Folsom City Council
April 26, 2022

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

If the Lakeside Cemetery wants to re-apply they can do so with the2002 MND and a new CUP application. However, the Findings for the 2002 CUP denial would still be unanswered and a new CUP application would still have to answer to those deficiencies - by doing the CEQA environmental work that the MND failed to provide.

I recommend HDC deny the 2022Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery Project with a recommendation to to go back and do an Environmental Impact Report. If substantial information regarding the environmental studies should provide answers as to why the Staff recommended denial of the CUP originally, then reapply with a Subsequent EIR. A Subsequent EIR would have legal standing before HDC. The general public, residents surrounding the cemetery and history preservation groups are vigilant and will settle for nothing less.

Sincerely,
Deborah Grassl
cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] kmul I ett@fo I som. ca.us

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Deborah Grassl
lVoung Wo Circle
F cA 95630
February 7,2022
RE Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
PN-19-182
Dear Commissioners
I would like to make three comments with regardsto standards of guidance that control the approval or denial of the above mentioned Project and its request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). And then summarize a recommendation for denial of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP operation.

Standards of Guidance: California's Hierarchy of Planning Laws 1) Under State of California laq charter cities have the legal authority to issue conditional use permits (CUP) using their own written standards of guidance, with one proviso:. the standards of guidance must be contained in the charter city's Municipal Zoning Code, which must be in compliance with its adopted General Plan, which must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) state laws.

The validity of a charter city's CIIP approval process derives from compliance with this hierarchy of planning laws Q,{eighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (198a) 156 Cal. App.3d 1176). A charter city can name any number of documents as standards of guidance as long as they are contained in their Municipal Zoning Code, in compliance with their General Plan; and in compliance with CEQA.

The reason for this hierarchy of planning laws is to check any unbridled discretionary act or decision by an administrative agency, and to help guide the administrative body's Findings.

The City of Folsom is a chafter city that authorizes the Historic District Commission to approve CUPs for projects in the Historic District. Some of Folsom's standards of guidance are not in compliance with California's hierarchy of planning law
2) Folsom Municipal Zoning Code (FMC) 17.52 HD-Historic District is a good example.

The FMC 17.52was crafted fiom a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR), taken from the Historic District Specific Plan mentioned in the 1988 General Plan as almost completed. When finished, this Plan was to be adopted by the City Council and become the controllingstandard of guidance for the Historic District.

The Historic District Specific Plan was NOT adopted by the City Council. However, the Plan and MEIR were later used to develop the City's ZoningCode 17.52 HD-Historic District, and to craft the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, both as a standards of guidance for the Historic

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

District. The unadopted Historic District Specific Plan and MEIR, were still used as standards of guidance for Folsom's Municipal Code 17.52 and the Historic District Guidelines.

The historic record for how this standard of guidance came into being can be found in the (c.1995) Historic District Design and Development Guidelines Introduction, Chapter 1.03 CEQA Compliance:
"The City conducted environmental review of a proposed Historic District Specific Plan. Due to the nature and complexity of the Plan and the projects which will follow under it, a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared. The City ultimately elected to implement zoning changes to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code and design standards through the adoption of these Design and Development Guidelines. Many of the provisions of the proposed Historic District Specific Plan and the amendments to Chapter 17.52 are contained within these guidelines. Accordingly, the City Council relied upon the MEIR for evaluation and consideration of environmental impacts.
... The intent is to allow the creation of an environmental impact analysis and mitigation foundation in an MEIR for a broad planning project which will then enable significant reduced CEQA documentation for future projects built according to Chapter 17.52 and the Design and Development Guidelines."
The Historic Specific District Plan and MEIR, the foundational instruments for FMC 17.52 andthe Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, are in direct conflict with Folsom's General Plan because they were/are used as standards of guidance but were not adopted by the City Council into the General Plan. Up until2 weeks ago, the Historic District Specific Plan was on the City's website as a Resource for the public who need information from the Planning webpage. 3) The Folsom Historic District Commission (HDC) has been given the authority to perform discretionary actions, i.e. the granting of a major CUP, withortt standards of guidance to facilitate mandated deliberation ( CEQA Guidelines Section l5l2l) on whether a project qualifies for a major CUP as expressed in its FINDINGS (Protecting Our Water und Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.Sth 479).

Accordingly, the City of Folsom describes its standards of guidance for issuance of a CUP from its Historic District Design and Development Guidelines however one must go to FMC 17.60.101 Issuance Conditions and applicable laws, and to FMC 1.08 Enforcement of the Folsom Municipal Code and OtherApplicable Laws to find standards of guidance for both the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission. None of these webpages on the City's website refer to CEQA as a controlling standard of guidance triggered by the discretionary act of approving a CUP.

CEQA is referred to in the General Plan Update PEIR as a controlling standard of guidance for discretionary acts. So, the FMC is in direct conflict with Folsom's General Plan Update PEIR. Here is a conflict in Folsom's planning law that enables unbridled discretionary decisions on Historic District projects.

Summary of Re commendation
The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project and its CUP application is just such a project that requires CEQA deliberation and consideration, which is contained in the General Plan Update PEIR, but not in the FMC.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Approval of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project and its CUP operations would have very big impacts on residents'health, safety and welfare who live in the neighborhood, and big impacts on treasured historic resources based on the 2022Mitigated Negitive Declaration. I recommend careful CEQA study of the 2003 Initial Study Staff Report and Findings on the last time that the Lakeside Memoiral Lawn Cemetery made the same application for a CUP and was denied. Please read the 2003 Findings on the CUP before you deliberate and make your Findings.

To summarize the questions that CEQA could generate on the 2022 MND (which are identical to the Findings in the 2003 MND), and that would satisfy the obligation to show deliberation and where Findings (sans Staff Findings) came from, are:

Is there enough definitive information contained inthe 2022 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that is a health study, evidence based, published in a respected scientific medical journal, showing that this crematorium operation will not directly impact, or indirectly impact the health, safety and welfare of the 300+ residents that live next to it?; Do you have enough evidence that says it's okay to ignore General Plan policies, Historic District Design and Development Guidelines' policies regarding preservation of, and protection of, unique historic resources?; Is your decision respectful of the pioneers'and Chinese cultures and their funerary rights? Does your decision reflect the respect the National Register of Historic Places, Sacramento County's Cemetery Commission, the City of Folsom's Master Presenration List of Historic Resources have for the Lakeside Lawn Cemeteries and the Chung Wah Cemetery? And, based on the evidence in the whole record, can you definitively say the Crematorium's operation would have no impact on Folsom's residents performing sacred ablutions graveside, visiting their interred loved ones, and living next to treasured cemeteries that are inundated with fine particles generated by 800 lbs of burning human flesh each day? The operation of a crematorium.at Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is not a compatible use with historic cemeteries, or proved to have no impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community.

I recommend denial based on the 2003 StaffFindings that still contain the original, unanswered CEQA questions when applied to the new,2022 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP operation.

Sincerely,
Deborah Grassl
cc email: Historic District Commissioners
[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Deborah Grassl
Friday, July 2,20214:56 PM
Josh Kinkade
Terry Sorensen; Steve
Re: Zoom meeting with lgor Semenyuk and HFRA/Lake Natoma Shores residents 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.

Thanks Josh. I don't know how I missed that the lnitial Study and MND were combined A comment on the lS/MND: There is scant information on the crematorium's cumulative future impacts regarding traffic, circulation, air quality and wildfire safety.

Example: lgor didn't seem to know how often activities at the Cemetery generate a high level of cars parking on Forrest, young Wo and Sutter Streets. He thinks that the Cemetery has 50 parking spaces and that is all he needs for future ceremonies and interments that future cremations will generate. ln addition, he thinks that although he will conduct 500 cremations a year, this might generate 30 actual ceremonies and interments atthe Cemetery".

Example: WhenaskedabouttheLevel ofServicechangeattheintersectionof FolsomBlvdandForrestanticipatedby the increased level of cars heading into the Cemetery to attend ceremonies and interments generated by the 30 cremations, he didn't know...

Example: When asked about what kind of wildfire design he used for the crematorium, he said that as far as he knew there weren't any wildfire problems. (He was unaware of Folsom's Community Wildfire Protection Plan. And although the lS stated that the Folsom Fire Chief signed off on the project, there was no input from the Fire Chief in the lS.) He then described how the blast zone of one ofthe propane tanks was 600' and he thought the propane tanks would be far enough away from homes to not blow them up. He didn't mention the National Registry of Historic Place Chung Wah Cemetery, the State Park filled with dry grasses and trees - or his own Cemetery filled with trees and dry grasses in the back abutting the State Park lands and on the old abandoned Figueroa Street behind 2L Young Wo Circle homes...

Example: Couldnrt find any reference about if the crematorium will operate on days when our area is impacted by wildfire smoke or Spare The Air days. When asked if he realized that we are in a non-attainment area and that Folsom doesn't meet State or County government regulations to reducing overall air pollution, lgor didn't know whether the crematorium's air pollution footprint would help the City of Folsom meet the General Plan air quality goals or not.'.

These future operational impacts are important to people living at The Preserve, Lake Natoma Shores and the Historic District - not so much the lS's construction procedures of the actual building of the crematorium.

We would like lgor to get the environmental information for the cumulative effects of his future operation. That information will tell us whether the quality of our lives will be impacted by a crematorium or not.

Thanks,
Deborah Grassl
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

Toi
Subject:

Date:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium
Friday, August 6,2021 8:22:37 AM
From: Debra Williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 28,2021" 3:10 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Proposed Crematori um
You don't often get.trit frotE 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.

July 28,2021
Dear Ms. Anderson,
f am writing to voice my concerns regarding the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium project. The crematorium would be built and operate just a few hundred feet from my home. After reading the Initial Study/Mit'igated Negat'ive Declaration posted on the Folsom City website and do'ing further research of reliable sources, I am not convinced that the effects would be ,,tess than significant" for those tiving so near the project. T have serious concerns regarding the impact to air quafity, including the release of toxins such as mercury that an operating crematorium would have on my family (my 83 year old mother lives on the same street), and other residents of the nei ghborhood.

My mother has lived on this street for 23 years and I have tived four doors up the street from her and been a teacher at the public middle school just one mite from our neighborhood since 2006. I ask that th'is proposal be denied and that the business owners find a location that is not so near a residential area. Please consider how you would feel if you were in our shoes. I'imagine that most persons involved in this decision making process and those who would make a profit from the business, would not want their own family tiving so ctose to it.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this very sensitive and important issue.

Si nce rely ,
Debra Williams
IYoung wo Circle

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From: Diana Matheny <zinladyl @yahoo.com >
Tuesday, August 31,2021 4:16 PM
Josh Kinkade
Re: Proposed Crematory CUP
Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

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 Josh Kinkade.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by the Caring Service Group, has applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds, here in our backyard in Historic Folsom. This has serious implications for the physical, environmental, and fiscal health of our community and the Folsom Historic District.

Our homes and business in Historic Folsom have been here for many years. We do not want to jeopardize our beautiful community with the consequents of having a crematory installed.

Rancho Cordova has the Rendering Plant. The business and residents who live in the area complain of the horrible smell from the rendering plant. li's stinky and you don't want to go outside in your backyard. I've researched crematory online with different cities who have had complaints from residents with dark smoke and smell. We definitely do not want this in our neighborhood.

Historic Folsom is a charming place where people come to live, enjoy the outdoors with biking, and walking. The Historic Folsom Sutter Street attracts tourist and locals. lf the crematory is approved this will change the Historic Folsom charm and lose the tourist and locals supporting the business on Sutter Street. lt will also bring down the value of our homes.

We love and live here locally in the Historic Folsom area. I asked you to do the right thing and deny the conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by Caring Service Group.

Can you suggest to relocate somewhere else like Folsom Ranch on the other side of Hwy 50? Of course not near homes. There is plenty of open space land to build a crematory in that area.

Do not build crematory in a residential area. lts not fair to the home owners Please provide my email to the Historic Commission who will make the decision to deny or grant the decision of the permit.

Thank you
Diana Luzader
lwool St, Folsom Ca

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
91 Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31.,202!, at L0:19 AM, Josh Kinkade <[email protected]> wrote Diana,
I had your message forwarded to me regarding the proposed crematory facility at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is subject to a vote by the Historic District Commission. We present a staff report to the commission along with any comments that have been received prior to the meeting, so if you wish to present any written comments to the decision-makers, you can email them to me and I can include them in the packet that we sent to the commission. Current information about the project, including the draft lnitial Study that discusses the project in detail, can be found here: https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/communitv-development/planningservices/cu rrent-proiect-information Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
,4.s.scrciote It Iu nn er
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6209
< image001. png>
< image002 . png>
< image003. png>
<image004. png>
www. folsom. ca , us
<imageO05.jpg>
2

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, August 27 ,2021 1 1:47 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: No Historic Folsom Crematory
From: Diana Matheny
Sent: Friday, August 27,202111:37:29 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjoh nson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: No Historic Folsom Crematory
You don't often get email from zinladyl @yahoo.com. Learn why this is important 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.

Diana Luzader
lwool Street
Folsom, CA 95630
August 27,2021
Scott Johnson
Folsom, Planning Manager
Dear Scott Johnson :

Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by the Caring Service Group, has applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds, here in our backyard in Hisioric Folsom. This has serious implications for the physical, environmental, and fiscal health of our community and the Folsom Historic District.

Our homes and business In Historic Folsom have been here for many years. We do not want to jeopardize our beautiful community with the consequents of having a crematory installed.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Rancho Cordova has the Rendering Plant. The business and residents who live in the area complain of the horrible smell from the rendering plant. lt's stinky and you don't want to go outside in your backyard. Historic Folsom is a charming place where people come to live, enjoy the outdoors with biking, and walking. The Historic Folsom Sutter Street attracts tourist and locals. lf the crematory is approved this will change the Historic Folsom charm and lose the tourist and locals supporting the business on Sutter Street. lt will also bring down the value of our homes.

We love and live here locally in the Historic Folsom area. I asked you to do the right thing and deny the conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by Caring Service Group. Please provide your feedback as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Diana Luzader
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Wednesday, February 2,2022 2:53 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
l) I un n ir i t1 Xl art utt e t'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6206
h lr-.qlF*ffifi)etr
ct'rv ()F
nr5'rtHcT!vL BY t{6TURE
$s@ w\vlllQLs-gi]LQ€"lrs
From: Edwin Grattan
Sent: Wednesday, Februa ry 2, 2022 2:52 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[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]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
You don't often get email from Learn whv this is important €AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: City Council representatives and Folsom Historic District Commissioners Re: Vote NO on Folsom Crematory Proposal
Public hearing scheduled for February 16,2022
I am writing to you as a concerned resident in the Folsom Historic District. I am strongly opposed to the conditional use permit to install a crematorium on the grounds of a residential open space. I believe allowing a permanent, industrial incinerator in the residential open space does not meet the criteria of the Folsom Historic District.

I further believe this coniradicts the city of Folsom motto, 'Distinctive by Nature'. I urge you to vote NO on the proposed Folsom Cremalorium. Please consider the impacts to the environment, physical health of the residents and the fiscal health of the Folsom Historic District.

Vote NO on the Folsom Crematory Proposal.

Sincerely,

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Edwin Grattan
Historic Folsom Resident
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Attachments:

Erika Hamer
Wednesday, January 12,2022 5:12 PM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino;YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade Crematorium
Erika bluff photojpg
Some people who received this message 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.

To whom it may concern,
I live on the bluffs in Orangevale overlooking Lake Natoma. I have learned that a crematorium may be put in the Lakeside Cemetery next to the lake. This is a terrible idea'
I understand this is zoned as open space, and it should be kept natural. I paddle board frequently on the lake, enjoy being outside walking the paths and relishing the beauty I am so lucky to have in my backyard. A crematorium does not belong near residents and visitors to Folsom recreation, shopping and dining. Nor does this crematorium belong in an area that is next to a state park. Nobody wants to see or smell puffs of human remains/smoke while they are trying to enjoy the outdoors and neighboring areas; this should be put within an industrial zone or the like. Please help us keep the view and open space natural and (live) people-centered.
on another note, lwould be furious and deeply disappointed if I heard this crematorium would be installed across or down the actual street from my home. Would you like it near yours? Thank you for your time and attention to this important community matter Sincerely,
Erika Hamer
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Kellv Mullett
losh Kinkade
FW: crematorium
Tuesday, November 23,202L 10:21:03 AM
imaoe001.pno
imaoe002.ono
imaoe003.ono
imaoe004.ono
IEIEL'iE
FYI
KellyMullett
,'i rlr rt t tt isl lrr lrt'r' 4s.si.sl ri rt I
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
Ej
wwr,v.folsont.ca. us
From: Evelyn Gates
Sent: Saturday, November 20,2021,4:33 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] an khelyi @comcast.neU [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>;[email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Josh Kinkade <jkin kad [email protected]. us>; Kelly Mullett <km u I [email protected], us> Subject: crematorium
some people who received this message don't often get email ttotl Learn wh)r 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
I am 8 years old, and I really don't want a crematorium in my neighborhood. My family lives in this neighborhood , and I don't want all of us to breathe bad air. ljust moved here, and I don't want to move again. My grandparents live derectley across from the cemetery. And my cousin Iives 5 houses away from my grandparents, and she's only onel Please don't put a crematorium in my neighborhood there are lots of kids in the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Evelyn Gates

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
Ad r ninistr etir.'e Assis lc rt f
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, July 7,2021 3:37 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
ffi EFI ? OF f$I,H$X'[
rt $rtEfltrr a? l!l*"uar
S9@ www.rotsom.ca.us
From: Genie Moeszinger
Sent: Wednesday, July 7,202t 3:05 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <kmu [email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn 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.

Dear K. Mullett,
lamaresidentofthe"HistoricDistrict"justacrossFolsomBlvd.withinwalkingdistancetooldtownSutterSt. lliveon Sutter St. in one of the few historic homes that were spared when the Natoma Crossing Bridge was constructed. I love the neighborhood that I reside in, At first glance you would think it must be a dream come true area to call home' Well, we have had to accept and learn to live with relentless loud Light Rail dinging for 10 consecutive minutes on the half hour of every hour all day long and well into the evening EVERY single day. Roaring motorcycles that feel and sound like a freight train going through our home at all hours of the day, perhaps due to the close proximity of the Harley Davidson retail establishment just down the street, regardless, impossible to EVER enjoy a quiet summer morning or evening in our sweet yard. Add to the mind numbing roar of the motorcycles and we have constant noise pollution from the never ending backup of traffic on Folsom Blvd., not to mention the choking toxic exhaust and unhealthy fumes from this staggering amount of congestion of traffic, that truly does not lighten up until maybe 3:00am in the early morning and the quiet only lasts a couple of hours until it all begins again. This brings me to the proposal of building a crematorium onsiteoftheLakesideMemorial LawnCemeterythatisnotaverybigcemeterytobeginwith. ThePreservesisalovely neighborhood with a beautiful mix of elderly and young and everything in between. I can tell you though, that not many of us can take much more. I have had to accept an Air B&B next door (currently now a Beauty Salon), the homeless trying to set up residence in city owned triangles of tiny land, arrogant and selfish bicyclists that absolutely refuse to respect the numerous "please walk your bikes" signs and fly at breakneck speed through the pedestrian walkway access to the Light Rail Station and to old town Sutter St. I have heard and witnessed many close calls and am terrified of the day when a young child or an elderly will be hit by one of these self centered and entitled individuals that are very 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
reckless and dangerous, thinking they have found a fabulous shortcut to the bike trail along the river. The crematorium will, needless to say, be the "last straw" for many. l, for one, will not stay. I already ceasely worry about the toxic exhaust and dangerous unhealthy fumes from the close proximity to busy Folsom Blvd. lt will truly be the one last thing that so many will see as one thing just too much to have to accept and make the best of.

Sincerely,
A quiet lovely senior citizen
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside crematorium.

Monday, February 7, 2022 7i15i2I AM
From: Heather Hayes
Sent: Saturday, February 5,2022 3:00 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[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]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike [email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: La keside crematoriu m.

You don't often get email Learn why this is important
€AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe
Dear Folsom City Officials,
I have grown to cherish our city with it's well thought out plannilg ?nd. infrastructure. I guess that's why I'm so confused that the city would even consider building a.crematorium iiterally one bloak from my house, In fact I'm quite frustrated that on a Saturday instead of enjoying time with my 9 month old and teenage sons I'm having.to write an email defending what seems like a common sense decision. euildiry a €rem-atorium one block from my house will not only do psychological harm to myself and my family but will also worsen the air quality in my neighborhood where I am trying to raise,ryY family. We already have some of the worst air quality in the country. With annual wildfires causing horrible conditions every year that on many days it's not even recommended that we go outside, I cannot believe that you would even consider adding to that horrible pollution with the smoke of dead bodies being billowed into my backyard as we try to enjoy our lives in historic Folsom. As we try to BBQ with family and friends, all the while breathing the smoke of the deceased.

Please do the right thing and reject this proposal. Have the crematorium be moved to a remote and rural locatioh where it belongs. Please protect the health and well being of my family and preserue the sanctity of historic Folsom.

Heather Hayes

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Dear Mr. Johnson,
I am writing in regard to the proposed crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery. I am a resident of the Preserve neighborhood in Folsom.

My first concern with having a crematorium in my neighborhood is the release of harmful toxins into the air during the cremation process and the long term effects on me and my family. One such example is the mercury from the dental amalgam fillings being vaporized and released into the atmosphere. The emissions of mercury will not be regulated. There is no national standard for mercury emissions from a crematorium.Tlrere is no known lorver level of toxicity of ntercury. As stated in the 2019 Final Senate Crematoria Conrmittee Report of Georgia:
" while there nre emissions of other chemicals during the cremation process, mercury is of the most concern to commanities nesr cremutoriums. llhen mercury is burned, it becomes a colorless and odorless gas that can travel long distances. lMhile mercury exposure has the potential to cause u variety of heulth problems, the brain and kidneys are especially vulnerable." https://www.senate.ga.gov/sra aocuments 'dJtCommRfts/I2CremutoriuStadJt.pdf The following2020 study from the Canadian Journal of Public Health highlights the fact that crematoriums are a source of air pollution and should be monitored due to cumulative effects. "This study underlines that the main concern about mercury from crematoriums is not ucute exposare to immediately dungerous groand-level concentrations but long-term indirect exposarefrom the contamination of the environment and thefood chiln, although more dfficult to assess quantitatively.

It is important to inform decision -making around environmental permitting und pollution prevention to motivute further regulation. Crematoriums are a source of air pollution as u result of combustion of caskets and human bodies, as well us companion clothing, and should be subject to the regulatory framework covering all sources of fir pollutants, notably including mercury. Environmental monitoring of mercury emission from crematoriums is watanted." https://www. ncbi. n lm. n ih. gov/pmc/adicles/PM C7728964

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Another concern is the cremation of bodies that have had radiation treatment therapy or chemotherapy. lf there are no ongoing emissions regulations, how is it determined there is no negative impact to the residents or environment?
A recent study from Journal of American MedicalAssociation (JAMA) reported on an incident of radioactive contamination to the facility equipment and an employee that occurred in Arizona crematorium when a cancer patient was cremated'
,,As of 2006 (the .nnst recenth: reported dutn), 18.6 million nuclear medicine procedutes were perlbrmed in the Llnited States, with nearly 40 mitlion performed worldwide.t Safety tegulations are well establishedfor radiophnrmaceuticul udminislration in living patients. However, radiopharmuceuticlls present s unique and often oveilooked postmortent safeQ' challenge. Crematirtg an exposed patient t okttilizes the rudiopharmaceutical, which cun then be inhuled b)t workers (or releuserl into lhe atljacent community) and result in greater exposure than from a living patient.

Regulutions for cremation of exposed pntients vary $y st(te, as well as intetnationalll\ and there ste no regulations ut the Jbderul level in the United Stutes." h ttn s : // i a ma n ettv o r k. c o m/i o u r n a ls/i a ma/fu I I a rtic I e/2 7 2 5 6 7 3 It just seems common seltse to not place a crematorium in close proximity to residents, a state park and a lake. Besides the above environrtrental concerns, there is the concertr of fire or accidents at cretrtatot'iums.

Here ale a feu, examples. Many more can be found u,ith a sirrrple internet search:

Human Remains Spewed into Air After Accident at San Diego Crematorium, May 2018 https;//abcTnews.corn/cremqtorium-accident-human-remains-san-diego-cotuttv-smoke-with/35I9060/ Investigulion Underway After Fite At Sacrumento Cremutoriunt, June20l9 httos://sacramento.cbslocal.coru/2019/06/l I /nor-cal-crematorv-soulh-sq.c-"lire/ Erie funeral home uvoids serious damagefrom roof Jire; cremation suspected as cause https://www.goerie.com/story/news/local/?021 / 1 I /24lfuneral'home-fire-erie-fir'efighters-respond-rooifire -potential lv-linked-cremati on-burton/87474 80002/
Thank you for your consideration, Helen Walsh

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
February 4,2022
PROJECT z 1201Fonest Street, Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery in the State Open Space Area along Lake Natoma (Project File: l9-182)
REQUEST: Design Review including the installation of a crematorium in an existing metal shed and the installation of two freestanding propane tanks adjacent to the shed.

Conditional Use Permit to operate the Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery.

PROJECT
HISTORY The Public Review Period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration started on January 7,2022 and ends on February 7,2022.

A similar application was processed through the City in2002 and2003 (Project File: 02-258)

BACKGROUND
Lakeside Cemetery was started by the miners at Negro Bar. In the days that followed the early gold rush the state property became a Pioneer Cemetery with a cluster of individual burial sites. As documented by Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission, the cemetery incorporates areas designated to the Jewish community, the Masons, the Oddfellows, the Cook Family, the Citizens of Folsom and a special area reserved for infants and young children. Cremations were not a part of the traditions during these times.

On November 24,7998, Folsom's City Council approved the Historic Preservation Master Plan. As a part of this document, Lakeside Cemetery was placed on the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory of properties and structures eligible for local listing. Ln2006, the Masons and Oddfellows cemeteries were processed for listing and added to the City's official Inventory.

THE PREVIOUS CREMATORIUM APPLICATION
When a crematorium addition was proposed for Lakeside Cemetery in2002, planning staff recommended that the Historic District Commission should deny the Conditional Use Permit based on the age and history of the cemetery. The following issues were raised:

The cemetery can provide unique information about the early days of Folsom and the various groups of citizen that lived in the City during this time.

A crematorium was not included with Pioneer Cemeteries and a crematorium addition will impact the historic character of Lakeside Cemetery.

Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission has identified Lakeside Cemetery as locally significant. (Six individual sub-areas of Lakeside Cemetery are included with Sacramento County Cemetery List.)
a
a
a

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

INITIAL STUDY
The Cultural Resources Chapter of the current Initial Study fails to mention that the City of Folsom and Sacramento County considers Lakeside Cemetery a locally significant historic site. It also does not describe the early use of the cemetery by various local groups of citizens.

The mitigation measures for cultural resources (CUL-O1, 02, and 03) does not address the expanded use of the cemetery property. .Instead these mitigation measures provide standard language for projects that require excavation (including the uncovering of archeological resources and human remains). Because the crematorium project will only require leveling of the ground before a concrete pad is installed (for fuel tanks), these mitigation measures does not apply to the proposed crematorium project.

CONCLUSION
The Lakeside Crematorium project has not changed since the previous application in2002. The same findings that staff prepared in2002 to justiff a recommendation for denial still applies.

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom urges the Historic District Commission to deny the Lakeside Crematorium proj ect.

The Initial Study does not discuss how the existing project will impact the historic significance of the Pioneer Cemetery. Any conclusion that environmental issues can be covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration is therefore premature.

