Folsom City Council
April 26, 2022

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
-2-
temperatures so close to a populated area and major roadway. This area would not be easy to evacuate in an emergency. I would encourage you to read the wildfire report if you are not familiar with it Why would the city agree to place 500 pounds of propane that would be used at high temperatures , five days a week, for 90 minutes to 2 hours for each cremation in a complicated environment that effects so many people? I noticed in the section on geology and soils, the mention of seismic activity.

C|. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off site landslide , lateral spreading; subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse. Another reason above ground propane is very concerning at this location.

There needs to be an emergency evacuation plan in existence for the neighborhood. An illegal fire at the Lake would prove difficult to access for fire engines and a fire could spread quickly endangering homes and the propane tank. While an argument might be made that there are many large propane tanks in use in the city, I would say, they are not burning at high temperatures at a constant rate. The crematory would use 9,835.9 gallons of propane a year.

Air Quality is very concerning for people like myself with respiratory problems. Spare the air days affect my asthma and I need to stay indoors. The proposed crematorium location close to residences and recreation can certainly effect our quality of life. The report refers to The Preserve/ t-ate Natoma Shores neighborhood as small, however there are 118 homes here. lt also lists the distance to all the nearby schools but does not seem to be concerned with the exposure of the children who live here.

I wish I were more versed on CEQA, but lfeelthat people more qualified than myself can address those concerns as well as cultural resources and air quality.

I have some observations regarding the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated Jan 2022.

Future growth of the city of Folsom: Project objectives: prepare for an increase in the demand for cremation services as cremations become more popular in California and as Folsom's population grows.

This concerns me. The report examines what the needs would be at 500 cremations per year. What's to say the need doubles as do the impacts. Because of the problems noted in my letter regarding the impacts on the neighborhood, I ask you to look ahead and consider this as you make your decision.

cleaned however,l don't see any mention of maintenance procedures. Since no sewer line is being planned, what happens to residue, dust etc?
0n the Section of the History of lakeside Memorial Lawn, it states not much information in academic or grey literature exists on the history of the Lakeside Lawn Memorial. ln 2@2-2003, Mr. Claney of Millers Mortuary applied for a conditional use permit to operate a Crematorium at the Lakeside Cemetery. Sue Silver wrote a comprehensive research paper describing the historic graves and history of the cemetery which is included in the, then ci$s staff report. . Her report is very interesting to read and I hope you will have a chance to read it. Not long afterward, the cemetery was designated historic. The prior application was denied before the designation.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
-3-
Chinese lnfluence on Folsom. I would have liked to see more emphasis on the Chung Wah Historic Cemeterythat is located so close to Lakeside Memorial Lawn. lt is on the National Historic Register, California Sate Registered Landmark and the City of Folsom's resource inventory. A place of this significance deserves more than a mention.

Sectlon: 7.0. Environmental Facto/s Potentially Affected. ltems not checked: Aesthetics, Biological, Recreation and Wildfire. lfeel they are affected.

Energy: Under lighting: I did not see the large light installed on the adjacent shed mentioned as a new source of light.

Conflicting information: evaluation of transportation: ( b). No impact: the proposed action would not be a destination accessible for members of the public and would only be visited by a SMALL NUMBER of WORKERS during construction and operation. The project would not result in signiflcant increase in vehicle miles traveled , and is located within one half mile of a major public transit stop which provides both bus and light rail service. No impact will occur.

Mr. Semenyuk: There are several large cultural communities residing and moving to Folsom.

Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation based cultures as they require an on site crematory so that they can exercise their funeral rights and customs. ( witness cremation)
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincereln ,fr
Pat Binley
Isutter st.

Folsom, Ca. 95530

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Arq-E- ?- /- Z-e,21
Dear Historic District Chairman Bracht and Commissioners, West, Ankhelyi, Cole, Duewel, Dascallos and Felts,
I am writing concerning the application for a crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. The cemetery is located in the Historic District of Folsom and is zoned Open SpacelConservation. This is a unique area because of the Three Historical entities located there. The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is designated a Historic Cemetery. To the rear boundary of the cemetery is the Historic Chung Wah Chinese cemetery which is listed on the National Historic Register. And very close to the proposed Crernatory metal shed site is the California State Dredger Tailings Preserve. This is probably the only site in our state that combines these aspects of our heritage in one small area. I believe the addition of a crematorium will change the character of the cemetery.

Besides the above Historical aspects, the cemetery is located close to the American River Bike trail, Lake Natoma and the residential neighborhood where I reside. A crematorium will affect many people who enjoy recreation on the trail and the lake, not just a few people.

I am concerned about Fire Danger. The proposal includes the installation of two 250 gallon above ground propane tanks. This area is located in a wildfire danger area. ln fact, the City of Folsom recently declared a local emergency due to fire danger. lf there were a wildfire or vandalism the propane is a dangerous threat.

I am also concerned about Emergency Evacuation . Access to the bike trail and Lake Natoma is difficult for fire trucks to maneuver. Our neighborhood, in which the cemetery entrance is located, has only one entrance and the sarne egress. This is compounded by light railtrain interruptions blocking the Folsom Blvd.-Forrest St. intersection four times every hour. Emergency evacuation could be a big problem for occupant of over 100 plus homes.

We have been researching the effects of air quality from the smoke released into the air from crematoriums and have learned that cumulative effects are harmful to unborn children, developing children, elderly and those with existing health conditions like mvself. Page 750
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
lf the crematorium is allowed, I wonder how anyone can know how many people are cremated daily and the actual condition of the air quality. The air quality report is based on two cremations per day, 5 day a week. Air quality is monitored once a year.

While there are other crematoriums not far away from Folsom, I am not against a crematorium in our city. I would hope it would be in an industrialsurrounding zoned for this type of business operation, not in an area where people live, bike ride, walk, run, canoe, kayak, paddle board, fish and swim. The Sacramento State Aquatic team practices rowing on the lake and there are many bird nesting sites and animals to protect such as our bald eagles. I urge you to deny a conditional use permit and protect the citizens affected by this proposal. Thank You.

Sincerely,
Pat Binley
1209 Sutter St. Folsom, Ca

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

A/-r"-t- - L'= - Z-et 9, ,
Dear Historic District Chairman Bracht and Commissioners, West, Ankhelyi, Cole, Duewel, Dascallos and Felts,
I am writing concerning the application for a crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. The cemetery is located in the Historic District of Folsom and is zoned Open Space/Conservation. This is a unique area because of the Three Historical entities located there. The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery is designated a Historic Cemetery. To the rear boundary of the cemetery is the Historic Chung Wah Chinese cemetery which is listed on the National Historic Register. And very close to the proposed Crernatory metal shed site is the California State Dredger Tailings Preserve. This is probably the only site in our state that combines these aspects of our heritage in one small area. I believe the addition of a crematorium will change the character of the cemetery.

Besides the above Historical aspects, the cemetery is located close to the American River Bike trail, Lake Natoma and the residential neighborhood where I reside. A crematorium will affect many people who enjoy recreation on the trail and the lake, not just a few people.

I am concerned about Fire Danger. The proposal includes the installation of two 250 gallon above ground propane tanks. This area is located in a wildfire danger area. ln fact, the City of Folsom recently declared a local emergency due to fire danger. lf there were a wildfire or vandalism the propane is a dangerous threat.

I am also concerned about Emergency Evacuation . Access to the bike trail and Lake Natoma is difficult for fire trucks to maneuver. Our neighborhood, in which the cemetery entrance is located, has only one entrance and the same egress. This is compounded by light railtrain interruptions blocking the Folsom Blvd.-Forrest St. intersection four times every hour. Emergency evacuation could be a big problem for occupant of over 100 plus homes.

We have been researching the effects of air quality from the smoke released into the air from crematoriums and have learned that cumulative effects are harmful to unborn children, developing children, elderly and those with existing health conditions like mvself. Page 752
04/26/2022 Item No.8.
lf the crematorium is allowed, I wonder how anyone can know how many people are cremated daily and the actual condition of the air quality. The air quality report is based on two cremations per day, 5 day a week. Air quality is monitored once a year.

While there are other crematoriums not far away from Folsom, I am not against a crematorium in our city. I would hope it would be in an industrialsurrounding zoned for this type of business operation, not in an area where people live, bike ride, wal( run, canoe, kayak, paddle board, fish and swim. The Sacramento State Aquatic team practices rowing on the lake and there are many bird nesting sites and animals to protect such as our bald eagles. I urge you to deny a conditional use permit and protect the citizens affected by this proposal. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Pat Binley
lsutter St. Folsom, Ca

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht < [email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2,2021 1 1:13 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetary
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:Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetary
Date:Mon, 21 Dec 2O2O L7:25:21 -0800
From:Patricia Bin
To:daronbr@ pacbell. net
CC:Patricia Binle
To: Daron Bracht
Chairman Folsom Historic District Commission
Dear Daron,
I am writing to you because f have learned that an application has been made to the city for a Crematorium at the Lakeslde Cemetery. I understand the planning is close to completion and wlff be presented to the Historic District Commission soon, f reside in The Preserve/ Lake Natoma Shores development in whlch some homes are located on Forrest St. across from the cemetery. Other properties back up to the cemetery from Young Wo Circle. I am concerned that many of our residents do not know of the plans that are taking place. To my knowledge we have not have had any word from the city nor the developer regarding the proposaf. This is compounded by the problem that we are not not abfe to gather or meet in order to have some discussions and share information.

