Plan (page 2-7) defines the Open Space designation as,"The Open Space land use designation encompasses the preserved natural open space areas oI Folsom." Throughout the General Plan, policies encourage development to incorporate areas of open space. No reasonable person can argue that the intent of those policies was that those open space areas could or might be used for siting a cemetery, let alone a crematorium. (Example: Policy LU 3.L.1- "Encourage mixed-use development in nodes located at major intersections that include housing, open space, and offices." Are you prepared to argue that the expectation in that policy is that those open space areas would be eliglble for siting a crematorium?)
There very well may be a need for one or more crematoriums in the Folsom area. When a particular type of land use hasn't previously been anticipated in the General Plan but the need or interest in that type land use is identified, I would think that as planners you would recognize that the City should undertake a process to assess whether that type of land use is appropriate for the City and, if so, at what location(s) in the City that type of land use might best be located. That should not be done on a individual project basis, but through a 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
more broad (City-wide) planning and General Plan (and perhaps also zoning code) amendment process that would engage the community and ultimately be decided by the City Council.
To avoid ramifications that go beyond a simple yes or no decision on the currently proposed crematorium, I am asking that your Department retract the April 202L lnitial Study and its incorrect interpretation of General plan consistency. lf your Department proceeds with a City-wide planning exercise to determine whether and where cemeteries and/or crematoriums should be eligible for siting, please include me in your public notices for that process.
Thank you,
-Bob Delp
BCC: Delp lnterested Parties List
Bob Delp
s16I
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Tuesday, September 27,2O27 5:05 PM
To: Pam Joh ns <pjoh [email protected]>; Josh Kinkade <jkin [email protected]> Cc: Sa ri Dierking <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lakeside Crematorium
Pam and Josh:
I am still interested in receiving your feedback on the questions in my email to you on Sept 14 (below)' Additionally, can you provide the existing CUP (approvals, allowable uses, conditions, etc.) for the cemetery? Also, I have reviewed the General Plan and do not see any discussion or references in the City General Plan or zoning code that suggests an intent or expectation that a crematorium is an allowable use in conjunction with designated Open Space areas, and nothing in the General Plan to indicate that even cemeteries without crematoriums are an allowable use in the Open Space land use designation {and nothing in the General Plan ElR, from which the crematorium lnitial Study tiers, to suggest that crematoriums were an assumed use in Open Space or anywhere else in the City in the General Plan EIR analysis). Can you provide an explanation of staff's basis for suggesting crematoriums are an allowable use in Open Space areas and also how you interpret development of a crematorium as being acceptable in Open Space that is within a SACOG transit priority area?
Your feedback on this would be most helpful
Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Delp grsl
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Tuesday, September L4,202! 11:37 AM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Josh Kin kade <jkin [email protected]> Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected],us>
Subject: Lakeside Crematorium
Hi, Pam and Josh.
I see the April2O2L Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium draft lS/MND on the Pending Development Applications page, but no other information about the project is posted there. I have a few questions I'm hoping you can answer:
. What date did the City deem the application complete? Are the project application materials available and can they be posted on the Pending Development Applications webpage?
What is the status of the City's review of the project?
4. Are there any permit streamlining act deadlines that apply to this project?
5. 6. Was the lS/MND filed with the State Clearinghouse and did any agencies comment? (l don't see it on the CEQAnet database.)
Thanks in advance for any feedback you can provide
-Bob
Bob
L
2 3
4 5
3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Scott Johnson
Sunday, January 9,2022 1:52 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
tMG_20211108_154501538jp9; IMG_20210720_1538251s4_BURSTO0O_COVER_TOPjpg Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Sunday, January 9,2022 L:32:35 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjoh nson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. 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.
Hello everyone,
l'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neighborhood. We are still very much opposed to this proposal' I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband, one year old daughter, niece and nephew, live within this community. ln addition, I am 6 months pregnant. I am writing this letter for them.
We moved to folsom last year to be all together. A close family's dream come true. We watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special.
I have worked at Mercy Hospital of Folsom for the last 12 years as a nutritionist and my husband is a RN in the Emergency Department at Mercy Hospital of San luan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We risk our health and the health of our family for the community. These pasttwo year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot. lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.
Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my babies, my family and friends from this crematorium, Put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other.
Thebadairquality,it'sthetopconcern. Contaminatedairwill besurroundingthisneighborhood,causingpotential healthrelatedissues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I worry about any emissions this crematory will expel into the air. Can my children's health really be guaranteed? Can you guarantee that? Should they have to live and play in a area where they watch bodies being burned? 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
'"White"smokeinthesky,indicatingtheyareintheprocessofburningabody. ldon'twantthatformychildrenortheirfriendsinthe I neighborhood.
This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games. I'm very proud of that. Kids being kids -it'sabeautifulthing. lfthiscrematoriumisputin, lworryaboutthekidsbeingoutside,Runningaroundbreathinginthecontaminatesor not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours. What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing' As a neighborhood we are rallying together to try and stop this proposal from going any further. We were strong and will continue to fight for our friends and family.
I I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.
This crematory should not be in a or near a residential area. lt should be in a industrial zone, not in open space.
We were already lied to once by lgor. They have submitted an addendum to the proposal and have increased the daily rate from 400 lbs to 800 lbs a day of human remains. Will this continue to increase? What else will be adjusted? Ithankyoufortakingthetimetoreadthis. lhaveattachedapictureof mybabyGretawithhercousins.Theyareontheirgrandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery/potential crematory directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.
Show quoted text
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
FYI
KellyMullett
,,{rlrir irr i..ll lrr fil'e .,1ssi..; /rtn t
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, July 21,2021 B:32 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
IMG-2021 0720-1 53825 1 54-BU RSTO00-COVER-TOP j pg
im *:s*.#!'#:*p,w
0 g @ www rolsonr ca.us
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,2O2L 9:16 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjoh nso n @folsom. ca. us>
Subject: 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.
Hello everyone,
I'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neighborhood.
I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband, one year old daughter, niece and nephew, live within this community. I am writing this letter for them.
We moved to folsom last year to be all together. A close family's dream come true. We watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a new mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special.
I have worked at Mercy Hospital of Folsom for the last 12 years as a nutritionist and my husband is a RN in the Emergency Department at Mercy Hospital of San Juan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
risk our health and the health of our family for the community. This past year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot.
lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.
Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my baby, my family and friends from this crematorium. Put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other,
The bad air quality, it's the top concern. Contaminated air will be surrounding this neighborhood, causing potential health related issues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I believe a third party report still needs to be done?
As I consider having a second child, I am fearful of being pregnant and breathing in the contaminated air. What would it do to my unborn baby? lwould have to move. How could ltake such a chance? Too risky.
This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games.
I'mveryproudofthat.Kidsbeingkids-it'sabeautifulthing. lfthiscrematoriumisputin,lworryaboutthekidsbeing outside. Running around breathing in the contaminates or not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours' What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing' I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.
I thank you for taking the time to read this. I have attached a picture of my baby Greta with her cousins. They are on their grandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.
With much appreciation,
Breanne Higgins
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
FYI
KellyMullett
'Ir lrr iit isf lrt l li.'r, .,1.ssi.sirr rI /
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, July 21,2021 8:32 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
I M G_202 1 0720_1 5 3 825 1 54_B U RST000_COVE R_TOP j p g ,
ihi
Lrt! *a
l$"{s S-, fl+ (}}3\\1f
e*t {i*trPl[ts f F!1' fieY a:r& a
S S @ wwro, fotsoill.ca us
From: breanne higgi
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,20219:16 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: 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.