The Heritage Preservation League of Folsom recommends that the Historic District Commission deem the Initial Study regarding the Lakeside Crematorium project incomplete. a
a
Attachments: l. Findings for Denial PN02-258

2. Letter from the Chairman of Sacramento County
Cemetery Advisory Commission

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Attachment 1
Findings for Denial
PN02-258

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o

STAFFRECOMMENDATION
itur*"o*"nds denial of a Conditional use Permit to operate a crematorium at an existing cemetery at l20l Fonest Street in the Historic District, based on the foltowing finings' HISTORIC DISTRICT COMIVfl SSION ACTION
NAOVE TO DENY TI{E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CREMATORIUM AT AN EXISTING CEMETERY AT I2OI FORREST STREET IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'

FINDINCS FORDENIAL
A. NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY

STAIE LAW AND CITY CODE'
B. THE USE APPLIED FOR IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY' OR GENERAIWELFAREoFPERSONSRESIDINGoRwoRKINGINT}IE
NEIGHBORHOOD, ANDDETRIMENTAL ORINruNOUS TO PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTSINTHENEIGHBORHoODANDTHEGENERALWELFAREOFTHE
CITY BECAUSE THF,INTRODUCTIoN oF THIS UsE WILL IMPACT THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF TI{E EXISTING CEMETERY AND HISTORICAT USE OF THE AREA.

C. THE CONGLOMERATION OF HISTORIC CEMETERIES, COMBINED WITH THE CALIFORMA STATE DREDGER TAILTNGS DATING BACK TO T}IE I85O'S, CREATE

A RARE COMBINATION OF UNTQUE CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

D. THE USE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH GOAL 2 OF THE

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELTNES IN TIIAT IT DOES NOT MAINTAIN TITE HTSTOzuC USE OF THE SITE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT DOES NOT FURTHER DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINE POLICIES 2.1,2.2, AND 2.3 IN THAT; I. COMMISSIONERS FROM SACRAMENTO COUNTY HISTORIC CEMETERY

COMMISSION HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS SITE AS LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT, AND COMMISSIONERS INTEND TO PRESENT LAKESIDE CEMETERY TOTI{E

SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR DESIGNATION AS AN HISTORIC CEMETERY.

2. APPROVAL OF' A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTEMPORARY USE THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE THE ELIGIBILITY STATUS OF TI{E SITE WOULD woRK To DISCoURAGE, RATHERT}IAN To ENC0URAGE' NATIONAL
RBGISTERNOMINATION.
3'BASEDoNALETTERFRoMJAMESA.PURCELL,CHAIRMANoF'rHE

SACRAMENTO COUNTY HISTORIC CEMETERY COMMISSION DATED
JANUARY 2,2003,A CREMAToRIUM Is NoT A CONSISTENT UsE WITH A HISTORIC CEMETERY.
o
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Attachment 2
Letter from the Chairman of
Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
, corriv CemeteryAdvisory #*to"sion
48oo Broadway, Suite roo
Sacramento CA 958eo
Dear Ms Talbol:

The sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission is in receip of your Notioe of ffilt11|*iog regarding PN Oz-iSs Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1201 Forrest Steet'
The commission is cbarged with ttre dufy io encourage the preservation and O*ign"ti"r
"ihistorical-cemeteri€s.

Wi are currently prepqry a list of those cemeteries
in Strameirto County, which should be considered historic. It is my opinion that L.k;;; Cemetery will be one of the cemeteries in Sacrarncnto County that will be on thc list that is to be presented to th€ Board of Supervisors for desipation as an historic cemetery.

WhilenoofficialactionhasyetbeerrtakenbyeitherTheCemeteryAdvisory commission or The Board oisupervisors rcgarding Lakeview ccmeterywe ask that you **iO"t tft" above mentioneC conditional usi permit in the context of lakeview's historic sigrificance and endeavor !o prese'trle its historic elements' Sincerely,
Cityof Folsom Historic Distict Comsrission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Atb: Iane Talbot
Janres A Purcell, Chairman
Cemetcry Advisory Commission
flif$ l$ q*& .w
$Ff:!rir
Vice Chair, Dr. Robert Ia Perriere

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly Mullett
Friday, August 27,2021 8:13 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Concern for pending Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
FYI
From: lsaac Monical
Sent: Thursday, August 26,2027 9:28:54 PM
To: Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <thehfra@gma il.com>
Subject: Concern for pending Lakeside Memorial Crematorium Some people who received this message 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 Council members, Planning Commision members, and Residence Association members, The Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium proposal is deeply troubling to me and my family for a number of reasons' The Caring Service Group is not a small business and states outright on their website that they're in the business of buying up and aggregating small funeral home businesses. This model further distances the business from its community's concerns and it shows with the "lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2021.

The TAC (Toxic Air Contaminants) assessment in Appendix B of the "Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2O2Lisflawed and irresponsible. Most specifically in terms of the evaluation of the impact to "sensitive Receptors". The report by Helix Environmental Planning notes that the adjacent residential houses are as close as 450 feet which is not that farl That's about the width of 5 or 6 lots in our neighborhood, 5 houses down the street. The report makes it sound like the combustion stack is remotely located away from our neighborhood which couldn't be farther from the truth. I walk the neighborhood regularly with my L and 3 year old children and it's a short walk from the closest house to the proposed site which is where my son likes to occasionally ride his balance bike. The Historic District Historical Society write-up of the cemetery (https://www.folsomhistoricalsocietv.orglpost/lakeside-cemeterv) concludes with "The next time you are in town I highly suggest you take a visit to the cemetery; the older burial sites are beautiful, and its quiet location makes a perfect Fall afternoon walk." This will certainly change when there are constant emissions adjacent to the cemetery and increased vehicular activity carting the deceased to and from the crematorium "shed"' The report also neglects to recognize that the American River Bike Trail is adjacent to the proposed site where numerous people of all ages including sensitive groups, i.e. elderly and families with young children religiously use the trail. The proposed industrial process does not fit within the open space plan of the adjacent area. lt should not be used for a pollution buffer zone, it's a recreation area. While using the trail, the folks that are exercising will be subject to toxic emissions, at times while breathing heavily. The Air Quality Board recommends restricted exertion levels of people when air quality is poor, so to introduce a source of constant emissions renders the trail effectively unusable, especially by sensitive individuals.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The assumption that the meteorological data used from the Sacramento Executive Airport station, almost 20 miles away, which regularly gets the delta breeze where the planned site does not, appears to be laughably unethical. The canyon near the proposed site has significantly different geography. lt often has stagnated air that collects along the river trail which can be witnessed when exercising along the trail in the summer and winter months. At these times when the air is perfectly still, combustion gas from leaf blowers from the adjacent business parking lots simply stagnates right on the trail. Trail users should not have to worry about breathing in toxic hydrocarbon and heavy metal combustionproductsalongwithnewunpleasantsmells. Thenear-zeroinitialvertical gasvelocityassumptionofthe stack configuration in the source parameters paragraph will only exacerbate the emissions settling issue on the trail and adjacent neighborhood. The 500 meter radius geography sample used in the analysis is not enough to capture the adjacent yet substantial cliffs in the region and could be interpreted to be an attempt to replicate geography near the airport which would also be unethical in terms of being non-representative.

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

I strongly encourage the Folsom City Leadership to reevaluate the applicant's intentions to monetize a currently quaint property with a toxic industrial process directly adjacent to a family oriented neighborhood and world class nature trail, Sincerely,
lsaac Monical
lronsct
Folsom, CA 95630
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Jackson Gates
Subject:

Sunday, January 16,2022'11:26 AM
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade; [email protected]
crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom [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.

Hi mynameisjacksonlamveryverysad.Everydaymeandmy neighborfriendsplayoutsideandlamnotsureif that will be able to continue in the future . I am 10 years old and had my birthday party here. Will I be able to have another birthday party outside? will animals stay in our neighborhood? Jackson
young wo circle
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

To:

From:

Subject:

Dater
Steven Banks
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematories are located only in industrial and light industrial zoning in other localities . If you feel Folsom should be an exception to this, I suggestyou help the Miller group to locate adjacent to Serrano. Jim Tiberti Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:05:54 AM
FYI
----Original Message-----
From: Jamesfib.ttil
Sent: Monday, January 17,2022 1l:55 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Subject: Crematories are located only in industrial and light industrial zoning in other localities . Ifyou feel Folsom should be an exception to this, I suggest you help the Miller group to locate adjacent to Serano. Jim Tibefii [Youdon'toftengetemaittrorrfLeamwhythisisimportantat
http://aka.m s/Leam,AboutSenderldenti fi cation.]
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.

Sent from my iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook Android
Scott Johnson
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:54 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
From: JANICE BRIA
Sent: Tuesday, February L, 2022 L2:15:29 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <kcolepolicy@gma il.com>; justin@ revolutionsdocs'com <[email protected]>; danwestmitqyahoo.com <[email protected]>; ankhelyi@comcast'net <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; m.dascallos@yahoo'com <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
You don't often get emailfrom [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.

To: The Folsom Historic District Commission
The Caring Service Group and the Miller Funeral Home have applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematorium in an area that is zoned open space in the Folsom Historic District' I am very opposed to their plan of burning hundreds of bodies a year. Burning up to 800 pounds of bodies each day has serious implications for the physical, environmental, and fiscal health of our community.

I live in The Preserve/Lake Natoma Shores (over 100 homes) area whach is located next to Lakeside Cemetery. Forrest Street, which is the sole entry point to our neighborhood, is narrow and curved. I have lived here over 25 years and at this point in time, it is frequently challenging to even enter or exit my neighborhood for a variety of reasons: Light Rail increased the traffic problems; The current trittic from our neighbors and visitors to the state park, the Lakeside Cemetery, the Murer House and the VFW cause time-consuming inconveniences that are sometimes dangerous. Please do not approve of the crematorium which will cause more danger and additional traffic.

The crematorium has proposed two, 250 gallon propane tanks above ground, in a wild fire danger area. There have been fires in the state park over the years. Gountless people come to our neighborhood daily to walk, run, ride bikes, trikes, boating and to enjoy Lake Natoma. Please do not putlhose of us who live here and the people that come here to enioy the state park and lake, in danger by approving the crematorium.

In addition, I am extremely concerned about the air quality if the crematorium is approved' Poor air quality, smell, increased fire risk and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical and environmental health of our community. According to the Sacramento Gounty's Air Quality Management District, the crematorium would be self-regulated, with the County having very little 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
oversight over the mercury-based emissions. The lnitial Study by HELIX Environmental Planning Inc., notatei levels for harmfultoxins including chromium, mercury, and organics, Our local experts have warned that those toxins are most dangerous when vaporized. The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the level as "not significant." That only app_lies to the average, healthy adults. The study does not report significant and potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing children, elderly, and those with existing health conditions. I am a senior citizen with health issues and there are many young children that live here and many more that come to play in the nearby Preserve Mini Park on Sutter Street.

Please protect Historic Folsom. I am not opposed to a crematorium in a rural or industrial area. I am extremely opposed to a crematorium next to open space, neighborhoods, and a recreational area where people come here to enjoy Lake Natoma and our lovely Historic Folsom.

Sincerely,
Janice Brial
lsutter St.

Folsom, CA 95630
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Daron Bracht < [email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:09 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery 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.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
Date:Tue, 23 Feb 2O2\ 12:L2:21 -0800
From:JANICE BRIAL
To:daronbr@ pacbell. net
To: Chairman Daron Bracht
Chairman of the Folsom Historic District Commission
Dear Chairman Bracht,
It is my understanding that there is going to be a meeting about a proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery, at the Folsom Historic District Commission soon.'iL%lt has been challenging to try to be up to date about what is going on during the last year of COVID. 'll%l am not aware of the developer contacting anyone in my neighborhood about the crematorium. ii%l wonder if they have contacted the state parkthat is also near by? I live in The Preserve/Lake Natoma Shores which is located next to Lakeside cemetery"iL%There are over 100 homes' 'ii%Also, people using The Murer House, Lakeside Cemetery, the VFW and the Preserve Mini Park only haveil.%one waqii%to drive in or out of this area on Forrest St. ii%Forrest St. is small, curved and has very narrow parts. ii%l have lived here over 25 years and at this point in time, it is frequently challenging to even enter or exit my neighborhood. ii% The state park is also next to this neighborhood.iL%We have.many people coming through riding their bikes, trikes, scooters, walking and running through our neighborhood. 'iL%We also have traffic with people driving to Young Wo Circle and parking next to the state park and accessing the state park for biking, kayaking, running, walking, etc"il% One frequent problem in trying to get in and out of Forrest Street, is the frequent train traffic. iZ%At this point in time, I believe that a train comes and goes to Old Town Folsom every 30 minutes (to and from Old Town Folsoml.'il%l have been told that the train traffic is going to be increased to every 15 minutes. ie%When that happens, it will be much more difficult to exit and enter Forrest Street, which is the only way all of the above mentioned drivers can get in and out of the neighborhood.

A driver frequently must wait to exit Forrest St, for the traffic lights to cycle through 2 times, because a train is either going to or coming from Old Town Folsom .'jl%All of this is tedious and inconvenient. ic%However, the biggest concern is when there is an actual emergency such as a fire at the state park (which has happened) or a fire or other emergency 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
anywhere in this area. ii%People could be trapped and unable to safely leave the ONIY EXIT on Forrest St' ia%lt seems only sensible that nothing else should be built in this area when a safe exit does not exist in case of any type of emergency,
Drivers who are familiar with the complicated intersection at Folsom Blvd, Natoma Street/Forrest St. and are attempting to leave Forrest Street, know that there are two very small slots to exit next to Folsom Blvd. ic%The right slot in the lane, is for right turns only. 'il%The left slot of the lane, is for turning left on Folsom Blvd. or going straight to Natoma St. ic%Unfortunately, the individuals who are unfamiliar with the intersection frequently sit in the right hand lane slot and block the only exit that does not require a green light to leave. ie%Any increased traffic to the Lakeside Cemetery will cause the intersection to be even more dangerous.'il%
Our hard working Folsom police Department also uses the entrance at Forrest St. and pulls over vehicles that have been speeding on Folsom Blvd., or breaking the law in other ways. ie%lt is rather routine to see one or more vehicles pulled over on Forrest St., opposite the entrance to Lakeside Cemetery.'ii%llis crowded and a driver must cross, to drive to the other side of the street, to get by.'iL%
I am not aware that the Lakeside Cemetery has notified any ofthe nearby residents or businesses about the proposed crematorium .1i%We would all be involved in our attempts to exit and enter our neighborhood with any increased traffic. ie%lt seems like such a facility should only be installed in an industrial or commercialarea, not near a neighborhood and state park;il%
My other concern is air quality.'jl%l am sure there must be safety precautions regarding fumes and dangerous particles going into the air with crematoriums. ic%However, things happen, and sometimes even the best made plans do not work. ie%We already have unsafe days and are sometimes told to not even walk outdoors. 'iL%We are hundreds of people of all ages from babies to senior citizens. 'il%Many of us already have existing asthma, allergies and other breathing issues. 'il%Please do not allow a crematorium to be put into this lovely area where people are exercising (walking, biking, running, etc.) in our neighborhood and also going to and from the state park. 'il%l moved here to have a healthy life style near beautiful Lake Natoma and charming Old Town Folsom. please share my letter with the rest of the Historic District Commission .'il%Please let me know that you received this email.

Thank you for your service
Sincerely,
Janice Brial
f Sutter St.

Folsom, CNit%
916
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 2:21 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
l' !tt nrt it tr 1 X'I ttn rtt1 <'t'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6206
!-
lh ]Fffi]Lffi(}S{I
e tYY o r
st3'f tB(:rivr sY nAtuar-
$ * @ r^iww.ts-b.q!r.qa-uq
From: Jennifer Grattan
Sent: Wednesday, February 2,2022 2:20 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[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]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <mkozlowski @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Fwd: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
Some people who received this message 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.

To: City Council Representatives and Folsom Historic District Commissioners RelVote NO on Folsom Crematory Proposal
Public hearing scheduled for February t6,2022
I am writing to you as a concerned resident in the Folsom Hlstoric District. I am strongly opposed to the conditional use permit to install a crematorium on the grounds of a residential open space. I believe allowing a permanent, industrial incinerator in the residential open space does not meet the criteria of the Folsom Historic District. lfurther believe this contradicts the city of Folsom motto, 'Distinctive by Nature'. I urge you to vote NO on the proposed Folsom Crematorium. Please consider the impacts to the environment, physical health of the residents and the fiscal health of the Folsom Historic District.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
please preserve the environment, the physical health of the residents and the community as a whole Vote NO on the Folsom Crematory Proposal.

Kindly,
Jennifer Grattan
Historic Folsom Resident
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steven Banks
Friday, February 4,202210:20 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: NO crematorium
FYI
---Original Message-----
From:jeri livesay
Sent: Friday, February 4,202210:00 AM
To: Steven Ba nks <sban [email protected]>
Subject: NO crematorium
[You don't often get "..ilfrorE Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderl d entification.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.

Please vote NO....our air quality does not need gramma and grampas ashes floating around......vote NO NO NO Sent from my iPad
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly Mullett
Friday, February 4,202210:05 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: NO crematorium
---Origina I Message-----
From:jeri
Sent: Friday, February 4,202210:02 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: NO crematorium
[You don't often get email Learn why this is important at http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSend e en
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.

Please vote NO.......our air quality is already compromised enough throughout the year....we don't want this. vote

NO NO NO
Sent from my iPad

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Friday, February 4,2022 9:58 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: No crematorium
Scott A. Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:976.46L.6206
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&amp;dala=04%7coI%7qk inkade%40folsom.ca,us%7Cdbce6f94165b412ec2l408d9e807e 46b%7CLcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7L335fd6co%7CO%7CO %7C6377g5g42874187606%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLClBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVCt6Mn O%3D%7C3O00&amp;sdata=65kuXCKzqzklGDwwL5DX6tmMNN4z|VZS VrOgLSlB2Q%3D&amp;reserved=0 ---Original
From: jeri livesay
Sent: Friday, February 4,2022 9:57 AM
To: Scott Joh nson <[email protected]>
Su bject: No crematoriu m
[Youdon'toftenget"',.lf,o'ELearnwhythisisimportantat
http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderl dentification'l
CAUTION: This email originated f rom outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote NO.....our air quality cannot have ashes.....No NO NO Sent from my iPad 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, February 4,202212:30 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: NO crematorium
----Original Messa
From:jeri livesay
Sent: Friday, February 4,202210:08 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: NO crematorium
[You don't often get email Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSe erl e
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.

Please vote NO........our air quality is already compromised we don't need even more issues with ashes hindering our oxygen.......vote NO NO NO Sent from my iPad
1

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
Wednesday, February 2,20221:'14 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: The Preserue Crematorium
From: Jessica Foste
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2O22 12:35:13 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; justin@revolutionsdocs'com <[email protected]>; danwestmitgyahoo.com <[email protected]>; ankhelyi@comcast'net <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: The Preserve Crematorium
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.

Hi there,
I am writing to you as a plea to vote "no" on the crematorium proposal in the residential Preserve neighborhood of Historic Folsom. My mom lives there and we frequently visit her with our small children, especially in the Spring and Summer when the weather is nice and we can play outside at her house and nearby the river.

A crematorium doesn't belong there. The noise of machinery, the increase of cars in and out of the neighborhood, AND the pollution in the air will devastate the livelihood of the people who live and visit there.

A crematorium should be placed in an industrial area. Please vote in favor of the residents who need you to protect their neighborhood.

Thank you,
Jessica Grob
1 Sent from Yahoo Mailfor iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From the desk of Joan Boyle
I am writing to you today because it has come to my attention that Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is working to put a crematorium on the propefi located at the intersection of Folsom Blvd and Forrest 5t, The crematorium will be housed in a shed, serviced by two 25O-gallon propane tanks, and have a smoke stack installed for ventilation.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is part of the Miller Funeral Home which is owned by Caring Services Group.

When looking at Caring Services Group's website their opening statement is, and I am quoting here, "Caring Services Group was established in 2010 with a primary goal of purchasing Funeral Home businesses." With this as their primary goal, they do not appear to be a family-owned business with the best interests of the community at heart, but more a corporation that only cares about their bottom line. I attended a Zoom meeting where lgor Semenyuk, the Chief Operations Officer for Caring Services Group, was speaking on the topic. When asked why they wanted to place the crematory in the Lakeside Memorial Lawn he said something to the effect that'the location is cost effective'. Again, no regard for the community or it's people, just their bottom line.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn is currently designated as Open Space which excludes it from operating a crematorium.

The owners are applying for a Conditional Use Permit to change that. This is very concerning for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

Toxicity levels - harmful toxins such as chromium, mercury and organics become most dangerous when vaporized. While the initial report by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notes the levels as "not significant" this applies to only average healthy adults. The study fails to report the effect on unborn children, developing children, the elderly and those with existing health conditions.

I
Air Quality - poor air quality, smell and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community.

Fire Danger - two 250 gallon above ground propane tanks pose a real threat to the area. The proposed crematory site is located within a wildfire danger area. lt is also adjacent to the American River Bike Trail, Lake Natoma and a residential neighborhood. lf there were to be a wildfire or vandalism, the propane tanks could cause untold damage to the area.

Traffic - there is only one ingress and egress to the area. This intersection of Folsom Blvd and Forrest St is already compromised by the light rail train interruptions. Additional business, or the need for an emergency evacuation could be very problematic.

Please deny the Conditional Use Permit to operate a crematorium at this locationln closing, I am not opposed to a crematorium. But it should be placed in an appropriately zoned area, not in Historic Folsom, adjacent to the American River Bike Trail and Lake Natoma. s,
a
a
Joan

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From the desk of Joan Boyle
It is clear from this picture that the shed, actually both of them, are visible from Folsom Blvd. How can the report conclude that "Tailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard prevent the site from being visible from that street."? That is not a true statement. You can clearly see the shed, and the smokestack is not even installed yet. That's at least another 10 feet in the air, but the report says the smokestack was taken into consideration. How can the report be trusted? Second:
a ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection XVll. Transportation it states "As the crematorium would not be located in or near a funeral home and would be separate from any funeral services or public gatherings provided by the project applicant, access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members with a business at the site." While in the Lakeside Memorial Lawn, Scope of work - tnstalling a Crematory - Point at lssue it states "There are several large cultural communities residing and moving into Folsom.

Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs. Currently there is no crematory in the city of Folsom so they must find the services outside the city."
o ls the proposed crematorium going to be opened the public so "the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs", or is it just open to a "small number of staff members"?
o lf it is the forrner, will the lnitial Study be updated to reflect that? I have reached out to the consultant to ensure clarity on this
I have yet to hear back from Josh on this topic. But, if the primary purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to have "the capability to serve the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs" but, as the Mitigated Negative Declaration says, only a few workers will be on site, then there's no need to put the crematorium at the cemetery. lt should be located in a properly zoned area. At best these are two completely contradictory statements. lt appears to me that this issue needs to be resolved prior to voting on the request.

I understand this is a difficult decision you are championed to make. I implore you to consider the nature of Historic Folsom, the American River Bike Trail, Lake Natoma, as well as the welfare of the residents when making your decision.

Thanii you for your.time,
Kindest rds,
Joan

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From the desk of Joan Boyle
Hi. Let me introduce myself, my name is Joan Boyte and I am a resident of the Preserve neighborhood. I am writing to you today regarding the upcoming vote on the proposed crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery.

I have spent some time reading through documents from both Caring Services Group and the City of Folsom, including The Scope of Work and the lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and I have some concerns and questions. I sent a number of questions to Josh Kinkade, the Project Planner at the City of Folsom, regarding statements and conclusions made in the lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Below I have highlighted two of my questions that are particularly concerning to me (Josh's responses are in red).

First:
tn Sectlon 9.0 Environmental Initialstudy Ghecklist Subsection l. Aesthetics it also states "Tailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard prevent the site from being visible from that stfeet." Note: Attached is a photo showing that the shed (even without the smokestack) is visible from Folsom Blvd,
o Was the installation of the smokestack taken into account when this statement was made? Yes
ln Section 9.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics c| concludes "Less Than Significant lmpact". I would argue that the vlew of a smokestack in a Historic cemetery, adjacent to the American River Bike Trail and a residential neighborhood is significant. o What criteria was used to determine the impact is "Less Than Significant"? lt was ditermlned that the smokestack would be adequately screened by existing walls and landscaping. lf the commission would want additional screenini, they cdn add that to the conditions of approval as part of their decislon on whether to approve the project. a
a

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:
a
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 Josh,
Hi. Letmeintroducemyself,mynameisJoanBoyleandlamaresidentofthePreserveneighborhood. lthascometo my attention that Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is working to put a crematorium on the property located at the intersection of Folsom Blvd and Forrest St. I am reviewing the lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to try and understand the details of the proposal. I have a few questions. This is all very newto me, so lapologize in advance if my questions are basic.

Just for background, I did attend aToom meeting where lgor Semenyuk, the Chief Operations Officer for Caring Services Group, was speaking on this topic. I mention this, because in some of my questions I will be referencing things lgor said in that meeting.

Okay so, here we go
ln Section 11.0 lnitial Study Preparers it states that you are one of the preparers of the document along with HELIX Environmental Planning lnc. and ECORP Consulting, lnc. But lgor said over and over again in the Zoom meeting that he paid 530,000 for the report.
o Who prepares the report?
o Who pays for the report?
o lf Caring Services Group is paying for the report how is impartiality achieved in determining the conclusions presented in the report?
ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics in the lnitialStudy dated April 2O2Iitstates "The applicant anticipates one or two cremations on most business days (Monday through Friday) and expects that the total will not exceed 500 cremations per year." while in the lnitial study dated January 2022 it states "The applicant anticipates l - 4 cremations on business days (Monday through Friday) with the total number of cremations not exceeding 500 per year. "
o Why was this verbiage changed?
o Who requested this verbiage change?
a
Joan Boyle
Monday, January 17,2022 3:47 PM
Josh Kinkade
Joan Boyle
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory lnitial Study questions Shed - Folsom Blvdjpg; Shed - Forrest Stjpg
ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it states that "The applicant anticipates L - 4 cremations on business days (Monday through Friday) with the total number of cremations not exceeding 500 per Year. " But in the Zoom meeting lgor commented that it could be up to 5 per day. o ls this lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration study and all its subsequent findings (including Air Quality), based on t,2,3 or 4 cremations a day?
a

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a
a
o Who monitors the number of cremations performed daily to ensure the total number of annual cremations do not exceed 500?
ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it also states that HCT Apex-250 crematory will be installed in a shed, and "The shed would be modified to accommodate this device, but the shed's footprint would not be expanded." o What modification(s) are being made to the shed?
Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it also states that "Two 250-gallon propane tanks would be installed on a proposed concrete pad along the northern side of the shed to provide power for the crematorium, as no gas lines currently exist on the property." ln Appendix A it states "(N) 2 X 500 gallon propane tanks" o What is the size of the propane tanks 250 gallons or 500 gallons? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics it states "A small exhaust stack would be added to the roof of the shed. The stack would be approximately 19.5 feet above grade, and would project approximately 10 feet above the existing roof of the shed." o This statement uses the words small and approximately. Why is this statement so vague? o Shouldn't Caring Services Group be able to provide specific enough information to calculate exactly how tall the smokestack would be, and provide that information to the writer of this report? o Example: lf the smoke stack is installed 19.5 feet above grade and the shed is a single story building of approx. 12 feet, won't the stack be more realistically about 15 feet above the existing roof? Doing the math - an 8 foot crematory (estimate) plus 19.5 foot smoke stack, minus a 12 foot tall shed equals 15'5 feet. I know it doesn't seem like much, but aesthetically when you live in the neighborhood, a 15 foot smokestack towering above a 12 foot shed is much different than a 'small' smokestack. ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics it also states "Tailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard prevent the site from being visible from that street." Note: Attached are two photos showing that the shed (even without the smokestack) is visible from Folsom Blvd as well as Forrest St. o Was the installation of the smokestack taken into account when this statement was made? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics c) concludes "Less Than Significant lmpact". I would argue that the view of a smokestack in a Historic cemetery, adjacent to the American River Bike Trail and a residential neighborhood is significant. o what criteria was used to determine the impact is "Less Than significant"? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection lll. Air Quality there is so much information in this section, so my questions on this section are very general. o The initial report by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notes the levels as "not significant". lt is my understanding that this applies to average healthy adults. ls that true? o lf so, does the study have findings that report the effect on unborn children, developing children, the elderly and those with existing health conditions?
ln Section 9.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist Subsection XVll. Transportation it states "As the crematorium would not be located in or near a funeral home and would be separate from any funeral services or public gatherings provided by the project applicant, access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members with a business at the site." While in the Lakeside Memorial Lawn, Scope of work - lnstalling a Crematory - Point at lssue it states "There are several large cultural communities residing and moving into Folsom. Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs. Currently there is no crematory in the city of Folsom so they must find the services outside the city."
a
a
a
a
a
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o ls the proposed crematorium going to be open the public so "the Sih( Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs", or is it just open to a "small number of staff members"? o lf it is the former, will the lnitial Study be updated to reflect that? Thank you in advance for your time. lf you have any questions please feel free to contact me at Kind regards,
-Joan Boyle
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
,.{r/rrr in isl rntirrc Assislrt rt /
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Friday, August 27,2021 B:59 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
Et,i ? gr
F'fflI"ffiffie'tr
slt IrIrF!F1tY r $i. H&G!rrr ffi
O O @ *ururlplsstu*,*
From: Joanne Dudgeon
Sent: Friday, August 27,2O2t 8:53 AM
To: Kelly M ullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email from ioebdEQlQageg[.ngt. 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 knowthe content is safe.