Speaking for myself, I have some concerns Ttd fike to share. T belreve the cemetery is zoned open space and I wonder if a crematorium would be an aflowable use for this property. Is this why the applicant is asking for a conditionaf use permit? It afso seems unsuitable to have this type of facillty adjacent to a heavily used recreational area ( blke traif and Lake Natoma) and a residential neighborhood. f have questions regarding how it would be regulated if it were passed, as far as the actual amount of cremations taking place (not estlmated) and safety with large amounts of propane on the property. I also am concerned with air quality regulating as we often have bad air days . I have asthma and am affected by bad air days & smoke. I also wondered if state parks have been consufted due to their property being next to the proposed area. I woufd be interested in their input.

I hope you can share my concerns with other commission members. I would hope if a crematorium is buift in Folsom, it would be in an industrial- or commercial area, not by state park land where people are recreating or living. Thank you, Slncerely
Pat Binley Sutter St. Folsom, Ca

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

City of Folsom Staff and Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
Via emailto:

December 22,2020
Mickey Ankhelyi -
ankhe lyi @,com cast. net
Pam Johns -
pjohns@,folsom.ca.us
Kathleen Cole -
[email protected]
Daron Bracht -
daronbr(@pacbell.net
Kelly Mullett -
km ul I ett@fo I som. ca.us
Sarah Aquino
[email protected]
Josh Kincade -
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium, FILE #:19-182
I am asking for your consideration to reiect the conditional use permit requested by the owners of Lakeside Cemetery for the addition of a crematorium.

To be very clear, I am not opposed to a crematorium in Folsom.

In Summary, I believe the crematorium is not a conducive use for a historic cemetery on open spaced-zoned property. A crematorium would be better suited to be operated on a commercial or industrial area. Additionally, this is planned to be an active business with hazardous gases directly adjacent to a housing development, walking trail, historical area, and nature preserve.

This crematorium development was rejected by the City in 2002. ltwas a good rejection then and is good now.

Below are more details about the concerns.

1. This'is a for-profit private commercial business. The crematorium will require significant infrastructure and will have consistent and growing usage. It is better suited in a commercial or industrial zoned area. (As noted in the presentation for the Zoning code changes, consistency is a key to why the Zoning code is used) a. Based on wording in the request, cremations would potentially occur at a rate of 4 per day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.
b. This would be an increase of over 2000 more car trips of employees, customers and deliveries per year.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
c. Also required are the consistent and numerous propane deliveries for this enterprise. Given the outline of the process and the forecasted demand, large quantities of propane will be needed.

This is a huge business. a factory, impacting an open space-zoned property that is next to other low impact and nature areas.

2. In Section 17.52.550* see below, crematoriums are not a listed use. It is at item #8 that you will determine if a crematorium is similar and compatible. Using the list in this section, other than being in a Cemetery, a crematorium is neither similar nor compatible.

This business would be a consistent, daily, private commercial business using sophisticated equipment, stored propane, and very high temperatures. That does not align with the rest of the list that is much lower in activity and sophistication.

3. By allowing this crematorium to be moved to a commercial or industrial site, it will also move the increase in traffic so as to not impact the Historic District. as this is another issue of concern to the District.

4. Based on the Scope of Work document that was submitted, there is no sewer capabilitv planned and there is no . Building this crematorium in
the manner presented would be a significant development for an open spaced-zoned properfy. This project would continue to have alarge developing impact on the propeffy and the historic district.

5. The applicant notes in the "Our Proposition" portion of the Scope of work that it is a "...strategic placement. It is removed from any residences, parks, or schools." This statement is incorect. It is surrounded on two sides by park or open space. It is in an open space-zoned property and is next to a housing development. Their Proposition is not correct at a minimum and incredulous to most.

6. By allowing this to be built at a commercial or industrial property, the utilities for Dropane gas. electrical. and sewer are installed are consistent in capability to that setting

7. The Historic District is unique in our city as there is a mix of residential and business. At its basic level, that requires a mix of quality-of-life considerations of the residents and commerce for the businesses. With all of the impacting issues noted above for our district, it is much more impoftant to weigh the quality-ofJife issues of the residents given this proposal is so out ofcharacter for an open space area.

8. This issue was brought before the Cify 18 years ago and received a non-approval from the City Staff. PN02-258 is the City's report for it. It was then withdrawn by the applicant.

Thank you for your consideration ofthis request.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Regards,
Paul Keast
Resident, Mormon Street, Folsom
* 17.52.550 Open space/public primary area special use and design standards.

A. Permitted Uses. When proposed by a public entity, the following uses are permitted; submittal to the historic district commission for courtesy review and comment is requested.

When proposed by a private entity, a conditional use permit is required. If; in the opinion of the planning, inspections and permitting director, public or private status of the proposing entity is not clear, the historic district commission shall make a finding on the need for a conditional use permit.

1. Natural open space, including management activities necessary for conservation and safety.

2. Improved open space, including active and passive park and trail uses.

3. Transportation corridors.

4. Cemeteries.

5. Public schools, including administrative facilities.

6. Small-scale public utility structures.

7. Residential uses accessory to a public use.

8. Other public uses which are, in the opinion of the historic district commission, similar to permitted uses and compatible with surroundine uses.

In summary, please reject the Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium conditional use permit, FrLE# 19-182.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
flrtffHtocircre
Folsom, CA 95630
July 9,2021
Kelly Mullett
Folsom Planning Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
SUBJECT: PENDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM Dear Kelly -
l'm writing to express my concern for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium project, I strongly obiect to approval and ask the Planning Commission to stop this project at first opportunity.

I have read the lnitial Studv/Mitieated Neeative Declaration and have also conducted my own research regarding Crematorium facilities sited adjacent to residential communities.

This project is a bad idea for the city and for residents in the immediate affected area, such aslhe "The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are multiple single-family residences odiacent to the cemetery to the north, between 450 ond 750 feet from the proposed cremotory locotion" - page 22.

My main concerns are:

1. Potential Toxic Air Contaminants (page 21 of the study)

2. Sensitive Receptors (paee 22 of the study)

3. My research also highlighted problems in communities across the US similar to this proposed residential setting, citing objectionable odors and harmful effects from toxic air contaminants for susceptible adults, children and the elderlY.

I have a technical background and understand how "ideal" operating specifications are developed and advertised by equipment manufacturers, such as the Hartwick Combustion HCT Apex-250 crematory. These "specifications" rely on ongoing optimal operating and maintenance calibration procedures. Maintenance lapses, operator error, and prevailing weather issues like unhealthy air days, for instance, provide unwelcome downstream impacts.

I love our Folsom community and cherish our "Distinctive by Nature" motto. Placing a Crematorium within 450 feet from the "The Preserve" residential neighborhood and adjacent the parklands and Lake Natoma is a very bad idea.

Sincerely,
P€tcr Luoaga

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
1-22-2022
City of Folsom Historic Distict Commission
RE: Lakeside Memorial Crematorium Project
1201 Forrest Street I 070-0260'001-0000
PlanningNo: PN-19-182
Commissioners,
I rvrite to you as a concerned user ofthe Forrest Street neighborhood recreational opportunities and as an avid amateur historian. As you are aware, the Forrest Steet and adjoining Folsom Blvd area is replete with valuable historical sites, These include the historical Chinese Cemetery preserved by the California State Park system, the Southern Pacific Superintendent's home on Oakdale St and adjacent future railroad museum, the Murer House and Education Center on Joe Murer Ct, the historic rock tailing piles located adjacent to the project location, a historic cemetery on Natomas Street, and the route of the historic Lincoln Highway along Folsom Blvd.

In addition, the project abuts the Nimbus Flat State Recreation Area which includes miles of fails and recreation opportunities.

The Lakeside Memorial Crematorium Project pfesents several concems:

The location of an industrial crematorium in the Forrest Street neighborhood would be a non-conforming use under tlre City of Folsom zoning of Open Space/?ublic Primary Area and the underlying zoning of Open Space and Conservation.

The location of an industrial crematorium in the Forrest Sneet neighborhood would be a non-conforming use under the Folsom City General Plan of Open Space. a
a
a The placement of an industrial crematorium in the Fonest Steet / Folsom Blvd area would be in conflict with ttre residential, recreational, and historic uses of the surrounding area

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a The CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration frled for this project is deficient with regard to the air qualrty data. The Declaration relies on weather data from the Sacramento Executive Airport which is located over 15 miles away. The Executive Airport lies in a separate climatic zone from the City of Folsom and is affected by Delta breezes and different wind pattems. The City of Folsom is located against the base of the Siena Foothills and suffers stagnant air patterns particularly during the summer months. These stagnant air patterns witl cause the industial pollutants to linger in the project area affecting the adjoining residential, recreational, and historical sites.

I am asking the Commission to deny the Lakeside Memorial Crematorium Project as a nonconforming use in an area of abundant historical and recreational sites.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Randolph Peshon
Placerville Ca

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

To!
Datel
Fromi
Subject: Proposed Lakeside Crematorium
Sunday, January 23,2022 6:19:03 PM
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,
I live in the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood where there is talk of a proposed Crematorium at The Lakeside Memorial Cemetery.

Our neighborhood is quite unique in many ways. A lot of families live here, it's the only housing community on this side of Folsom Boulevard, and also the only community that is on Lake Natoma. Our housing development is located in the canyon across from the bluffs of Lake Natoma.

The Kikkoman plant is located a mile away. A couple times a week we can smell the soy beans roasting. lf we drive by the plant we don't see any smoke. Even though there isn't any smoke, the smell lingers in our neighborhood getting trapped by The Schultz Eddy phenomenon. This causes the wind pattern to shift southward, blowing air pollutants baek into the SVAB (Sacramento Valley Air Basin). This phenomenon exacerbates the concentration of air pollutant emissions in the air basin and contributes to violations of the ambient air quality standards. Living in the canyon under the bluff keeps the air stagnant.