Hello everyone,
I'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neigh borhood.
I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband, one year old daughter, niece and nephew, live within this community. I am writing this letter for them.
We moved to folsom last year to be all together. A close family's dream come true. We watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a new mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special.
I have worked at Mercy Hospital of Folsom for the last 12 years as a nutritionist and my husband is a RN in the Emergency Department at Mercy Hospital of San Juan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
risk our health and the health of our family for the community. This past year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot.
lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.
Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my baby, my family and friends from this crematorium. Put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other.
The bad air quality, it's the top concern. Contaminated air will be surrounding this neighborhood, causing potential health related issues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I believe a third party report still needs to be done?
As I consider having a second child, I am fearful of being pregnant and breathing in the contaminated air. What would it do to my unborn baby? I would have to move. How could I take such a chance? Too risky.
This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games I'm very proud of that. Kids being kids - it's a beautiful thing. lf this crematorium is put in, I worry about the kids being outside. Running around breathing in the contaminates or not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours.
What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing.
I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.
I thank you for taking the time to read this. I have attached a picture of my baby Greta with her cousins. They are on their grandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.
With much appreciation,
Breanne Higgins
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a
, ,." i
,' .u{
j
$.
1:r '
h
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, August 3,2021 8:21 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Folsom Crematorium
ffi
FYI
Kelly Mullett
A tln r ir ti str qtiue,4ssi.s lan I
Comm unity Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
Ft 916.355.7274
gll t Et F(}LE$Tfi
*r F{rr!\rYr ltl littgFl
O9@ www.rotsom.ca.us
From: Brian Paciotti
Sent: Monday, August 2,20216:32 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Folsom Crematorium
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why 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.
Dear Folsom Historic District,
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. t tiu" .tloung Wo Circle. The region where the crematory will sit (currently a shed) is within about 400-500 feet fromourhome. MywifeDawn,andourtwelve-year-oldsonAustin,havelivedhereforL2years-weenjoythelake, 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 communitythat 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. 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Yetwhatwill residentsthink if they internalizethe brand of "distinctive by nature", cometo enjoyour historicaldistrict, 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 lvorng wo circte
Folsom, CA 95530
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
January 30,2022
Dear Folsom Historic District,
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 atlYoung 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 historicaldistrict, 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 lvoung Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95530
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
To:
From:
Subject:
Dat€r
Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
Tuesday. February l, 2022 9:45:51 AM
From: carol hart
Sent: Tuesday, February L,2022 9:45 AM
To: [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski<[email protected]> Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email from Leam why 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 ls safe.
Dear Members of the Folsom City Board,
I am a resident of Folsom Preserve. I live close to where the proposed crematorium would be built. I oppose this plan, because of the
the danger to our air quality. I am most concerned for our children, who play outdoors, and could be harmed by increased poor air
quality. This community strongly opposes the crematorium, and agrees that it should be built elsewhere. Certainly there are other
more open areas where this could be built...far away from communities. lf you have not visited our community to see how close our
homes are to the cemetery, I would ask you to do so
Thank you,
Carol Hart
-Young
Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
;,. -
'{ll& 'l' G.u,,, Np"rac'.,
^'-: eovERNc! ,1!
sv
JrcEo Buuve[rtL{.t
SECBGrtBr r0A Water lll'tFLaft ilE4aA: PFCrai tr!11 Boards Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
7 February 2A22
Josh Kinkade
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
j ki n kad e@fo I so m. ca. u s
COMITIIENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM PROJECT, scH#202201 0039, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the $tate Clearinghouse's 5 January 2022 request, the CentralValley RegionalWater Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Requesf for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project, located in Sacramento County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
l. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The CentralValley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 1324A of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality ControlAct. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quali$ of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. ln California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State's water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the NationalToxics Rule,40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule,40 CFR Section 131.38.
The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Dentse Kaoana, AcrrNG cHAtR I Prrnrcx PutuPa, EXEcurtvE oFFtcER 1'1020 Sun Center Driva #200, Bancho Cordova, CA 95670 | ww\,t,watorboardr.ca.gov/centrdlvqlloy
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
7 February 2022
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Easrns, please visit our website:
http ://www.waterboa rds. ca. govlcentra lvalley/water issueg/Fasi n plansl Antideqradation Considerations
Allwastewater discharges must comply with the Anlidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation lrnplementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation lmplementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.qovlcentralvallev/water issues/basin plans/sacsjr 2018
05.pdf
ln part it states:
Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occuning, but also to maintain the highest water quality possib/e consr'sfent with the maximum benefit to the people of the Sfafe.
This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality obiectives.
The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. ll. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construetion General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
-2-
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
-3- 7 February 2022
http:/lwww.waterboards.ca.oov/water issueq/proqrams/stormwater/constpermits.sh! ml
Phase I and ll Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Svstem {MS4) Permibl The Phase I and ll MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low lmpact Development (LlD)/postconstruction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permils also require specific design concepts for L|D/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.
For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http:/funrvw.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/storm water/municipal p ermitsl
For more information on the Phase ll MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at.
http://www.waterboards.ca.qov/water issueslproqrams/stormwater/phase ii munici pal.shtml
lndustrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the lndustrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014- 0057-DWQ. For more information on the lndustrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.sov/centralvallev/water issues/storm wateriindustrial qe neral permits/index.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
lf the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 4A4 d the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Arrny Corps of Engineers (USACE). lf a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. lf the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. lf you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act 1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase ll MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
7 February 2422
Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit - Water Qualitv Certification lf an USACE permit (e.9., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Lefter of Permission, lndividual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.9., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.w?terboards.ca.gov/centralvallev/water issues/water oualitv certificatio nl
Waste Discharqe Requirements - Discharqes to Waters of the State lf USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., "nonfederal" waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by CentralValley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvallevlwater issues/waste to surface wat erl
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https:/lwww.waterboards.ca.qov/board-decisionsladopted-orders/water- qualitv/200 4/wq o/wq o2004-0004. pdf
Dewatering Permit
lf the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dlschargers seeking coverage -4-
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
-5- 7 February 2A22
under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of lntent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.
For rnore information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
hilp://www.waterboards.ca,govlboard decisions/adopted orders/water quality/2003/ Wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For rnore information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallev/board decisions/adonted orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
lf the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order far Limited Threat Discharges fo Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of lntent must be submitted to the CentralValley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https:/lwralrr.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvallev/board decisions/adopted orders/gene ral orders/r5-2O16-0076-01 .pdf
NPDES Permit
lf the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the CentralValley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallev/help/pqrmiV lf you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or Peter.Minkel2@wate rds ov
{.fr/ 4
Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
GHIilESE
HISTOFICAL
SOCIETY ol
AM ER IGA
Chinese Historical Society of America
965 Clay Street
San Francisco" CA 94108
Phone: (415) 391-l 1 88 x10l
Fax: (415) 391-l 150
Email: [email protected]
September 1,2021
Historic District Commissioners
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Memorial Lawn Crematorium,
RE: Lakeside
Project Number: PN 19-182
Dear Historic District Commissioners
Thank you for giving the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA) the opportunity to comment on the above-proposed project. CHSA is a non-profit organization the Mission of which isto "collect, preserve, and illuminate the history of Chinese in America by serving as a center for research, scholarship and learning to inspire a greater appreciationfor, and lwtowledge of, their collective experience through exhibitions, public programs, and any other means for reaching the widest audience. " CHSA is the oldest Chinese historical society in America and maintains a museum conceming Chinese history and culture in San Francisco. By way of this letter, CHSA wishes to voice its strong opposition to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project.