My husband and myself, Stephen and Joanne Dudgeon are against the crematorium being considered for the Folsom area. Please think about the children and citizens of our community and how it will adversely affect us.

We vote NO for this crematorium
Joanne Dudgeon
I Crestridge Lane
Folsom, Ca. 95630

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
Saturday, January 29,2022 12:14 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposed Crematorium, please read
From: Joy Hays
Sent: Saturday, January 29,2022 17:47:24 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Cc: Joy Hays
Subject: Proposed Crematorium, please read
You don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn whv this is important €AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Manager Scott Johnson:

I am writing again today as a very concerned citizen and resident of Historic Folsom. The issue is the proposed crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery near the intersection of Folsom Boulevard and Forrest Street. Because the Commission represents all of the people of Historic Folsom, I urge you to deny the building of the proposed crematorium at this location.

My concerns include fire safety and air quality. The City of Folsom has signed agreements. Because the City needed a certain amount of Open Space, Lakeside Cemetery was zoned as Open Space.

This seemed fitting in that the Cemetery adjoins an historic Chinese heritage cemetery, and the American River Bike Trail. Access to our adjacent Preserve residential community is limited, with one way in, and one way out. Fire engine access to the neighborhood can be difficult. lt is fitting that the City of Folsom signed the document declaring our whole area as a high-risk fire zone.

Our neighborhood hosts a trailhead to the American River Bike Trail, and Lake Natoma. The recreational opportunities of both bring many people to our neighborhood. (And money to the local businesses.) Biking or hiking along the trail, one can see that the dead wood from the drought and heavy winds is everywhere. Some clearing has been done, but still much tinder remains. I encourage you to come walk or bike this area. Right now, we enjoy green grass. But from early spring through what we hope will be a rainy season, the grasses are extremely dry, tinder waiting to be ignited. lndividually we pray that no one drops a match, or all of this area will be up in flames. lt is common knowledge that we are in, and presumably will stay in a major drought. This potential flammability is a reality which intensifies each season.
lmagine the residents' concerns when we heard of the project which will put a blast furnace and two propane tanks above ground in the middle of all this! And with no additional water lines! The cemetery management seems to think this proposal is a done deal. No one plans for an "accident" 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
to happen, but we all know that accidents do happen, and then questions are asked, "Who approved such a thing?!" Should just one of these tanks ignite, the blast range is 1800 feet, and the resulting fires could wipe out most of Historic Folsom. Do you want the loss of life, in addition to property, both residential and commercial, attached lo your approval of such a risky project? Air quality is another concern. Last summer, we all suffered from forest fire smoke, (notably smoke trapped in our Preserve neighborhood) to the point that we were advised we should not leave our houses. Because of what smoke does to our lungs, and to our children's health, we were hesitant to go shop or eat at, the multiple Folsom small businesses that depend on locals' patronage to survive.

This economic challenge for our merchants was in addition to Covid slowdowns and closures. Do we need to add to the economic issues by building a crematorium walking distance away? Smoke of human remains does escape a crematorium, and cremating obese human bodies emits a dark smoke that smells horribly. The wind will carry these fumes to all of Historic Folsom. Air quality affects both human and fiscal health of our Historic Folsom. Would you choose to eat outside at a restaurant on Sutter Street and breathe burning bodies, or drive minutes and eat at the Palladio? An additional concern is that the cemetery management has expressed an entitled attitude by starting construction before the approval has been issued. Might that attitude extend to safety issues? Lakeside Cemetery originally projected an average of one cremation a day, now doubled! but what can stop the increase to multiple cremations per day? When asked about permits, the reply was "Oh, the city will take care of that." Does Lakeside Cemetery speak for the Historic Folsom Commission? Does it speak for the City of Folsom? Do we need more air pollution in this area, let alone escaping fumes of human remains? No, we do not.

I do not oppose a crematorium, but it must not be built in this Open Space and High-Risk Fire Zone.lt slrould be approved and built in an industrial area with adequate access to water, fire prevention and containment. Thank you for your time and your attention to this very important issue.

Sincerely,
Joy Hays
lYorng wo circle
Folsom, CA 95630
January 29,2022 cc: [email protected]
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
qBo r.n +r . ?+- :vyw
I
,Ft-tr? c.l -t
.i)
0 * QV
*\tl--r? n:Z I
14? /,t'+"
-t6 ftN +
o <7^i r"r. !2 c' t 4 fry r*"1"frffiffid1tffi$s6 ffiffiq frt-t. < (,raVfr frr'r*rcr| "z "&fi
M*.u/^-> a/
fl,{ Ft Fvr I ".t,l?*ylfl -{tv{l{,, w d-'L{'x 2,/'- 0 lrw uedo peteuBFep lillrred 98neqt tot lBuoslpuoc E Jol sErl u,sr| puouet{ sp[selEl srBrl slril. orl,u suazilc peuJecuoo AlE gql'eM eql uo ,oN, slo^ ol ,ljloU lcE q sJepEal Jno r'9, w-r-t'l.z^4,
+7€/?*tf1<]

9. *r?2,1 ti'?=l:)' {'T!44 t.Ktit sn ?^,r',1 l.^{ fr.t' 6>f^ { Page 642 04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Adam and Katie Musfelt
Subject:

Thursday, January 27,2022 3:56 PM
[email protected]; [email protected]; kevin.duewel @gmail.com; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade; Kelly Mullett
Crematorium
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentification.l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Commission and Council Members,
Folsom is a second home to me; I spend a lot of time there as I have many life-long friends, including my children's godparents, who live in the housing development next to Lakeside Cemetery. Some of the things I love most about Folsom are the trails along the river and quintessential Sutter Street. When visiting, we are almost always outside enjoying the fresh air, kind people and beautiful scenery that Folsom has to offer. During the pandemic we have celebrated numerous events outdoors including backyard birthday parties, playdates in the little park, baby showers, and family gatherings where we would take walks on the trails and to Sutter Street to pick up food. lt is a unique city rich with history and charm, that would be greatly diminished by the establishment of a crematorium at the cemetery Itwouldbedevastatingifthiscrematoriumisputin. lcan'timagineanyonewouldwanttovisittherestingplaceoftheir loved ones at the cemetery, while breathing in the smell of the crematorium. None of us would want to gather outside together or let our children play at the playground when it's a burn day. The people who walk and bike on the trails and eat at the restaurants on Sutter Street would disappear on these days as well. People will stop visiting Folsom.

Ask yourselves how would you feel if you if you or your loved ones lived or owned a business next to a crematorium? Our quality of life will have a significant negative impact if this crematorium is allowed to be builU families and businesses will suffer repercussions for years to come. Please keep letting us live life and enjoy the clean air in the neighborhood, on the trails, and when spending time on Sutter Street' Thank you,
Katie Musfelt
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dave Higgins
Tuesday, )uly 20,2021 7:31 AM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected];[email protected];Mike Kozlowski;Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade
Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn 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.

July 20,2021
NO.... to the Crematorium
My Name is Kim Higgins. I live directly across from the entrance of Lakeside Memorial Lawn. My backyard and kitchen window is in direct sight of the cemetery driveway. I believe, with a crematorium at Lakeview we will receive the most impact from the increased use of the facility.

Memorial Lawn has been a good neighbor. My husband and I enjoy the open space and the wildlife that frequents there. We respect it. The Preserves Neighborhood is very small, unique and quaint. We have a park for children and a beautiful lake with eagles and diverse wildlife, hiking and bike trails, and a short walk to downtown Historic Folsom. lt's all a gem.

However, it is a busy place. Veterans Hall, Muir House, Chinese Cemetery, Access to Lake Natomas, our park and playground brings with it alot of traffic. Not to mention the endless UPS, Fedex, Amazon and delivery trucks to the Vets Hall. We have only one way in and out of this neighborhood.

My husband and I purchased our home three years ago. During those years we encouraged our adult children with their families to move into the Preserves Neighborhood. Our lives with our kids and grandkids is a dream come true. \Mth the proposal of the Crematorium at the cemetery it has become a game changer to the quality of life we have become accustomed to. Members of my family suffer from severe asthma and allergies. I am very concerned for their well being.

I watched the Zoom meeting presented by HFRA on June 20. lgor Semenyuk and Peter Hartwick explained that we won't know when a cremation is taking 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
place. Mr. Semenyuk stated all we might see is an "initial puff of white smoke" and heat waves. Mr. Hartwick stated there won't be any smoke or smell. I am concerned that there is still going to be particulate matter in the air. ln the meeting Mr. Semenyuk guesstimated a possibility o12 to 3 bodies a day. What would the number of cremations be in the future with our current population growth. More cremations, more service trucks, more emissions from more smoke stacks?
I realize Miller Funeral Home is a business. lt makes good business sense to them to put a crematorium there. But a crematorium does not belong in a residential neighborhood. I am sure they can find a great location in a commercial-industrial area where they can operate day and night.

Should this crematorium get installed I will be looking at the American flag that flies in the cemetery to see which way the wind is blowing. This will dictate what type of day to expect. Will we be inside or outside? I suspect our quality of life will be diminished during operating hours because we will be trapped in our homes for health reasons.

I believe our property values will be affected by having a crematorium so close. According to an article from "Applied Economics Magazine" by Mark Agee, dated June 19,2008,
"Data Spans 27 months of house sales: 7 months before and 20 months after the startup of crematory operations. Results indicate that proximity, measured in terms of direction and distance from the crematory, imparts a statistically significant negative impact on average house sale prices - an increase of 0.3% to

3.6% of average sale price for every tenth mile increase up to a half mile in distance from the crematorY."
California disclosure law requires us to disclose. Not many people desire to live near one. Do you?
We love our small unique neighborhood. The Preserves Neighborhood is where we are planning to spend the rest of our lives. All our family is here. Our quality of life will be affected if the crematorium goes fonrvard. Honestly, would you want this in your backyard?
Thank You
Kim Higgins
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Folsonr ..Distinclivc by Natur*". whilC wc ntovc frscpgr intn the twcnty first ccntrrrv r'vc have bl)come nore aware of tle choices we must make to pmtect the future. Srnall cltoices might I1{3t rnuke inrrnscliate inrltacts trui we uprlerstarrd tlrai tJre srnail glt(rices we tlritkc todny arid ulr io lltc iitrge inrfacis rve seek.

I $nr wrrling rega'tling the proposed crematoriuur planDetl *t l&keside tttetnorisl l$wn centc'tcry' M*ny pe*ple ,*ill*ha"e writf,n to y,r:u abilut the tlieore.tica! risk ascoeiated "*ith th* carcincgerii; Iivirrg iisili - .
.ne. While nly conccrTr is airout protecting the future and we have a small chance t$ make a nrearringful change roday. At the samc time eliminating all risk a.ssociated with a crematoriuln.

Revcrencl Desmond Tufu provided direction on Oris matter. tJpon his recent dearh he chose to use &qusrnstion to promote giecn buriai. Reclucing greenhouse gases by 909s associat$d with normal creft:itiu*. Sorne estimates $tftte thfit each titrre &quflftation is $secl it is the equivale.rtt ilf tilkrtg ft s*f off the road for 1000 miles in co2 creation. As cremation becomes closer to being thc standard choicrr in ealifitmia iilcse nutrrbers stsrt to add up'
Some might be concerned about water use. Per one manutbcture websitc each use rcquircs about 100 gallons oT water, We are in the process of addrng l0,uu0 homes which per your own literature uses Qn *:,u*r*g* of 600gallofis of watcr a cay. so tlris extra anrount used would be tht equivalent of one homc if used to full capacity.

I actually would pret.er that the city ot !olsom would choose to mrt allow $ny crematorium proJeats moving iorwarcl alcl eneourage the use of this proven technology. In fact we already havc an aqrramition facility in Folsom. Sacramenlo Pet Aquarnation is located on Bidwell provides this service ibr residents cherished Pets'
Now is the tinrc to make this choice. lt is much harder to change clirections on this path once you allow the crematoriurn to be put in operation, I he decision to prel'erably not allow a crematorium in the city of Folsom and encourage the use of grcen burial technology is llot something to rnake a decisiou on in two decades. 11 is todaY.

Irl tvltOrtt lt {.:Qllccrl}$,
'l hank youo
Kyal Von Gunten
1335 Fong St

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Io lYhrrttt lt cQllcerllli,
Folsonr ,.tlistinctivc hy Naturc", whilc we movc dccpcr intn the tw:ntl first ccnlury wc have bsccrme more aware of the choices we must make tei pmtect the futute. Srnall clroices might tlot In&ke inrrn*liate irtr;racls but we urreierstanri thai the srnall choices w'e nlilkc tod[y arid u1r lo thc iarge ilttpltcis rve seek,
I rrnr w*lrng regarding the proposed crcmatoriuni plamed &t lpkesidc tuetttorisl l$wrr cenretery' M*ny psop!* ool;ltio."I* .,r'rirf,n t* ;*o'* tb,.rut t!'re theorelica] tisk associaterl '+itlt thc carcinugr:*r living iieai - .
'ne. While n-,y "on"** is ahout protecling the future and we have a small chance to make a meaningful change to,Jay. At the same time eliminating all risk associated with a crematorium.

Revcrend Desmond Tutu provided direction on this maftrer- Llpon his receni death he chose to use equarnation tg promole green burial. Reducing greenhouse gases by guulo assaciated with normal cremritiofi. Some estint;tes state thrlt each titre &quamatioll is used it is ths eqtrivalsr* r:f t$kilg * ciu off the road for 1000 miles in coz creation" As crenration becomes closcr to being thc standard choicer in Calitbmia tirese numbers $tad to arld up'
Sor'e might be concerned about water use. Per one manutbcturc websitc each use rcquires about 10{) gallons oI water. we are in the process of atldrng lO,uuu homes which per your own literature uses Qn Io*r*g* of 600gallons of water a day. so this cxtra amonnt used would be th* equivalent of one home if uscd to full capacity.

I actually woulcl pret.er that the city ot !olsom would choose to not allow any orematoril"tm proJects moving iorwarcl ancl eneor,rage the use of this proven technology, In faet we already have an "lur*ition facility in Folsom. sacramcnlo Pet Aquamation is located on Bidwcll provides this service fcrr residents cherished Pets'
Now is the tinre to make this choice. lt is much hardcr to change clirections on this path once you allow the qrematoriurn to be put ur operetlon, I he decision to pret-erably not allow a crematorium in the city of Folsom and encourage the use of grcen burial technology is not something to make a decision on in two decades. It is todaY.
'l hank youn
Kyal Von Gunten
lFong St

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Karen Sanabria
Friday, August 6,2021 7:42 AM
Josh Kinkade; Kelly Mullett
FW:CREMATORIUM
FYI
From: Kyal VonGunten
Sent: Thursday, August 5,20217:52 PM
To: Karen Sanabria <[email protected]>
Subject: 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.

August 4,202I
TO: City Councif Members
Historic District Commission
Plannlng Department - Scott Johnson
My name is Kyal VonGunLen. I l-ive next to Lakeside Memorial Lawn on st.

Fong
Lakeside Memoriaf Lawn proposed crematorium is 460 feet from the closest residence. The majority of the homes are on Young Wo Crrcle.

I have read the assessment report from Hefix Environmentaf Planning, appendix "B" and I have anxlety about what will occur in my neighborhood. fn the "Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment", appendix "B" written by Helix Environmental Pfanning, page 5, under "Sensitive Receptorst', they state 1-he closest resldences are 450 feet. They are correct, there are nine homes on Young Wo Clrcfe that fall within the distance of 450 feet. From there it fans out to al-f of the Preserves Neighborhood.
..sensitive Receptorst' Corporate speak for people, people with homes, families and Iives.

According to an article by,fulliette O'keeffe, dated march 24, 2O2O, "Crematoria Emissions and Air Quality Impacts" . page 4, item 3
Wtrat is standard practice for siting of crematorium in proximity to residential areas?
Tabfe 1 identifies the many factors affecting emissions from crematoria. Ground fevel concentrations can afso be affected by focal prevailing wind direction and topography. fn North America, there are no standard requirements for crematoria setback distances and no minimum separatlon distances are set at a federal leve1 in either the US or Canada. Crematoria are regulated at the provrnciaf/territorial fevef and reglonal or municipal authorrties determine whether minimum setbacks are required based on refevant planning and environmentaf considerations.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The literature search for
identified many different
worfd llsted in Table 3.

Table 3. Selected examPle
public agency resources and the grey llterature
practices, with some selected examples from around the
setback disLances for crematoria from around the worfd
Country,/'Juri sdiction Mini.num distanoe
England and Wales
(UK Crenation Actl +a
2OO yards (183 m) between a crematorium and any dwelling house and 50 yards from a public highway to protect'
residents from nuisance smoke and fumes and provide
privacy to funeral Proceedings
West Australlaaz 2OO-300 m between crematoria and sensitive fand uses South Australia and the
Australian Capital
Territ oryaa, as
150 m minimum separation distance
south Africa, Department- of 500 m from any habitabfe building Heafthso
US (Sacramento CountY,
California) sr
500 feet (152 m) from any agricultural-residential,
residential, or interim residential zoning district
Back to the Helix Report. On page 2 of the document' under Air Quality' it explains the "EnvironmenLaf Setting" of Folsom. This is important data.

AIR QUALITY ANAIYSIS - Environmental Setting
The City of Folsom l-ies within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) / near the southeasLern edge. The SVAB consists of alf or parts of efeven counLies spanning from Solano and Sacramento counties to the south, and Shasta County to the north.

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quatity Management District (SMAQMD) is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and staLe laws for Sacramento County, including the project area. The cllmate of Lhe SVAB ts characterj-zed by hot dry sulnmers and mild rainy winters.

During the year the temperature may range from 20 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit with surnmer highs usually in the 9Os and winter fows occasionally befow freezing.

Average annual rainfall is about 20 inches with snowfall being very rare. The prevalling winds are moderate in strength and vary from moist breezes from the south to dry land ftows from the north. The mountains surrounding the Sacramento VaIley creaLe a barrier to airflow, which can Lrap air pollutants in the valley when certain meteorological conditions are right and a Lemperature inversion (areas of warm air overfying areas of cooler air) exists.

Air stagnation in the auLumn and early winLer occurs when large high-pressure cefl-s fie over the valley. The lack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced verticaf fl-ow caused by less surface heating reduces the inffux of outside air and aflows pollutants to become concentrated in the air. The surface concentrations of potlutants are highest when these conditions are combined with 2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
increased l-evefs of smoke or when temperature inversions trap cool air, fog and potlutants near the ground.

The ozone season (May through October) in the SVAB is characterized by stagnant morning air or light. winds with the breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest from the San Francisco Bay. Usually the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north out of the SVAB. During abouL haff of the days from July Lo September, however, a phenomenon cafled the "Schultz Eddy" prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing for the prevarling wind patterns to move north carrying the pollutants out of the valley, the Schultz Eddy causes the wind pattern and pollutants to circl-e back southward. This phenomenon's effect exacerbates the pollution l-evefs in the area and increases the likefihood of violating the federaf and state air quality standards (SMAQMD 2020a) This data is important to note as pollutants, particulate matterf ozone and smoke would most J-ikely lay within the neighborhood because of the elevation decrease to Lake Natomas.

RegrrJ-atory Setting - Criteria Pollutants
As permitted by the Cl-ean Air Act, California has adopted the more stringent Cal-ifornia ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents. Ground-leve1 ozone is not ernitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical and photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, primariJ.y reactive organic gases (ROGs; also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCsl ) , 1 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) . PM10 and pM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can aLso be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atrnosphere.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards. An "attainment" designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not. viol-ate the standard for that pollutant in that area.

A .lnonattainment" designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once.

This data is valuable because it is an evafuation of today, before the crematorium is operational. This ozone and particulate matter pollution most 1ike1y comes from the busy traffic on Folsom Blvd. Wlth a crematoriun initially proposlng 2 bodies or 400lbs of matter a day, 1001 000 l-bs a year' one can only imagine the additionaf contaminants flowing into The Preserves Neighborhood.

In my opinion, once established, Caring Service Group is only going to increase the number of cremations in the future.
please consider the residents of the Preserves Neighborhood's quality of life.

Thank you,
lVonGunten
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

U Laurent
Thursday, January 6,20221:07 PM
Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns
Lydia Konopka; Steve Krahn; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Lessard PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment"
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: Folsom community development director; Asso. planner cc: Asst City Clerk for file; City Engineer for "public proiect files" From: Laurette Laurent
January 6,2022
Re: Public Notice PN 19 182 Requests for Investigations filed in re HDC "design review group" CUP final Approval
It has never been my practice to offer Expertise in Land Use Issues, to those who are intent upon Violations of such Laws. However, please accept Notice herein. Formal Requests for Investigation have been filed with appropriate Agencies.

Lists of detailed "discrepancies" and "departures" from normal Legal Due Process' were included, as well as False Filings.

Notice of Public Hearing appears in January 6,2022 Folsom Telegraph as Historic District Commission Legal Notice, PN 19 182. Parcel O7O 0260 001 0000 Owner Lakeside Memorial Law Entity #
c0307506 08/15/1955
Site Zoning is "OPEN SPACE/OS Conservation", underlying Zone District OPEN SPACE. your PN 2019 182 contains strange reference to California State Laws which you purport have direct Relevance to PN 19-182. With respect to same, you would do well to consult with and obtain Written Opinion of Legal Counsel with respect to state laws cited. If you do not so so, you may place yourselves in untenable positions, or may have already done so. Have our paid city lawyers done complete due diligence, which you apparently rely upon?
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
tr l= Lakeside-,, x ltr Nor-LaL"- x l,l {upoFF, x l@ curonn. x lE oPRZonirr x @ O ,: li rire I rl:/Users/ljlaurentlDesktop/{REMAT0RYg'6405{F19620MneE?i20cleq.,. ii.' i, NOTI{-'E OIT FI.]BLIC HEARING ANI} NO'

TO ADOPT A MITIGATEIT NEGATIVE
x--(}La{}*,t
!rrr c!r..r{ rr -al,a! CITY OF FOLSOII{ HISTORIC I}ISTRICI H
DATE OF'HEARIHG:

TIME OF HEARINTiI:

PLACE OF HEARING:

February 16,20??
5:t]0 P.M.

City Council Chambers,50 Natorna Strr:et, Fo
NOTIIIE IS HEREBY GMN THAT: A public hearing rvill bt held I flommission of ttre City of Folsorn to csnsider the merits of the follorving:

PROJECT NAIIIE Lakeside Memorial Larvn Crematoriurn
Property OrvnerlApplicant: Lakeside Memorial Lawruulgor Semenyuk Praj ect Localion/APN : I 20 I Forrest Street," 070-CI?fi0-t]0 I -000{) Planning No.: PN-19- l8?
Staff Contact: Josh Kinkade, Associate Plirnner,9lfi-461-6?{ [email protected]
Entitlements: a. Conditional Use Permit
Project Desr:ription: The proposed project includes operation of a r-remato

1.071-square lbot metal sherJ located at l!CIl Forrest Street, within the La cemetery. The site is zoned OS/P {Open Space/Public Prirnary Area} rvith i OSC {Open Spirce and Cr:nservation} and hns a General Plan designation ol Historic District Commission will take final action on this request unless tht the City Cauncil.
ii ' -; lfl qt I;t ?
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
n l= L:keridel,. * l|l Noc-Lar. x lt cupoFF. x lEi {uPoPR'x l@ oenzonin x E C ,.il fiie I C:/UEers/Ulaurenty'Desktop/{REMATORY'"6Z05[H9i20Mneg?iZ8clet/." t'l i, verrtvletj. ttte strl lJ lurtlu vLiil lrJ|Jvrr uygLLlr'uulr9 r rrrllUrji Jtr!Ll/ lrllrl I OSC (Open Space and Consen'ation) ancl has a General Plan designation ol Histaric District Comrnission will take tinal nction on this request unless tht the City Council.

Envirrrnmental Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declerration accordance with the requirements of the Califbrnia Environmental Qu*liry*'At review period hegins January ?. 20?? and ends February 7.20?2. Crrpies of tl Declaration itre available tbr review at the City af Folsom Plnnning Departmt Folsom CA 95630, Ntanday through Friday fiom 8:30 a.m. to l:00 p.m. The t dorvnloaded from the City of Folsom website at https://rvrvw.folsom.ca.usigo' deve -services/t ect-intbrmation
All Bersr:ns intcrcsted in thest: rnfltul.s arc invitcd to prcs*nt und sutrrnit statcmenls $rfl pubiic hcaring, The cnvironilrenttl documcnts are lvailablc t-or rcr,icw *1. ancl tirrthcr in fiom thu Cornrnnnity Devr:lcpmcnt Dcpartmcnt. -50 N*loma Strcct, during rcgulitr busir Dcyclopment Department *fln bc rctchcd hy phonc at (91 6) 46.l-62tll. A stntTrcpr-rrt rvill Citv ttall ur at rvrvlv.lblsom,ca.us on tht'Thursday prcccding thc hrblic Hcaring.

Pursuant lo ull lpplicablc lrrvs nnd rcgulations. inclurling without limitation, Calilbrnia 65$09 and/orflrrlitbmia Public Rcsour*cs Cod* Scctiorr lllT?, if you rvish t* challcng dccisions {rcgarrting plnnnirrg, roning irndror cnt,irunmrrrtal clccrisitrns}. you ma}r bc lirnitr:r you or somcon{i slsc riliscd at thc public hcaring{s} dcs(rribed irr this noti*cing*nda, ot delivercd ta rhr City rt. or priar to, thc public hcnring. An appr-rrrl tc the City Council lrur Districr Commi*sion mily bc trruught by any intcrcstcd party rvithin thcn {1{l} da1's of the

PAM JOHNS
I]OMMLIN ITY DEVELOPMEhJT DIRECTOR
Puhlished jrr ffte .lstruttt\t 7, ?fi]l.Tflcturtsrrlo Bee Address is 2020 Mormon St.; Falsified in PN 1,9 LB2, and on large number of Perjurysworn Building Permit Applications.

All LNS 1B' wide lanes are subject to Folsom PUD Law enacted for creation of s,f. houses only, not 2,400F furnaces.
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

U Laurent
Friday, January 7,20221 1:20 AM
Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns
Steve Krahn; Steven Wang; [email protected]; Drew Lessard; Ken Cusano; Rick Hillman PUBLIC COMMENT PN19 182 for FILES/ PRA REQUEST City Eng. APROVED RECORDS, Furnace necessity PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment" 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: Folsom city clerk office
to: Comm. Development asso planner Kinkade, manager Johns cc: interested parties
From: Laurette Laurent
Re: PUBLIC COMMENT which includes PRA for MISSING mandatory documents not Filed with Clerk, nor with SCH, nor OPR,
Please accept the below Itemized Lists as Public Comment on the potential Failure of city and applicant to obey all Laws governing such dangers uses as 2,4O0F furnaces, 500 gallon explosive LPG gas storage -- on 12 acres of land with only a three inch diameter water supply pipe. Where is the Fire Marshall True Report with signature & seals? Please be aware your Noticing email was received minutes ago, however it merely proves city staff are NON-Compliant with the Legal Noticing Requirements. Guess you don't listen to Licensed Civil Engineers norto Licensed city lawyers. tsk tsk... ----- Fonrvarded Messaqe ----
From: LJ LaurenlTo: Asst. Clerk <[email protected]>; City Engineer Steve Krahn <[email protected]> Cc: "blm_ca_web_re@blm^gov" <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Drew Lessard <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Ken Cusano <[email protected]>; Rick Hillman Chief FPD <[email protected]>; Fire Marshal Ono <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Kerri Howell <[email protected]>; Steven Wang <[email protected]>; The HFRA <[email protected]>; Sararivenruatch I nfo <info@sararivenruatch. org>
Sent: Friday, January 7 ,2022,08:34:43 AM PST
Subject: Re: PRA REQUEST City Eng. APROVED RECORDS, Furnace necessity PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment"
Urgent PRA REQUEST January 7,2022, for Folsom City Engineer Documentation, Permits, Sealed/Signed Reports, Building Permits, and all public records pertaining to three year old "application" for furnaces on OPEN SPACE Zone District surrounded by Public Open Space and s,f. homes.