The Caring Services Group (Miller Funeral Home) says there won't be any smoke and only heat waves from their industrial furnace. However, who's to say the smell and carcinogens from the furnace won't stagnate in the air from the bluffs just like the Kikkoman smell. The smell of roasting soybeans and the smell of burning flesh are two different things. This would also effect kayakers, paddle boarders, bicyclists, walkers, and birdwatchers in the State Park area which butts right up against the crematorium. How's that for trying to enjoy nature? I thought we were "Distinctive by Nature".

During the 1/1 1122 city council meeting there was much concern for the preservation of the oak trees with the south of Hwy 50 development. I hope the Commission gives the Historic District, open space, and residents of The Preserves/Lake Natoma Shores community as much time, concern, and thoughtfulness as the oak trees received.
lf one wanted to be environmentally conscience we would be considering Aquamation to cremation. lf the population and need for after death services continues to grow we should be installing eco-friendly alternatives. We shouldn't be considering an old shed to save money. lf Aquamation is good enough for Bishop Desmond Tutu, it's good for

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
us!
This crematorium has to be stopped in its tracks. l'm truly concerned for my family, neighbors, and Folsom residents.

Thanks,
Sean Gates

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
Adt t inistr atir,e Assislrl n t
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
g?t ? *F
Kelly Mullett
Monday, July 12,2021 8:14 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Concerns
roLB$xfi
rt *,rr;+!rvr ttr h*rl*rt
OO@ www.fotsom.ca.us
From: Sean Gates
Sent: Sunday, July LL, 2O2I L:46 PM
To: Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected] thehfra@ ail.com
Cc: david higgins
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Concerns
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,
I am reaching out because I am extremely concerned about the proposalto build a crematorium at the Lakeside Cemetery...

My wife Nicole and I belong to the Historic Folsom Residents Association, and the area we live in means a lot to us' We have two children (ages 9 and 7), and in researching online the impact of crematorium use, large amounts of mercury get released into the air, along with various other particulate matter.

I can't have my family living next to this type of threat to our health, and there are several 6ther families who live in our area, along with those who are a bit older and more susceptible to health issues.

It doesn't make any sense to me that a crematorium would be located in a residential area that is experiencing and will continue to experience an increase in population density. Crematorium use also appears to be on the rise recently as well.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Can we please instead have this crematorium located in a more industrialarea, that is not located in such a densely populated location?
-Sean Gates
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Powering forward. Together.

OSMUU
Sent Via E-Mail
February 4,2022
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
City of Folsom
Com m un ity Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
ikinkade@folsom. ca. us
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Grematorium / MND 12022010039 Dear Mr. Banks
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium (Project, SCH 202010039). SMUD is the primary energy provider for Sacramento County and a portion of the proposed Project area. SMUD's vision is to empower our customers with solutions and options that increase energy efficiency, protect the environment, reduce global warming, and lower the cost to serve our region. As a Responsible Agency, SMUD aims to ensure that the proposed Project limits the potential for significant environmental effects on SMUD facilities, employees, and customers.

We have no comments to offer at this time but would appreciate if the City of Folsom would continue to keep SMUD facilities in mind as environmental review of the Project moves fonryard. Please reroute the Project analysis for SMUD's review if there are any changes to the scope of the Project.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916.732.7466, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ammon Rice
Environmental Services Supervisor
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
cc: Entitlements
SMUDHO 16201 SStreet lP.O Box15830 lSacramento,CA95852-1830 11.888.742.7683 lsmud.org

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Powering forward. Together.
@sMuu
Sent Via E-Mail
February 4,2022
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
City of Folsom
Comm un ity Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
ikinkade@folsom. ca. us
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Grematorium / MND / 2022010039 Dear Mr. Banks
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium (Project, SCH 202010039). SMUD is the primary energy provider for Sacramento County and a portion of the proposed Project area. SMUD's vision is to empower our customers with solutions and options that increase energy etficiency, protect the environment, reduce global warming, and lower the cost to serve our region. As a Responsible Agency, SMUD aims to ensure that the proposed Project limits the potential for significant environmental effects on SMUD facilities, employees, and customers.

We have no comments to offer at this time but would appreciate if the City of Folsom would continue to keep SMUD facilities in mind as environmental review of the Project moves fonruard. Please reroute the Project analysis for SMUD's review if there are any changes to the scope of the Project.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916.732.7466, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ammon Rice
Environmental Services Supervisor
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
cc: Entitlements
SMUD HO | 6201 S Street I P.O. Box 15830 | Sacramento, CA 95852-'1830 | 1.888.742.7683 | smud.org

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Steve Wetzel
lYoung wo circle
Folsom, CA 95530
February 6,2022
City of Folsom Historic District Commission.

RE: opposition to the proposed Lakeside Memorial Cemetery crematorium Dear Planning Commissioners;
I am a resident living next to the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery where the owner wants to add a crematorium.

I am writing to ask you, as Planning Commission, to act to protect residents from a business requesting to change the business from burial to cremation and in doing so will add a new revenue stream and increase profits. The business has spent an amount of money considered significant to any one resident to write up a proposal that supports the business' desire to add to their revenue and profits.

The Planning Commission needs to act in a way to level the playing field and to stand up for our Residents, young and old. The residents do not have the financial resources available to the business, to defend our position with lawyers and agencies to write counter-proposals. We have our voices and have done our best to communicate our positions.

A crematorium should not be allowed to be added to a residential neighborhood. lt should only be allowed to be added to a industrialor business area, such as a warehouse or non-retailarea.

I personally do not understand how creating a new revenue stream for a business could outweigh the request for residents to maintain our existing lifestyle without pollutants (mercury for one), or odors, or smoke, added to the air we breathe every day of our lives. The residents should not have to be exposed to the odor, smoke, or pollutants, from a crematorium just so this business owner can increase his profits. Dead bodies come with implants and joint replacements, along with personal items the family wants burned with the bodies. All these along with the body and the box will create odors and pollutants regardless of what the owner may have paid for to be written up in his proposal.

Please do the right thing and use common sense. lf all you can do is act according to reports created by private consultants then I do not understand what purpose you, the Commission, serve other than to give a stamp of approval to businesses to do whatever they want regardless of the effect on nearby residents.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Please decline this business owner his request for a conditional permit. Please deny his request so that we can live in peace in our neighborhood without fear of having the little cemetery next door to start emitting odor, smoke, and pollutants from burning hundreds of cremations each month.

As you may or may not be aware, cremations account for about 50% of all deaths currently and it is expected to increase to 75%-80% in the next 10 years. This business owner wants in on that revenue. He should happily do it in another location and not in a residential neishborhood but in a business or warehouse area where he could easily make money. He is only proposing it in the little shack at Lakeside Memorial Cemetery because he will have larger profits using a cheap existing structure. There are many options to place a crematorium elsewhere, not adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and still make good profits. Please deny the business owner the ability to cremate at this location.

Thank you for reading my beliefs.

Steve Wetzel
lYoung wo
Folsom, CA 95530

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, September 7,2021 1 1:08 AM
Josh Kihkade
FW: Another Crematorium Letter
FYI
KellyMullett
zklnr irr i.sl lo 1ile' ,{s.si.sln rt f
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
cri I $f
fr'fj}g,ffi{sbIfi
&t r,,tIltrt!q a !lF ft.5*l!FI'
www. f olsQl.ll. c:i-r.ls
From: Daron Bracht <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7,202L 11:52 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Another Crematoriu m Letter
ihi ss@
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 Crematorium
Date:Mon, 6 Sep 2021 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
From:Steve
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, daronbr@ acbell.net <da ronbr@ pacbell.net>
Hello DanielWest, Kevin Duewel, and Daron Bracht (Historic District Commissioners:); I am writing you to register my protest to the Lakeside Cemetery requesting to put in a crematorium in the city of folsom - specifically the Lakeside cemetery along the Preserve neighborhood and State Parks open space recreation area also adjacent to Forrest Street.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

I am writing you three as I believe Daniel and Kevin are on the Planning Commission and Daron on the Historic Preservation. Should I have sent it to all 7 on the Historic District Commission? | don't know how these things work but hope I can get this to the right people representing the city residents.

I don't believe or trust that a crematorium can be operated without putting polutants into the air and affecting residents and the recreation area'nearby. I don't care what the specifications are the Lakeside Cemetery provides you. The air emitted from burning a human being, clothing, chemicals injected into the dead body, and cardboard box will contain smoke, odor, and chemicals. From what I understand the USA does not require a crematorium to have filters that would remove all this. Additionally, if Lakeside says they would put them in voluntarily, I still don't trust the cemetery to do it because they are not "required" to put them in and therefore at the last minute can omit them.

Please join me in siding with the residents of Folsom and rejecting this request from the Lakeside Cemetery to put in a crematorium. And again, I would suggest you don't approve a crematorium any where in our city limits. A crematorium should be located in an area far from residents and is more suited for a warehouse area (like Rancho Cordova south of 50) than an area next to homes and recreation.

Thank you for reading my request
Steve Wetzel
Folsom Resident
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook Android
Scott Johnson
Monday, September 6,2021 7:58 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: No Crematorium
From: SUSAN LUBIENS
Sent: Monday, Septembe r 6, 2027 7 :54:26 PM
To: Scott Johnson <sjoh [email protected]>
Subject: No 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.