Our position on the Helix Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), adopted by the City of Folsom, is that the IS and MND do not adequately consider the planning, implementation and operation of the Crematorium Project. For example, the following cultural resources were not identified or evaluated: that the Chung Wah Cemetery has been placed on the National Register and California State Register of Historic Places; that the Young Wo Chinese Cemetery has been placed on the California Registry of Historic Points of Interest; and that, in addition, both Cemeteries have been being placed on the Sacramento County Cemetery Commission's Registry of Pioneer Cemeteries. The integrity of these culturally unique cemeteries are of historical and archaeological importance to a specific time in history: the building of Folsom, the establishment of the State of California, and the opening up of the West.
Also, the Helix IS/\4ND does not discuss the indirect social changes the crematorium's operation would have on people's perception of spiritual worship in the Chung Wah and Young Wo Cemeteries, resulting in an unfortunate modern misinterpretation of historic spiritual and religious practices.
But fortunately, Folsom's Chinese community is well aware of this issue. For example,
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
CHINESE
HISTORIGAL
SOGIETY ol
AMEFICA
on Septemb er 27,2002 Ms. June Chan submitted written public comment on an earlier Crematorium Project application made by the Miller Funeral Home, a prior owner of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. (Her letter appears on page 68 of the 01.15.03 Folsom Historic District Commission Staff Report.)
Ms. Chan expressed fears that the crematorium's operational impact could cause a social change in the perception of the Chung Wah and Young Wo Cemeteries. Ms. Chan's letter questioned how the crematorium's operations could be reconciled alongside the Chung Wah Cemetery in order to ensure the Chung Wah's historical and archaeological integrity, "Because of cremated ashes in the air - either from the crematorium chimney; when ashes are put/poured into a container;through clean-up of ash residue waste disposal or cleaning up of interior crematorium - the potential impact over time would be significant to both Chung Wah Memorial Cemetery and Young Wo Memorial Cemetery. Remnant ashes that are at the crematorium will be in the air and with the winds will have to land someplace such as the Chinese burial mounds."
In her letter Ms. Chan asserts that any disturbance by the proposed Crematorium's operations (ashes, smoke, or the thought of ashes and smoke) on her ancestors graves would affect her, and other Chinese descendants, in a very spiritual way. " These circa Chinese Gold Rush cemeteries for their descendants today, continue to be held in solemn spiritual reverence and profound sacred esteem for those inter(n)red eternally." Local historians estimate that there are between 250-600 Chinese pioneers buried at the Chung Wah Cemetery.
The crematorium applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) , to build
and operate a crematorium in a Conservation/Open Space zone. However, cremation was not consistent with Chinese funerary customs and practice. Also, and as noted in the Findings of the old 01 . I 5 .03 Folsom Historic District Commission Staff Report at page 4, cremation was not an integral part of Gold Rush pioneer cemetery customs, either. Still further, and as also noted in that 0l.15.03 Staff Report, a crematorium is not aligned with the Folsom Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, or with Folsom's General Plan Consenration/Open Space zoning.
On December 5, 1988 CHSA participated, along with Ms. June Chan, in the City of Folsom's dedication of the Young Wo Cemetery. A bronze marker atthe entrance to the Young Wo Cemetery reads in part:
"The Young Wo Cemetery 1883-1925 ...Buried here are Chinese pioneers who struggled -fo,
economic survival and human dignity and in so doing helped build Folsom and the West."
Thank you for considering CHSA's comments. For the reasons stated above, CHSA believes that the 202l Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project should be denied and Museum & Learning Center r 965 Clay Street . San Francisco. CA 94108 r (415) 391-1188 . www.chsa.org CHSA is a 5O1(c)(3) non-profit operatlng under FecJeral lax fD 1194-6122446
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
@I
HINESE
ISTORIGAL
OGIETY oI
MEFICA
request that this letter be entered into the Public Comment record for consideration by the Historic District Commission and any other public bodies which may consider this matter Very Truly Yours,
Justin Hoover
Executive Director
Chinese Historical Society of America
Cc Mr. Josh Kincade, Project Planner [email protected] Mr. Steve Banks, Principal Planner [email protected]
Mr.ScottJohnson,PlanningManager sjohnson(@folsom.ca.us
Museum & Learning Center r 965 Clay Street. San Francisco, CA S4108 r (415) 391-1188 r www.chsa.org CHSA is a 5o1(c)(3) non-profit operating under Federal Tax fD 1194-6122446
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Monday, February 7 ,2022 6:50 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposal for crematorium in Folsom
From: Christine Holmes
Sent: Mondav. Februarv 7.2022 6:48:29 PM
-
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; justin@revolutionsdocs,com <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposal for crematorium in Folsom
You don't often get email Learn whv 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.
Regarding the metals and pollutants I referenced:
In addition to harmless compounds such as water vapor, emissions include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride gas, hydrogen fluoride, mercury vapour. Organic compounds such as benzenes, furans, acetone are also emitted and these react with the hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride under combustion conditions to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFS) both of which are carcinogens. A study by the Gremation Association of North America has found that filtering crematorium fumes has little effect on the toxins released.
Sent from iCloud
On Feb 7,2022,at 6:40 PM, Christin" Holt"rE rote
Dear City Planning Officials and Council Members
I am adamantly opposed to the crematorium proposed by Lakeside Memorial. I bike and hike that area frequently, and I also enjoy visiting historic downtown Folsom, sitting outside and having a lovely meal and beverage. A facility such as is proposed would certainly negatively affect my enjoyment of my city and the 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
very thought of traces of metals and chemical pollutants' effects on Lake Natoma and the American River are horrifying and sad. Our waterways are already so threatened and struggling. But there are so many more reasons not to allow this to go foruvard.
A CREMATORIUM WOULD BE A NON CONFORMING USE OF ZONED OPEN SPACE. DESIGNATED H tsTORICAL SITES.
The proposed crematorium would be installed and operated in designated open space that is not zoned for commercial, industrial use, within 600 feet of residential homes. By definition open space zoning districts maintain community open space resources for purposes ranging from conservation, to preserving community land use options. Thousands of families, children, park visitors, trail and lake users will be inequitably impacted by nonconforming use of the zoned land. This proposed industrial function will be conducted on and next to nationally registered historical sites and has disregarded the National Chinese Historical Society's history with the grounds. This effort will harm the living to profit off of the dead.
AIR QUALITY. SMELL. PARTICULATE MATTER. FIRE RISK WILL MAKE HISTORY.
The Folsom Historic District is treasured for its legacy of community, architecture, and natural appeal. Poor air quality, smell, increased fire risk, and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community. According to the Sacramento County's Air Quality Management District, the crematorium would be self-regulated, with the County having very little oversight no oversight of the mercury-based emissions. Visually, the metal shed that will be used for cremation, the resulting smoke and heat waves are incredibly out of character for the Historic District.
Each individual's senses are different and scent may be detected for miles, even if not visible. A permanent pollutant, foul smell and toxins will leave a damaged legacy. The increased fire risk created by the proposed 500 gallon propane tanks puts hundreds of residents who rely on a singular evacuation point in grave danger.