To: Folsom City Engineer
Asst City Clerk Konopka
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
cc: interested parties OPEN SPACE Parcel protectors Adjacent to proposed 500 gallons LPG, on site with 3" water supply pipe.
ccr silent city staff; council
From: Laurette Laurent
January 7, 2022
PRA REQUEST: Documents Requested: City Engineer Sealed/Signed Approved drawings for furnaces abutting federal forests/river, including Perjury Sworn Applicant Statement, City Engineer APPROVED Report of Findings of Necessity, Hardship, Unique 'circumstancesi, WATER SUPPLY lines, required for such furnaces 2,400 F, Fire Marshall portion of City Engineer's RePort;
All Building Permit applications fperjury sworn accurate & Complete] granted to this Parcel with Legal Address 2O2O Mormon St. since 1B58 Judah Map of Folsom Streets; All Memos, notes, minutes of meetings, and communications, between "Community Development director, Asso. Planner and others with City Engineer on this "Public Project" as advertised.

Also requeited are City Engineer and community development director/manager Duties and Ordinances establishing said CE and manager's duties.

As always, State Law allows ten days for production of these Ordinary Public Records for this "Public Project," Since this Public Project has been a Matter of Record since 201-9, three whole years, surely all Required Public Records and City Engineer Approved Reports, with recommendations should be available January IB,2022' Second Request, Pursuant to Law Mailed Public Notices to Abutting Parcels are mandatory. Please supply Verified & CE Certified Proof of said Mailings to all Public Agencies and s,f, home residents abutting Parcel 070 0260 001 0000, which city identifies with False Address as being located with Ordinance-Created Lake Natoma Shores Planned Unit Development Subdivision'
Repeated, ignored Prior PRA Requests: not once in over ten years has Folsom City Engineer of Record produced even one single PRA RESPONSE for Public Projects -- which inciude his Seal & Signature proving he did his job of Certifying all Engineer Details of Folsom Public Projects such as this one -- which is the ultimate in License dereliction due to the obvious Hazards he is allowirig, abetting, or silently watch being processed as he remains mute, inactive, etc., on his Public Project Duties.

Again, city staff have had three long years of prolonging this "application" and "Jpproved" building Permits which are based upon Perjured information, so all Public project PN 19 182 Records and Permits should be at-hand for immediate PRA RESPONSES.

CE Records and PROOF of Open Fire Department Access for all Federal Agencies Parcels surrounding this Public Project, and Historic Site under BLM protection, and State 13 acre parcel are requested.

Certification of Safety by City Engineer with respect to Blast Radius of 500 gallons of LPG highly flammable propane gas abutting federal & state Open Space lands & forests is 2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
also part of this PRA Request for following reasons: danger of LPG and NO Water Lines at all and no Access roads for Water Trucks:

Propane Tank Explosion
x
x
Propane Tank Explosion
Propane Tank Explosion
FYI to City Engineer: all loose objects, metal, rocks, will become projectiles capable of flying further than 1,500 feet,
PRA Request for your APPROVAL of this LPG storage with your Certified Safety Analysis is REQUESTED as mandatory portion of Application. How could residents be paying a CE who ignores our very lives and sole Water Supply and Federal Assets? Kindly Expedite this Portion of PRA Request with immediate PRA RESPONSE as it is your License Obligation.

PRA Request concern: since mayor also holds a state License for an Engineering Field long discontinued in this state, this ought to concern entire city council. How can residents fail to regard her inactions all three years as anything but Negligence or willful disregard of License Duties?
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

On Thursday, January 6,2022,01:07:33 PM PST, LJ Laurent <[email protected]> wrote:

To: Folsom community development director; Asso. planner cc: Asst City Clerk for file; City Engineer for "public project files" From: Laurette Laurent
January 6,2022
Re: Public Notice PN 19 182 Requests for Investigations filed in re HDC "design review group" CUP final Approval
It has never been my practice to offer Expertise in Land Use Issues, to those who are intent upon Violations of such Laws. However, please accept Notice herein. Formal Requests for Investigation have been filed with appropriate Agencies.

Lists of detailed "discrepancies" and "departures" from normal Legal Due Process, were included, as well as False Filings.

Notice of Public Hearing appears in January 6,2O22 Folsom Telegraph as Historic District Commission Legal Notice, PN 19 182, Parcel 070 0260 001 0000 Owner Lakeside Memorial Law Entity #
c0307506 08t15/1 955
Site Zoning is "OPEN SPACE/OS Conservation", underlying Zone District OPEN SPACE, Your PN 2019 182 contains strange reference to California State Laws which you purport have direct Relevance to PN L9-I82. With respect to same, you would do well to consult with and obtain Written Opinion of Legal Counsel with respect to state laws cited. If you do not so so, you may place yourselves in untenable positions, or may have already done so, Have our paid city lawyers done complete due diligence, which you apparently rely upon?
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
n I
=
LakeEide-'
n
T--i
* ltr No{-Lar.- x l'3 cuPC,FF. x lE f,uPoPR. x lSf oenzoni,"' x E f-'r Fr;e I C:/Users/ljlaurent/Desktop/{REhlATORYT/.Z0S(H9{2OMneg?iZ0deq'.,' '1) 'i, NO'TICE OF PIjBLIC HEARTNG AND NO'
TO ADOPT A MITIGATEI} NEGATIVE
$'(}I-F*(}1$ CITY OF FOLSOM HISTORIC DTSI'RICI
h
DATE OF HEARINC:

TIilIE OF HEARIN{i:

PLACE OF HEARINC:

February 16,2032
5:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers,50 Natorna Street, Fo
NOTICE IS FIEREBY GMN THAT: A public hearing rvill be held I Commission of the Clity nf Folsorn tr-r consider the merits of the follorving:

PROJECT NAME Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Froperty Owner/Applicant: Lakeside Mernorial Lawn/lgor Semenyuk Project Location/APN: l2ftl Fon'est Street i 070-0?60-[10l-0000 Planning No.: PN-19-18?
Stiltf flontact: Josh Kinkade, Associate Pltrnner. 916-461-6?( i kinkadefllitblsom.ca.tts
Entitlements: a. Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: The proprrsed pnrject includes operation of a crernato 1"071-square tbot metal shet'l located at l!01 Fon'est Street, within the La cemetery. The site is zrned OS/P {f}pen Space/Public Primary Area) r,vith i OSC {Open Space and Consen'ation} and has a General Plan designation rrl Historic District Comrnission will take final action rrn this request uttless tht the City Council.
rlIT l?I 4F C'
5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

D l: Lekeride-, x l= No(-Lar.t * l- rupoFF. x lE cuFCIFR. x l@ oPRzonir. x E C i-.1 rir': i C:lUsers;tllaurent/Desklop/{REM,ATOR.Y-G'il05fi-l-o.ri20l+!neE?iZ0cler,/.,. iti 'i, L.lrrtlr:vtJr. r rr\, ott! rd aurlLu vlir t tvFLrt uF{aL'LJ I uurl9 I lltrrfllj J u!$)t lr lllr I OSC (Open Space and Conserv'ation) snd has a General Plan designation ol Historic District Commission w'ill take tinal action cn this request unless tht the City Council.

Environmental Revierv: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration accordflnce rvith the requirements of the Calit'ornia Environmental Quality At review period hegins January 7. 20?? and ends February 7. :023. Copies oi'tl Declaration are available ibr review at the City of Folsom Planning Departme Folsom CA 9563(), Monday through Friday tinm I{:30 a.m. fa l:00 p.rn. The r dorvnloaded fiom the City of Folscm wet:site at https://wwrv.t'olsom.ca.us/go develonment/plann ins-servi e es/c u rrent-nroi er:t -i n fbrmati on All pcrsons inrcrcstcd in thcsc m{rttcru arc invitcd to prcscnt and subrrit statcmcnts or3 publie hcaring. Th* environmcntarl documcnls irre avnilablc thr rcvicw at, iind firrthcr irr from thc Comnrunity Dcvek:pmcnt Dcplrtmcnl, -tr{J Natr:nra Slrcet, during rcgular busir Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartrncnt can bc rc*chr:d by phonr: at {$ I 6} 461-62{lI. A stnff rcport rvill City Hall ur at rvln'.lirlsom.ca,us on thr'Thursday prcccding thc ftlblic Hcuring.

Pnrsnant to all applicablc lalvs rnd n:gulttions. includiug without limitntion, Clalifornia 6-5iXl9 and/or Californin Public Rcsources f-odc Suction f ll7?, if yor.r r+i*h to challcng decisi*ns (rcgrirding plmning, roning anclr'orcnvirtnmcntal dccisionsl, vou may bc lirniter you {:rr somconc cls* roiscd at thc public hcaring{s} dessritrcd it this notir:c/*gcnda, or dclivered tc thc City at. or pricr tc. thc public hctrring. An appeal lu lhr: City Council I'ro:

District flommissicrn mfly br.' bruughl by nny iltcrcstcd party rvithin then { l0} days of thc

PAM JOHNS

COMMUN ITY DEVE LOPMENT DIRET-TOR
Puhlisht:tl in the,lutrutullt 7, 2{l'32.Tacrunrento Bee Address is 2020 Mormon St.; Falsified in PN L9 \82, and on large number of Perjurysworn Building Permit Applications.

All LNS 1B' wide lanes are subject to Folsom PUD Law enacted for creation of s.f. houses only, not 2,400F furnaces.

Just rec'd 11am L/7/2022 Noticing email from city asso, planner 5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

LJ Laurent'"-l.i larrlerrtrr/'iltt. tlcl'
i t, : f [email protected]. gov
., , :RodriguezBianca@DGS,[email protected],Drew Lessard,Matthew Ceccato,Dr. Ami Beraand 2 more...

I hrr ,\rr3 i rrl I {}:i I r,\ I
To: Brian Dewey, CA State Parks
cc: Ernest Conant, USBR Mid Pac. Dir,; Wade Crowfoot;
Drew Lessard, Folsom USBR CE; Ami Bera, Matt
cc: Bianca Rodriguez, Counsel, CA DGS [for Ana M. Lasso Director] August 5,202L
Re: CA State-owned Parcel: encroachment, dumping, unpermitted uses & grading, by Miller Lakeside Cemetery, dba Caring Service Group.

Mr. Dewey, It has been twelve days since my first attempts to contact you personally; ten days since this email cc'd to CA DGS Counsel. People have difficulty realizing the disorganization of State Parks, but Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision neighbors do. We know the travesty of Folsom and CA SP ignoring impacts upon Federal land & waters of American Riven CA SP is "Managing Partner" of USBR Reclamation, yet SP has done nothing to protect, manage, or provide Enforcement on the surrounding federal Parcels at American River/CA State Park Managing Partner.

For that reason, I am informing USBR Mid Pacific Director Conant and Folsom USBR Manager Drew Lessard CE as well. It is unacceptable that California State Parks is failing Managing Partners Duties, and ignoring Property-Ownership Protection of the Parcel which has been.the dunping ground and part of the necessary land for movement/Access to construct more unpermitted, uninspected Structures on "Folsom Open Space & Open Space Conservation" Zone District, Because cemetery owners derive a huge tax benefit from this reporting by city of Folsom, this is copied to Sacramento County authorities and powers as well.

Clearly, my experiences prove California State Parks has major issues and hence it was moved to lesser status in CA Natural Resources Depaftment, My complaints sent via Certified Mail have gained NO Direct Responses to me, whatsoever from either SP or Natural Resources. This is extremely impoftant to me because some of them detailed Violations of Federal Laws, on Federal Propefty -- which is assigned via Managing Paftner Agreement to California State Parks. Research Repofts have been created, submitted, but California State Parks top, Sworn LEOs, Legal Counsel, and management have never once responded during the Period September L,2020, and today.

People whom I've known for years, in CA SP Gold Fields District, have done absolutely nothing about addressing the shortcomings and failures. California State Parks and Natural Resources Department remain nonresponsive to the Peoples' Business.

Therefore, I am asking California Department of General Services to take some action to accomplish two outstanding Issues.

1. Please take actions to stop the mis-use, encroachment onto, dumping, storing of rusty cemetery junk on the Parcel in Question which has enabled a crematory process to exist and to proceed without Permits nor Inspections by city of Folsom.

2. Please ask DGS Legal Staff to fill the obvious void left by California State Parks.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Please refer SP "issues" directly to California Attorney General as there appears to be no hope Sp will comply or remediate their failures with respect to obeying and enforcing Laws on Federal Land/Watershed Forest/American River.

Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision homes abut this State Parcel, as well as cemetery parcel zoned "Open Space Conservation". Folsom staff have had a crematory application in Community Development Depaftment for approximately 18 months, without any Public Notice whatsoever: USBR Reclamation is an abutting landowner. Public OPEN Space Zone surrounds about 80o/o of cemetery parcel, and yet USBR, State of California, and Single Family home owners have NOT been mailed Notice of Proposed exceptions, change of land Uses, etc. In the past, when this crematory became an issue, ALL state, federal, county, and local neighbors were Notified by Mail. Sacramento County Medical Examiner excoriated owners for proposing not only a Hazardous Use, but desecrating Historic Features, abutting Chinese Cemetery which is a Registered National Historic Site, and failing to respect History and environment.

This time, construction has been on-going with mis-use of State Parcel in question enabling "access" for earth-moving machines. Will State employees provide a Solution under the Laws?
If we wait for State Park action, the entire federal land/water area, and our homes may vanish in wildfire from 2,200 F degree burner, with two huge liquid propane gas tanks, and on a 2 inch water-meter-constricted 3 inch diameter Water Service Pipe onto cemetery parcel.

Someone needs to stop Caring Service Group by stopping city of Folsom "quiet" enabling actions and city failure to enforce OPEN SPACE Conservation Zoning, and failure to enforce new stringent Historic Oak tree protection law. Whatever business proposals emerge, there is never a Folsom City Engineer signed & Sealed Report on laws of federal, State, County, and their own Municipal Code -- which prohibits all the 12 buildings on OSC Zone. Witnout a state licensed Civil Engineer pafticipating, many laws are ignored.

We pay licensed people, but they never produce Reports to protect residents, and Enforce Development, Land Use Laws.

Neighbors are justifiably very deeply concerned, as we know Folsom as a city is on the Federal WUI Register: Wildfire Urban Interface Registry.

Anyone wishing copy of links, Folsom WUI Plan, , please request them.

Managing Partner Agreement attached'
hllp-r;1lwW_wJs-ulu!-ecalxfuse,il4-tews-rel,aq.s-lvidcaslyLaw-=0&ssrtldd&s,Lt-elJ-id=Q On Tuesday, July 27,2021, At42:53 PM PDT, LJ Laurent <[email protected]> wrote:

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

SACRAMEI{TO BEE MAY2s 2or8
Crematorium mishap shoots
plume of human ashes into air,
San Diego officials say
: ::L:i::.'1.:1.: r{ v a
F:

Naliarral City, Calrfnrrria, firefiqhters at the sce ni: cf a ci"erlaloriunr acricir,'nl -lltLirsd,;y lhat sent l^rum;ln ;:she s ttrLo lit<l .;tr. 't'iri,i * .
iti6;' .
."'15ff '',. -nifi

NO FURNACE IN
FOREST
"ll
City council: horrific idea, 2 huge tiquid Propane Tanks

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

LJ Laurent
i,,, [email protected]
,, r :RodriguezBianca@DGS,[email protected],Drew Lessard,Matthew Ceccato,Dr. Ami Beraand 2 more...

I lrrr ;\rt1r i rrt l{l:i I ,\\l
To: Brian Dewey, CA State Parks
cc: Ernest Conant, USBR Mid Pac. Dir'; Wade Crowfoot;
Drew Lessard, Folsom USBR CE; Ami Bera, Matt
cc: Bianca Rodriguez, Counsel, CA DGS [for Ana M. Lasso Director] August 5,2021
Re: CA State-owned Parcel: encroachment, dumping, unpermitted uses & grading, by Miller Lakeside Cemetery, dba Caring Service Group.

Mr. Dewey, It has been twelve days since my first attempts to contact you personally; ten days since this email cc'd to CA DGS Counsel. People have difficulty realizing the disorganization of State Parks, but Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision neighbors do. We know the travesty of Folsom and CA SP ignoring impacts upon Federal land & waters of American River. CA SP is "Managing Partner" of USBR Reclamation, yet SP has done nothing to protect, manage, or provide Enforcement on the surrounding federal Parcels at American River/CA State Park Managing Partnen
For that reason, I am informing USBR Mid Pacific Director Conant and Folsom USBR Manager Drew Lessard CE as well. It is unacceptable that California State Parks is failing Managing Partners Duties, and ignoring Property-Ownership Protection of the Parcel which has been 'the dunping ground and part of the necessary land for movement/Access to construct more unpermitted, uninspected Structures on "Folsom Open Space & Open Space Conservation" Zone District, Because cemetery owners derive a huge tax benefit from this reporting by city of Folsom, this is copied to Sacramento County authorities and powers as well.

Clearly, my experiences prove California State Parks has major issues and hence it was moved to iesser status in CA Natural Resources Depaftment. My complaints sent via Certified Mail have gained NO Direct Responses to me, whatsoever from either SP or Natural Resources. This is extremely important to me because some of them detailed Violations of Federal Laws, on Federal Property -- which is assigned via Managing partner Agreement to California State Parks. Research Reports have been created, submitted, but California State Parks top, Sworn LEOs, Legal Counsel, and management have never once responded during the Period September L,202A, and today' people whom I've known for years, in CA SP Gold Fields District, have done absolutely nothing about addressing the shortcomings and failures. California State Parks and Natural Resources Department remain nonresponsive to the Peoples' Business.

Therefore, I am asking California Department of General Services to take some action to accomplish two outstanding Issues.

1. please take actions to stop the mis-use, encroachment onto, dumping, storing of rusty cemetery junk on the Parcel in Question which has enabled a crematory process to exist and to proceed without Permits nor Inspections by city of Folsom. )

2. please ask DGS Legal Staff to fill the obvious void left by California State Parks.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Please refer SP "issues" directly to California Attorney General as there appears to be no hope SP will comply or remediate their failures with respect to obeying and enforcing Laws on Federal Land/Watershed Forest/American River.

Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision homes abut this State Parcel, as well as cemetery parcel zoned "Open Space Conservation". Folsom staff have had a crematory application in Community Development Department for approximately 18 months, without any Public Notice whatsoever. USBR Reclamation is an abutting landowner. Public OPEN Space Zone surrourids about EOo/o of cemetery parcel, and yet USBR, State of California, and Single Family home owners have NOT been mailed Notice of Proposed exceptions, change of land Uses, etc. In the past, when this crematory became an issue, ALL state, federal, county, and local neighbors were Notified by Mail. Sacramento County Medical Examiner excoriated owners for proposing not only a Hazardous Use, but desecrating Historic Features, abutting Chinese Cemetery which is a Registered National Historic Site, and failing to respect History and environment.

This time, construction has been on-going with mis-use of State Parcel in question enabling "access" for earth-moving machines. Will State employees provide a Solution under the Laws?
If we wait for State Park action, the entire federal land/water area, and our homes may vanish in wildfire from 2,2A0 F degree burner, with two huge liquid propane gas tanks, and on a 2 inch water-meter-constricted 3 inch diameter Water Service Pipe onto cemetery parcel.

Someone needs to stop Caring Service Group by stopping city of Folsom "quiet" enabling actions and city failure to enforce OPEN SPACE Conservation Zoning, and failure to enforce new stringent Historic Oak tree protection law. Whatever business proposals emerge, there is never a Folsom City Engineer signed & Sealed Report on laws of federal, State, County, and their own Municipal Code -- which prohibits all the 12 buildings on OSC Zone. Without a state licensed Civil Engineer participating, many laws are ignored.

We pay licensed people, but they never produce Reports to protect residents, and Enforce Development, Land Use Laws.

Neighbors are justifiably very deeply concerned, as we know Folsom as a city is on the Federal WUI Register: Wildfire Urban Interface Registry.

Anyone wishing copy of links, Folsom WUI Plan, , please request them.

Managing Partner Agreement attached.
htlpgllulww,lqutu be, cornfu5e,L/-4-5ewe{daqslrdlea5}ocrryd&54$= !-d&ahe-[-rd,=-0 On Tuesday, July 27,2021, O1:42:53 PM PDT, LJ Laurent wrote

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

SACRAMBNTO BEE MAY25 2018
Crematorium mishap shoots
plume of human ashes into air,
San Diego officials say
rf v t+
FTi
,'
tO
Nalianal {ity, California, firefiqhlers at the scentl of a ci'trnaloriunr ircL icir:trl 'l-littr:;di:y lhal senl hur"rran .:sh*s inlo lite .rir.

NO FURNACE IN
FOREST
irt
City council: horrific idea, 2 huge tiquid Propane Tanks

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

ULaurentI
Friday, December 18,2020 9:49 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steve Krahn; Aimee Nunez; Pete Piccardo; Daniel Wolfe; Bryan Holm; Scott Zangrando; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks; Desmond Parrington; Stephanie Henry; Allison Konwinski; Kristina Eicher; Lauren Ono; Mark Rackovan; Pam Johns; Elaine Andersen; Jason Browning; Dave Nugen; Ryan Neves; Don Brown; Todd Eising; Marcus Yasutake; Vaughn Fleischbein; Greg Bakken; Steven Wang; Cc: "[email protected]"; Paul Keast; HPLBoard; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]" [email protected]; Drew Lessard; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; Christa Freemantle; Rick Hillman; Ken Cusano; Sue Frost; Hedges. Matt; [email protected]; Stephen Green; Mary Beth Metcalf; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eileen Sobeck; Patrick Pulupa Cemetery: FED FOREST, homes IMPACTS of wrongs
SAC CTY CEMETERY COMM. CREMATORIUM, 603, HDC Dec 18, 2020.odt; CEMET '1991 improper actions CUP Mods, Variance, Conditions do not match Abandonmt.odt; CEMETERY 12 HDC WITH DRAWN, CREMATORI UM.odt
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.

To: city of Folsom officials, employees, Mayor, Vice Mayor City Clerk for CIRCULATION to all City Council elected officials Sacramento County; et al,
From: Laurette Laurent
December 18, 2020
Re: Application for Illegal Zoning District Usages, illegal granting of Variance from HDC Commission with NO State Authority to grant such benefits, violation of CA Govt Code Title Zoning; violation of Folsom Zoning Code District restricting NO buildings on any "open space" category -- consistent with VIOLATED State Govt Code; Failure to abide by Sunshine Laws; Failure to conduct Full IS, EIR/EIS; failure to provide PROOF of Publications for all such steps; Failure to OBTAIN State Fire Marshal Approvals due to ABUTMENT to Federal Watershed and Federal Forests; Failure to Notify CA State Parks; Failure to Notify Sacrambnto County Assessor office of "Proposed changes" Iikewise to Cemetery Commissionl; Failure to provide NOTICE to an ABUTTING RESIDENT who filed Complaints about SECRECY in this Land Usage improper SECRET Process - by FAILING to NOTIFY ME -- despite my historic and RECENT objects & Comments with regard to this SECOND time around crematory Proposal -- and my WRITTEN NOTICE to Folsom City Clerk and Planning to be given ALL HDC & Plan Commission Notices, Other violations exist, but are previously filed and resulted in PENALTIES against Applicant.

Original Message
From: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Comment: THIS IS NOT Permit Modification: because there is NO MENTION of ORIGINAL Permit. There is NO EVIDENCE a
VARIANCE is due to Miller nor Lakeside because there is NO PROOF of "EASEMENT', Nor abandonment of Figueroa St. in the Parcel boundary legal description
as of September 10,2020, city clerk, city lawyeq HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE a Prior legal documents Exist and were approved by city attorney Steve Rudolph. No one proved said cited
documents were created, reviewed by Professional lawyer, engineer - FOR LEGALITY fsuch as unproved Easement Leland Miller granted to 1850s Chinese cemeteries.l
Existence of EASEMENT GRANTED by Millel to Chinese
L2 Cond. 12 "Any proposed construction of Lakeside masoleums would NOT OBSTRUCT HISTORICAL EASEMENT or ACCESS to Chinese Cemetery AS WAS AGREED TO RS AGO bv Leland Miller rmer owner of Lakeside Memorial Cemetery."
PC 9t-042 Findings for 1991 Permit Modification
NOTE: NO TIME LIMIT on CUP, Variance or MODIFICATIONS - Rudolph WARNED them as city attorney to put a TIME LIMIT on CU? and Mods.

APPROVAL OF NEG DEC; VARIANCE from 50' Setback
Planner Matt Franck
Miln Construction stated it would take 50 years to fill 2000 spaces in buildings of 12,682 sq ft.

NO MORE Discussion
Maxfield moved to approve

NEG DEC
APPROVE VARIANCE FROM 50 foot required Open Space Setback

APPROVE CLANEY USE PERMIT
with CON DITIONS :

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

APPROVE FINDINGS including C. Is consistent with General Plan and
Zoning CODE
D. Not harm health. Masoleums are SIMILAR TO and COMPATIBLE

ADJOINING USES
E. Unique circumstances in this area - i.e. rock piles surrounding it everywhere. "size and shape of parcel make it difficult to build in the OPEN SPACE Area" ISN"T THAT THE POINT????
F. VARIANCE is ESSENTIAL to PROPERTY RIGHTS. Plus, an ALLEGED TRIANGULAR shape of "parcel" "BUILDABLE AREA would be limited by shape." BECAUSE they think Commercial buildings belong in OPEN SPACE/ Conservation Zone???
G. Grant of Variance will NOT affect area Residents or workers and is "is of SIMILAR CHARACTER TO USES."

CON DIITIONS
SECTION ONE enforced by Community Development Dept CDD
CDD will do GRADIN REPORT and ARCHAEOLOGICAL studies.

ESPECIALLY OFFENSIVE: CDD will Regulate and ensure "CHINESE COMMUNITY" & George Chan is NOT denied ACCESS to Chinese Cemeteries.

CDD will ensure Lighting, Landscaping and adherence to Fish & Game Regs CDD HAD NO ENGINEER.

PUBLIC WORKS ENFORCEMENT AREAS:

NO MENTION OF CITY ENGINEER, nor that "PW" lacked an Engineer in charge: Director then WAS JOE LUCHI, a typist. - Bob was sidelined.

CONDITION B "Improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of public works dept. PW' Luchi was sidelined City Engineer's typist, really Condition 9"EROSION CONTROL..... shall be directed by PW Director - Luchi -whatalaugh.

Cond. 10 Construction shall have 5 - NOT 50 Foot setback --"thereby

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

NOT CROSSING INTO Chinese cemetery ITSELF.
11 Proposed ROAD to Lakeside masoleums would BE NEAR TO ENTRANCE to Chinese cemetery thereby allowing ENTRANCE to Chinese cemetery GROUNDS>
L2 Cond . tZ "Any proposed construction of Lakeside
masoleums would NOT OBSTRUCT HISTORICAL EASEMENT
or ACCESS to Chinese CemeterY
as was AGREED TO YEARS AGO by Leland Miller former
owner of Lakeside Memorial Cemetery."