Stop the crematorium at Lakeside!
Susan Lubiens
Resident since 197L
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Terrv Sorensen
lroit.st Street
Folsom, CA 95630
February 7,2022
Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium Proposal (PN-19-182) Hearing Date: FebruarY 16, 2022
Dear Commissioners:

The same crematorium proposal herein under consideration was advanced by Lakeside nearly 19 years ago as pN02-2SB and scheduled for hearing before this Commission on January 15, 2003' However that hearilg was canceled and did not go forward when applicant Lakeside withdrew the proposal, apparently in light of a Staff Report prepared by the City recommending the denial of a Conditional tise permit (CUp) ro operate u itu-itorium on the property. A copy of that Staff Report (with voluminous attachments) is attached as Exhibit "A."
The findings advanced in the Staff Report as the basis for its recommendation of denial can be summarized as follows:
a. The use applied for is detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbJrhood andlhe general welfare of the City because the introduction of this use will impact the historical character of the existing cemetery and historical use of the area' b. The congiomeration of historic cemeteries, combined with the California State Dredger Tailings dating bick to the L850,s, create a rare combination of unique cuitural resources that will be impacted by this ProPosal.
c, The use of the proposed project is not consistent with Goal 2 of the City's Historic District Design and Developr.ni Culdetines in that it does not maintain the historic use of the site and, in addition, does not further Design and Development Guideline Policies 2'1,2.2, and 2.3 in that:
j.. The Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission has identified this site as locally significant and intends to present the Lakeside Cemetery to the Board of Supervisors for designation as a historic pioneer cemetery;

2. Appioval of a CUp for a contemporary use that will jeopardize the eligibility status of the site would work to discourage, rather than encourage, national register nomination; and

3. According to the sacramento county Historic cemetery commission, a crematorium is not a consistent use with a historic cemetery'
In summary, the CUp sought by the applicant in this instance is identical to the CUP sought back in early 2003, and the applicint tras pres.nted no facts to the contrary. The proposal for the issuance of a

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

CUp allowing the construction and operation of a crematorium in the historic area in question was a --
bad idea back in 2003 and remains a
-bad
idea today. The factual basis and logic behind the 2003 Staff Report remain valid, and the current request for approval of a CUP for the proposed crematory should be denied for the reasons expressed theiein. sucli a resolution of this matter would be simpie and straightforward and colsistent with the city's advertised goal of promoting historic preservation.

In closing, one is left to wonder why the City fails to mention anywhere in its papers submitted on this matter thi applicant's prior efforts nearlylg years ago to obtain a CUP for a crematorium on the Lakeside p.bpurty and the city's opposilionihereto. seemingly, full disclosure by the city of those facts should hau. bu*n forthcoming. The citizenry of Folsorn deserve no less' Very truiy yours,
Sorensen
TS/dg
attachment: 2003 Staff Report PN02-258
cc by email: kcolepoliey@gnnajl,s@r
j u sti n@ revo I utionsdrlcs' co nt
dan wesrnti t@Y ahoo'com
[email protected]
i ohnfelts@e55 tedt.com
m. dascall os@)Y alto o. conr
j lt incade@ f olsonuca. us
kmullett@ [olsom.cit'us

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

PROJECT TITLE:

PROPOSAL:

RECOMMENDATION:

APPLICANT AI\D OWITIER:

LOCATION:

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
a
Agenda Item No.l
PN02-258
HDC Mtg. l-15-03
Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit
to allow for the operation of crematorium
Denial
Lorin Claney
l20l Forrest Sffeet
070-0082-014, 070-01 30-002, 070-0130-004
a
L
W,#rdr/{/,v

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAT'F REPORT
ATTACHED REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Vicinity Map

2. Site Plan, dated 12/19/97

3. Project Description and Crematorium
Illustrations

4. Documentation from the Sacramento
County Historic Cemetery Commission
5, Lakeside Cemetery Research Paper
written by Sue Silver
6- Letters from the Public

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

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

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
The project site consists of three parcels totaling l0 acres within the Open SpaceiPublic Primary Area of the Historic Distict. It is located on the west side of Folsom Boulevard at l20l Forrest Street. The properfy is bounded by the Chung Wah Cemetery and the American River Recreation Area to the west, single-family residences to the north, Forrest Steet to the east, and mine tailings to the south. Across Forrest Street are single-family residences' o

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install and operate a crematorium at the existing Lakeside Cemetery atl20l Forrest Street. The applicant proposes to install the cremation equipment inside an existing maintenance building as indicated on the attached site plan. The maintenance building is made of comrgated metal and currently is used for the storage of grounds maintenance equipment. The applicant proposes to install a lO'foot by 30- foot "TuffShed" adjacent to the existing maintenance building to store the displaced maintenance equipment. No new utilities are proposed to be connected to the shed.

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CONFORMANCE
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is OS (Open Space). The zoning designation for the project site is OS/PB (Open SpaceiPublic Primary Area of the Historic District). The zoning district is consistent with the General Plan designation. Cemeteries are a permitted use within the OS/PB zoning upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The subject cemetery has been in operation since the 1800's and is a permitted use. Crematoriums are not specifically addressed in the Folsom Municipal Code. Such uses that are not specifically addressed within the Folsom Municipal Code require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
When approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Historic District Commission must make a frnding that a project's impact on health, safety and welfare will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of a proposed use. Some of the comments received suggest that the proposed project may impact health, safety, and welfare. Without additional environmental studies, staff cannot support or refute any of these assertions (EMS L7.60). As staff is recommending denial, based upon the appropriateness of the land use, these necessary additional environmental studies have not been prepared. Should it be the Historic District Commission's desire to proceed with this application, staffwill commence with the additional environmental studies.

Historical Significance
Information provided to staffillustates that Lakeside Cemetery is actually a conglomeration of several cemeteries that have merged over the years. This conglomeration includes the Citizen's, Jewish, Masonic, Negro Bar, Cook's/American Legion, and Odd Fellows cemeteries that date back to around 1850. Adjacent to this site is the Chung Wah Chinese Cemetery. These cemetery sites, along with the neighboring Califomia State Dredger Tailings Preserve, create a combination of rare cultural resources grouped into one small area. This combination, in itself, is an exhemely unique resource according to Commissioners with the Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission.
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Goal 2 of the Design and Development Guidelines defines the City's objective for the Preservation of Historic Sites as:
,To maintain, restore, and reconstruct sites which represent the history of the Folsom area.' The supporting policies indicate how the City can accomplish this goal. Policy 2.1 states that locallysignincant structures and sites should be identified and documented to facilitate their preservation or restoration. To date, Commissioners from Sacramento County Historic Cemetery -Commission
have identified this site as locally signifrcant, and the Commissioners intend to present Lakeside Cemetery to the Sacramento Board of Supervisors for designation as an historic cemetery.
policy 2.2 advocates that the City should encourage National Register nomination of historic buildings, as well as other historical designations by state or local agencies. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a contemporary land use (i.e., the crematorium) may jeopardize the eligibility status of the site and might work to discourage rather than to encourage National Register nomination.
policy 2.3 explains the priorities with which the City should evaluate proposed projects' The prefeience should be given to authentic restoration of historical buildings and sites. Based on the information provided to staffby the Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission, a crematorium is not a consistent, or authentic, use with a historic cemetery. Therefore, staff has determined that the proposed project is not consistent with Policies2.'/.,2.2,2.3, andGoal? of the Design and Development Guidelines.
o

PTIBLIC INPUT
The applicant held a community meeting to inform the public about this project on November 19, 2002. There was much public opposition to the project at that meeting. At the meeting, issues related to property values, air quality, traffic, and cultural resources were raised. During the public comment period, staffreceived comments from numerous individuals and organizations. (The written comments received are attached to this report.) The information received indicates that a crematorium is not a use that is consistent in historic cemeteries.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were originaliy published on August 29, 2002. Staffreceived feedback regarding the Initial Study. A nurnber of issues relating to the proposed gse were raised including land use and planning, noise, air quality, hazardous materials, and culttsal resources. As stated previously, staffhas determined that the proposal is not compatible with the existing historical character of the cemetery, and staffis recommending denial of the request. According to the Catifornia Environmental Quality Act, "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." Should the Historic District Commission conclude that thaproposal is compatible with the existing historic cemetery use, the Commission will need to direct staffto conduct further research on the issues raised on this project and retum to the Commission with the appropriate environmental document. 3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o

STAI'F RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a crematorium at an existing cemetery at l20l Forrest Sheet in the Historic Dishict, based on the following finings.

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION
MOVE TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CREMATORII.JM AT AI.{ EXISTING CEMETERY AT 1201 FORREST STREET IN TTIE HISTORIC DISTRICT'

FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
o
A. NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQI.IIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

B. THE USE APPLIED FOR IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR

GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND DETRIMENTAL OR INruRIOUS TO PROPERTY AND

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE

CITY BECAUSE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS USE WILL IMPACT THE

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING CEMETERY AND HISTORICAL USE OF THE AREA.

C. THE CONGLOMERATION OF HISTORIC CEMETERIES, COMBINED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE DREDGER TAILINGS DATING BACK TO THE 1850'5, CREATE

A RARE COMBINATION OF UNIQUE 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 GUIDELINES IN THAT IT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC USE OF THE SITE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT DOES NOT FURTHER DESIGN A}{D DEVELOPMENT GT.IIDELINE POLICIES 2.I,2.2, AND 2.3 IN THAT:

I. COMMISSIONERS FROM SACRAMENTO COUNTY HISTORIC CEMETERY COMMISSION HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS SITE AS LOCALLY SIGNIFICAI'{T, AI{D COMMISSIONERS INTEND TO PRESENT LAKESIDE CEMETERY TO TI{E

SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR DESIGNATION AS AN HISTORIC CEMETERY.

2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTEMPORARY USE TI{AT WILL JEOPARDIZETITE ELIGIBILITY STATUS OF THE SITE WOULD

WORK TO DISCOURAGE, RATHER THAN TO ENCOURAGE, NATIONAL
REGISTERNOMINATION.