TOXIGITY LEVELS WILL BE UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN. ELDERLY AND THE VULNERABLE.
The lnitial Study by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notates levels for harmful toxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Our local experts have warned that such toxins become the most dangerous when vaporized.
The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the levels as "not significant." This applies only to average, healthy adults. The Study fails to report significant and potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing children, elderly, and those with existing health conditions in the neighboring community. Particulate matter (PM) identified in the study was based on measures taken at the Executive Airport in Sacramento--not in Folsom. As machin ery ages, particulate matter released can quickly become "very unhealthy" by air quality standards and pollution at that 2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
level calls for limited and short outdoor activities. There has not been a full Environmental lmpact Study (ElR) conducted to date to inform the conditions to be considered. There are serious concerns about the daily impact on air quality in the Historic District posing a serious threat to those with heart and lung conditions, unborn and developing children, teens, and older adults. Shifting wind patterns will impact Sutter Street visitors and business, and recreational areas along Natoma Lake and the surrounding trails. Several hundred permanent residents including young children, veterans, and the elderly will have their health jeopardized.
PLEASE PROTECT HISTORIC FOLSOM. PROTECT OUR BEAUTIFUL
TRAILS. PROTECT THE LAKE AND RIVER. PROTECT THE VULNERABLE.
NO CREMATORIUM.
Sincerely,
Christine Holmes
IsolrHrLL DR.
Folsom CA
Sent from iCloud
3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
Steven Banks
Thursday, August 19,2021 B:18 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Public comment regarding proposed permit for crematorium.
FYI
Sent: Thursday, August L9,2O2t 8:15 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Subject: Public comment regarding proposed permit for 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.
Cindy Baker
1342 Young Wo Circle
Folsom
RE: Opposition to Proposed Crematorium in Lakeside Cemetery July 28,2O2L
Dear Folsom Historic District Commissioners,
l'm very opposed to the plans for a crematorium being proposed on the Lakeside Cemetery property. I respect the Miller Funeral Home, although I am not familiar with the Caring Services Group chain that bought out the Claneys. Millers has buried four generations of my family and I am entrusting them to bury me as well. Theytake wonderfulcare of the cemeterygrounds, one of the oldest and most beautiful historic cemeteries in northern California. Their mausoleum additions have been well executed and are a pleasure to visit. I understand the financial motivation to build a crematorium on the cemetery site, land they already own, to create a permanent income stream. However, it creates an undue burden on the people living and recreating nearby. Emissions and odors will impact our fresh air and property values will be negatively impacted.
I live just a few hundred yards from their proposed site and their project description of operations indicate they would be conducting cremations nearly every day of the year with multiple cremations daily. My house is inundated by the odor when the Kikkoman plant (which is much farther away) brews soy beans. The crematorium application exhibit showing the detection of emissions within the neighborhood, the cemetery and across Folsom Boulevard is disturbing. Their permit application was denied in recent years and all the reasoning at that time remains relevant.
Other crematoriums in the region do emit noticeable odors and emissions. I spoke recently with a retired Sacramento City Fire Department employee who told me that when the crematorium on Stockton 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Boulevard incinerates a particularly obese person, they get complaint calls due to odor as a column of dark smoke rises out of the stack. As disgusting as that sounds, this would be the reality we would be forced to live with. ltwouldbeanundueburdenforresidentstohavetobreaththeoutputnearlyeverydayoftheyear. I walk daily in the neighborhood and often entertain outside. I certainly don't want to lose the enjoyment of fresh air I currently enjoy. Additionally, its presence would have to be disclosed on any sales agreement, deterring buyers and reducing property values. Even visitors to the cemetery would be exposed to the output, including myself. I frequently visit five family members buried at Lakeside, visits that would become unpleasant if there are emissions blowing where the applicant's detection maps indicate.
I think it's critical that Millers Funeral Home find a more appropriate location in an area zoned for industrial or commercial use. I believe building a crematorium within yards of homes, the historic cemeteries (Lakeside and Chung Wah) and Lake Natoma State Park space is inappropriate and has too negative an impact on local residents. This project benefits only the funeral home, while negatively impacting the community.
Sincerely,
Cindy Baker
Cindy Boker
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott Johnson
Sunday, January 30,2022 1:19 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd:HDC Public Hearing2/16/22 - Public Comment re:Crematorium Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From:CindyPharisI
Sent: Sunday, January 30,2022 I:17:44 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; justin @ revolutionsdocs.com <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <m,[email protected]>
Subject: HDC Public Hearing 2/L6/22 - Public Comment re: Crematorium You do n't often get e m a i I f rom crph a ris @ att. net. lc.aElryIylhjs_Ulmpg!!4! 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 oppose the proposed crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. I would appreciate that my comments below be read into the record during public comment:
AsalongtimeresidentoftheFolsomHistoricDistrict, lwouldliketoexpressmyconcerns andoppositionregardingthe proposed crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. The homeowners who live within feet of the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery are actively voicing th'eir concerns and rallying together against this proposal, I am listening to their concerns and so should you! lf a crematorium were proposed in your backyard l'm sure that you would oppose it too. There are too many valid concerns regarding air quality, increased traffic, noise, nonconforming use of land and zoning, and long term affects to residents including children and the elderly.
A crematorium at this location will add more traffic to the only street that provides ingress and egress to the adjoining neighborhood and access to Folsom Blvd. This location is already impacted by the many people who enjoy the trails along Lake Natoma. The future growth of the Corporation Yard's existing property is also a concern that should be considered before adding more growth, noise, and pollution to an already overburdened residential community that lies within feet of this proposed crematorium.
Please consider the residents who are loyal, tax paying citizens who deserve the respect from our City representatives. We rely on you to hear our concerns and to be our voices when making the right decisions that affect our lives, our future and our property here in Folsom. Please vote "No" on the crematorium.
Cindy Pharis
Folsom Historic District Resident
HFRA Board Member
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Friday, January 14,2022 2:45 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory
From: Daniel Winkelman
Sent: Friday, January 14,2022 2:35:05 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv 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.
Folsom Historic District Commissioners
I implore you to deny approval of the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory My two concerns:
I live directly adjacent to the cemetery and have grave concerns about what effect fumes from the crematory will have on my health. Burning 800 lbs of human remains each day in a residential neighborhood is deplorable, No matter what claims of air filtration for the crematory, some undetected harmful chemical is bound to be passed into the air and on to my property
Two large capacity propane tanks are proposed for the project. They will be placed in an urban/wilderness interface area vulnerable to high heat fires. The tanks would be in constant threat of a BLEVE fire. (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion), These propane tank fires have an explosive force capable of hurling a car into our neighborhood.
I
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Please vote to stop this project,
Daniel Winkelman
Itoung wo circle
Folsom, CA 95630
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
From:
To!
Subject:
Date:
Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
Monday, February 7 , 2022 7:L5:36 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Shively
Sent: Sunday, February 6,2022 5:19 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>;[email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski <mkozlowski@fol som. ca.us>
Sub.ject: Proposed crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
[You don't often get.tuil f.o.J Learn why this is important at http ://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldenti fi cation. 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.
Dear Sirs and Madams,
As a resident ofFolsom and particularly the Preserve development, we strongly urge that you not approve the crematorium permit for the Lakeside Cemetery. We are less than a 1000 feet l?om the proposed crematorium and many neighbors in and out of our development are even closer. We have no problems with the idea of cremation; but this facility does not belong in a residential neighborhood. It should be placed in an industrial area away from houses and families. Many people, for various reasons, are upset at this prospect and I hope you will consider this when voting on the project. We don't want it here!