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

OUT OF ORDER CEMETERY 5b FINDINGS comes after below

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

CEMETERY 6 A

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

CEMETERY 6 Findings CUP 1995 similar to neighborhood

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

CEMETERY 6c only *PW dept OK needed for this CUP' and NO BLOCKING Chun Wah NOT OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK the HISTORICAL
EASEMENT granted by LELAND MILLER Owner before Claney.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

CEMETERY 6 d PLAT OF SURVEY Rio Los Americanos Cemetery LA|ID GOES RIGHT INTO MORMON St Right of Way Theo. Judah 1850 Map
Recorcl ol Survey,O.S.Bk.4B,Pg.4Or.t ,t ltl Map B. Chung Wah Cemetery lloundaries
CEMETERY 6 d Survey Record O.S. Bk 48, page 4 or.t,tltl POR. SEC. 2, T gN., R.78., M,D.B.AM. ( Pnorl. t{f o navcta nto oE t-os AMcnrc[ Nost
This Rancho Rio Americano is so old it proves Chun Wah owners are part owners of M on St. Georqe Chan as cheated
June 15, 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Loretta McMaste[ Senior planner suBJEcr: Lakeside cemetery conditionat Use permit status Agenda ltem No. 6 PC Mtg. 6-21-95 PCgt-O42
cemetery, National Reoister status
The Chung Wah cemetery has been approved by the California State

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Historical Commission and is awaiting national action for listing' One of the major factors in a successful nomination is whether the site maintains the "sense of time and place." There is some concern that development of the Phase Xl and Xlll mausoleum buildings' and the equipment building, may cause this aspect to be destroyed.

Conditions 4, 7, and 1O relate directly to this question. It will be difficult to design the structures and landscape the area to mask their existence completely, but careful choice of materials and design can minimize their noticeability.

Need to send to city engineer or whoever'..'.

Besides the items required by the conditions of approval, staff has identified the following actions which could reduce future conflicts:

Archaeologist on-site when work is occurring. Recording of an access easement. A second survey of the boundary (or perhaps consultation between the recent surveyor and Mr. Chan regarding basis).

Removal of Phases Xl and Xlll, by Mr, Claney, from his plans. (He has indicated that it will be many years before they would be constructed.) Taking any of these actions would be a demonstration of good faith on the part of the Claneys and/or the Chans.

Although the responsibility would lie primarily with the property owners, the City may be able to assist in some of these actions. The interested parties have been invited to be present at this meeting. Staff can also provide an update at the Planning Commission meeting of July sth if directed by the Planning Commission. PC9I-O42.62t PC Mts. 6-21-95 Page 2 Loretta McMasters
Agenda ltem No. 6 PC Mtg. 6-21-95 PC91-O42lune 15,1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Loretta McMaster, Senior planner suBJEcr: Lakeside cemetery conditionat Use permit status BACKGROUND This report is presented to update the Commission on the status of the conditional use permit issued on October 2,1991 for construction of mausoleums at the Lakeside Cemetery. A site plan, minutes and conditions of approval, andhistorical map are attached. Concerns regarding the project's effect on the National Register status of the adjacent Chung Wah cemetery were raised by June Chan at the May 17,1995 Planning Commission meeting. As reported by Commissioner O'Brien at the Commission's June 7, 1995 meeting, a meeting of concerned citizens, Commissioner O'Brien and staff was held on June2. Loren Claney of tf," Lakeside Cemetery did not attend the meeting, but staff subsequently met with

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Mr. Claney at the site. lssues identified relate tograding, archaeological investigation, access, boundary location, and National Register status. The road and parking areahave recently been constructed, according to approved improvement plans.

NOTE: All Claney references of Hardship claims, compliance etc. are spurious EVEN THEIR PARKING is on Public ROW MORMON St.

Lots of cheating occurs when a mayor has fired the City Engineer/Public Works Director Bob Blaser CE.

This proves the Federal owners and Sacramento County Assessor were never notified of all this COMMERCIAL Development and the State and federal Status protection of Chun Wah cemetery itself.

There's a major problem with this HDC thinking they have a legal force - and they don't even realize the Plan Commission made serious errors because the acting PW Director was Bob Blaser's typist Joe Luchi.

CEMETERY 7
Conditional Use Permit Modification
lf the Commission feels that completion of a mausoleum is the appropriate use of this property, it would be appropriate to schedule a hearing to modify the conditional use permit to address the issues that have arisen.

The applicant has requested a modification of the conditional use permit and has offered to re-design the project as necessary. Until so directed by the Commission, staff has not prepared a complete listing of additional conditions which might be adopted, but the following has been prepared to serve for preliminary consideration: No construction near Chung Wah boundary.

Application for Mormon Street abandonment, with recorded access easement to Chung Wah. Use of gray stone construction; additional screen planting, including oaks.

West-Yost review of surveys, at applicants cost but contracted with City.

Fence boundaries.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Additional drainage and erosion control.

Planning Commission minutes of May t7,
lggs Planning Commission minutes of June 7,
1gg5 Planning Commission minutes of June 21 ,
1g9S (draft) Planning Commission minutes of July 19,
I ggs staff report for the June 2I, L995 Planning commission meeting staff report for the July 1 9, 1995 Planning commission meeting Site exhibit
Excerpt from the Folsom Municipal Code cultural Resources lnvestigation of Lakeside Memorial cemetery Mausoiium Complex
Project Staff Recommendation Direct staff to notice both a revocation hearing and a conditional use permit modification, in order to preserve both options for Commission action. :

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MOVE TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE

A REVOCATION HEARING AND A HEARING ON A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 1995, PROVIDED THAT

THE REOUIRED FEE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DRAWINGS

NECESSARY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION ARE

RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT NO IATER THAN THURSDAY AUGUST 24,

AND FAILING THAT, TO SCHEDULE ONLY THE REVOCATION HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. PCgI-042.816 Page 3
August 10, 1995
New document from PRA ResPonse B
Oct. 1B 1995 CONTINUANCE of item PC meeting
PRA RESPONSE 9 is May 1995 PC meeting minutes DUPLICATE RESPONSE doc 10 has great deal of controversy including Howell objecting. Requests for STOP WORK order; NOTE The Preserve Subdivision was grading now. CONTINUANCE to consider STOP WORK order. Howell: were bodies found? I saw on TV BODIES WERE FOUND outside the white peoples' burial e.9. Jim the Cook.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

QUOTE: from Minutes July 1995, continued meeting.

This issue made big news!
Sue Silver handed out a letter and maps to the Commission at the meeting and recommended the commission review them carefully and stated her source of informa.tion was cited in the Folsom Telegraph. concerned about the accuracy of the 1991 survey done but hasn,t review it' She pulled the original deed from the Folsom Development Company to the chung wah company and it matches the plat exactly of china Mission which was recorded in December 1906' Concerned about of the Assessors Parcel Mup, page 70-13 has a discrepancy in the footage measurement along the southeasterly line of the chinese cemetery which disparages approximately 178 feet from the original survey.
chairman Lehman suggested the commission revoke the Use permit. commissioner Howell suggested that a stop-work order be issued. End quotes.

DOCUMENT 10 PRA RESPONSE 9 3 2O2O
PLANNING COMMISSTON MINUTES NOVEMBER 1 , 1995
Huge controversy and requests again for Stop Work Order and Revocation of cuP.

Adjourned due to late hour, no action.

DOCUMENT 11 PC Minutes December 1995
Very LENGTHY many pages, finallY
Vice-Chairman Maxfield MovED To coNTTNUE THE rrEM To JANUARv 3 BUT LtMtlNG tr ro oNLY CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE 2 AND THE CHANGED CONDITIONS AFTER STAFF I,IAS HAD TIME, TO LOOK THE,M OVER THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY MR. PHILLPS TONIGHT. HE ADDED THAT HE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE ITEM HEARD AFTER 9:OOPM BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ATTEND LINTIL THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER MESSNER SECONDED THE MOTION Commissioner O'Brien preferred to have the absent Commissioners present before any motion is made and would prefer having it continued. Steve Rudolph suggested that if the first goal is to resolve the issue regarding revocation, that before continuing, the first motion should be to move that there are no grounds for revocation as the Commission desires. Vice-Chairman Maxfield withdrew his motion. The second agreed. VICECHAIRMAN MAXFIELD MOVED THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THE HEARING FORA

REVOCATION OF A PERMITAND THEY FOTIND NO GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF A PERMIT, I]NLESS SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS AND THE ISSUE IS RAISED AGAIN.

COMMISSIONER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: COMMISSIONERS HOWELL, MESSNER, MILLER, MAXFIELD NOES: COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: CHAIRMAN

LEHMAN, COMMISSIONER DREW MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOTIND NO GROTINDS FORAREVOCATION OF THE PERMIT CARRTED 4-I-2. COMMiSSiONCT O'BriEN stated her opposition was because the other two members of the Planning Commission were not present. Steve Rudolph stated it appears the Commission is interested in modiffing the conditions

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
which exist on the permit and recommended the next motion be that the Commission has found there are grounds to wamant the modification of the existing use permit. PC Mtg. 12-6-95 Page l0 COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED THAT TFIE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOI.IND

THERE ARE GROTJNDS TO WARRANT THE MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING USE PERMIT. VICE.CHAIRMAN MAXFIELD SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT:

COMMISSIONERS HOWELL, O'BRIEN, MESSNER, MAXFIELD, MILLER NONE NONE CHAIRMAN LEHMAN, COMMISSIONER DREW MOTION CARRIED: 5.O-2 VICE-CHAIRMAN MAXFIELD MOVE,D TO CONTINUE TO THE JANUARY 3, 1996 MEETING FOR THE PREPARATION OF REVISED CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER MESSNER SECONDED THE MOTION Commissioner HowellAlternative No. 2 only. questioned whether the motion was restricting the discussion to Vice-Chairman Maxfield stated it was Commissioner Howell stated she would prefer to leave it only to removal of the revocation issue. Vice-Chairman Maxfield felt he'd prefer to have a staff report without alternatives. Commissioner Miller stated he agreed with Vice-Chairman Maxfield that it's been fine-tuned enough between them with one set of conditions and if a concern is raised with something specific, the Planning Commission can adjust it in January. VICE.CHAIRMAN MAXFIELD MOVED TO CONTINUE TO JANUARY 3 AND ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH CONDITIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PHILLPS WITH STAFF FINE-TTINING THE CONDITIONS

AND GIVE A REPORT BACK TOT HE COMMISSION AND TO HAVE THE PROPONENT AND OPPONENTS TIME TO LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS WITH TIME TO COMMENT ON THEM.

Steve Rudolph stated the public hearing is closed but nothing is preventing the Commission from reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. The Commission doesn't have a legal obligation to open the public hearing if that was their desire. COMMISSIONER MESSNER SECONDED THE MOTION AGAIN Commissioner Howell stated her concerns for limiting the motion to Alternative2 only. ln the summary of the staff report, the wording states build out of the existing planned facilities in Altemative 1 and Alternative 2 has, what she considers to be, some unusual language referring PC Mtg, 12-6-95 Page I I to "an environmentally sensitive area". She feels Alterative 1 and 2 can overlay dramatically depending upon the definition of that environmentally sensitive area which she understands both the existing conditions and the new conditions received by Mr. Phillips is going to provide definition of exactly where that environmentally sensitive area is. She didn't feel the motion should be limited to one of the two alternatives just because of the environmentally sensitive issue. She stated she'd like to eliminate the revocation and allow both Alternative I and 2 to exist because Alternative 1 talks about going with what's been planned already and Alternative 2 refers to complete build out of the site with the exception of the environmentally sensitive area. Until that area is defined, ome can't say that everything can be done because you don't know whether all the property can be built on yet. VICE.CHAIRMAN MAXFIELD AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE STAFF TO

LOOK INTO THE ISSUE RAISED BY COMMISSIONER HOWELL ON THE

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AND ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND DEFINITIONS AND FACTOR THOSE IN. COMMISSIONER MESSNERAGREED WITH THE AMENDMENT Commissioner O'Brien felt the motion was too vague. VICE-CHAIRMAN MAXFIELD CLARIFIED HIS MOTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

MOVE TO CONTINUE LAKESIDE MAUSOLEUM AMENDMENT OR REVOCATION OF

PERMIT AND THE MATTER TO BE
CON BE ALTERNATIVE 2 AND IT'S CONDITIONS RECEIVED BY MR. PHILLPS THIS EVENING AND STAFF FACTOR IN THE ISSUE RAISED REGARDING TI{E

ENVIRONMENTALLY AND ARCHAEOLOGI CALLY SEN SI TIVE AREA S AND THEIR

DEFINITIONS AND FACTOR THOSE IN AND ADD CONDITIONS AS REOUIRED TO MAKE SURE THOSE ISSUES ARE COVERED. COMMISSIONER MESSNER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION CARRIED WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES: NOES:

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

ABSTAIN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HOWELL, MILLER, MESSNER, MAXFIELD

COMMISSIONER O'BRIEN NONE CHAIRMAN LEHMAN, COMMISSIONER DREW DOCUMENT 12
VERBATIM MINUTES FROM THE JULY I9,I995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

ON LAKESIDE CEMETERY CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT STATUS REPORT ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT LAKESIDE OF MAUSOLBUM.

El A'iEl r,;B c,lB ol@ niB o,lEl *iSf orla p,lB ol@ nlB p'iB r'l@ nlEl rr or x * O r' 1 ;:11u C:/Users/ljlaurerlvAppData/Local/Temp/Temp1-CEMETERY9b20PRAo.620... ''i * r 3;9r '+ a E A'l Rea.al+uci p D'a*" ' B t-t,gtrlglrt " 4] tr:se & X
l\E€noa rt€m,roJ
PN02-258
HDC Mtg. l-15-03
IIISTORIC DISTruCT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
6 D
a
.l
s t
Wt++drAuM
PROJECT TITI,E:

TROPOSAL:

RECOIIMENDATIoNT

APPLICANT AND OWNERT
LOCATION:

AS.SESSOR'S PARCEL N0.:

ATTACIIED RT:Ff, RENCE MATSRIAL:

Lnft esidc Ccmetcry Crcmuteirium
Requcsi for opprovsl of u Conditional Llse Pcmit
to allorv for the o;xrration ofcrcmatorium
Denial
Lorin Clancy
l30l FoncstSucct
070-0082-014, 0?0-0130'002, 07G0130-00.1
l- Vicinily MaP
2, Sitc Plm, date,J l?ll9lq7

3. l'rojcut Doscription and Crctnslorium
lllustrntions

4. l)ocumsntation fmm lhc Sacramenlo
County llisloric Cemctery Conrmission

5. Lstieside Cemctery Rescarch Papcr
written by Sue Silvcr

6. l,€llcrs from lhe Public
7, SitcPhotographs
TL-AIINER: Janc Acsiclnnl Plnnncr
fq iii,fi --- f
:! .; Fl et
ljlr2 Pl"l
,)t i/]0?.0
.-.. (,) f.l q

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

To: city of Folsom officials, emptoyees, Mayor, Vice Mayor To: City Cterk for CIRCULATION to all City Council elected officiats bcc
From: Laurette Laurent
December 18,2020
Re: below circutated Pubtic Record, fited with Sacramento County Cemetery Commission December 1 7, 2020.

Apptication for lttegat Zoning District Usages, ittegat granting of Variance from HDC Commission with NO State Authority to grant such benefits, viotation of CA Govt Code Titte Zoning;
violation of Fotsom Zoning Code District restricting NO buitdings on any "open space" category -- consistent with VIOLATED State Govt Code; Faiture to abide by Sunshine Laws; Failure to conduct Futt lS, EIR/ElS; faiture to provide PROOF of Pubtications for a[[ such steps; Faiture to OBTAIN Fire Marshal Approvals due to ABUTMENT to Federa[ Watershed and Federal Forests;
Faiture to Notify CA State Parks;
Faiture to Notify Sacramento County Assessor office of "Proposed changes" [tikewise to Cemetery Commission on prior 2020 apptication]; Failure to provide NOTICE to an ABUTTING RESIDENT who fited Comptaints SECRECY in this Land Usage improper SECRET Process - by FAILING to NOTIFY ME -- despite my historic and RECENT objects & Comments with regard to this SECOND time around crematory Proposal -- and my WRITTEN NOTICE to Folsom City Cterk and Planning to be given ALL HDC & Ptan Commission Notices.

Other viotations exist, but are previousty fited and resutted in Penatties.

Thank you to Folsom city officiats and Staff Inctuding "city top officiats" and "city engineers" with Licensesl for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt I -- AN ABUTTING Parcel Owner to 070 0260 001 -- WAS NOT given Notice of Proposed Applications and EXISTING DISCUSSIONS of this outrageous set of Violations.

State laws are extremely expticit with respect to Permissibte lower agency Zoning Code and Land Usage Laws apptications, TRANSPARENCY, and Process. My Comptaints were atready fited. My Request for NOTIFICATIONS of att Pubtic Processes regarding Zoning Law were ignored. What is shown betow is a PUBLIC RECORD sent to Sacramento County Cemetery Commission BUT NOT to over 36 ABUTTING OWNERS, including TWO Federal Govt AGENCIES with jurisdiction.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Former City Attorney Steve Rudotph advised the Ptan Commission to issue a STOP WORK ORDER for Att construction of buitdings on this cemetery. He further recommended POSTPONEMENT of Plan Commission vote of approva[ because

1. George Chan had NO opportunity to engage Counset,

2. Private titted-parcets within the existing cemetery belonged according to Sacramento County Records, to Private persons or entities who were NAMED by County and Steve Rudotph. His tegat advice was ignored. Plan Commissioners who changed to approvat instead of Opposition ended up on City Council and in one other appointed position.

3. George Chan was RESTRICTED to access the Chun Wah cemetery by FOOT, and onty ONE person coutd enter this large cemetery served at the end of Mormon Street.

Alt named licensed City Engineers were clearly PUT ON NOTICE yesterday, and yet DID NOTHING. Ditto the City Manager and City Lawyer whom I addressed repeatedty to DO THEIR JOBS.
lf Fotsom intends to CONTINUE SECRET operations with respect to a[[ State Enabting Legistation, our Constitutionat Rights and Sunshine law respect, please continue in this path and expect the consequences of all these extremely VALUABLE "gifts" to private parties. South of Hwy 50 is the same identical type of operation.

I have given and conveyed written Notice to all top staff and licensed engineers. NOT ONE of them has RESPONDED to Formal Complaints. ls this SECRECY or scores and scores of instances and formal comptaints IGNORED -- even when complaints CITE the exact LAWs Viotated? Mens Rea or negligence since a sitting mayor fired the final independent City Engineer and put Fotsom City Charter "ONLINE ONLY", then ERASED City Engineer & CE DUTIES?
Folsom FMC Chapter 17 went online with the TOTAL OMISSION of the "cemetery" Zone designation. "Crematorium" was not an allowed use in city historicatty.

FMC 17.52 is an OVERLAY District and HDC does NOT have LEGAL Right to grant any Land Usage Exceptions/Entitlements.

This was submitted in writing to top officiats 2020 in formal Complaint Notices. 603 Sutter Street is identicat set of SECRECY & Violations.

Why was this submitted to PGE, BUT NOT to Sacramento County Authorities with Oversight & Jurisdiction?
Ptease, I ask each Licensed Engineer, do you obey the Dictates of your Law Enforcing License -- with respect to Land usage, Subdivisions, Public lnfrastructure, and a[[ State Mandated Government Codes?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Ptease decide whether you wish to continue in this Fotsom secrecy. This week atone I asked Mark Rackovan Sr. Eng. Traffic Eng. why he refused to Enforce the November 2020 new law regarding "encroachment on city property". ALL encroachments are defined in FMC, and yet NOTHING WAS DONE to ctear a dangerous Substandard Fotsom Right of Way of muttiptes violations. New Encroachment law requires a Permit and CONTRACT to be executed.

Ptease atso BE AWARE, if you claim this is NOT YET in the Pubtic Domain, My/Our Constitutional Rights have been VIOLATED in att PRIOR Lakeside Cemetery gifts from Fotsom. No PROOF of Pubtication was provided for prior instances. No formal Letters were sent to Three Federal Agencies abutting, nor to SP Managing Partner to USBR, nor to 36 ABUTTING Singte Famity homeowners.

When Claney clan last sought a crematory our Subdivision brought forth testimony from a Medical expert about the Sites acceptabte for a crematory. As usuat, abutting parcel owners only learned of crematorium Proposat/Apptication via Newspaper reporters coverage. Ex post facto, according to Law.

Finat Question: this time in2020, did you ever intend even one licensed city engineer woutd make an Approval and Ptan with his License & seal/signature? Don't you feel Etected Officiats should NOT be party to Folsom employees ctear, repeated wrongdoing?
Don't you feel "at risk" and responsible under your BPLSG Required Duties? No, MORE/Comment:

Legatty this Parcel is on MORMON ST. since the 1850 Theodore Judah Map creating Fotsom Street Map. Catting it Forrest causes visitors to jam the Eighteen foot wide Substandard "street" which is DANGEROUS and improper because LNS Subdivision was created and Enacted VIA an Ordinance which DID NOT INCLUDE any Commercial Usages, NOR parking for same.

Applicant for a special use permit does not have to show hardship. lnstead, the focus is on simply showing that the proposed use meets the conditions already contained in the ordinance, whereas a variance is, in essence, permission to "break the law."nnar 22,2013 Case Law citation/ Advisory overlay "committee" cannot grant it under California enabling law.
https://www. opr.ca. gov/docs/theconditionalusepermit-07 1 997 .pdf Quote sent to Sacramento County, others: entered into "Public Domain" December 17,2020
request for comments and associated drawings and pictures for the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory located a|1201 Forrest St. A

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Conditional Use Permit has been requested by the applicant to operate the crematory facility inside an existing metal shed. That entitlement will go in front of the Folsom Historic District Commission. Please send any comments or questions to me before January t Sth it possible.

Named Recipients.

To: Steve Krahn <[email protected]>, Aimee Nunez
<an u [email protected]. us>, Pete Piccardo < ppiccardo@folsom. ca. us>, Dan iel Wolfe <dwolfe@folsom. ca. us>, Bryan Hol m <bh olm@folsom. ca. us>, Scott Zangrando <sza n g rando@folsom. ca. u s>, Scott Joh nson <sjoh nson @folsom. ca. us), Steven Ban ks <sbanks@folsom. ca. us>, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>, Stephanie Henry <[email protected]>, Allison Konwinski <[email protected]>, Kristina Eicher <[email protected]>, Lauren Ono <[email protected]>, Mark Rackovan <[email protected]>, Pam Johns
<pjoh n s@folsom. ca. us>, Elai ne Andersen <eanderse n @folsom. ca. us>, Jason Browning <[email protected]>, Dave Nugen
<[email protected]>, Ryan Neves <[email protected]. us>, Don Brown <dbrown @folsom. ca. us>, Todd E isi ng <teisi ng@folsom. ca. us>, Marcus Yasutake <myasutake@folsom. ca. us>, Vau g hn Fleisch bein <vfleisch bein @folsom. ca. us>, Greg Bakken <gbakken @folsom. ca. us>, Steven Wang <[email protected]. us>
Cc: "the ail.com" <[email protected]), Paul Keast
H PLBoard <hplboard@hplfolsom. org>,
"pgeplan review@pge. com" <pgeplan review@pge. com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"projectreview@a i rq u a I ity. org" < projectreview@a i rq ua I ity. org >, "H u n leyC @Saccou nty. net" < H un leyC@Saccounty. net>, "cemeterycom m i ssi o n @sacco u nty. n et"
<ce meterycom m i ss i on @sacco u nty. n et>, "ema i lcfb@dca. ca. gov" <emailcfb@dca. ca. gov>, "kmtacc@hotmail. com" <kmtacc@hotmai l. com> Date: 1211712020 2:39 PM
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory Conditional Use Permit AI
Please find the attached request for comments and associated drawings and pictures for the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory located at 1201 Forrest St. A Conditional Use Permit has been requested by the applicant to operate the crematory facility inside an existing metal shed. That entitlement will go in front of the Folsom Historic District Commission. Please send any comments or questions to me before January t Sth it possible.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Thanks,
Gommunity Development
Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom,
cA 95630
O: 916.461.6209
Note to Sacramento County authories:

PLEASE ensure ABUTTING PARCELS are notified PRIOR to secret planning & discussions of putting a FURNACE
into a rickety shed abutting Federal Forest & watershed & waters of American River. USBR and Managing Partner CA SP and Bureau of Land Management are the major landowners/ protectors here.

Cremation of a dead body is carried out at a temperature ranging between 1400 tO 1 800 degrees Fahrenheit.

Let's show them some respect for Law, Health & Safety, and Common Sense.

That otd shed abuts Federal Forest which is suffering during drought. lts "emanations" contain MERCURY, and other toxics.

According to Federal Governent Biological Research, there are Known Contaminants associated with burning bodies.

Of course Folsom never invotves Licensed Engineers; anything for a buck is OK in this ptace.
. https: / / www.ncbi. n [m. ni h. gov/ pmc / articles/ PMC 5721279 /

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

From: U Laurent
Sunday, August 22,2021 4:15 PM
Lydia Konopka
Steven Wang; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; Rosario Rodriguez; Josh Kinkade; Ken Cusano; Lauren Ono
Fw: Failure Notice ..... lots of failures apparently
CAUTION: This email originated from dutside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Lydia,
Folsom always had appointed citizens equipped with their own email address.

Mr. Duewel is lawyer who asked city staff [non-licensed people] for an opinion about a matter of Law. Mr. Duewel stated he wanted to know more about my Objection letter citations. In response, junior planner stated Opinions about Matters of Land Use Law. Planner erred. I did not.

Please forward this to Kevin Duewel.

If City Attorney has any problems with an appointed person being in touch PRIOR to a decision on Exceptions to Land Use Process Law, he needs to review his License Obligations.

If our elected Council members directed city staff to remove the committee members' emails at @folsom.ca.us, this is a prime example of why they should NOT have limited correspondence between city Appointees and city residents during a shutdown for pandemic. One year later Mr. Duewel's request for explanations of my points of law, came to light in the on-going battle to keep us safe from fire.

We in LNS are dealing with the Third Application for crematory abutting OUR Parcels, and federal Watershed Forest, There are significant violations involved, including actions covered by California Penal Code.

This needs to stop.

Thanks in advance, Laurie
Laws cited:

CA Govt Codes, B&P Codes, Subdivision Map Act.
t te$nvggsq q lftiwsri\dr${ Cffift.ivnisr$lerkih{ ffil*'li$ q erek iq i n$rfiirvigas rS jF F s erir@ Ssyrz&r& $<s zirnq insk irg i $ 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

E bs q q rwwru r irfl- ew$<l i t. s { ir,ft rh$ziwL s rwrtrrEnc} $ $s ShS rrrnxi-r,ft { w$rf,a4r-w$<1 or$.ripxt $€ ft $vt iSmjrE$vyf ni-g& e>.<j-\6 s zir{ lrEI $- i $r,$vl i$- ew$yxl =.0.} 4
All these years City Attorney has failed to inform rrHDrr group they do NOT have legal authority to grant Variances, Conditional Use Permits, DE FACTO REZONING, or any "exceptions to Zone District laws, Standards,
or Duties of City Engineer to seal/sign and certify all actions are correct under state laws..... and upon certification also by a licensed lawyer.

I know city elected officials have difficulty believing city hall people are perfectly correct and able to administer Legal Process Laws, but this crematory nonsense -- for the 3 time is an outrage.

Residents of Lake Natoma Shores have to look at that ugly new shed every single day, yet young staffer proceeded as if we don't even exist. What do you want to bet the tall height which "cools" the building" will become another, larger bunch of furnaces for human bodies?
Over-Extending the Legal Authority of an "overlay" group, even a lawyer voted to approval extension of Land Use Exceptions which they NEVER EVEN VERIFIED.

City Attorney Steve Rudolph told the Plan Commission back in 1992 cemetery hearings on these outrageous exceptions that he advised against. He recommended a STOP WORK ORDER, and our future council members, ignored his Work Product Advice to them. Steve Rudolph sat and gave legal Opinions at all City Council and Plan Commission meetings. That was not popular with mayor.

In fact, those on Plan Commission who switched their opposition to approval, and voted, before Mr. Chan had opportunity to engage Counsel, voted to restrict Mr. Chan's access to a National Historic Site to "one person, on foot only." It is so "Folsom," Question: webcast: someone asked "Mrs. Rodriguez" if she had any questions. Was this our current councilPerson?
My favorite crematory protests say "don't let the dead kill the living." "Like the smoke, more is coming, with Mercury in it."
Children in LNS have black balloons out front.