3. BASED ON A LETTER FROM JAMES A. PURCELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE

SACRAMENTO COUNTY HISTORIC CEMETERY COMMISSION DATED
JANUARY 2,2003,A CREMATORIUM IS NOT A CONSISTENT USE WITH A HISTORIC CEMETERY.
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachment 1
Vicinity Map

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
'.:.I " i:

LfG^J. .DESCRIPTION
'.-r-;dhaddg
t-
\f, I
t
I
.:

T
.l
I
l; I I _J_ L
T
I
L
I
I
I
) IL II
tII J It_
SUPV€Y CERTIFIC^TIOfl
c Ewru.rq* ' ffitucffil5
w a-3-rr W
J l -t- -T
1l l'l atz
t,L J _-t / ii.-r;.i1
r
1a1 --.
ffffi
-E
=
slz
I
_j_ -rI

1.115
I
I
d::+ i-l I ILIt:I
I
I
,l ",r1.., J.
rf
t; Ji
rE
cIto
t.
'.F.':,,
FEJEROA SIR€ET 't
JI
5l I
-T
I
13 I
I
r
r) 1l
*l FI
I 'fdffi' \----\
I
I
I
I
T
la:l z ll
L -l'
, BrFrii.-iBil /.^xt.-BJ.
1 I
at t-
-r
1 II
1 I
.15
c-r{rN^ MlsEoi rdtf I4dlL HF*@l
effiEffi't
I
@ ffic€s.
iiuaerucl_ l:'L
.-E-trnf &
rd--f-r{-ace
'.-ddrdirE4.xr
EPSI'##Ff,JET,:eHEeffiFff::

F,ti:?F-Er.#3ffi t.rtrFEl
qc
ffiru
I
I
"!t
ss _J
a2
4t
at
o3
r0l 17
ro? 46 9t ?05 9e ll 10:l r02 l0t r04
- .-Y3--------'";- $[E: t- -.60' EI artd
l,b

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachment2
Site Plan, dated 12119197

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Lco€lld
-rrl hfetryura ClCa tx
-
FrrtldRord
::-:::= hprv.d Fad
: EtrreBrfie
- -.- - Fm.
amrrtu Fvtr)
fturo2 12lls.ls7
Existing Development
FFobH
I
a
t
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
5&!Eh
ono'r-td
(Ct5r tfaon)
MAINTENAI.ICEAREA

MAUSOLEU'
Far6 srtt
O
3n
ir
(Rocr crda Pl6)
: _1.i
.., : i.' o
. :"::.::
',; : Lak side Memorial Lawn
folsom, a
vqr{culo ffiLE
(*'C. Frrrt ndrlt0
o
o
O
O.r
()
U
Frricr
O
o
u1 c
Prlfr C.dar
+
++
FiE
I
(i
c
cyFrd
$
L.ql
(*tglc Frtft F.adcii.D

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachment 3
Project Description and Crematorium Illustrations

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Form Gl01- General Infonnation
l. EquipUnent I-ocation Drawing:

Attached
2, Description of Equipment:

Manufacturer: Industrial Equipment & Engineering Co. dba All Crematory Model: 2500 Elite (identical to IEE Power-Pak II)
Description: Multiple chamber, gas fired, l00lb/hr bum rate cremator

3. DescriPtion of ProcesS:

The All Model 2500 Elite is designed to coniplete a typical cremation case in 2 hours.

This time does not include the preheat of the sccondary chamber, which is typically 1/2 hour or the cool-down period before the removal of the remains (1/2 hour). The cremator has a nominal bum ratl of 100 lb/hr of remains and the associated containers, based on the entire cremation period. The cremator is a multiple chamber design and is fired with natural or LP gas as an auxiliary fuel. tt is designed to be manually loaded in batches.

Typically, the remains are loaded in the primary chamber and then the secondary "fii*U"i is preheated by the secondary burner for 30 minutes or until the required minimum temperature is reached. The primary burner is then ignited to begin the cremation cycle. A cool-down period of 30 minutes or more is recommended at the end of the cremition cycle before removing the cremated remains and loading the next batch of remains.

The secondary chamber has a volurne of 70 ft3. It has one secondary burner that is adjusted to a maximum high fire setting of 1.4 MM Btu/hr.

The secondary chamber temperature is monitored by a digital controller which adjusts the gas flow to the secondary burner to maintain the desired temperature. The cremator performs best and is most fuel efficient with a secondary chamber temperature of 1400 to 1600 s.

The primary'chamber volume has a volume of 69 ft3. It has one primary burner that is adjusted to i maximum of 0.6 MM Btu/hr. The chamber temperature ranges from 500 T at the beginning of the first cremation of the day to 1600 T or more during successive cremations.

The opacity alarm monitor system automatically takes action to eliminate visible ernissions. If the opacity of the flue gases exceeds nurnber I on the Ringelmann scale the controls will make surc the secondary air supply (throat air) is on and also turn off the primary burner to slow down the burning rate.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
The All Crcmatory Model 2500 Elite is identical to the IEE Power-Pak II. A Power-Pak II unit was installed at North sacramento Funeral Home in 1995.

4. Facility Description:

Funeral home.

5. Operating Schedule'.

Up to 10 hours per day; up to 7 days per week; 52 wee}s per year. Maximum usage "ipr"t"a
to be less than 2,000 hours per year (800 cremations).

6. Process Wcisht:

The nominal burn rate is 100 lb/hr.

7. Fugls and Burners Used:

Fuel is natural gas. Usage is 2000 scf/hr max.

8. Flow Diagrpgt
Attached.

9. EouipmentDrawings
A,B
c
Attached.

Blower motot is 5 hP.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

I PRocftt FLow n#bRAM

CREMATOR

EMISSIONS

TEMPERATURE

MONITOR

RECORDER OPTIOML

OR AS REQUIRED
BY I.AW

REMAINS
TYPE OEt4
WASTE

CREMATED

REMAINS

CREMATED

REMAINS

FAMILIES
STACK
DRAFT

INDUCER

BURIAL OR

CREMATION

SERVICE

SECONDARY CHAMBER PRIMARY

CHAMBER HEARTH AIR
THROAT
A1R

SECONDARY
BURNER
(nrrrneuRNER)

PRIMARY
BURNER
FUEL
l.+
mm Btu/hr
FUEL

0.b
mm Bturlhr

AIR BLOWER
[000

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
. 1A [lor6fr6]
ROLLER
LolDlr€
0001R
€
PAN
:EI:
a o
o
E
I€
€
3',-t
a,-f, g^x. Y('Ylt
Ilqul-s.s4ilpN
. t2 3/c -, l - trza"-l I nEvo/latr 0o0i Hooo srrcK SYSIEIi ausl('N DooR HO@ F
REI/O\'A8LE FOiS{SfA'ITX'N

PURPOSES
ON
LEF' SIO€ OR REYO'E
StrcK fllNc
OES6RVAIK}N
FORT
AI|CHOR Lt'G (4 rora)
}TAN q,R'{ER
orEsofl
cor{lRoL c-oNmq.

RECEMER
rA)(. tE^lcll{
lRAr{flfiER
12'-6-
la'-6
EEEIllAg's.EtAl!1!
PtAfl UEv{
Q zcr
I tsoa*t I / [5rm] FIP GAS CONN€CI|(N
E
Eooo
ltt
b
EI(,L=ct
2!
25O0 Elitc
1 udctNc LUc (.)
@lEIPERATUf,E
RECOROER(oFnol.raL)
^fTERSURNER
@
uflbtc LUG (. TOT^r)
coliNecllorE
t/AlN
Eox @
P.O EC,X 5472llt orutr.po, RORDAAIT CREMATON,Y
d-owER
6 ICCESS PAr,l€L
,ccEss PAIIEORAF' DIOOCER
I€
b
-tt€
I
io
g!€AR E-F/^IoN
Elcvatlons
2re

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

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

O ,' Sacramento CountYCemeteryAd'' )emeteryAdvisory &**ssion 48oo Broadway, Suite roo
Sacramento CA 9582o
Attn: Jane Talbot
DearMs Talbot::

The sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission is in receipt of your Notice of public Hearing trgJi"g plr oz-isg Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1201 Forrest StreetThe commission is charged with the duty to encourage the preservation and a"riputioo of historicaicemeteries. vfi are currently pre,paring a rist of those cemeteries in Sacramento County, which should be considered historic' It is my opinion th{ Lakeview cemeterywill be one of the cemeteries in sacramento county that will be on the list that is to be presented to the Board of supervisors for designation as an historic cemetery.

While no official action has yetbeen taken by either The Cemetery Advisory Commission or The goaxA oisupenrisors regarding Lakerriew Cemetery we askthat you consider the above mentioned conditional usi permit in the context of Lakeview's historic significance and endeavor to presenre its historic elements.

SincerelY,
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
James A. Purcell, Chairman
Cemetery Advisory Commission
S*t * $ +3&
*
t afneS rd
I#J$lri+
Vice Chair, Dr. Robert La Perriere

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

OO
sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission
48oo Broadqay, Suite roo
Sacramento CA g5gzo
January 2,2003
Ms. Jane Talbot
cltv of Folsom Planning, lnspections and permitting Department 50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Dear Ms Talbot:

The sacramento c9u1! Board of supervisors on June 12, zool approved ordinance No. scc-11g3, which established rhe sacramento codrity Cemetery Advisory Commission (The Commission).