Sincerely,
Dann and Shari Shively
Young Wo Circle
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
January LL, 2A*22
Historic District Commissioner
Re: Lakeside Crematorium
As you are aware, The hearing for the Proposed erenralorium is February 16, 2022. You are also aware that this is a sensitive issue for the Historic District, especially the Preserve/Natoma Shores Neighborhood.
The Preserve Neighbsrhood is a csmmunity bound tEgether by str"ong 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, our small park and of course, the Residents.
I am available anytime to act as your tour guide if you so choose, Thanks for your time
Dave Higgins
IFong St.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 11, 2t 22
City Council Members
City Manager
Historic District Commissioners
I have read Mr. semenyuk's " scope of work - tnstaliing a crematory" document from the Historic Folsom Residence Association (HFRA) email I received back in December 2020. This document was not dated however it was signed by Mr. lgor Semenyuk. I also participated in a HFRA Zoom meeting on July t5,?:AZL with lgor Semenyuk of Caring Service Group and Peter Hartwick from Harnvick Combustion Technologies. They informed us about "how wonderful it would be for Folsom to have it's own Crematorium."
Mr. Semenyuk talked about the need and the service he could render. He stated in the 12-2020 document;
" fhere are several large cultural communities residing and moving into Folsom. Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the Sikh, Hindu, Buddist or other cremation based cultures as they require an onsite crematory so they may be able to exercise their rights and customs. Currently, there is no crematory in the Crty of Foisom, so they must find these services outside their citY."
After reviewing the revised CEQA application on page Sl "Parking and Access" third paragraph, it states:
,,As the crenratorium would not be located in or near a funeral home and would be separate trom any funeral servlces or public gatherings provided by the applicant Access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members with business at the site"
ln the CEeA document, section 4.0, Project Objectives, stated again is "Cultural and Religious Communitles as one of tour reasons to have a crematorium. Ot the four oblectives stated, the only one true and honest is the statement " Upgrade existing facilities to capitalize on a business opportunity that has proven successful for the applicant elsewhere in calrfornia"
Mr. Semenyuk and Caring Services Group willsay whatever they think is necessary to get their crematorium approved and built.
tf the above quote was true I would like to have Mr Semenyuk identify these large cultural groups so I would have a better understanding of their rights and customs. I have contacted the consumer Affairs oftce ln sacramento and was rnlormeo in sacramento county there are L6 crematories between downtown Sacramento and Lakeside Memorial Lawn. ln addition there is 1 in Rocklin and 1 in Placerville. There are many crematories close by to serve the community' The culturaland religious requirements that Mr. Semenyuk states can be fulfilled at Mt. Vernon Cemetery in Fair Oaks 5.2 miles away. Mt. Vernon Cemetery advertises a cremation viewing suite.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
There seems to be plenty of incinerators to fulfattthis perceived regional need. Currently there are, 70.L2olo white, 17.18Yo asian, 5.890/o tlvo or more races ,3.4La/o african american living in Folsom. ln my opinion, the culturaland religious community that would use a ritual cremation is comparably low compared to the combined population of Folsom. This is a marketing tactic and disingenuous on Mr. Semenyuk's and Care Service Group part. tn my notes trom the Zoom meeting, Mr Semenyuk said "You will see a pufi of white smoke in the beginning then heat waves". Peter Hartwick later in the Zoom meeting said "You will not see or smell anything" ln the document Mr. Semenyuk wrote "there is no smoke or residue that leaves tne chamher". t'm confused, which is ir/'/ What am I going to see'/ Smoke, heat waves or what smell? Mr Semenyuk wants to install an incinerator. Mr Hartwick wants to sell an incinerator. lt's all Business, it's about money. lt's smoke and mirrors Aiso in the Scope of Work document, Mr, Semenyuk states'they are designed to use less tuel, have lower NOx emissions, are NFPA compliant, meet Air Quality standards, and the components are UL listed." So is my toaster and BBQ but it still has puffs of smoke, creates heat waves, and smells. The question is by who and how it is tested. By the manufacturer or an outside entity? How often is the incinerator operationally inspected? Does it have wet scrubbers or just filters? lf it has filters are the filters cleaned or are they thrown away? How are they disposed of?
ln addition, the document states:
"ln the event of an operational failure, the gas isimmediately and automatically shut off. There is a manual switch as well, 'lhere has never been a crematory blowing up in the history of cremation".
That is not true. There have been dozens of reported explosions, mostly from pacemakers, within the incinerator causing damage to the lncinerators bricks, doors, and other components, ls an explosion within the incinerator reported to the Fire Depanment or some other governmental agency? willthere he an inspection of the facilities after such an event by qualified service personnel or governmental agencies? Will there be a trained operator onsite during the entire cremation process? Someone to hit the manualswitch when something goes wrong? What happens during a power outage or Flex Alert? Willthey incinerate on "Spare the Air Days", "Red Flag" days, or our smoke filled summer wildfire days? Lots of questions and no answers.
Caring Service Group is profit driven, as most businesses, their excitement for * Uity of Folsom will have their first Crematory" is dangerous and disingenuous. They are looking for that cornpetitive advantage over their competition versus the health and well being of the community. Caring Service Group admits its "Primary goal is to purchase funeral home business" on their website. lt's iust Business.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
I ne onginal application was for incinetailng zuu to 4uU ihs of human remains per day. Now it's 400 lbs to 800 lbs per day. ls that 7 days a week? When are they going to request a second incinerator to increase their cash flow. This project has already affected our neighborhood qualiry of life. This is no small town operation, This is a tullfledged commercialoperation that needs to be placed in a commercial setting. Remember, this land is zoned open space. Give us little guys a break.
A crematorium proposalwas submitted back in 2002 by Lorin Chaney, then owner of Lakeview Memoriat Cemetery and wag denied by the Historic Commission on l.-15-2003, What has changed since then? lt is still proposed in the same old meal shed, Crematoriums still mattuncfion, stillhave operator error, still smoke, stitiemit nasty odor, I his prqect is stili located in the same Zoned open space. we now have more residents including infants, young children and many seniors. Am I missing something? This is obviously wrong.
So, does Folsom really need an industrial incinerator in the Historic District, ln a eoned .,Open Space" designated area, in a historic residential neighborhood, in a documented "Wildland High Fire Risk" area, near a State Recreational Area, near a National Registered Historic Sate( (Cnina Mission-Chung Wuh Cemetery)''
Caring Service Group and Miller Funeral Home think it would be wonderful. Really???? Thank You for your time.
David Higgins
lFong St,
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
December 28,2020
My Name ls Dave Higgins. I am a member of HFRA. I live near Lakeside Memorial Lawn. I have some questions and concerns about the proposed Crematory at the Lakeside Memorial lawn.
I have read the proposal submitted to the City of Folsom by lgor Semenyuk.
My first comment comes from their "Point at lssue"
The proposal states Folsom has an estimated 450 deaths per year and an estimated 300 cremations need to be performed. That would be .82 cremations a day, present time. As the document states, "including Folsom Ranch, we need to have an on-site crematory in order to facilitate it's increase. This does not take into consideration neighboring cities and their demand for cremation services.