Did you all know cemetery only got water line of mere 3" diameter with 2" limiter, because we in LNS paid for water lines?
Cemetery has NO hydrants, and won't pay to extend 4000 PSI pipes which fire fighters must have.
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Did you know crematory will go into the 1930's metal shed, and that's why a huge 1B foot tall new shed was built. They don't need more maintenance equipment: they butchered more than 7 trees, including the living protected Historic Oaks. They cut "grass" cutting down last winter -- less to save money paid for water through that tiny connection we enabled. They committed criminal acts which still have not been cited lto our knowledgel,
Sorry, I just cannot understand how it "slipped the minds" of our city attorney and city engineer to do their advisory jobs, to supply signed opinions of legal compliance.

Mr. Duewel wanted to KNOW, prior to voting. Then he said "but it's only a design review". But that is not what it was. It included an illegal Variance or Condition Use Permit, or "grandfathering in" an old public cemetery -- according to webcast. He actually believed that junior staffer saying that "yes" it's all grandfathered in, Poor Oak Chan, he's probably suffering in his unreachable Grave with large monument - --- back there in the inaccessible National Historic Site. Why did planner fail to ask a Licensed city professional to review his Recommendation? Why were the Minutes approved by a person who was not even present to know there were questions?
"HD" is NO zone; their powers are not those of 'commission'.

It's a pathetic violation of higher Authorities in Law, and people believe what they are told at cityhall [apparently.]
---- Fonruarded Message ----
From : MAI LER-DAEMON@yahoo. com <mailer-daemon@yahoo. com> T
Sunday, ugust 021, O3:21:03 PM PDT
Subject: Failure Notice
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <kd [email protected]. us> :
550: 5.4.1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281) [DM3GCC02FT008.eopgccO2. prod.protection.outlook.coml Fonryarded message
Kindly supply email address, as your .com page rejected my contact. 3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

LJ Laurent
Sunday, October 3,20219:31 AM
Pam Johns; Josh Kinkade
[email protected]; Drew Lessard; [email protected]; Eileen Sobeck; Patrick Pulupa; Dale Kasler;The HFRA; [email protected]; Rick Hillman; Ken Cusano; Lydia Konopka body burner FURNACE is "HEATING UP." Folsom what R U thinking? 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: Folsom Comm. Dev. director P. Johns; planner Josh Kinkade Asst. City Clerk: Please share with 5 council members
From: Ll Laurent, LNS Sub. Abutting Neighbor
October 2,202t
Re: Telegraph published article VS Reality of city staff https:'goldcountrvmedia.com ews'02040'nroposed-folsom-crematorv-oppositioncontin ues-to-heat-u o/ Furnace Application is the third in few years. NOT ONCE were Abutting forest/river protection US Agencies given Notice, according to city records/minutes.

This application was filed over ONE YEAR ago, and yet Sacramento County Recorder was Never Notified of Project in Public Domain. In fact city reports this parcel 070 0260 001 as "Open Space/OS Conservation Zone District." Tax bnl L0/2O20 was REDUCED by $1.2 Million, to help "open space"
New co-owners Caring Service Group, has no city Business License. They filed all their Building Permits using FALSE ADDRESSes, and in some cases, a totally non-existent Parcel Number. The Zone District is clearly parcel is NOT OPEN SPACE Conservation - - which means ZERO BUILDINGS. They built and plan more huge Commercial buildings on Parcel, a FURNACE, and huge LPG Gas Tanks'
Clearly Applicants are not concerned with "legal niceties." Since city made residents pay for a "study" which recommended "Approval" of this Zone District Exception", it is clear the city is at the foundation of this chicanery.

LNS Residents were charged with Code Violations for lawful protest and WARNING Signs. Cemetery got away, forever, with NO Posting of Application for Exception for body burning 2,4OO F furnace adjacent to Federal Forest, river, homes, Proposed Folsom crematorv opoosition continues to heat uo 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Proposed Folsom crematory opposition continues
to heat up
As residents eagerly wait for a nteeting clate tcr be attrirottttced. the oppcrsitiotr against the prcrposal ior a tteiv Fr:1s..
li:re "
https : //www. voutu be. co m/watch ?v= Lr1 5 rP H E m eQ "heating up is right" fire & debris would spread for miles.

Folsom does NOT publish "city planner JOB description".

Only "Park planner" is available now. It is LESS demanding than city planner, and pays less, but here it is.

Salary 2018 $58,353.84 - $89,071.08 Annually
THE POINT IS: that is BIG BUCKS for persons who might not even KNOW basic Public Notice laws, and comprehend their Obligations which come with that kind of money.

Comm Dev director makes $15,388 per Month salary, or about $190,000 a year in salary. That is a lot of money PLUS huge benefits. And we don't even get PROPER, Legally-mandated Posted Notices and USPS Mail Notices. We get citations.

As a Federal Tax Payer, I firmly believe our USBR, DOI, and BLM federal employees DESERVE a NOTICE of a body-burning FURNACE be delivered to their Offices via Certified Mail,
Folsom acts like an insulated power-structure with very little respect for Laws, Rights, and Protection of Water Supply and our Environment.
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Folsom staff have OK'd the 'study' for Approval. No Fire Dept objections were in that study. No ONE cited Zoning Code, Fire Code, Street ACCESS Code, etc. Development staff give an impression to us, that they think our Fire and Police people are as disposable as those bodies who represent Revenue from OPEN SPACE Zone. you get the message? This is a highly paid group who have incentives to deliver the "Folsom Version" of laws.

Residents? We get the "wrong end of the match-book"'
If you knew the Extent of the Expertise behind LNS Objections, you might be ashamed of yourselves. But, at those reimbursement rates and rewards, guess it is unlikely' LNS residents exist between the unbelievably dry Federal Forest & Watershed of American River, and the incredibly DANGEROUS gas tanks and furnace on Parcel Zoned OpEN SPACE/OS Conservation. If even one of those huge LPG tanks explodes, Folsom Blvd., Light rail, and lots of drivers and businesses in old sutter, will all take the "hit" with us. VIEW VIDEO!
Folsom, It this hell, or what?
Below is only city Job Description online, for a "planner". 3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL DUTIES:

NOTE: The following are the duties performed by employees in this However, employees may perform other related duties at an equiva individual in the classification does not necessarily perfonn all the . Prepare preliminary construction drawings, specifications, and cor landscape architectural projects and bid documents including the grading, drainage, paving, irrigation, plant materials, and play equ . Participate in site analyses, master planning, designing, cost estir landscape architectural plans and drawings for accuracy and conl design and check calculations used in designs and estimates. . Review, check, and make necessary corrections to landscape arc site plan drawings, designs, and estimates as prepared by consul conformance to original design.
. lnspect park, recreational, and trail site projects during constructic construetion is performed according to plans and specifications. . lnterpret city standards and specifications regarding trail construc . Prepare a variety of charts, graphs, maps, plans, and other illustri presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the F reports, and studies.
. Monitor and approve project expenditures and maintain project ac . Analyze proposed projects for conforrnance with adopted city lant . Meet and confer with developers, contractors, and engineers. . Prepare grant applications and necessary graphics for a variety o ' CorTlpile a variety of information and data for staff reports and stur . Perform related duties as assigned.
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook r Android
Scott Johnson
Friday, January 28,2022 5:23 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
From: Liz Byer
Sent: Friday, January 28,2022 5:10:40 PM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Crematorium
[you don't often get "r.it frorJ Learn why this is important at http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderl dentification.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.
please stop this crematorium now! Summers are barely tolerable due to the fires now! This will destroy our property value just like the meat rendering plant south of Rancho Cordova I Liz and Andrew Byer
lPersifer street
Sent from my iPhone

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, January 28,2022 5:09 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
Begin forwarded message
From: Liz Bye
Date: January 28,2022 at 5:07:49 PM PST
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca,us>
Subject: Crematorium
[You don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSen derl dentification.l
CAUTION: This emailoriginated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please stop the crematorium in old Town!This will destroy our reputation! Summers are getting harder and harder to enjoy as it is with fires! Please stop this nowl flffi:*erstreet
Sent from my iPhone
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Marie Rice
lvoung wo circle
Folsom, California 95630
luly 27,2021
Dear Mr. Kinkaid:

I understand the owner of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn cemetery located at the entrance of "The Preserve" neighborhood off Folsom Boulevard is planning to put a crematorium in his facility. He states his plans are to run his crematorium Monday through Friday each week, estimating the cremation of three bodies per day.

This will require the use of two-250-pound propane tanks. He assures his process is safe and compliant with fire and environmental safety standards.

While this may be true, accidents can and do happen. From 2Ot2 until May 2021, there have been some seventeen (17) crematory accidental fires in this country, that I am aware of' The most recent took place on 05-11-2021 in Corona, California. The actual cause of this fire was not made clear. The one before that was in May 201g, in San Diego County. Firefighters were able to put out the fire, but the fire spoke's person confirmed the continued presence of "sand clouds of human remains in the sky", This is what nearby residents were breathing in.

There were several others before these I could detail, but in the interest of space, will refrain, Especially in this time of climate change and easily ignited fires, a crematorium in a residential neighborhood, in the middle of a small city, is an unnecessaty public sofety risk. As it is, our landscape is so dry that we must be vigilant throughout the summer months to prevent fires, Should a fire break out in this prospective crematorium, the people in this entire neighborhood would be at risk. There is only one exit, exactly where this cemetery is located. Residents could be trapped' I have additional concern about air quality. The Amigone cemetery cremation center in upstate New York was shut down in 2010 by the State's Department of Environmental Conservation because of "heavy black smoke spewing from the crematorium", Equipment repairs were made, and the crematorium was re-opened in 2019. Even still, nearby residents continued to experience distinctive odors and dust particles on windowsills, they said were "human remains". This has been disturbing enough that these residents report reluctance still to leave their windows open or spend time outside, We ask you to please not permit this crematory project of the Lakeside Cemetery to occur. lt simply is NOT SAFE in this location that is qear people and their homes that have only one exit, near the fire source itself.

Sipcerely, ,
httart,l { h><--
Marie Rice

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
*R" MARIKO f''ICGAFQRY
1204 Forrest srreer, [tolsom, cA 95(130 0 530-545-9055 r rnariko.mcgarrl'@gmail.com February 1,20.22
Dear Historic District Commissioners, City Manager, and City Flanners, Thank you,for the time and attention you are dedicating to the voters' serious concems abottt the prtoposed Miller,s Funeral Flome,crernatodumat Lakeside Mernsrial Cemetery. I am rrritingto 1mu as a permanent resident of Fonest Street, living direcUy across fiom the Gemetery^ I am greatlywonied about the impact of pnrr decisions to cor.re oft my family. o{re year o{d darghter, and' higl}risk neighbors. I have revieryed Lakesirle's project proposal and Environrnental knpact Report conduc'ted by Helix'Enterp,rises anolsoughtprofessionalenvironmentdl scienoe and medicClconsdtation to idorm my pos1ion on this matter. The concerns t am requesting inform your dec'sion to vote "Non include:
,1. ,Noncqrforming use of cornmeroial, industrial incinerator in open spaae and in contradiction to 'the C,ity's masier Plan;

2. lnequitable con-rider.a$onof crer,natorir,m proposal in the H'storic District when other opar'l space in Folsorn 15 not being corsideredfor approrra{idriven by profit motlves; s. piorlmity of 1he proposed crematorium next'to residential ane to several historic sites in the l-{istoric Ofistrict, withlpoter*ial to negativdy irnpaci cultural,practices and significanoe;

4. Negative impac{ ttre proposed cremdorium ha already had o,n home values in the historic district, with several realtors/brokers docunentirg decrease in buyers and offers due to proposal;
S, Assrmption thal thera is a safie lerr{ foxicity cxposune to developing ctrildren, pregnant women, elderty, rnedically wlneraHe, and vsterans in the immediate sunounding area of the Cemetery from vaPorized toxins;

6. The absence of hlstorhal releranc+if external French doors are not permitted'in the Histcric Distict because they wcxrld not be found h the early t9(X)'s, how can a cnmmercial, industrial incjinerator tte acceflable?

7. lmpact of lmrneasurabh sight, smell and ingeslion of particulate matter on use of trail, river, Historic District, and Sutter Street;
g. Use and ippearance of shed for crernatorium that is permitted for commercial storage only; g. ,lncrease [o existing efreme ffre risk wllh one evacuetlon route fior resHents;

10. No emergency services plan or allccation of resources to support potential increase in demand for fire and police as required by CEQA guidelires;

11. lnsufficient tencing and secrrity on site as required by cEaA guidelines;

12. False,identtfica:tinn of ,proposed location as not next'to State land or incteased fire dsk in Initial Study and absence of addltional design mGasures to create defensible space as required by CEQA guidelines'

13. Stark difierences between crematorium application to City in2O2Q and the work that Miller's Funeral'Home has dore at Lakeside iltemollal C.arnetery without approval ;

14. Presence of permanent, lndustrial pollutant in Historic District; 1S. Absence of ongOingr montrtorirrg:of air qualty testing of, particulbte rnatler, employee safety, and testing by air quality chemist, pediabic toxicologist, and geriatric toxicologist; 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

DR" MARIKO I\frCGARRY
1204 Fonest Streer, Folsom, CA 95630 . 530-545-9055 o [email protected]

16. No monltodng of mercury wtrich is odorless and colorless-yet poses biggest risk to children and ,unbom bables stho.can,experience.d'sor'ders sucfi as autism. Aspergefs, develcprnental delays and other neurological issues.

12. $lgnif,cant delayr bU theGity in publisfiing appllcation, oonditionall use permit, and;reports to the public;
Ot**,
O *d.'.1.*l#S&1
:al*h.
t.{ltukr
gr ri&.il
The lnitial Study/Mitigrated lrlegative ,Declaration conducted 'by tfie City of Folsom Cornmunity .Development,€)epartment and Helix Environmental Planning relsted for January 2020, identifies the *Maximum exposed indivktual resident,' in the photo above. That purple dot sits, directly on our one-)€ar old's be<lroom wlndorv. l am hard pressed'to find an elected ofFrcial in this Clt! wfto has attested to beir6 m-mfortabb with ewn the srnallest ris* pos€d to their children. I am even harder pressed'to find an de'cted official who has attested to ffre,beli€tf that ftis proposal rrould be accepted in any other residentid or open space zone in Folsorn From an equrty perspective, the voters and children;of Ernpire Ranch woull never have to sslf-organize, self'ftrnd; and'seFadvocate as ttre voters and,children of the :l'iistoric Disf,ht have been foroed to do for thetast hro !,ears' The Historh District ar.d the Gity of.Folsomeiltrer believes and will testify to their connnitrnent tomaintain communily opef1space resor$ces for ltre pu;poses ranging lrorn conservation, to presewing oorrnunity land use options, or it.is,tirne to cfrange the definitinn of open space zon€s and the public marketing of the City.

As a Historic District Resident, voler, professbnal, arrd parent, I emnotexpress the need.tovoto "l{o" on the Lakeside MernorialLaunr Grernatorium enottgh. ,Protecthistory. Protect the City's legacy. Protect our children.

Sincerely,
2 r{anln lfo(ar"y, Pl,0

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

L} Tq. MARIKO fuICGATqFqY
It,.ro.*t Streer, liolsom, CA 95630 tl-'
February 1,20.22
Dear Historic Di$trict Commissioners, City Manager, and City Flanners, Thank you,for the time and attention you are dedicating to the voters' serious concems about the proporlo Miller,s Funeral Flome,crematofiumgt Lakeslde Mernorial @metery- I am writing to you as a permanent resident of Fonest Street, living direcily across ftom the Cemetery- I am greaflyworied about the impact d yotrr decisions to conne ofi my falnily, one yetr dd dat4ghter, and higtlrisk neighbors. I have revievyed Lakeside's projecrproposal and Envkonrnental knpact Report conducted by Hetix Enrerp,rises anct sought profesdkxral envirmmentd science and rnediccl consdtation to irfonn my position on this matter. The concerns I anr requesting infornr your dec'sion to vote "NO! include:
{. ,Nonconfoming use of cornmeroial, industrial incinerator in open space and in contradiction to 'the C.;ity's rnasiler Plani
z. lnequitable consiOer,atoa of crer,natoriurn proposal in tl're Historic District when other open space in Folsorn !s not being consideredfor appronal,driven by profit rnotlves; g. p,roximlty of ,the proposed crematorium next to resirlential ane to several historic sites in the tdistoric D{striot, with,poterdial to negatively impact cultr.rral.oractices and significanoe;

4. Negative imprct ttre proposerl cremdonum hm already had on home values in the historic district, with severat realtors/brokers doannenlirg decrease in buyers and offers due to proposal;

5. Asssmption thet there is a safie lend toxicity axposune to developing cftildren, pregnant women, elderly, medicalty wlneraHe, and veterans in the immediate sunounding area of the Cemetery from vaPorized toxins;

6. The absence of htstodcel.rebnanc**if extemal French doors are not permitted'in the Hisfioric Disfiict because tfrey would not be found in the early l9(X)'s, how can a cornmercial, industrtal incjinerator be acceflable?

7. lmpact of immeasurabF sight, smell and ingestion ol particulate matter on use of trail' river, Historie District, and Sutter Street;
g. Use and appearanoa of shed for crenratorium that is permitted for commercial storage only;

9. .lncrease,to existing edremeflre dskrrlth ooe evaouatlon routefor resuerts;

10. No emergency "Jr"i"""
plan or altocation of resources to support potential increase in demandforfireandpoliceasrequiredbyCEQAguidelines;
1 X. lnsufficient tencing and secrrity on site as required by cEaA guidelines;

12. False;ideffmcation of ,proposed location as:not next'to State land or incteased fire dskin lnitia{ study and absence of addltional deslgn measures to create defensible space as required by CEQA guidelines'

13. Stark differences between crematorium application to City in2o2Q and the work that Miller's Funeral Home has done at,Lakeside ttJlemorial Cernetery without approval;

14. Presence of permanent, lndustrial pollutant in Historic District; 1S. AbEence o! ongoing monitoring, of air quali$ testing: of particulbte F,natter, empfoyee safuty, and testing by air ouality chemist, pediabic toxicologist, and geriatric toxicologist; 1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

DR. MARIKO g\fiCGARRY
lF.rr.ot Street, fiolsom, CA 95630 t I '

16. No monltorlng of mercury wtrich is odorless and colorless:yet poses biggest risk to children and unbom babies *rtro .can experience.d'porders sucfi as artism, Aspergefs, deve[pmental delays and other neurological issues.

12. $lgnificant delays by the GiU in publi$ring: ap$lcation, conditionall use permit, andi reportrs to the public;
sd9tffrid
Ss,rtd#Sg
l-t**
- l{tr-k.

S/ lr*n*
The lnitial Study/Mitigrated tlegativ€ .Dec{aration ,oonduc-ted by tlre City of Folsom Gornmunity Development Oepartment and Hdix Environmental Planning related for .lanuary 2020, identifieg the *Maximum exposed individual resident," in the phdo above. That purple dot sitts directly on'our one-lGar old's berlroom wtndory. I am hard pressed,to find an etected official in this Clt] wtto has attested to beirrg oomfortable with ewn the srnallest risk posed to their children. I arn even harderpressed to find an dected ofFcial wtto tas attesrted to ffre'betief firat ftis propoeat rrould be accepted in any other residentid or open space zorp in Folsom, From an equrty perspective, the voters and children,of Ernpire Ranch would never'have to self-organize, self-fund; and seFadvocate as the voters and'chidren of the F,lietoric Disf,ict have been foroed to do for the tast tulo !,sars.

The Historh District ar.|d the Glty of, Folsom.eittler believes and will testify to their cornrnitrnent tomaintrain community open space resourc€s for the pufposes ranging from conservalion, to presewing oorrnuni$ land use options, sr it is,tirne to cfrange the definitirm of open space zone{i ard the public marketing of the City.

As a Historic District Reklent, voter, professbnal, and parent, I cirnnotexpress tho needto vote "No? on the Lakeside MernorialLarmr Oernatorium enoqgh. F.rotecthistory. Protectthe City's legacy. Protect our children.

Sincerely
Q*<*r *
il
o
2 rlfu,h /{o(a*p, Pl0

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Mary Iohnson
I lYoung wo circle Folsom cA
fanuary 30,2022
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
RE: Opposition to the proposed Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Dear Commissioners,
I am writing this letter to voice my concerns regarding the proposal to build a crematorium right behind my house. This is the second letter that I have sent regarding my opposition to the crematorium. My concerns include negative impacts on my health and the health of the community, enjoyment of my property, the likely devaluation of the value of my property and degradation of our natural environment.

I have read the letter from Igor Semenyuk titled "Scope of Work- Installing a Crematory"and take issue with many of . First and foremost, the crematory is not "removed from any residences and Parks ", my home is literally feet frbm the proposed crematory site and t}te property borders State Park land with historical and major natural resources and wildlife, including endangered Bald Eagles. In his "Cremation Process" section he states "there is no smoke or residue that leaves the chamber" This is a completely false statement contradicted by the study he paid for and was completed by Helix Environmental Planning. There will be toxic emissions, particulates and a significant amount of COZ released into the environment from the cremation process.

I am a retired Oncology/Hematology RN and Hospice RN, so I have cared for patients prior to and during the death process, There are multiple medical implants, catheters, joint replacements and dental work that when cremated and release toxic substances. Not to mention the toxic pharmaceuticals ( chemotherapy, radioactive pellets and drugsJ that remain in human tissue and are vaporized during the cremation process. I have read the Assessment completed by Helix Environmental Planning and am concerned that the above referenced toxic substances were lumped in Reactive Organic Compounds i ROC ) or (PMJ without stating how dangerous these emissions can be. The Report on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts of the Crematorium and the Health Risk Assessment does not address our concerns about Public Health and Greenhouse gas emissions posed by the crematorium. The report done for CEQA fCalifornia Environmental Quality Act) is not complete and does not fully support a full environmental review Process.

I was concerned that the Helix report only briefly mentions the release of mercury from cremation. No estimates were provided and the data mentioned was from the manufacturer of the crematorium unit A report on the NIH website states that "Crematoria represent a significant source of mercury emissions to the environment", "The danger with mercury is long term indirect exposure from the environment and the food chain ". This is because mercury can accumulate over time in our tissues and becomes a potent neurotoxin. It's also linked to decreased intelligence in children. Mercury is also known to kidney damage. We live in a neighborhood where we eat fruits and vegetables from from our yards and people and wildlife catch and consume fish from Lake Natoma. The Lake Natoma/ American River is a major source of drinking water for over a million people or more. Why wasn't this mentioned or reviewed?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Another area that wasn't covered in the Helix report was the the amount of greenhouse gasses that will be produced, specifically C02 . There are multiple Initiatives from the state, federal and international agencies that are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas production and the Crematorium will be a significant producer of COZ . The crematory proposes to burn propane for the cremation process, per their report, each cycle burns L9.672 gallons with a proposed 4 cycles a day and 500 cycles per year. From the U.S Energy Information Administration, each gallonof propaneburnedproduces 12.6tlbs of C02.MultiplythatbyL9.67 gallonspercycle times 4 cycles per day. It comes to 992 lbs of C02 produced per day. 500 cycles per year produces 124,0321bs of CO2. This is a large amount of COZ production in our neighborhood which adds to our existing elevated levels of C02. Why was this not fully evaluated? Have alternatives been fully considered?Maybe Igor Semenyuk could be a leader in the industry by investing in Aquamation for human remains, which is a significantly less polluting and has a lower carbon footprint.

I also take issue with the statement from the Helix report that states " The project was not found to be a substantial source of objectionable odors and odor imparts." There is no methodology, background or citations given to base that statement on. Do we have to rely on their word or will they provide more information on which to base that claim? From the articles I have read, odors and smoke are the main complaint from neighbors who live near crematoriums.

My personal concerns are that the smell from burning bodies will be a daily occurrence and will interfere with the enjoyment and value of my property. I love to spend time gardening generally enjoying my backyard, which backs up to the cemetery and is very close to the proposed crematory. This will be impacted by the presence and smell of crematorium operations. I am also concerned about the health impact of breathing the emissions from cremations. Breathing residue from human bodies being burned, including substances which are toxic to humans and wildlife and particulates have been shown to have major health adverse impacts and are known to shorten lives. There are personal financial consequences too. Having a Crematorium behind my home will decrease my resale value as most future purchasers will find it upsetting and distasteful to have a crematorium out back.

I do hope this letter helps you to realize that the crematorium project will have negative health and pollution consequences and that it does not belong in our neighborhood and historic Folsom. Please demand a greater articulation ofthe consequences ofthis proposal. Better yet please deny the project.

Sincerely,
Mary f ohnson

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Monday, February 7,2022 4:17 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Please Vote NO on Proposed Crematorium
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
P lart tt irt 91 I\4 ut a.c1 e r
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6206
ffi CITY OF F{}Lg(}nf
OISTIIiCTIYE HY I{ATURtr
o9@ www.folsom.ca.us
From: John (Dave) & M
Sent: Monday, February 7,2022 4:16 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]> Subject: Please Vote NO on Proposed Crematorium
some people who received this message don't often get email tto.I 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.

Scott Johnson, Planning Manager
Steve Banks, Principal Planner
I am writing as a concerned citizen that lives in the adjacent neighborhood of the proposed crematorium. My concerns are from the heart. I have loved ones that have been laid to rest at the Lakeside Cemetery and visit often. The cemetery is a beautiful place to walk through and visit. The wildlife I have seen there over the years has brought much pleasure to me. ln the last several years a pair of bald eagles have been successful in nesting and have been quite successful in growing their family and growing their species. One of my concerns is about the long-term environmental impact the crematorium emissions would have on the future successes of the bald eagle population. Air quality for the neighborhood would be another major concern, especially for those with health issues such as asthma.

The neighborhood is a mix of young, growing families and retired families. The area is known for its healthy environment and healthy style of living. The industrial business just is not a good fit or in the best interest of the people of Folsom.

The site is zoned OS/P (Open Space/Public Primary Area) with underlying zoning of OSC (Open Space and Conservation) and has a General Plan designation of OS (Open Space). The Historic District Commission will take final action on this request unless the decision is appealed to the City Council. I am asking the City Council to vote NO on the proposed crematorium.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marv Matthews
IYoune wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
HFRA Mission Statement
The Historic Folsom Residents Associotion is o group of neighbors working together to protect, preserve, qdvocqte for ond enhqnce the Folsom Historic Residentiql District. Through community involvement qnd oworeness, HFRA sholl strive to collqborste qnd build strong portnerships with City Government und locol entities to identify qnd resolve current ond future neighborhood concerns offecting the Folsom Historic District. We qre united by our love for the community ond desire to mointqin ond improve the quolity of life for residents and defend the historic integrity of this neighborhood for future generqtions. 2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
,4clnr ittist ratit'e -,l.s.si.sto tl f
Comm unity Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Thursday, September 30,2021 9:00 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
ffims#nsm
0 S @ vuww.fotsom.ca.us
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Proposed Crematoriu m at La keside Cemetery
Date:Thu,30 Sep 2O2LoO26:29 +0000 (UTC)
From:Mary Rigney
To:Daron Bracht <daronbr@ pacbell.net>
September 30,2021
Dear Historic District Commissioner:

Bottom line - who benefits from having a crematorium in our neighborhood? The neighbors? The City? Caring Service Group/\4iller Funeral Home? The Chinese historical sites? The Folsom Historic District? The children or elderly of our community, especially with health issues? Not likely! It's definitely pause for speculation & concern.

Please help us, the Folsom residents within the historic district, and specifically The Preserve neighborhood, to reject the proposal to have a crematory built where we live our daily lives.

You are already well-informed of our many objections & serious concerns of having this crematory approved, so I will not list them here, but I don't believe it's asking too much to want clean air, clean lakes, and good health. And this doesn't even include our worries about fires in our high-risk fire area with 500 gallons of propane present at the cemetery property for the cremations, and what invisible harmful particles might be in the air caused by the use of a crematorium 4-6 times a day .It would seem more plausible to build such a crematorium in an industrial area, or use another facility of which there are a number of them in our county. 1 And yes, I'm over 75 and live in a receptor area.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Thank you for listening to our concerns and worrieso
Mary Rigney
Iyoung wo cir.