The purpose of the advisory commission is:
1' To advise the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on citizen,s concerns and issues related to cemeteries; 2' To provide recommendations to preserve, protect, and maintain cemeteries; 3' To make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding mechanisms for funding the preservation, protection and maintenance of cemeteries and the appropriation of funds so raised; and

4. To encourage the preservation and designation of historical cemeteries.

With regard.to number 4, above, and in reference to your request for comments on the ptloposal for a crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery,ine Coinmission would like to submit the following:

Jhe^argg incorporating Lakeside cemetery,.the chlrry wah Historic cemetery, and the California State Dredging Tailings Pari is possibly-the only site in tne State of California that combines these important aspects of our heritage in one smaff area. Lakeside cemetery, in fact, may be a grouping of lgth dentury cemeterier, which would most likely fit the criteria Lurrentty being-developed to Oline a historic cemetery- lt is the opinion of The Commission that the addiiion of a crematorium on that site would have a negative impact on the historical significanc" of n" "r"a. lt is believed that a crematorium could be placed in an industrlalarea within fotsom to avoid the impact on the history of our countywide community Chair, James A. purcell Vice Chair, Dr. Robert t a perriere

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Ms. Jane Talbot
.Ja4uary 2,2403 ' Page 2
o o
Area residents have notified our Commission that they oppose the placement of the crematorium on the site.

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

Ptease contact us if we can provide any other lnformation or support.

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

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Dr. Bob la.Peniere
POB 255345
Socro*ento CA 95865-5A45
o
Fax (916) 48L-8229
a
Pho'" (916) 48L-45;25
E-ail, Jrb"b@ioru"qh."o*
l[annigg, Inspections and Permitting Department
City of Folsom
Jane Talbot
50 Natoma Street
Folsorn CA 95630
Dear Jane:
ln reference to y9u1 request for comments on the proposal for a grgmalorium at- Lakeside- ,cemereJy, I am hupby '[o-3uurnit the ,following. as ^an indivi4ual: ,I' hav6" b""n inv"o[rieo ]r";;;;t.;y p.reservationforalmost2-0years., '"": ';: - ! haye grgat concern about the plans for a crematorium at Lakeside for the following reasons.
l.Trf.qea incorporaring Lakeside cemetery, the_ Historic Chung Wah Chinese Cem-etery, and the California S-tate Dredger Tailingi Preserve is probably the only site in our State that'comliner theJe aspects 9f gur. heritage in one small area. To add a crematorium, ryith sugh limited:acreage, it would not only be very close to ali three of these sites,.bu.t would have an extre-mely nelative impaa on the settin& co.nlinui-ty, aesthetiqs, and historilai-ffiinranie of this area. . The idea that State Parks may someda/ develop an instructional trail by or througtr ina taiiirdr pt.irruJ ii a distincr reality. .

Thq view of actiiities at tfi -pr;;;",Ii" ;16;;;; crematorium location would be clearly evide?rt to viiitois bn the ttuil, .A "{"patorium could be placed in m;/ ottt"t';*b, ilh ;; an industrial area,' without the imp;act it would have on Uottr 'tt "ie

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
'historic sites and the residential neighborhood adjoining. concerns
Lakeside Cemetery: af
-
I- am sure you are aware, is really a
groupilg of pqryqqly 19th century cLmeteries (cilizeJs, le#ish, Masonic and Odd Fellows, dates as early as 1850), all of which i consider historic. It would be extremely unfortunite rt additional negative factors, such as the installation- of a crematorium, f.titii"i impacted these historic cemeteries...the final resting place of so manY of our pioneers and early settlers who were r6sponsible for creating the great region that we all live in and enjoy toilay.

Please contact me if I can provide any other information or support.

Dr Bo LaPerriere
o
2) Thgre are also non historic concerns. Because of the many recent reports of problems at crematories, more and more familids 3re requPsting to view the cremation process. The planned location, in a ^rather crude metal building, is certainly noil a respectful oi comforting setting for this.
3) I also have concern regarding,the operation of a crematorium in a gemetery tha!
-
has apparently been plagued by multiple and
unfo,rtulate probl.ems. over many -de-cadles.- A local newspaper article about five decadel agg stated there was no -further spaie^for burials in Folsom, yet buri'als have continued in Lakesid|. Ther" are many stories--of copi-ngs, -an-d rgsqiuiy monuments, -'tra;tt;;
been moved or destroyed: a lack oT adeqirate plat maps in som6 areas, and even questions regarding th" o*n"trttif :of certain areas of Lakeside. The fact that SCI tuined the cemetbry back to its current owners might suggest that they encount.ir"O *"tt Si a>
cc: Historic District Commission

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachment 5
Lakeside Cemetery Research PaPer
Written by Sue Silver

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o

LAKESIDB CEMETERY
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Also known as the
Negro BarMining Camp Cemetery,
Old Masonic Cemetery, New Masonic Cemetery
Odd Fellows Cemetery Cook's / American Legion Cemetery, Citizens', Folsom City, and Folsom Cemetery
and
Folsom Jewish Cemetery
Researchod, Compiled and Wrisen
by
Sue Silver
(First Draft published: June27, 1999)
Updated: December 8, 2002

WRITERIS PREFACE
This was not an easy study for me nor was there any joy in locating the information about those who were buried in the cemetery and can never be found again. I have lived through nighnnares of the worst kind and have spent hours contemplating how I might [relp make what has happened to this cemetery understandable.

I have leamed to live with the knowledge that I cannot correct the years of abuse this cemetery has suffered. I knew I could not live without telling its nue story.

The research performed for this study was begun in late 1994 and was continued until December of 1997, and, is not yet considered completed. [n researching, I found that many years of death notices and obituaries will need to be located utilizing the Sacramento papers as many editions are not available from the local Folsom Telegraph during those early years. For the most part, I have supplemented the very earliest years, those which encompass information written at the time of the Negro Bar mining camp (1850 - 1856) through those first pivotal years of the birth of the Town of Folsom (1856 - 1868). It was mainly these years which so very much information was lacking.

The compiled listing which accompanies this study report, shows there are over 262 documented burials within this cemetery which cannot be located today. There are 18 burials of unknown persons which are located in unmarked and unknown grave sites. There are approximate$ 290 other probable unmarked and unknown graves located somewhere in the cemetery in areas which today appear to be virgin, vacant gound. Where any of these missing, unmarked and unknown graves are is anybody's guess. Lakeside Cemetery has no historic records of burials, per their ownadmission.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

O o
The study report and the compiled listing parnt a portait of an historic cemetery which has been raped, mutilated and desecrated by the very authority licensed by the State of California to operate and protect it. Part of the responsibility for what has occurred at Lakeside Cemetery also rests on the shoulders of the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, and the Folsom City Council.

Each of these two civil authorities have, at different times, been the legal authority for the Citizen's Cemetery, in all its progressive configurations.

The private, licensed operators of l,akeside Cemetery do not have any legal title to the old Citizen's Cemetery nor do they likely have a legal title to what is known as the Cook's/American Irgion Cemetery. Lee Miller knew this and when he sold Lakeside Cemetery to Robert Claney in 1963, he sold only the New Masonic Cemetery and the Jewish Cemetery, believing he had legal title to that religious ground. The subsequent acquisitions of portions of the original Nego Bar (aka: Citizen's) Cemetery, the Cook's/American Legion Cemetery, and the 1904 addition (tots I through 3 of Block 44) to the Citizen's Cemetery, were not legal hansactions.

Further, under the ownership of Robert Claney, much of the cemetery ornamentation which has disappeared was wilfully and maliciously removed by he and his staff. Whatever the motivation or intent of doing so, it apparently was not enough that, under his ownership, Claney had all the lone, historic tombstones laid flat in the ground to crumble away over time, but he obviously was desperate for additional burial space, so that in removing family plot coping he was able to gain access to what he thought were "unused" grave plots.

The fact that the Department of Consumer Affairs, which investigated charges against the cemetery operators in 1996-97, was unable to obtain suffrcient hard evidence (according to our weak and ineffectual cemetery laws) to make felony arests, does not preclude that felonies were committed at this cemetery. Not just once, but time and time again. And no one - not one resident of the city of Folsom, not one city offrcial, not one law enforcement official - made any effort to stop the desecration which he wrought upon this historic burial ground.

What once may have been one of the most unique, historic, gold rush-er4 pioneer cemeteries to be found in the lower foothills of the Mother Lode, is now just a lawn full of destroyed and decaying historic tombstones and monuments to the early residents of Negro Bar and the Town of Folsom and vicinity. The evidence of this is contained in the compiled listing with it's source references, and with the photographic evidence, taken over various years, which show a long-ago cemetery that bears no resemblance to the "nice, mernorial lawn" disastrously created by Robert Claney and Lakeside Cemetery.

If the State of Califomia will not act to help this pioneer-era burying ground, who may the people trust in another hundred years with the remains of their loved ones or themselves? I think about that a great deal. Perhaps so should you.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o

INTRODUCTION
The City of Folsom, in Sacramento County, was incorporated in 1947. Prior to tha! this historic Califomia town was frst the site of the Negro Bar mining camp from as early as 1849, later becoming the Town of Folsom, as surveyed and platted for Capt. Joseph L. Folsom by Theodore T.

Judah in 1855.

In February 1856, the town of Folsom became the terminus of the Sacramento Valley Railroad, the first railroad in the west. Negro Bar, for the most part still in place until the purchase of the town lots and blocks, was located between the American River and what is now Block 12 of the official plat of the town.l
At all early mining communities, the one sure thing that faced the men who flocked to the gold fields of Califomia, was that death was a part of life. Gold rush-era cemeteries dot the roadways and byways of California's Mother Lode. Some are well known, but some have become lost to the past. The mining camp atNegro Bar, with its sunounding camps of Texas Hill, AlderCreek, Rebel Hill, Ashlan4 Mississippi Bar and others, would be no excepion in the need to find a place to bury the dead.

Studies conducted by the El Dorado County Pioneer Cemeteries Commission, at pioneer-era cemeteries throughout the Mother Lode, reveal thag wherever possible, the miner's cemeteries were established on small hills or knolls. Out of the reach of the miners'pans and sluice boxes along the river banks, these early citizens of the state felt certain they were laying their dead to rest in peace.