The 300 number is not real. I foresee the facility, in time, being a very busy place processing several remains a day, increasing traffic ilemands ie. funeral vehicles, propane delivery trucks, service trucks, funeral patrons.
Second comment comes from their "Our Proposition"
Lakeside Memorial Lawn is near residences, 1 17 homes in the "Preserves Neighborhood. Some in direct view of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn. This place is not that removed from residences, as stated. In addition, there are two parks, FLSRA and the playground on Sutter St.
Also, within the section, it states Lakeside Lawn does not have a gas or sewer line. The proposal states they will be installing two propane tanks. Where, how big, how often serviced by delivery trucks? I question the no need for a sewer connection or some other sod of liquid disposal.
Third comment comes from their" Cremation Process"
I am concerned the "Shed" might not be large enough to facilitate the process. I believe the shed currently houses equipment like the backhoe, garden tractor, mowers, trailers, hand tools, and chemicals used in the care of the grounds. ls there room for all? ls another building planned?
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
\Mll the remains be transferred outside the shed from the vehicle to the crematory oven in public view or within the shed, protected from public view? Fourth comment comes from their "Scope of Work"
There is no mention of the height of the "stack"
Living in the "Preserves" neighborhood is special. Great neighbors and community. Proximity to the treasures of Folsom. Lake Natomas, The Hike and BikeTrails, Historic Downtown Folsom, Muir House, Chinese Memorial Cemetery, Veterans Hall, and Sutter St. Play Park. They are wonderful places.
However, with all these wonderful things comes a down side. We have a lot of traffic. Muir house on weekends, FLSRA access point everyday, Veterans and delivery trucks to the Veterans Hall, Occasional City of Folsom vehicles accessing the back gate to the Crop Yard. Not to mention the ever present UPS, FedEx, and Amazon Delivery Vans.
So, lt is my opinion, a Crematory at Lakeside Lawn would provide a service for the community. However, it needs to address and satisfy the concerns of the Preserves Community. lf the proposal is approved, limit the number of daily cremations, limit the cremation to weekdays only. Have the proposed activity and operations away from public view. Evaluate the location and size of the shed and propane tanks. The Preserve neighborhood is basically a court, one way in one way out.
On a selfish note, I believe this could hurt our home values Please consider and weigh all aspects of this project. Once it's approved there is no return.
Thank You for your time
Dave Higgins
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
To:
July 6,2021
Historic District Commission
Folsom Planning Commission
My name is David Higgins. I live at !f ong St, directly across the street from Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. I am opposed to having a crematory placed in my neighborhood. A crematorium should be zoned for commercial- industrialareas NOT residentialareas.
I have seen the proposal submitted by lgor Semenyuk and participated in the Zoom meeting hosted by HFRAfor a crematorium at Lakeside Memorial Lawn. I have severalconcerns about the Crematorium.
lgor Semenyuk stated the crematory would probably operate 5 to 7 times a week. I assume this would be the initial start up number. I am concerned what the actual cremation number would be for the future. 2,3,4,5 a day? 5-7 days a week?
ln the initial proposal submitted and in the Zoom meeting there was no mention of any noise. I would like to know if I am going to be subjected to a constant hum or roar from the machine.
How much propane is used during a cremation process and how often will I see propane trucks servicing the tanks and smelling the propane gas when refilling.
I won't be looking forward to the increase in traffic from the vehicles delivering the bodies, service trucks, etc. Since we have only one access point in and out of this residential area, we already live with a large amount of traffic and congestion from light rail. lgor Semenyuk stated the only smoke emitted is at the beginning of the process when a "puff of white vapor is released." After researching crematoriums online I saw some disturbing videos of "white vapor" being exhausted out of crematorium stacks. Please see the links enclosed. httos://www.oa nost, comla rticle I 20 1 507 1 1 2066867 https://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/opinion/letters to the editor/the-crematorium-next-to-mv -homeiarticle-7 1 e6f1 3d-ddaf-5ffc-a7fc-e057b98a1 efc.html https://www. ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 1 279940/ https://mountainx.com/news/community-news/crematorium-smoke-triggers-complaints/
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o OKC Crematorium Operating at Night "Dusting" Residential Neighborhoods o Crematorium fires up in NE Portland
o Scottsdale neighborhood concerned about increased cremation smoke https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xom-2007-dec-26-na-cremate26-storv.html Will there always be an operator on site during the process to shutdown the machine if a malfunction arises?
ln researching who regulates and inspects crematoriums the information is rather vague. The FederalTrade Commission regulates the funeral industry, however, it does not oversee crematoriums. Nobody seems to. lt appears they are under the radar. So, is the fox guarding the hen house? Do we just trust they are going to do the right thing? I don't think so. The moment it is installed, it's there forever.
Speculation arises from the air quality. Can't find a definitive answer here either. Mercury from teething fillings, chemicals from embalmed bodies, medical prosthesis (pace makers), chemotherapy and radiation by-products from cancer patients. Are any of these materials released into the air or are they consumed 100% by the fire.
My home is approximately 575 feet from the proposed crematorium. Other homes are as close as 450 feet. Not very far. I suspect the smoke stack will be visible from my porch. I believe some of my neighbors will also have a view of the smoke stack.
Lakeside Memorial Lawn also shares this small neighborhood with the Chinese Cemetery, Veterans Hall, Muir House, access to the State Rec area and a quaint park and playground. lt is my opinion allthese facilities will be impacted. I also believe the crematorium will affect our property values.
Please don't allow the crematorium in our residential area. lt belongs in a commercial-lndustrial area. Would you like it in your neighborhood?
Thank You for your time,
David Higgins
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Elaine Andersen
Sunday, August 8,2021 11:36 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: No to the Crematorium
From: david higgins
Sent: Sunday, August 8,202t 8:55 AM
To: [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <rrodriguez@folsom'ca'us>; Elaine Andersen <ea [email protected]>
Subject: No to the Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dh441 [email protected]. Learn why 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.
August 8,2021
Folsom Historic Commission
Folsom Planning Department
My name is Dave Higgins, I am a retired Fire Captain from the City of Fremont, Ca. with over 30 years of experience, 10 of which I was a member of the HazMat Response Team. I live next to Lakeside Memorial Lawn where the proposed crematorium is planned. I am writing to express my concerns.
My concern centers around the two 250 gallon propane tanks proposed. This proposed facility is 30 feet from the Open SpaceMildland Zoned part of Folsom. 600 feet from my house. Should these tanks be exposed to fire, physical damage, or vandalism this neighborhood would be in serious trouble. Protection of the tanks, in my opinion, would be difficult.
There is a fire hydrant on the street at the entrance to Lakeside Memorial Lawn. The distance from the hydrant to the old shed is approximately 650 feet. The driveway, one way in and out is narrow, however, it could support two pieces of apparatus if not blocked by fire hose or parked vehicles. Clear access to the tanks would be difficult because of the tanks location. The tanks will be blocked by a fence, shrubbery, and trees.
Placement of hoselines to reach the tanks could prove hazardous for firefighters.