Folsom, CA 95630
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht < [email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:10 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: 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.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Crematoriu m
Date:Mon, 22 Feb 2027 19:33:79 -0800
From:Mary Rigney
To:da ronbr@ pacbell. net
Dear Daron,
I'm hoplng ffm not too fate in voicing my concern about having a crematorium in our Preserve neighborhood, this being the second attempt by Miller's Funeraf Home. Please pass my concerns onto Lhose making the decisions in this serious matter, We've already voiced our strong feelings against having dead bodles burned in our own backyards, yet we are being faced with this same issue one more timel I'm sure that it rs sanltary & safe, but that is not the point, f don't see why thls can't be done elsewhere in an industrial area that woufd be far more fittinq than to disrupt an entire neighborhood who have afready voted against this project.

It seems we're being hit hard right now with other propositions which woufd drastically after our quiet safe haven, our main reason for choosing this area to live in the first place. Between the constant battfe with the future of the Corp yard (most recently affordabfe housingl), the light rail adding more tracks doubling the stops at our ONE outfet for our community, and now the crematorium issue on top of it all ! Therefore, I would l1ke to join my other neighbors
projects Itve mentioned above.

Thank you for your time & fistenlng to my concerns,
the decisions, it's so appreciated.
in requesting reconsideration of the
and for sharing wrth the those making
fl Rigney
Young Wo Cir
I

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:
1:54 PM
FYI
Scott A. Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
Community Development Depa rtment
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.451.6206
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&a mp;d ata=04%7C07%7Clk inkade%40folsom.ca.us%lC5Dbf4ca4ea2e4bcl577f08d988424d9c%7Ctcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7t335fd6co%7CO%7C0 %7C637690640630553939%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVCI6MnO%3D%7CLO00&amp;sdata=AiANp%2BBBMLYcwxlm2T8DcRoOeVvsajtejOHlqoOV3Y4%3D&amp;reserved=0 ----OriginalM
From: Megan
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,202L 1:37 PM
To: Scott Joh nson <sjoh [email protected]>
Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important <http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderlde nt ion>
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.

Please do not allow a crematorium to be built behind my house. I have lived here for 22years Megan McClure
lvorng wo circle
Scott Johnson
Tuesday, October 5, 2021
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachmentsi
Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly Friday, February 4, 2022 1:03:18 PM
Front Porch.ioo
Front Porch3.iog
Sittino.ipo
Folsom-Vol-Dav,ipo
From: Missy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4,20221:01 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly You don't often get email from [email protected]. Leam why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not cllck links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Anderson
I am a direct sight line neighbor of where the proposed crematorium is to sit. We already contend with the very unfavorable smell of the Kikkoman plant any day the wind is our direction from it, which is frequent.

So this doubles our concern as, if Kikkomans can't control odor how on earth will the Crematorium be able to control theirs?
But to have to go out of my front door, look out my only front living room windows or to go sit on my only porch and stare at a stack from a Crematorium is a real slap in the face and our main concern.

I am a NICU nurse and deal with enough death on the daily at my job. I really don't appreciate having not only to dealwith it at work but literally stare at it at home daily.

I have attached photo's that are taken from my front porch. I take pics almost weekly since the sunset is so beautiful from my front porch. This is apparently, exactly where the stack will stand. So no more front porch sitting for me, again - it's my only porch, it's my only sight line outside since our windows from our living room face that direction.

We volunteer in Folsom Days, we actively help keep an eye on the Historic Rail Yard which is our neighbor, we speak to Jim and other staff occassionally through the year. We spend as much money locally as possible.

PLEASE VOTE NO - I oppose the Crematorium location and I expect any council or official representing me to oppose it's location in this residential area.

Thank You Respectfully,
Melissa (Missy) lngle
and wife
Betty (Renee) Reed
713 Oakdale St, Folsom
812-929-9075

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Froml
To;
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly Friday, February 4, 2022 1:03:18 PM
Front Porch.jpo
Front Porch3jpg
Sitting.jpo
Folsom-Vol-Day.iog
From: Missy
Sent: Friday, e ary
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly 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 recognlze the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Anderson:

I am a direct sight line neighbor of where the proposed crematorium is to sit. We already contend with the very unfavorable smell of the Kikkoman plant any day the wind is our direction from it, which is frequent.

So this doubles our concern as, if Kikkomans can't control odor how on earth will the Crematorium be able to control theirs?
But to have to go out of my front door, look out my only front living room windows or to go sit on my only porch and stare at a stack from a Crematorium is a real slap in the face and our main concern.

I am a NICU nurse and deal with enough death on the daily at my job. I really don't appreciate having not only to deal with it at work but literally stare at it at home daily.

I have attached photo's that are taken from my front porch. I take pics almost weekly since the sunset is so beautiful from my front porch. This is apparently, exactly where the stack will stand. So no more front porch sitting for me, again - it's my only porch, it's my only sight line outside since our windows from our living room face that direction.

We volunteer in Folsom Days, we actively help keep an eye on the Historic Rail Yard which is our neighbor, we speak to Jim and other staff occassionally through the year. We spend as much money locally as possible.

PLEASE VOTE NO - I oppose the Crematorium location and I expect any council or official representing me to oppose it's location in this residential area.

Thank You Respectfully,
Melissa (Missy) lngle
and wife
(Renee) Reed
Oakdale St, Folsom

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 3,2022
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
RE: COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED LAKESTDf, MEMORIAL LAWN
CREMATORUIM DRAFT INITITAL STUDY/]VilTIGATED NNGATIYE

DECLARTION AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
First, I would like to state that I have lived in Folsom for 20 years and live adjacent to the Lakeside Cemetery property. Also, my family has been identified as "sensitive receptors" in the Health Risk Assessment.

I have reviewed the above-mentioned documents and I recommend disapproval of the draft Initial Study/lVlitigated Negative Declaration based on comments below. I also recommend disapproval of the draft Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Draft Initial Studv/Mitisnted Nesntive Declarrtion (IS/MND) #1. Project Description, Parking and Circulation (pnge 2), last paragraph, it states that access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members as there is lirnited parking onsite. However, this appears to be in con{lict with statements made in the applicant's Scope of Work. It states that .. . "'cremation-based cultures require on-site crematory so they may be able to exercise their funeral rights and customs," As any cremation may atffact large number of attendees, the cremations should clearly be limited to small number of staff as stated in the IS/I\4ND.

Unless the cremations are limited to only staffattending, there could be potentially significant irnpacts on traffic, circulation, and parking within a small residential neighborhood with only one way in and out of the subdivision with limited amount of off-street parking (the Transporlation Section XVII of the draft ISiIVIND also states under parking and access that only a small number of staff members will need to be accommodated).
#2. Land Use and Planning, Section XI. The proposed crematorium is totally incompatible with the existing land use zoning of Open Space. The City of Folsom's Chapter 17.30,M-2, General Industrial District of the municipal code, lists permitted uses only allowed in M-2 districts. While crematoriums are not specially listed, yet, in M-2 districts, it does list similar uses. A crematorium should only be located in an industrial zone. This can be a significant impact on Land Use. As the proposed crematorium is located in the Historic District an analysis should have been completed to identify any impacts and conflicts with the Historic District planning guidelines.
#3. Air Quality, Section III and Hazards and Ifazardous Materials Section IX. The health risk assessment and receptor modeling for potential health risks appear to only have been

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Comments on Lakeside Crematorium: Oldham, Nancy
conducted one time, on Novembel ll,20ZO. Air pollution patterns will vary dependtng on trme of year and wind directions, etc. Additional air modeling should tre conducted at the project site at different times of the year.

I believe additional analysis needs to be done regarding health risks to sensitive receptors tiom vapors ernitted from dental fillings that include mercury, both frorn air pollution and consequential contaminated soils. There have been numerous studies identifying these health risks.

Drnft Conditionnl Use Permit (CUPI
#1. The public rruticing f(l' this proposed CUP docs not mcct Statc Planning Lalv f,or CIJP's as per Goveinment Code Section 65905 and needs to be re-noticed. I have attached a copy of the btate Training guide for CUP's. The public notice for this project is titled "Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of lntent to Adopl a Mitigated Negative Declaration." No mention of a draft CUP for review. The notice only refers to the CUP once, and as an entitlement. #2. Further, no draft CUP was included in the public review documents listed online by the City for public commenr$. City staffs noti{ication stated that the CUP will be included in a StalT Report and be available ai least 5 days prior to the February 16th HDC meeting. Section 65905 staies that noticing of the CUP needs to be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. No Staff Report online as of February 3th.
#3. A condition of the permit should include limiting attendance of cremations to cemetery employees only as assured in the ISTMND.

It appears that there may be significant impacts from this project. While the ISll\{ND did not iOentify potentially significant impacts, the Lead Agency (City of Folsom), makes the final determination. The Lead Agency should complete a project-specific Environrnental Impact Report (ElR) While the Lead Agency is retying on an existing program ElR, a project-specific EIR should instead be completed due to the uniqueness of this proposed project and its location, iocated in Open Space zoning in the Historic District.

Sincerely,
Nancy ltallan
Cc: Kathleen Cole, Chair, HDC
Cc: John Lane, HDC
Cc: Justin Raithel, HDC
Cc: Daniel West, HDC
Cc: Mickey Ankhelyi, HDC
Cc: John Felts, HDC
Attachment
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Gov.ernor PdeWlson
The Planne/c llaining $erleer

THE CONDITIONAL

USE PERMIT
Govcrnor'c Oilfioe ol Plannlng and Reeoaloh
1400 Tenth Straet
Sacramento, CA 95814 j '
(916)446-061s
Les Grlesor.n, Dlwloti Govemofa Offnaof Plannlng.and Besoarvh Anterc Rlwsp la*,'Daptty Dhaotor, Slille}taarlnghouw :

RobettCeruanbF,'Attili.o,r.:, .,"'j"
Kenneth laa, Plannlng Wam,Auhor.

July 1997

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The Plann€r's Training 9eries
Ttis publication is one in a sories prepared by fire Office of Planning and Rcscarch (OPR) on tryico of general interut !o planners. As v/ith ths rest of this so,ries, its pinary prrpose is to pmvide both a reference for cxporienced planncre and training materiah f$ npw plattnert, platrntpg cqxlmigsloner*, and qonlng bo.ard memhffi" Citations aro rrads to pertinent sections of the California statntoe and to court dec{eione in ordor to provide thc raader ihc opportrrnity to do adilitional rosearch on thcir owh, Unlsss otherwise uotedr ell statutory Fferences sro to tls Califomia Govemnont Code.

This document and other OPR publications, along with additional information about local govemment planning and zoning is available ft'om the LIIPIN (Land Usc Plan" ning Information Notwork) wob sitd maintailcd by lhe Califomia Resources Agency af htrp :l/ceres. ca"gov/plonning/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

The CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHAT r8 A CONprTlOilAt USE PEFMTT?
A coNDmoNAL usx rnnr'lrr (cup) allows a city orcount) to oonsidor special uses which may bo essential or A dssirablo to a particular community, but vhisb aro not allowcd as a matrr of right within a zoning I I disrlct, tluough a public hoarlng process. A conditional rua permrl can provido flexibilis within a zoning oidinance. Anotheihaditionalpurposd oftho conditional useperrrit ir to enable amunicipality to controt certsin uses which sould have detrimental effects on the obmmunity (Nelghborhood.Actlon Gtoap v, County of Cslaveras (1984) 156 Cal.ABp.3d 1176).

Considorudon of a CUP is a discretionary act, A
CUP applioation tendored by a project proponent is
considered at a public hearing and, if approvod ie
genorhlly subjest to anumbor ofpertincnt conditions of
approval. Dapending onlocal ordinance requkemenls,
hearings are typically held by a board ofzoning, the
plaming commission, or a zoning adminiskator. The
owners ofproperty nearlhc site arc sent advancenotice
of thc datc, cimc, and plaoc of ths hearing.

Examplos of cornrnop uses ollowed with a conditional use permit can be found in any city or county zoning ordinance. For examplg Santa Rosa's zoning
ordiiaiics lists uses which may be pennitted within
single'famiiy rtsidential districts with a conditional
use permit. These uses include churohes, publio or
privatc schools, public building or utility struchrres, parking lots, temporary subdivision sale$ offises, and
community care and health care facilities. Chiso's
zoning ordinance listc various ueos permittcd with a
use permit issued by either a plannins director or
planning commission. ThEse uses include tempoffy
amulement attractions, the placement of a building or
sfructure on alot orparcel which has been movedfrom
anothor lot or parcel, pubtc buildiugs and faciJitix,
pafting or acc€ss located off-site from the site boing
served, private recreation ceuters, and planned developm6nts. Eash city or county may include in their zoning ordinance a wide varioty ofuses whic'hthey will
permit with a conditional use permit.

ENAELI NG LECISLATIOTTI
Thc nrloe under which counties and goueral law
citiee mayissue aeonditionaluse permit are provided
by state and case law. Charter sities are not subjectto state zoning 1aw, except in special circumstancos, but
may sfill uee its pruvisions (Section 65803). The followingis a briof exomination of the outhority rnd rules under whicb local governments act in iszubg use
pcrrnits.

Gonetllutlonal Authorlty3
Local govemmonts havo the authority to enact
local planning arrd land use regulatiorrs to profcct the public hcaltb, safo[r, and wolfaru of their residents
ftrough their polico power. The "policepoweC'providos the right to adopt and enfrrca zoning rcgulations, as long s rhgy {g not contlict with state laws. The
policepoweris the basisforchtrtorcity zoningpowsrs.
(California Conrtitution, Artiole K, Scction ?)
Staiutory Authorlty:

California code reiteratesths Constitutional poliee
powcrs ofcitics and countics to onact zoning rogulations, but has little io say about CUPs in particular. "The legisletive body of any sounty or city may,
punuant to t4is chapter, rdopt ordinances thaf do any
of the following:
"Rogulatetheuse of buildings, sruotures, and land
asbetwoen industry, business, rosidcnces, open spacer
including agriculture, rooreation, enjoyment of sconic
beauty, use ofnaturalresourges, andothorpurgoses. ..."
(Sectior 65850(a)
"The board of zonlngadjustnent or zoning admini.strator shall hear and decide applications for conditional uees or otharpermiK whon tho zoning ordinance provides thercforand establishes critcriafor determhing those mattets ..," ''llheboard of zoningadjustmentorzoning administrator may also exercise any otherpowers granted by local ordinanco and may adopt allrules and proccdures
I

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

THID CONDITIONAL USE PENMIT
nsce6s0ry or convenieut for the conduct of the board' s or administrator' s business,"
(Section 65901(a)
Gase Law
California case law has established a nuruber of
fundarnental principles relating to oonditional use pcrmits. In addition ts the basic uses pcrmitted within a zoning districL a city or county zoling ordinance can
provide ofter specified usos which may be permined
after consideration and resolution by an admi::istrative agency fhat the propnsed nse is in the hest inte,,rest of public conveniencs and nccessity and will not be
contrary to the public'health, morals; orwelfare (U pton v. Gray (1969) 269 CrJ.App,2d 352).

Local govemments rnust have a complete and
valid genoral plan beforc they can issue conditional rrse pormits {Resaurce Defense Fand v, CounQ of Santa
Cruz (7982) 133 Cal,App.3d 800 and Neighborhood
Actiott Group v. County of Cakteras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 11?6).

The authority to consider conditional use peflnits,
dclcgatcd to planning commissions or othot administativo boilies by clected ofiicials, must include stan' dards of guidance. Thesa standards of guidauce are
provided to insure that the delegation of discrotion to an adminishatiyq rygrcy is lotqnbridle{ qn{, thps, qof
l-.,-1:.l |tn
- l^^h:-- ^f rt.a Iaavq\lgr -r-,.1 ^f -- ^-^-*.il-Ll-
^tlv uvvB$tv 9t Htv llwu vt ut aDwvllgalg9lv
standardto guide an administrativebody applios whsr6
the legislative body of a city attempts to delogate its law-malcing funetions (Stoddardv, Ed.elman (1970) 4
CaI.App.3d 544).

PROGEI'URE
The approval of n. oonditional use permit in an
administrativc, guasi-judicial acl Itis not a change of zonc, but rathor a project-specific change in the usss
allowed on a Bpecific property. Conditional use permie do not involve the establishment of new codss, reguLations, or policies. Instcad, a conditional use
perrnit applios the provisions ofthe zoning ordinance
and its standards to the specific set of circumstances
which characterize the proposed land use. Cities and
courtiss havo the.authority to eslablish either a board of zoning a{iustruent or a zoning administralor to hear aud decide applications for conditioual uses. Local
ordinance can establish specifi cproceduren under which a delegated board of appeals will hear and determine
appeals fiom the decisions of the board of zonjng
adjustment orthe zoning adminisfrator (Section 65903),
In most jwisdictions, appeals are heard by the next
highest body, eventually reoching the city council or
county board of supervisoro for n final decision.

Public Hearingr
Section 65905 roquires a public hoaring ro be held
on al appHcation for a conditional use permit. At a
minimurn advanco public notice, an opportunity to be
heard, and a fair hearing are consritutional due procsss rights as explain e d in H orn u. C o unty of V ent ura (L97 9) 24 C,3d 605.

The Government Code establishes minimum rcquircments for ptblic noticE for oounties and ganeral lawcitios. Chartercities may adopt similar provisions.

The notice of a public hearing must include: the date,
time, ond placo of the hearing; thc identity of thc
hearing body orofficer (commoniy the delegatedboard
of zoning adjustment or the zoning adrninistrator); a
description of the proposal and the conditional use
permit process; and the locntion of the property involved (Section 65094), Notice must be mailed to all property owtrere within 300 feet of tho proposal's site boundary at leart 10 days prior to the public haaring.

Thcnames and addresses of ownets arethose lieted on
the most curtenl county equalized assessment roll,
This requirementincludps the olvners of property whic"h l:^ ^...^i.f^.L- ^:h, ti-:]^ t!-^ to^^u.. r-)r ircoulFrsc uiG ciry rIIIui€ orcouaE;r' une (Dcoirv, iiiawii.

Wells (1972) 6 C.3d 541). Notice muet also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation at leasl 1"0 days before the hearing.

Section 65030 recognizes the importance of public
participation in public hcadngs and exprcsses aclear
legielafive intcnt thu local agencics insure ptblic participation at overy level of the conditional use permit process. The purposes ofihe public hearing is for the
zoning board or zoning administrator to hom and
consiiler the opinions of the proponent and noarby
property owners pdorrc makingtheirdecision to eithe,r
approve or deny the conditionaluso permit, As aquaeijudicial act, the approval ofa conditional use pcrmit requires tho board or administrator to adopt wri$en
findings to $upport thcir actiou, Wlether the propoeal
has been approved or denied, the decision can be
appealed to ahigherbody, usuallythe board of appeals,
the pianning commission, or city council, ir accordance with the city or county zoning orclinance. the appeals body may reverse ot affirm, wholll, or prrtly,
or rnay modify the decision, and may make such
decision ag should be made, and its action is final
(Section 65903).

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Section 65903 delegatea to local legislative bodies
the autbority to establish procedures for an appeal but not drE power to rcstrict thc right of appeal. Thus, a
oounty zoning ordinance cannot atternpt to rcetrict the right of appeal to rolely tho applicant and exclude the general public, especially adjacent property owners
(Conceriud Citizens of Murphys v, J acl<son On1) 77
Cal.App.3d 1021).

In order to encourage consurrent processing for
the purpose of expediting zone changos and general
plan amendments, Section 65862 provides that planning agenciei may"iimultanedusly process a consolidoted application which may irtclude a usc pormit, rezouing, and goneral plan amondrnent if all three
applications encompass the same property,
Gallfomla Envlronmrntal Oudlty Actr
. Conditional use permits are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA, Publis Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.). Prior to the public hearing on theproposed conditionalusepermit,
the city or county must evsluatetho proposal to dotorrnine whethor or not it may have any significant adverso effects on tho envircnmont, If theproposal is not Gxempt from environmental review, tho city or county
is required to prcpare either a negative declaration
indicating tlat the conditional uuo pormi- t will hav.g no signifioant effect, or an Environmontal Impact Rsport
(ElR) which descdbes the potential negative impacts
ofthe proposal and the mefins to avoid or lessen thoae
impacts. See the bibliogaphy for a reference which
can provide more infomation about the California
Environmental Qualiry Act"
Permlt Streamllnlng Aotr
The Permit Steamliling Act (Section 65920, et
se4.) astablishes tine limits wiftin whicb the reyiew
and approval or denial of a conditional use pcrrnit
proposal must occu. For instance, if an BIR was
cenified for a conditional use permit, the application
must be actod upon within one bundred oighty days
'from the date of cortification (Sostion 65950(aXl)). A proposal for which anegative doclaration wa,s adopted
or a CEQA oxomption used must be acted upon within
sixty drys of that action (Section 65950(aX2)(3)). A
conditional use permit cannot be disapproved solely to
comply with these dcadlines.

The Pemrit Stteamlining Act provideo ttratfaiiurc
to rneet it8 deadlines will result in automatic approval of the conditional usepormit (Section 65956(b)). However, the permit can only be deemed approved ifpubiic notica and an opportunity to be heard had beon provided eitherby the agency or by the applicant, The Pormit Streamlining Act doEs not apply to
administrative appealt within a statc or local agoney
(Section 65922). Thereforo, if apermit is appoaledto a
higher body there is no strict time frame within whictr the appeal must be heard.

LIMITATION5 ON
CONDITlottlAL USE PERTT/TITS
As a rula, oonditional uee permits do not tuthorize
uses that &e zoning ordinance does not authorize, nor
uses ttot expxossly authorized by the perrnif,.Ihe conditionaluso perrnit includes conditione which lirnitthe applicant's author.ity touse the property, Under ccrtain conditions, however, local governments may incorporato provisions from federal laws and bmaden the range of uses permitted (Sporrs Arena Propcrties, Inc.
v. City of SanDiego (1985) 40 C.3d 808),
It ie ofte,n the case that local agoncier follow a
general set ofrtandards in considoring a conditional
use pormit, Thsse stsudardr are generally acccptablo
since it is a near irnpossibility to devise etandard.s to covcr all possible situations in which a use perrnit can bo issued (Tustin Heights Atsociation v. Board of
Saperilsors (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 619). Thorc arc
scvcrEl casos in which thenc standards have been up
heltl.

Gencral Wclfare Standard:
"Ihe estsblishment, maintenance or conducting of
theuse for which a use pcrmitis eought will not, under
thepanicular case, be dekimontal tothepublic welfarc
or iqiurious to property or irrprovemente in the neighborhood" (Hewkiw v. County of Marin (19?O 54 Cal,App,3d 586).
l{ulsance Stendardl
"Any use found to be objectionable or iucompatible with thc character of the city and its environs due to noise, drist, odors or offier undesirable characteristice rnaybeprohibited'(Snow v, City of GardenGrova (1961 ) Cal.App.2d 496).

Qsnsral Plan Gonaletenay Standardr
"Although use pc:mits are not erplicitly made
suhject to a'general plan meeting the requiroment of
state law, that condition is necessarily to be implied
from the hierarchicsi relationship oJ.lnnd use laws.
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

TEE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Thus, use permits are stmck from the mold of the
zoning law, the zonirig law must cornply wi& the
adopted general plan, and tho adopted general plan
murt confonn with statc law; thc validity of the ponnit process derivos from comptance with this hiemrchy of
planning laws (Naighborlwod Actian Group v. Coung
af Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176).

Zonlng Gonrlrtsncy $tandard:
"To obtain ause permit, the applicautmustgensrally show thatthe contemplated use is compatible with thepolicies in te,rms of thezoningordinances, and fhat
such use would be essential or desirable to the public
-conveniencc or welfaro;and will notimpairthc intcgrity and character of the zoneddisuict orbs dehimontal to tlrepublichealth, saftty, rnorals orwelfar€" (O' Hag en v. Board of Taning Adjastment (ly7t) 19 Cal.App.3d
151),
In addition to the genfial standards discussed,
there also exist other limitations on conditional use
peunits. Conditional use permits nrn with the land not
the applicaut (Cohn v. County Board. of Supentisors
(1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 180), That is, where conditional use permits are concerned, all related prcpsrty and personal rights are freely traneferabie, unless express.ly prqhibrted by law (Anza Parktng Corpomtion .. r^,i&. ^t D..-t:.'--*- /'1tl(l0\ 1O< /\al A-F aJ A<S\ v. vaLl uJ u6, tDaa6*t.te \Lt99l LrJ @.ntr,rv grJ/r Inversely, a conditional use pormit may not lawfully
limit fie permittee ftom transferring it with the land
since such a condition is beyond the power of the
zoning authority (Anra, supra).

The conditions which are imposed on a conditionfll
lse pormitmustbeexpresrly attachcd to thcpermitand
cannot be implied. For example. if a conditional use
permit contains languago that restricts a building's
hbight to five. stories and requires tha developer to
submitand obtain planning-commission approval of a
Iandscapingplan, among otltor things, the permitit$elf
does not imply a height limitation ou tr€6s within the
development (Pacifica llomeowners' Association v.

Wesley Palms Retirement Cornmun ty (i986) i?8
Cal,App.3d 114fl.

OTHEH TYPES OF
CONDITIONAL UsE PERMIII$
State law also allows conditional use pormits for
"granny" units, second dwolling units, and mobilehome parks, if a local zoning ordinance does not provide for these cases, the ability to apply for conditional use perrnits allowing these uses is provided for by stdta law. In all caaes, public notice and hearing
must be providcd as diseussed carlicr.
ftGranny' Unlte (Section 65852.li -
"... any city, including a charter city, county, or
city and couffy may issue a zoning'variance, special
uso permit, orconditioualuse pcrmitforadwcllilgunit
to be consftrrctod, or which is attached to or dotacheal from, a Frimary residerce on a parcel gor1ed fgr a
single-family residenc,g ifthe dweJling unit is intended forthe sole occupancy ofonoadult ortwo adultporsons
'who are-62-ycars of-agc-or ovor; and the ruca of'floor spaco ofthe attached dwelling unit does not exceed 30
percent ofthe existing living area or the area ofthe floor space of the dstached dwelling unit doce not exceed
1,200 square feet,".

Prior to approval of a couditioual use permit under
Seetion 65E52.1, the ciry orcounty mustfind thatthe
resident orrrsidents meet the age criteria, and thatthe floor area of the proponed unit does not exceed tbat
allowed by the staUrte. In accordance with tho special
cirsumstanooe provided in Soction 65803, Seotion
65852.i applies to chartercities, as well as general law citiee.

Garrrrl hrrealllrr I t-lr- ls-^ir ^- <<O{tt O\ utuU.rr xrrYrrrrrt vaaar- \pvvqwil wJgJ-t-J - "Notrvitistanding Section 65901, every local
egency sholl granr a special use or a conditional use
ponnit fbr the creation of a seeond unit if the second
rrnit complies with ell of the following:
"(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be
rented.
"(B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. "(C) Tlre lot contains an existing single-family
dwelling.
"(D) The seoond unit is either attached to the
existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the exieting
dwelling and located on the sarno lot as ttre.existing
dwolling. ' "(E) The incra$ed fl oor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living ar€4,
"0 The total area of floor space for a detached
icecond unit shall not exceedl,2l} squaro feet,
. "(C) Requiroments rclatiug to height, setback, lot
coverage, architectural teview, site plan reviow, fees, chafges, and other zoning rcguirements generally ap4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

TED CONDTTIONAL USE PDRMIT
plicableto residentialconsEuction in the zone in which
the propcrty is iocated.
"(H) Lncal building codc rcquirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. "(I) Approval by the local hoalt$ officer wlere a
private sewage disposal system is being used, if required." Section 65852.2 alsoprovidesthatany local agoncy
may, by ordinance, allow secondunits in single-family
and multifamily reeiden6al aonef, Thus, a Section
65852,2 conditional use pennit is only reguired for
second units when a local agency has not alopted an
ordi-usnce governing second units,
Mobllehomf Parkg (Section 65852.7) -
o'Arnobilehome padc, as deflned in Section 18214
of the Health and Safety Code, shall be deemed a
permitted land use on all land planned and zoned for
residential land use as designated by the applicable
general plan; provided, however, that a city, county, or a city and couhty may requirs a use permit,"
If a local govemment donies the renewal of a
conditional uso permit allowing a mobilehome park,
the govemment rnugt mke spe,cified required $tepr to
mitigate the adverse impacts of the mobilehome part
closure, purstrart to Section 65863.7,

FINDINCS
Written "findings of hcf' are required in orilsr to
suppoft the decision of the hearing body to 4pprove or
deny a conditional use peanit (Topango Assacidlon
for a Scenic Comnwity v, Cotnty of Los Angeles
(L974) L1, C.3d 506). Findings are the logal footprints left by local decision-makerg to show how the dec!
sion-making process pmgrcssed from thc initial facts
to the decision,
Findings aro important. They "bridge the analytical gap betweeu the iaw evidence and ultimate desision" (Topanga, supra). Iftho dccision is challenged, a courl will examine ttre evidence supponing the findings to determine whether the hearing body abused ils discretion when acting on a conditional use permit.