Some communities zucceeded to that end. Some did not. In 1855 the cemetery at Mormon Island, east of Folsom, was in danger of being sluiced away bythree mining companies. It was written that some bodies had already been washed away. In March of 1856, the editor of The Granite Joumal, the first newspaper in Folsom, advised friends and loved ones that they had best see to the removal of their deceased before they were mined away.

In other instances, special Acts of the California State Legislature were passed to approve the relocation of cemeteries. This is known to have occurred at the Bidwell's Bar Cemetery, the Cold Springs Cemetery in El Dorado County, and to a Catholic cemetery in Stockton.

California does, indeed, have an appalling history of its treatment of the resting places of the dead.

In that no records of burials were kept at most, those cemeteries still in use today, which date to the state's earliest times, are known to contain the unmarked remains of the state's pioneers, the graves of which are being impacted by current burials.

At the original Negro Bar Cemetery, now considered a part of Lakeside Cemetery, there is but one tombstone dated 1850. Yet the camp was said to have been populated by up to 700 miners between 1849 and 1851. In the Fall of 1850, Sacramento City experienced a terrible Cholera epidemic I A copy of the townsite map may be found at the Folsom History Museum, the Sacramento County Recorder's Officg and the Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center (SAMCC). o
Iakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramonto County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
which began in October and did not abate until sometime in Decembef. Over 800 deaths occurred in the city alone, and thousands fled to outlying areas. The tombstone dating to the Negro Bar Cemetery is that of one Cholera victim whom the 1850 U.S. Census enumerated as a miner at Negro Bar in September of that year. He was Henry Probasco and he died on October 29, 1850.

His tombstone identifies his enemy - 'Died of Cholera"
How many human remains of other early pioneers of this vicinity who died and were buried in this cemetery, may never be known for certain. Reviewing studies of other cemeteries of similar size and era', reveals that there are many more marked graves of tlre earliest era within those cemeteries than there are remaining at Lakeside Cemetery today. Empirical evidence of this tlpe is an indicator that there must be a large number of unmarked and unknown gftrves within Lakeside Cemetery which may now be being impacted by current burials. Based upon this correlation between towns of similar size and population, the lack of historic tombstones at Lakeside is, at best, unnerving,

BACKGROTJND
While researching the history of Folsom, it became necessary to visit the cemeteries located in the city. Historic cemeteries are generally filled with old marble and granite tombstones inscribed with various dates and sayings, and they stand prominently within the grounds. At Lakeside Cemetery the majority of the remaining historic tombstones were found to have been laid flat in the ground where they are disintegrating and being deshoyed not only from natural elements, but from the abuse of being driven over by lawn mowers and tactors.

Additionally, in 1994, historic tombstones, and remnants of historic tombstones and granite bases, were found hidden in Oleander bushes by the cemetery's storage sheds. This discovery eventually led to the study of the cemetery from which this document resulted.

During the summer of 1995, there appeared to be an increased number of burials occurring at the cemetery. A check of Disposition Permits filed with the County Office of Vital Statisticsa, proved t NAEMORIES. MgN nNn N,IgOtCnlg, A History of Medicine in sacramento, califomia with Biographies of the Founders of the Sacramento Society for Medical Improvement and a few Contemporaries; J. Roy Jones, M.D.; The Sacramento Society for Medical Improvement, 1950; premier Publications, Ltd., Sacramento, Californ ia
3 For exampte, a study of the 3. I 9 acre El Dorado Cemetery, in the town of El Dorado in El Dorado County, indicates the probability of over 500 unmarked graves, yet still it bears many more early markers than Lakeside.
a A permit must be obtained for the interment and "disposition" of all human remains in the State of California. These permits, required by State law, are only required to be kept on file in the county's offices for a period of l2 months. Thereafter, they may be disposed. Sacramento dounty throws these documents away, and so it is impossible, without the name and date of death of the deceased, to verifr interments in any cemetery.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Researched, Compiled and Wriften by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber G, Z0A2
Page4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
that Lakeside Cemetery, through Miller Funeral Home, had not obtained as many disposition permits as the number of graves they had opened and closed in the ground that summer.

This discovery lead to the theory that they were perhaps "prospecting" to find vacant ground. And that theory lead to the realization that if they werc seeking open ground and found historic remains, would they dare to remove those remains to cleanse the grave hole for future use? As ugly as this seems, it has happened all over California cemeteries and elsewhere.

A citizen complaint was filed with the State Cemetery Board in August of 1995. That Board, which disbanded in disgrace some thirty days after inspecting the cemetery in September, ruled that no improprieties had occurred at l-akeside. Sixty days after the Cemetery Board's duties were relinquished to the Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs @CA), the Board's director was under investigation of alleged misuse of trust funds from the Adington rBellview Cemetery in Sacramento County.
o
In Iate January of 1996, after the news of the investigation of the Board's director, a request was made to the director of the Department of Consumer Affairs that the departnent re-open the complaint and re-investigate the allegations made therein. In March l996,ameeting was held with the new investigator for DCA which reviewed the facts and allegations ofthe complaint.

In late October and early November of 1996, the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), in cooperation with the Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), excavated and remorred approximately thirty family plot coping pieces from State park land adjacent to the cemetery'. It is believed they were removed by the cemetery operator between 1993 and 1995.

Only one name was inscribed on any of ttre pieces of ornamentation found - KMGHT6. None of the other ornamentation or tombstone bases found were inscribed to enable us to identify from which dismantled family plot it had been removed.

During the course of the excavation many citizens came forward to say they had had suspicions about what was going on at the cemetery. No one wanted to be identified and no one gave much Early El Dorado County "Burial Permits" were retrieved and saved from l9l0 through 1995 (1994 is the only exception) and these documents have been a tremendous help in the study of that countS/'s pioneer cemeteries and burials. In Sacramento County, one would have to review all the death certificate microfilm rolls at the County Recorders Office in order to obtain much of the information obtained from the burial permits in El Dorado.
5 Co1o1 copies of photographs taken at the time of the excavation accompany this report. Video tape of some of the excavation is also available at the Folsom History Museum upon special request. u This piece_of cut granite is believed to have been removed from the family plot of Henry T. Knigh! an early tmstee of the Natoma Water & Mining Company, and later the superintendent of the Folsom Water Power Cornpany. His grave is located within the "Cook's/American Legion Cemetery" near the graves of many of the people with whom he was inter-related. The grave of his brother, Nathaniel Knighg is believea to be located near Henry's and is without marker today, unless his name may be found on the underside of Henry's marker which has now been laid flat in the ground. lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Pagc 5
Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
detail by way of particulars. Excep! that is, the former caretaker of the cemetery, who spoke with one of the investigators while in his car in the parking lot. It is not known if the investigator included in his reports what he was told by the former caretaker that day, but it is known that DCA never followed up in discussions with him throughout the remainder of the investigation. What he had to say was pivotal to the investigation and would have enabled DCA to file criminal charges against the operators.

To the date of this report, no charges have been filed by either DCA for this illegal removal of these items from the cemetery, or by DPR for the dumping of them onto state lands. The owner/operator of the cemetery sold the cemetery and his mortuary to a large corporation within 8 months of this investigative excavation. The cemetery continues to be used with present interments occuning within the most historic sectors of the graveyard - those representing the burial grounds dating to 1850, 1860 and 1870. In all likelihood, historic graves are either being buried over or, very likely, those hurnan remains were removed by the former operator.

This document is being published so that sometime, somewhere in the future, there will be a record of what has occuned at this cemetery. Those in search of their family histories, those who plan to inter their deceased loved ones at this cemetery in the future, nee4 to know that this cemetery, as of this date, is estimated to contain 575 unmarked and unknown grave sites. [n more specific terms, this number of graves represents 12,075 squuue feet of ground if buried side-by-side and end-to-end.

It totals roughly l/4 of an acre of land or more if they were all buried in the same location.

What appears as "open space" within the lawn section of this cemetery, does not mean that there are no graves in the ground. Photographs taken in 1889, 1908 and in the 1940's and 1960's bear this out7, showing wooden headboards and other markers in areas now visible as vacant areas. Fires, which are documented to have swept through the cemetery, also took their toll on the wooden markers. The family plots containing the graves of members of numerous families which have been documented to be buried here, can no longer be found. Some of the markers which have been Iaid flat in the ground are believed to contain additional names of deceased on the unexposed sides of the monuments,

HISTORY OF CEMETERY SECTIONS
Lakeside Cemetery, is a combination of five historic burial grounds (Masonic, Odd Fellows, Jewish, Nego Bar [aka: Citizens'] and Cook's, and New Masonic), and has been actively used from as early as 1849 with the emergence of the mining camp called Negro Bar. t Early photographs may be found at the Folsom History Museum and at the Sacramento Archive and Museum Collection Center (SAMCC) in the Hepting Collection (photos by Thomas Betz and Len Kidder, 1940's).
o
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2M2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Nesro BarCemetery
Of the various and separate sections, the Negro Bar Cemetery8 was the first location to be used. It was comprised of lnts 4 through 8 of Block 44 (Figure _1.). These lots were sold at the auction of the town lots and blocks in Sacramento City in 1856e. According to church records and the newspaper obituaries, these lots would later be refened to as the Folsom cemetery, the City cemetery, and the citizen's cemetery, from as early as 186l until at least lgilztl.

According to Califomia law, the "Citizen's Cemetery" was a public cemetery. That is to say, that in 1872, under Political Code section 3105, title to this cemetery vested to the County of Sacramento by benefit of the provisions ofthe statute, which stated title to a cemetery, then in continuous use by the community for a period of five years, vested to the community. lf not located within an incorporated city, authority for the cemetery would fall to the county in which the cemetery was situatedll.