Propane being a compressed gas expand s 270:1when released. This vapor is heavier than air and will creep along the ground and settle in low pockets. Should a leak occur at night a large section of the Preserve Neighborhood could be impacted. The Preserves Neighborhood has one access / exit corridor that passes directly in front of Lakeside Memorial Lawn. Should an event occur not all of the residents are getting out. 1
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
According to the "Gity of Folsom Community Wildfire Protection Plan" dated April 2013, The Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies Folsom as having the greatest density of housing subject to wildfire in Sacramento County. (page 5) Folsom is a registered community at risk. The Folsom Fire Department has identified the greatest threat to the community from fire would be a fast moving wildfire in the brush and oak woodland fuel bed that line the American River where it flows through Folsom. (page 6)
The City of Folsom also has the responsibility to insure future planning and zoning decisions for development adjacent to open space areas including sufficient provisions for the clearance required to protect new and future structures. These provisions may include adequate setbacks, buffer areas, or other measures to reduce the wildfire risks. (page 7) ln my opinion, the authors of this document overlooked the "City of Folsom Community \Nildfire Plan". The Negative Declaration states, page 61, "The project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Calftre2020;cs92020)". On page 92, "Environmental Setting", "The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone".lt seems the Negative Declaration overlooked or failed to seek out all relative information as to the fire hazards in the area.
ln the past couple of months there have been several grass/wildland fire incidents in Folsom and within the Lake Natoma Recreation area.
. On June 2,2021 storage shed at Negro Bar and the exterior of the Cliff House Restaurant was set on fire.
. On June 5,2021, 3.5 acres was burned off Prairie City Road near the transient encampment. . On July 7,2021 encampment fire near Blue Ravine and Sibley. . On July 16,2021 several acres of vegetation burned in the Humbug-Willow Creek with reported difficulty accessing.
' o n J u rv 2 3, F o r s o m,55f;
f; i_",HiHxr,.ffir;i"T ",'""ly,.l? i"r*H :" rt ""T'
F i re E m e rs e n cv "'
Several times I have witnessed transient activity at the lake and in the nearby woodlands. I believe a fire from a transient camp or vandalism could impact the propane tanks. 500 gallons of propane is a lot of propane for a residential neighborhood with limited access.
I am not opposed to crematoriums. I am opposed to crematoriums in residential neighborhoods "Folsom Distinctive by Nature ". This project belongs in a commercial industrialzoned area.
Thank You for your time,
Dave Hi NS
Propane Tank Hazards
Miscellaneous Fireline Hazards
Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) tanks are commonly found in the wildland-urban interface and present hazards to firefighters in that environment. LPG tanks may be found in a number of other environments such as motor homes, 2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
travel trailers, grills, camp stoves, lanterns, etc. Directly attacking LPG tank fires is a structural fire task involving hazardous materials and should only be attempted by trained personnel using full structural rotective equipment and equipped with a volume of water adequate to safely attack the fire. lBoiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions (BLEVE)
'The most recognized hazard with LPG tanks is BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions) or sudden complete failure of the tank. Some training courses have directed responders to approach the tank from the sides, believing that the force of the explosion will occur on the ends of the tank. However, this is not a guarantee that you will be safe from projectiles or missiles from the explosion, as they may travel in ALL directions up to 2,500 feet away. Leave the area imrnediately if you srtrell propane; hear a rising sound from venting safety devices or see discoloration or deformation of the tank. lf you leave the area, get at least 2,500 feet away and do not go down wind or down slope of the leaking propane. BLEVEs are a malor hazard to emergency responders!
QFuel Reduction Around Tanks
' Wildland firefighters may take action to prevent direct flame impingement on LPG tanks by removing wildland fuels in the area. However, be aware that lines from the tank to structures may be above or below ground, and may be cut by tools or equipment. Propane gas is heavier than air, and may move along the ground at some distance, and may ignited when in reaches open flame or another ignition source. Use extreme caution when doing fuels reduction around tanks, and flag any lines you encounter. lQther Wildland Fire Considerations
' Do not position engines or other apparatus near LPG tanks or downwind / down slope from tanks. ' Do not deploy fire shelters near LPG tanks or downwind / down slope from tanks. EQooling Tanks ' ln light fuels such as grasses, where any heat exposure to the tank will be very limited, rapid application of cooling water on the outside of the tank above the liquid level can reduce the likelihood of container failure by lowering the external temperature of the shell of the exposed tank. Water should not be directed at the valve safety devices, due to the potential of "icing" the valve closed. ' ln heavy fuels where long duration heat exposure to the LPG tank is likely, evacuate all personnel and equipment 2,500 feet away and not down slope or down wind. NFPA says that direct flame impingement protection requires water flow of at least 500 gpm from an unmanned monitor nozzle. This is a situation for properly trained, equipped and supported structural firefighters.
References: Propane Safety Web Site, NIOSH Web Site, National Propane Gas Association's Web Site, NFPA Web Site Have an idea? Have feedback? Share it.
EMAIL I Facebook I MAIL: 6 Minutes for Safety Subcommittee.3S33 S. Development Ave. Boise, lD 83705 | FAX: 208-387-5250 x
3
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
February 4,2022
Historic District Commissioners
City Council Members
City Manager
Kelly Mullett
My name is Dave Higgins, I live across the street from Lakeside Memorial Lawn where the proposed crematorium is to be built. Over the course of summer to the present time I have taken pictures of activity at the cemetery. I wish to share.
This picture was submitted by the Caring Service Group and Miller Funeral Home's 2-27-2020 application for the Conditional Use Permit to install a crematory. Two years ago. This is what the metal storage shed and surrounding grounds looked like in 2-27-2020.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This picture was also submitted 2-27-2020 to illustrate the look and size of the smokestack on the roof. The amateurish hand drawn chimney does not truly illustrate the true look or height of the proposed stack. According to the Negative Declaration the stack is to be 19 % feet total height from grade.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This picture was taken January L3th,2022. This is what the maintenance grounds look like currently. The new storage shed is in the background and the existing shed is on the right. The metal security fencing surrounds the grounds and has a locked security gate. Note the Dredger Tailing Pile condition. lt has been disturbed over the years.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This picture was taken January L31h,2022. This picture illustrates the current look of the maintenance grounds, sheds and security fencing. The metal shed on the right is where the proposed crematory is to be installed.
,.*.""ffit"'
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This picture shows the propane tank pad right of the building under the large tree. This photograph was taken January L31h,2022. The application site plan confirms the location of the propane pad. ln addition, the site plan calls tor 2x 500 gallon tanks, not the 2x250 gallon tanks in the Negative Declaration text.
.;
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This photograph taken January L3lh 202L displays another angle of the location of the propane tanks pad. Blocked by a wooden fence, metal security fencing, a large redwood tree and the metalshed.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
This picture was taken on August 4Ih,2O2L. This is Lakeside Memorial Lawn groundskeeper, Valdimir Semenyuk, driving out of the cemetery with a 25O gallon propane tank, This picture is disturbing on many levels. lt is my opinion that the Caring Service is very confident in the outcome of the Conditional Use Permit. lf indeed this tank is for the Crematory it is very arrogant for the Caring Service Group to show no discretion in their activities.
Pictures are worth a thousand words
Thank You
Dave Higgins
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deb Ozdinski
Monday, August 16,2021 1:29 PM
Josh Kinkade
Crematorium Project
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSend erld e ntif ication.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.
Josh,
Thanks for taking my call this morning
As we discussed the Caring Services Group (Miller Funeral Home) applicant is applying to place a crematorium in a shed on that Lakeside Cemetery site.
What I want to do is remind you of our discussion that this crematorium affects so many people. Not only the city, the environment, homes close by, the river, Lake Natoma State Park and the other historic cemetery.