Such an abuse of discretion is to be found when: ( 1) the agency did not proceed in a manner prescribed by law;
(2) the agoncy's decision is not support€d byfindingsl
aud (3) the agency's findings are not supporod by
evidence in the adminishative record,
Topanga cites several purposes for making findinge, among which include: (1) providing a framewod( for making principled decisionso thus enhancing the
integrity of the administrative prooees; (2) helping
makc analysis orderly andreducing the likelihood that
the agency will randornly leap from evidence to conclusion; and (3) ssiving apublicrelatione funetion by helping to persuade the parties that administrative
decision-making is carefirl, reasoned, and equitable.

Findings should also just$ any conditions which
impose fees or other oxactions.

Fora detailed discussion of findings roquirements, see
OPR's publication entitleil Eridgi4g lhe Gap.

CONDITIONS OF APPBOVAL
Section 65901 empowers local decision-making
bodies to take action on uso permit proposals whsn
zoning ordinances make provisions and eet criteria for
them, The hearing body may also modify a conditional
uso permit's terrns by imposing new or revised ponditions, if the ordinance, interim ordinance, or original conditional use pemrit so pro rJrdes (G arav atti v, F ai fax Planning Commission (L971) 22 Cal,App,3d 145),
Just as tlere are limitations in approving a conditional use permit, there are alsolirnitations in esfablisbilgconditions of approval. Four gonoral nrles ofthumb in applying conditi-ous o.f appmyal include: (l) the
jurisdiction mustbe actingwithinits police powersi (Z)
the condition must substantially further a legitimate
public purpose; (3) the condition must furtherthe same
public puqpose for whioh it was imposod; and (4) the
property owner may not be required to carry a disproportionate Ioadin furthering the public purpose(Califomla r.and-Use and Planning law, gth edition).

Section 65909 provides that dedications of land, as
conditions of approvali mustbe'leasonably related,' to
tlre use of the pmporfy for which the conditional use
'permit is requested. Therc must also be a 'hough
proportionality" between the edent of the condition
and the psrticular demand or impact of tbe project
(Dolanv. City of Ttgard (1994) t29L.Ed2nd304).In
addition, a porformance bond cannot be required for
tre installation of public impiovements that are not
reasonably related to the propcrty use. Limitations on
impact fees aro described in the Mitigation Fee Acr
(Scction 56000, et seq.).

If a condition applied to aconditional use permitis
not linked to some legitima0c public need orburden the
projectcrcates, the conditionimpoeed could be deemed
a taking of propefiy in violation of the U.S.

Constitution's Fifth and Fourtecnth Amendments
5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

TEE CONI'IIIONAL USE PEIIMTT

COIIIDITIONAL USE

PERMIT OHECKUST
Il a condltlonal use permlt ls to bs qpproved,
all of the foilowlng quesilon$ muct bE fln'
srvered afflrmatively.

L Is the public hearing notice complete in its
dcrcription of the project?
EYes ENo

2. Han thn prrhlic henring norice been issued
in accordance with all procedures?
fJYes il No
3" Is the proposed use, with proposed conditions of apprcval, suitable for the site? '[ Yes nNo

4. ff any conditions of approval call for
dodications of land, are they reasouably
rolated to fhe use and its imPacts?
I Yes nNo

5. If significant environmental effects have
bcen identified as a rerult of lhe proposed
conditional use permit, have conditions
bcen required, or has lhe project been
redesip.od, to mitigate thoso effects?
I Yes nNo

6. Have findings been adopted to support tho
agoncy's decision, based upon substantial
evidence in ths recold?
[Yes ENo
?. fue the required environmental findings
being adopted?
flYes ENo
(Nollanv. Califurnia Coastal Commission (1987) 9?
L.Ed2nd 6??). Whcro a regulatory taking has been
found to occur, the courts will overtum the agency's
action and may requirc the agency to pay the apilicatrt compensation for the taking (Dolan, supra),
EXAI,lFLE$
The following court cases illustrato when it may be
propor to grant e conditional use permit and when it
rnly not bo. These casss aro illus&ations only and
should not beused as ths sole basis for granting or
deuyiag a conditional use pe.nnit.

Gases Upholdlng Gondltlonsl Ure ' Pamrlt Approvalr
Gsnernl Welfarn'$ianrlnrd
The general welfare standard is sufficientin granting a condttional use perrrrit. The igsuartue uI a r;untlilional usepermitfor alow-cost rental housirg for the eldedy
in a residential area was uphetd on grounds that the
proposcd uso would not bc "dcbimsntal to tho public
welfare orinjurious toproperty olimprovements in tho
ueighborhood" Q{awkint v. C o.unty of Marin ll97 6) 54
CaLApp.3d 585).

Gasas Overtumlng Gonditlonal Use
Permit AFFrouah '
General Welfare Standard
A county zoning ordinance requiring a church in a
residential zone to obtain aconditionaluse permitprior
to allowing itto use the landwas foundnot to abridge
the constitutional right of freedom of religious worGeneral PIan ConslstencY Ths absence ofa valid general plan does notpreclude
all development actMty. Section 653 6 1 e$ablishes the
general plan exiansion procedure whereby loeal gov'
ernments can proceod with development pending
complotion of a valid general plan. This procedure also - --- ---L--^ - :l
aPPUnu tu ul9 u4lig WIl,Frtr lrl,UuulJ 4HPru YEU -:-^-1^-J rrurvr ^uu subdivlsions wlthoutarequiled general plan (,R esolarces Defense Fund v, County of Santa Cruz (1982) 133
Cal.App.3d 800).

ProcedurelPublic Notiee
A conditibnal use perrnit cannot be revoil<ed without sufficientcause.Frrttrer, priorto rcvocation, notice and hearing must be provided for. Thus, in the case
.. where an applicant was given notice that the hbaring would concorn the expiration of tbe conditioual use
permitratherthan the revocation of tbe permit, alempt
to revoke the permit was nullified (Commwlty Devel'
apmcnt Commlssian of'Mendocino County v, City of
Fort Brasg (1988) 2M Cal.App.3d 1124).
6

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
rEE CONDTTTONAL U8E PEf,,MII
ship, Tho court held that a county zoDing ordinance
whichprovides ause pennittobe grantediftheuse will
not be dctrimontal to tlrc hcalth, safety, p€eco, moals, cornfort, and general wclfarc ofpersons or proporly il
the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the
county, is notunconetittrtional by r.eason of vaguonoss or oncortaingr Mqtthew y, Eoard of SWenisors of
Sanislaus Couty (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 800).

Nuieanco Stanilard
The approval of a conditional ueo pe.rmit for trhe
storagb of housss was overhrmsd on grounds that any
use may be prohibitod if found to be objectionabla or
incompatible with the character of the city and its
snvirone due bnoiee, dust, odors or othorundesfuablo
characteristlcs (.Snow v, City gGardenGrove (1961)
188 Cal.App.ZA496).

General Plan Conristency
The issuance of a conditional use permit to a
oonshuction company forproduction of sand and gravel
wa8 overtumEd on grounds that that the geuoral plan
elements which bear on the permit aro inadoquate and
lhE pwnit is incpnsistpnt $ith pcrtinont provisions of
an adequate general plan (lVetg& bo rho od Actbn G roup v. County of Calaverar (1984) 156 Caf .App.3d 1176),
7

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

I

TITE CONDITIONAL USE PARMIT

BIBLIOGRAPHY
For morc information about cosditional uso permit*, we recommend the following rcforonces.

Brtdghg the Gap : Uslng Fttilingr bt Local I*nd Usc
Decisions, by Robert Cervantos, second edition
(Govomor's Office of PlanniDg and Reeoarch), 1989.
this bookict explains thc pr.inciples of findingt in
detsil.

Caltfomta Permll flandhook, (Califomia 0ffice of
PermitAssistarc4, 19969?. This handbook is a guide
to thestate environmontalpermitproccss and prcvides
guidancc for complying with the Stats's environmental qnnty and pemit streanlining stahltos, regulations, and policies.

Caffirnia Zoning Prasthe, by Donald llagmon, et
a1., Afril 1996 Supplernentby John K. Chapin (Continuing Education of the Bar, Ber&cley, CA), 1969.

This text rcviows state zoning ltw in detail.

CEQI. Deskbook: A Step-by-Sw Guide on How to
Conply wlth ke Californla EwironmontuI Qualttl
Aot,by Rbnald E. Bass, et al., 1996 edition (Solano
Prsss, PointAruna, CA), A euido toundorstandingthc
onvironmentalreviow proccss and idcntt$ingkey sEps,
ruquterncntq anl tler,isiou lruiu$ gguusguy ta coJuply
with CEQA.

Carlh' e Callfornia Land Asc and Planning Inw,by
Danicl J. Curtin Jr., 1997 edition (Solano Ress, Point
Arena, CA), revised annually. A look at the pluming,
zoning, subdivision, and environmental quality laws,
including condifional uoe pormitr, as interproted by
numerous court cases.

Iangtht's C affi r nin I-and U s c, 2nd edition, by James Longtin, 1996 Supplcment (Local Govomrnent Pubtications, Mdibu, CA), 1988, This reforonco text on planning and landuse law contains an exoellentdiscupsion of the ionditional use permit proeess and legal considerations.
8 i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht <[email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2,2021 1 1:12 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the oiganization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory
Date:Tue, 22 Dec 2O2O 14:34:02 -0800
From:N Oldham
To:Daron Bra c
Hi Daron, I do not think that the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory project and a conditional use permit should be approved. The proposed crematory I believe is considered an ind,ustrial use and should be located only in an industrial zoned area.

As you know the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is zoned open space/public primary area Further, lbelieve Folsom's Open Space Element of the General Plan counted on the Cemetery land in its open space requirement. The crematory is not a compatible use in open space zoning.

Folsom's General lndustrial District (Chapter 17.30 M-2) states that specific uses shall only be permitted in M-2 districts. While it doesn't reference crematories it does list pottery kilns and ceramic works.

I have other concerns and comments on the proposed project including health related concerns with vapors emitted from dental mercury fillings. There are numerous studies regarding this health and environmental issue.

Can you please forward my email to the other commissioners? I know that there may be some new commissioners appointed soon. I will include my above comments and others when the draft lnitial Study is made available at a Historic District Commission meeting.

Thank You.

Nancy Fallan Oldham s16I
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Nicole Gates
Tuesday, January 11,2022 10:53 AM
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino;YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade Subject: Proposed Lakeside Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom [email protected]_WXylhj-1!r@pollg!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My husband, two young kids, and I bought a home in the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood a year ago. We moved here to be closer to family, and have a better quality of life.

The neighborhood has proven to be magical. My kids have freedom, ride their bikes with the other neighborhood kids, and meet at the park to play. The neighbors gather for movie nights with an outdoor projector, piffatas in the alley, poker nights, the neighborhood band playing for the community, chili cook offs, kayaking on the lake, and holiday decorating contests.

My parents live down the street, and my sister and her family live a couple houses down from them. A new baby is expected in April.

We found out about the proposed crematorium a couple of months after we moved in. I wasn't worried at first. I never thought it would be allowed in an established historic neighborhood.

We moved to Folsom because of family and that it is "Distinctive by Nature". Please keep the Historic District special.

Please protect Open Space. Please save our magical neighborhood. The crematorium should be put in an industrial area It does not belong where kids play. lf the crematorium gets put in it will destroy an entire neighborhoods' quality of life just so The Caring Services Group/Miller Funeral Home can make a profit. I don't want this to happen to my family and my neighbors (please note the smoke and odor quotes):
https://cron kitenews.azpbs.orsl202U03/25lneishbors-hope-for-relief-from-crematorium-smoke-as-covid-19-deathsdecrease/ Thank you,
Nicole Gates
lvoung Wo Circle

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Froml
Tor
Subject:

Datel
I
Josh Kinkade
Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
Saturday, July 31, 2021 4:11:40 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello,
I am opposed to having a crematorium in my neighborhood. I have read the "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration." I am voicing my concerns about:
"The Project Objectives"
On page 7 it states; The project objectives as expressed by the applicant, are to:

1.) Provide cremation services for those who currently live in and around Folsom, as no such services currently exist for the city.

There are 18 crematories within an 18 mile radius of MillerFuneral Home (google maps). 12 are in the City of Sacramento proper, 1 in Rocklin, 1 in Placerville, 1 in Fair Oaks, and2 in Carmichael. I received this information from the Consumer Affairs office in Sacramento. Mr.

Semenyuk is right, there isn't a cremation service directly in Folsom, however there are other facilities close by. Does Folsom really need to have a crematory? If it is deemed a necessary service for Folsom, the crematorium needs to be in a zoned industrial/commercial area distant from residential neighborhoods.

2.) Provide cremation services for members of the population whose customs or religions require such practices.

While this may be true, it is my opinion the number of Folsom residents requiring this service is low. Customs and religious needs can be met at Mount Vernon Memorial Park and Mortuary in Fair Oaks- 11 minutes ot 5.2 miles away from Miller Funeral Home.

3.) Prepare for an increase in the demand for cremation services as cremation becomes more popular in California and as the Folsom population grows.

Mr. Semenyuk is right. Plan, prepare, and place the industrial incinerator in an appropriate location. It belongs in a zoned commercial/industrial area. There is plenty of time to research a far beffer location than in the Preserves Neighborhood. I see no need to rush to a decision.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn is the wrong place for an industrial incinerator.

4.) Upgrade the existing facilities to capitalize on a business opportunity that has proven successful for the applicant elsewhere in California.

Mr. Semenyuk states he wants to "upgrade existing facilities". Mr. Semenyuk stated he was CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
going to "use an existing metal shed" to install the HCT-250 industrial incinerator and lOXl5 foot walk-in chiller. This is an old shed. It is my estimation that the shed in question is at least 25 years old. It doesn't make sense to me to place machinery, maybe worth 100K, in an old metal shed. They recently built a25x25 foot metal shed next to the old shed. It is a matter of time before Mr. Semenyuk requests to remove the old shed, build another bigger and better structure, and move the equipment to the new metal shed with possibly another incinerator.

5.) "Capitalize on a business opportunity"
That says it all. It's all about the money.

Zero regardto the residents of the Preserve Neighborhood, to their health, safety, quality of life, and the ability to thrive.

Zero regard to the Historic Value of the area.

According to "X'olsom Historic Commision District Staff Report" dated 01-15-2003:
"Lakeside Memorial Lawn is actually a conglomeration of Citizen, Jewish, Masonic, Negro Bar, Cook's/American Legion, and Odd Fellows Cemetaries that date back to the 1850's. Adjacent to this site is the China Mission-Chung Wah Cemetery, a national registered historic site. These cemetery sites along with the neighboring California State Dredger Tailing Preserve, create a combination, in itself, is a extremely unique resource' according to the Commissioners of the Sacramento County Hlstorical Cemetery Commission."
The Caring Service Group on their website states;
"Caring Service Group was established in 2010 with the primary goal of purchasing Funeral Home Business".

It's just about business, money, and expansion. It's not about local cremations, there are 18 crematories within 18 miles. It's not about providing a service for religious or cultural customs, there is a facility 5.2 miles away. It's not about growing populations.

It's too "CAPITALIZE ON A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY" with zero regard toward the community.

No to the industrial incinerator.

Thank you for your time,
Nicole Gates

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
Acl n inisfi ' atirrc, Assi.s I on I
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, July 20,2021 9:27 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
ffi *!r ? €F F"tlI,HffiXfi
S{}@ www.fotsonr.ca.r"
From: nicole higgins
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,202L 9:23 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]'us>; thehfra @gmail.com
Subject: Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn 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.

To whom it may concern,
These are letters from my children regarding their concerns for the proposed crematorium

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Thank you,
Evelyn Gates (7yrs) and
Jackson Gates (9yrs)
Sent from my iPhone
5

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Pleos* PcP bl nif cban
n
4r'
6 -. all Jl.ll., r r! I
,.. 'i\t i \' I
t!
L, .i ,' ,'
-.:
'-J
I
I
I
I
*":i nli,i I;t ,t
f'-l,
t
1 ,n5 wO C'rclg Hs{'m i lns"'a ftitri/t'

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a
rFt

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

January 11,2022
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
City of Folsom
Community Development Department
RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium CUP and IS/NIND
Planning No. P-19-182
Words matter....and calling a crematorium 'safe' is misleading. Peter Hartwick of Peter Hartwick Combustion Technologies claims their crematoriums use less fuel, lower Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, and are compliant with NFPA and air quality standards. "Low NOx emissions"? Any NOx molecules during exposure to UV rays in sunlight and heat, interact with volatile organic compounds and form a serious ground level pollutant....and in the presence of rain...acid rain. There is strong evidence that NOx respiratory exposure can trigger and exacerbate existing asthma symptoms, and can even lead to the development of asthma over a longer period of time. These toxins can irritate the lungs of healthy people! And what about those with existing medical conditions such as asthma or heart disease?
In a study by the EPA, from only one crematory in Southern California, they found Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, Particulate Matter (PM10), (PM2.5), mercury and other heavy metals like cadmium, lead, and nickel. Known carcinogens like dioxins and furans and even hydrogen chloride. Mercury is colorless and odorless, and there is no agreement about the safe level of it. Some say no level is safe. Mercury can be present in dental fillings (mostly from baby-boomer days) and medical devices of bodies that are cremated and is most dangerous when heated. Crematories are required to remove these things beforehand, but the materials become biohazard waste and so most won't bother.

Who would know?
Without information of how often a crematory is working, how does one say it "meets air quality standards". Igor Semenyuk, Chief Operations Officer of Miller Funeral Home (which also owns and operates Lakeside Memorial Lawn) says they may be cremating 2-3 per day, and then claims 7 a week. Which is it? I noticed in his addendum to the proposal he has already increased the daily rate from 400 lbs to 800 lbs a day of human remains. Does that mean more per day? As the demand for cremations increase, so will the need for more working days. Once in operation, whose to know? Who regulates that? NO one!
Because of a successful lobbying effon to declassif' crematories as solid waste incinerators, the EPA does not regulate solid-waste incinerators category pertaining to the funeral industry. States that regulate air quality standards don't require testing for specific toxins that are released during cremation. I understand that the California Air Resources does an annual inspection, but what and how do they test? What about the 364 days in between?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Additionally, besides air health, propane will be used at this proposed site in Folsom, meaning more truck traffic through our neighborhoods and although NFPA compliant, crematories aren't required to report workplace accidents to OSHA. So a mishap occurs and nothing has to be reported, unless of course it is catastrophic...then we would all Know! THIS IS AN OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL AREA,,.WHAT A CATASTROPHE IT WOULD BE!
The Preserve Neighborhood has about 11 I households sharing the neighborhood with the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. Can anyone really say there are SAFE levels of toxic chemicals?
Crematories are definitely a necessity but why would they be allowed in an environmentally sensitive open space area with vegetation, historical structures and next to a fresh body of water (Lake Natoma). A designated industrial business district away from a fully occupied community of families, schools, and animals could be considered.

Please don't approve profits over human lives! I ask that you take these health issues seriously to preserve the Preserve Neighborhood and historic Folsom.

The crematorium in our neighborhood will affect all of us in the Preserve Neighborhood, and it should be treated as aHAZARDOUS PROPOSITION to this urban historical area of Folsom.

Pam Ceccarelli,
lFong St.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

RI,
January 17r2022
Folsom City Officials
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium CUP and IS/IVIND
Planning No. P-19-182
Words matter....and calling a crematorium 'safe' is misleading. Peter Hartwick of Peter Hartwick Combustion Technologies claims their crematoriums use less fuel, lower Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, and are compliant with NFPA and air quality standards. "Low NOx emissions"? Any NOx molecules during exposure to UV rays in sunlight and heat, interact with volatile organic compounds and form a serious ground level pollutant....and in the presence of rain...acid rain. There is strong evidence that NOx respiratory exposure can trigger and exacerbate existing asthma symptoms, and can even lead to the development of asthma over a longer period of time. These toxins can iritate the lungs of healthy people! And what about those with existing medical conditions such as asthma or heart disease?
In a study by the EPA, from only one crematory in Southern California, they found Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, Particulate Matter (PM10), (PM2.5), mercury and other heavy metals like cadmium, lead, and nickel. Known carcinogens like dioxins and furans and even hydrogen chloride. Mercury is colorless and odorless, and there is no agreement about the safe level of it. Some say no level is safe. Mercury aan be present in dental fillings (mostly from baby-boomer days) and medical devices of bodies that are cremated and is most dangerous when heated. Crematories are required to remove these things beforehand, but the materials become biohazard waste and so most won't bother.

Who would know?
Without information of how often a crematory is working, how does one say it "meets air quality standards". Igor Semenyuk, Chief Operations Officer of Miller Funeral Home (which also owns and operates Lakeside Memorial Lawn) says they may be cremating 2-3 per day, and then claims 7 a week. Which is it? I noticed in his addendum to the proposal he has already increased the daily rate from 400 lbs to 800 lbs a day of human remains. Does that mean more per day? As the demand for cremations increase, so will the need for more working days. Once in operation, whose to know? Who regulates that? NO one!
Because of a successful lobbying effort to declassift crematories as solid waste incinerators, the EPA does not regulate solid-waste incinerators category pertaining to the funeral industry. States that regulate air quality standards don't require testing for specific toxins that are released during cremation. I understand that the California Air Resources does an annual inspection, but what and how do they test? What about the 364 days in between?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Additionally, besides air health, propane will be used at this proposed site in Folsom, meaning more truck traffic through our neighborhoods and although NFPA compliant, crematories aren't required to report workplace accidents to OSHA. So a mishap occurs and nothing has to be reported, unless of course it is catastrophic...then we would all Know! THIS IS AN OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL AREA...WHAT A CATASTROPHE IT WOULD BE!
The Preserve Neighborhood has about l1 I households sharing the neighborhood with the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. Can anyone really say there are SAFE levels of toxic chemicals?
Crematories are definitely a necessity but why would thev be allowed in an environmentallv sensitive open space area with vegetation. historical structures and next to a fresh body of water (Lake Natoma). A designated industrial business district away from a fully occupied community of families, schools, and animals could be considered.

Please don't approve profits over human lives! I ask that you take these health issues seriously to preserve the Preserve Neighborhood, wildlife, and historic Folsom.

The crematorium in our neighborhood will affect all of us in the Preserve Neighborhood, and it should be treated as aHAZARDOUS PROPOSITION to this urban historical area of Folsom.

Pam Ceccarelli,
lFong St.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

July 7,2021
Kelly Mullett,
Words matter....and calling a crematorium 'safe' is misleading. Peter Hartwick of Peter Hartwick Combustion Technologies claims their crematoriums use less fuel, lower Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, and are compliant with NFPA and air quality standards. "Low NOx emissions"? Any NOx molecules during exposure to UV rays in sunlight and heat, interact with volatile organic compounds and form a serious ground level pollutant....and in the presence of rain...acid rain. These toxins can enter the lungs, and even shoft term exposure canirritate the lungs of healthy people! And what about those with medical conditions such as asthma or heart disease? Because of a successful lobbying effort to declassiff crematories as solid waste incinerators, the EPA does not regulate solid-waste incinerators category pertaining to the funeral industry. States that regulate air quality standards don't require testing for specific toxins that are released during cremation. If there are inspections by the California Air Resources, how often is it performed and how is it tested? In a study by the EPA, from only one crematory in Southern California, they found Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, Particulate Matter (PMl0), (PM2.5), mercury and other heavy metals like cadmium, lead, and nickel. Known carcinogens like dioxins and furans and even hydrogen chloride. Mercury is colorless and odorless, and there is no agreement about the safe level of it. Some say no level is safe. Mercury can be present in dental fillings (mostly from baby-boomer days) and medical devices of bodies that are cremated and is most dangerous when heated. Crematories should remove these things beforehand, but the materials become biohazard waste and so most won't bother. Who would know?
Without information of how often a crematory is working, how does one say it "meets air quality standards". Igor Semenyuk, Chief Operations Off,rcer of Miller Funeral Home (which also owns and operates Lakeside Memorial Lawn) says they may be cremating 2-3 per day, and then says 7 a week. Which is it? As the demand for cremations increase, so will the need for more working days. Once in operation, whose to know? Who regulates that? NO one!
Additionally, besides air health, propane will be used at this proposed site in Folsom, meaning more truck traffic through our neighborhoods and although NFPA compliant, crematories aren't required to report workplace accidents to OSHA. So a mishap occurs and nothing has to be reported, unless of course it is catastrophic...then we would all know!
I don't have a problem with crematories, but like an airport, it should be in a designated business district away from a fully occupied community of families, schools, and animals. The Preserve Neighborhood has about I l1 households sharing the

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
neighborhood with the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. We feel there is no such thing as a safe level of a toxic chemical.

The crematorium in our neighborhood will affect all of us in the Preserve Neighborhood, and I think it should be treated as ahazardous proposition to this urban area of Folsom.

Please don't approve profits over human lives! I ask that you take these health issues seriously to preserve the Preserve Neighborhood.

Pam Ceccarelli,
frong St.

Folsom, CA
916

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 7,,2022
To: The Historic District Commissioners
Chairman Kathleen Cole, Vice Chairman Mickey Ankhelyi, Commissioners, Mark Dascallos, John Felts, John Lane, Justin Raithel and Daniel West
Josh Kinkade
Pam Johns
Elaine Andersen
Folsom City Council Members:

Mayor Kerri Howell, Vice Mayor Rosario Rodriguez, Council Members, Sarah Aquino, YK Chalamcherla, and Mike Kozlowski
I am writing in response to public comments on the application for a Crematorium to be installed at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery in Historic Folsom. While the Helix report focuses on the Environmental scope, our neighbors hope you will see the human impacts and aspects of this proposal. ln his scope of Work- lnstalling a Crematory document, Mr. Semenyuk, the applicant, stated that Caring Services Group has eight Mortuaries and four Crematoriums. Allfour crematories are located inside the funeral homes per Mr. Semenyuk. Yet in historic Folsom , he is asking to operate a crematorium in a metal shed fueled by above ground propane tanks. I am surprised that The City of Folsom does not not have standards that would prohibit such an unrefined concept. I also find it distasteful that remains would be stored in a cooler in the shed.

Aesthetics: Both sheds are visible from Natoma Street and Forrest Street even without the roof exhaust stack installed. People visiting their deceased loved ones situated behind the shed also can see the crematorium. This is not peaceful nor esthetically pleasant..l feel the initial study and mitigated negative declaration minimizes and/or fails to recognize the negative effects on very many people. The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is designated as a historic cemetery. lt is old, well landscaped and is a peaceful and interesting place to visit. The Chung Wah Chinese Historical Cemetery, very close by, is listed on the National Historic Register. The California State Dredger Tailings Preserve, located next to the sheds, is in itself historic and unique. These sites should not be altered by installing a crematorium .

The current open space zoning is appropriate for this site and I ask you to not change it in order to operate a crematorium. Our city has a lovely historic disffict, I ask you to protect it's historic features as well as protecting the people living in the surrounding area' Parking impact. Project objectives: Provide cremation services for members of the population whose customs or religion require such practices. As I understand it, the cemetery has about 50 parking spaces. lf there are large groups witnessing cremations, overflow parking on Forrest Street would be a problem due to the width of the street. Two lanes down to one narrow lane. I spoke to an employee at a nearby mortuary and crematorium and asked about how many people witness cremations ? His answer was anywhere from five to two hundred at a time. lf his estimate is true, the current parking spaces are not adequate. Also, traffic flow is problematic at this location with light rail blocking the intersection frequently. No other exit is available. The additional parking will affect the quality of life of the residents who all use Forrest St. to access the intersection on Folsom Blvd. ( intensity impact) Fire impact: This devastating impact has been minimized. The City of Folsom Community Wildfire Protection Plan clearly outlines the fire danger in this area. The city also declared a Fire danger emergency last year. lt concerns me that this much propane will be in constant use at high