I am requesting the Applicant must also contact the owners of all the niches and family members that have buried their loved ones and disclose the proposed project to them. These people should be informed just like other projects MUST send out notices. YES, this is a unique situation and YES it should get unique attention. There is no excuse this far in advance that this added Notice can't be done. Again, this is a unique situation.
I own my own niche for my husband and l. Other siblings of mine living today have purchased niches along the same wall that is closest to the metal shed. When I visit my parents, we stand and talk to them, and what we would be having to endure is a crematorium staring us in the face. How unpleasant do you think that will be? lt would affect our use and enjoyment of the cemetery and visiting our loved ones. lt makes me sick to think of visiting them while knowing bodies are being cremated just feet from my parents remains.
I please, please ask that the Applicant and City must take additional time and work to notify the people involved that purchasedinthatcemetary. Theremustberecordsofwhattheysoldandtowhom. lftheyhavenorecordsorlost records that tells you they have poor business practices.
Again, please make this a condition that those folks are informed and heard. They have the right to know! I am certain the numbers of people opposing this project will be ten times the numbers you would get otherwise. We purchase a spot for our loved ones to rest and now to think we may need to sell niches and move our parents. This is what we are faced with.
Please review with appropriate city folks and let me know what has been decided Just remember if you were in our shoes how would you feel? Ask those Planners that question too. lt's the right thing to do.
1 Regards
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Deb and Gres Ozdinski
lwr."rview way
Folsom
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Josh Kinkade
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deborah Grassl
Thursday, January 27,2022 2:51 PM
Josh Kinkade
Re: Crematorium Noticing
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.
Hi Josh,
I noticed that this Project's CUP is not included in the public review documents IS/MND released. CEQA refers to the CUP being an integral part of the public comment review period, The Governor's Office of Research and Planning wrote aguidetitled,'TheConditional UsePermit.'ltstatesonpage3,paragraph3,"...lftheproposal isnotexemptfrom environmental review, the city or county is required to prepare either a negative declaration indicating that the conditional use permit will have no significant effect, or an Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) which describes the potential negative impacts of the proposaland the means to avoid or lessen those impacts.
Please see the CEQA references to the public's right to review below CEQA CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, DIVISION l3.ENVIRONMENTAL QUALlTYChapter 1 : Policy
S 21003. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES; DoGUMENTS; REPORTS; DATA BASE; ADMINISTRATION OF PROCESS
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that:
(a) Local agencies integrate the requirements of this division with planning and environmental review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to the maximum feasible extent, run concurrently, rather than consecutively ,...
S 21003.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFEGTS OF PROJECTS; COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AND PUBLIC AGENCIES TO LEAD AGENCIES; AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION The Legislature further finds and declares it is the policy of the state that:
(a) Comments from the public and public agencies on the environmental effects of a project shall be made to lead agencies as soon as possible in the review of environmental documents, including, but not limited to, draft environmental impact reports and negative declarations, in order to allow the lead agencies to identify, at the earliest possible time in the environmental review process, potential significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which would substantially reduce the effects.
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
(b) lnformation relevant to the significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made available as soon as possible by lead agencies, other public agencies, and interested persons and organizations. (c) Nothing in subdivisions (a) or (b) reduces or othenrvise limits public review or comment periods currently prescribed either by statute or in guidelines prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 21083 for environmental documents, including, but not limited to, draft environmental impact reports and negative declarations.
s 21064.5. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
,,Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environlnent. but (1 ) reyisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicarrt before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point u4rere clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is 1o substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
S 21080. D|VISION APPLICATION TO DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS; NONAPPLICATION; NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION (a) Except as otheruvise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps ." (c) lf a lead agency determines thai a proposed project, not othenrvise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment' (2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaralon and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.... s 21092. pUBLtC NOTTCE OF PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ; PUBLICATION
2
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
(bX1) The notice shall specify the period during which comments will be received on the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and shall include the date, time, and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the project, the address where copies of the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, are available for review, description of how the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration can be provided in an electronic format.
Josh, I request that you post the Conditional Use Permit in accordance to CEQA, and adjust the period of time for public review for this Project.
Deborah Grassl
On t/7 /22 L0:20 AM, Josh Kinkade wrote:
Hello,
lf you are receiving this email, you have previously emailed or sent a letter to City of Folsom staff and/or City Council members and their Historic District Commission representatives regarding the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory project. Because you are an interested party, lam sharingthe attached public hearing notice (which is being published in the February 6th Folsom Telegraph and sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site) and informing you that the Historic District Commission is considering the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MND) for the project at the February 15,2022 Historic District Commission meeting.
The final version of the lS/MND, as well as additional project documentation, is located here:
https:/fwww.folsom.ca.us/government/com munitv-development/plan n ing-services/cu rrent-proiectinformation. Ph ysical copies of the document will also be made available at City Hall, at the Community Development Counter. The public comment period for the lS/MND begins on January 7,2022 and ends on February 7,2022.
The staff report for the CUP will be available here at least 5 days prior to the February 16 hearing date:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/govern ment/commu nitv-development/pla n n ing-services/h istoric-districtcommission. A physical copy of the document will also be made available at City Hall, at the Community Development Counter
Note that if you have emailed or mailed a comment to staff, or if your letter/email to City Council members or Historic District Commissioners was forwarded to staff, that comment will be included in the staff report for the CUP and will be available to the commission and general public prior to the hearing on February 16th. All additional comments received prior to the publication of the staff report will also be published in the staff report. You may also make a verbal comment at the February L6th meeting (up to 3 minutes in length per person).
Thank you,
Josh Kinkade
:1.s.soc'in f e P l. a n r t tt'
3 Community Development Department
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
cA 9s630
Deborah Grassl
IYoung Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
February 7,2022
RE 2022 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Folsom,
Project PN- 1 9- I 82 and 2002 Lakeside Cemetery
Crematorium Proj ect PN-02-05 8
Dear Commissioners
I would like to make a comment on the above-mentioned}}22 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Project Application . In2002,the Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium made an identical application based on an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Folsom. Those 2002 documents survive any subsequent consideration of an application with an identical project that, has no new substantial information, based on the holding in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v.
San Muteo County Community College (2016) I Cal' 5rh 937' :
OPINION J. Kruger "To ensure that governmental agencies and the public are adequately informed about the environmental impact of public decisions, the California Environmental euality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) before approving a new project that"may have a significant effect on the environment- (id. 21151 (a). When changes are proposed to a project for which an EIR has already been prepared, the agency must prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR only if the changes are "[s]ubstantial" and require "major revisions" of the previous EIR. (1d. 21166.) Guidelines ... extend this subsequent review framework to projects for which a negative declaration was initially adopted, and no EIR was prepared...(CEQA Guidelines 15162.)" According to the above court's ruling, the existing 2002Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) stands and must be the controlling document for an identical project' Staff's 2002 Findings on the CUP application were recommended for denial based the MND's lack of substantial environmental information on: whether the operation of the crematorium would or would not affect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood residents:' that a crematorium was not a compatible use with a historic cemetery because it did not agree with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines or General Plan goals of history resource preservation of Folsom's three unique historic resources (Chung Wah, Lakeside Cemetery's 8 historic cemeteries, and State Preserue Dredger Tailings) , and, because of the substantial reaction against the crematorium by the residents and history preservation groups.
Because the 2022 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project MND and CUP do not have any standing the 2022 MND and CUP should be denied by the Historic District Commission based on (Friends of the Cotlege of San Muteo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College (2016) I caL5rh 93V.