Section 3105 further provided that once used as a public cemetery those lands could never be used for any other purpose whatsoever. Therefore, Lakeside Cemetery's claim of ownership of these lots is invalid, since title vested to Sacramento County in 1872, and they 'could never be used as anything but a public cemetery. Lakeside Cemetery is a licensed, private cemetery, operating an historic public cemetery outside the provisions of State law.

Lots I through 3 of Block 44 were owned by Joseph McDonald and his wife, Mary, during the 1860's- McDonald was killed in a railroad accident in Decemberof 1867. According to ttir ptJU"tt records, his properly adjacent to the public cemetery, was never sold fiom the estte. This was probably because the "Citizen's Cemetery' had already encroached onto the lots owned by McDonal4 and they were, therefor€, not an athactive purchase for any buyer.

Graves within tnts I through 3, formerly belonging to McDonald, are known to have occurred as early as the 1920's. According to the County Tax Assessor's records, these lots were transferred to t The Negro Bar Cemetery was originally located on Lots 4 through 8 of Block 44. It was later referred to as the Citizen's Cemetery contained within only those lots. It appears that sometime after l gg0, what is now called "Cook's" or "American [.egion" Cemetery (Lots l4 through l6 of Block 44), was also referred to as the Citizen's Cemetery. Sometime after the turn of the century, and well into the 1940's, Lots I through 3 of Block 44, also became a known as a part of the Citizen,s Cemetery. e No evidence has been found that the original purchaser ever transferred his titte to the lots at anytime thereafter.
'0. The TrinityChurch records list a burial in the "Fotsom Cemetery', in 1861. This would have been prelious to the purchase of the Jewish cemetery lots in late 1861, and ayear earlier than the purchase of the Odd Fellows and Masonic cemeteries in 1862. The Fotsom Telegraph first advises of a burial in the "Cjtizen's cemetery" in 1887, and it continued to use that name as late as 1942. previous to I gg7, the paper referred to it only as "the grave yard."
It This per Political Code section 3109 of the Catifornia statutes enacted in 1g72.

Lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver o
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
PageT
Updated: Dsemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
the State of Califomia in 1935, presumably for back property taxes. lakeside Cemetery zupposedly purchased these (already) used burial parccls from the Sacramentq County Ta:< Collectot in 1976.

Yet, according to the former caretaker of l,akeside Cemetery in a 1992 audiotaped tour given to members of the Folsom Historical Society, Lee Miller supposedly "opened" this area up for interments in the mid-1960's.

The sale of these lots by the County Tax Collector was not lawful in that the grounds had been used by ttre public as a public cemetery from at least the 1920's. Again, according to State law, once it had been used as a cemetery by the public, it became a public cemetery never to be used for any other purpose whatever. How this property came to be sold for taxes when cemeteries have been exempted from property taxation since 1859, is not known. What is knowru upon review of the state's laws, is that these lots are public property which are being unlaufirlly operated as private cemetery grounds.

Cook'VAmerican Legion Cemetery
Cook's Cemetery Gots 14-16, Block aa) @igure 2.) has been historically known by several references. It is believed it was first called Murray's Cemetery for William Murray who died in 1870. It was later called Meredith's Cemetery for James S. Meredith whose daughter l-aura Belle was supposed to have been intened in the Masonic Cemetery and whose grave somehow was placed in Murray's Cemetery. l,ater it was referred to as the Blower Cemetery for David Blower, the husband of Maggie Cook Blower and brother-inJaw of Frank Cook, for whom it was later called Cook's Cemetery. Shortly after World War I, Frank Cook (purportedly) deeded the cemetery over to the kwis J. Blodgett American Legion Post, and it became known as the American legion Cemetery.12
Similar to the Citizen's Cemetery, this too is a public cemetery under the law. When William Munay died in 1870 and was buried in his "own cemetery," the ground began to be actively used by the community. No nansfer of Munay's title has been located to date, though the county tax assessor does list James S. Meredith as owning an undivided 12 inlerest in the lots in 1873, one year after the enactnent of the law which vested title to the public. It is likely the assessor listed Meredith since Meredith's daughter's grave is located within Lot 14. And, despite the Cook's claim of title to this cdmetery, no deed has been located to prove the Cook family ever held legal title to the lots.

SPECIAL NOTE: Regarding Cook's, Citizen's, "Citt" and "Folsom" Cemetery References t2 FN dated 212211999: The following newspaper article was located after the original writing of this report:
"Lewis J. Blodget Post wishes to announce the transfer of Cook's Cemetery to the Post. The cemetery will now be known as Lewis J.

Blodget Memorial Cemetery and any person owning plots wishing to make changes, please consult Anthony Castro, service officer of the Post." (Folsom Telegraph, 5 1261 1939, l -3.)
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
This research has revealed that Lots 14 to 16 of Block 44, commonly referred to as Cook'VAmerican kgion Cemetery, was also referred to as the Citizen's Cemetery, City Cemetery and Folsom Cemetery based upon the finding of tombstones of deceased of w?rom these various cemeteries were noted in obituary references.

This will create a great deal of confi.rsion in determining the location of unmarked graves for they could all be anywhere within Lots I to 8 and 14 to 16 of Block 44. Because of ttrese references, it is suspected that the residents of the area used Lots 14 to 16 of Block 44 * will, just as they did the Citizen's Cemetery. There was never any advertisement for plot sales found in the newspapers which would indicate that Munay, Mereditlr" Blower, or Cook ever really administered this cemetery. It is suspected that the community viewed it, and used it, as a public cemetery, just as they did with Citizen's Cemetery.

Citizen's Cemetery has been found to be referenced altemately over time as Citizen's, City or Folsom Cemetery. Because this was the public cemetery, during various points in time, the residents referred to it by the name used within that specific period of time.

The use ofthe term "City Cemetery" is especially confusing because the Sacramento City Cemetery is so heavily identified within the county. Almost always, in researching cemeteries located within townsites, this term arises periodically. This has been found in places such as Diamond Springs and Placerville in El Dorado County. The people who lived in the towns (versus an incorporated city) still referred to their locales as a "city" and their cemeteries were, nafurally, "City" cemeteries.

Jewish Cemeterv
The Jewish Cemetery, originally lots 13 through 16 of Block a3 @igure 3.), was purchased by Jewish merchant Joseph Fiel, in late 1861. Title to the property was later held in the name of E.R. kvy, and finally rested in the hands of Simon Cohn. The title to these lots was never hansferred from Cohn's estate, and his estate documents officially established it as the "Folsom Jewish Cemetery" and not as the "Cohn Family Jewish Cemetery" as it would have to have been called if the grounds belonged to the family personally.

Title to the Jewish Cemetery was held in these individual's names probably because the Hebrew Benevolent Society, established at Folsom in 1857, had formally disbanded by the time the property was purchased. Fiel was a cousin through marriage of E.R. Levy, and it would have been understandable for Levy to take title in trust for the Jewish residents of Folsom after Fiel's death.

Cohn was one of the most prominent Jewish men in Folsom, and it would also be understandable for hirn to assume title in tnrst after [rr.y.t'
13 A chain of title to locate the transfer of this property has not been performed. This information has been taken from the County Tax Assessor's map book information, It is not yet known if the deed formally passed from Fiel to Lely, or from Levy to Cohn.
o
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researohed, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
In spite of the fact that title to the Folsom Jewish Cemetery never legally passed from Simon Cohn's estate to any individual or goup of individuals, the descendants of Cohn quit claimed Lots 13 and 14 to Lakeside Cemetery in the 1960's, when Lakeside was then under the ownership of tre Millerra. That (illegal) quit claim deed, however, conditioned the transaction to the maintenance of a fence and road to segregate the Jewish cemetery ground from the cemeteries of the gentiles. The fence and roadway have both been removed since the execution of that deed.

Odd Fellows and Masonic Cemeteries
The Granite Lodge No. 62 of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) and the Natoma Lodge No. 64 of the Free and Accepted Masons (Masons), co-jointly purchased lots 9 through l3 of Block 44 in 1862. The properly was divided so ttrat the Odd Fellows would use lots 9 through I I for their cemetery and the Masons would use lots 12 and 13 for their organization's cemetery. The IOOF and the Masons each sold their cemeteries to Lakeside Cemetery in 1969 and 1970, respectively.

Interestingly, since [.ots 4 through 8 of Block 44h^d been identified to be a "Public Cemetery" by the County Tax Assessor as early as 1873, by lgll or 1912, the assessor's records reflected that these lots belonged to the Odd Fellows. When or how the Odd Fellows may have laid claim to the public cemetery is not known. Nevertheless, when they sold their burial grounds to takeside Cemetery in 1969, these four previously identified public cemetery lots were included in the deed.rs o
IIISTORY OF FT]I\TERAL HOME OPERATORS
In order to understand who was handling the burials within the cemetery throughout time, a review of the undertakers of Folsom is necessary. In the first few years of the Negro Bar mining camp, of course, we can assume that the miners took care of the burial of their associates and friends.

Generally speaking, this would entail wrapping the body in a blanket and depositing it into the ground. Lumber was scarce, there were few sawmills in operation in the beginning, and the cost of wood for a coffin was prohibitive. They would have much rather spent money on lumber for building sluice boxes and long toms to aid in their mining operations. Later, of course, as the cost of wood and lumber came down, the dead were buried in common pine boxes. The more affluent t4 Lakeside at that time was comprised of onty the New Masonic Cemetery located on what was supposed to be Los 15 and 16 of Block 43, but which, in reality, was located within the 66 feet of Sacramento Street with only 44 feet of Block 16 being taken for actual use. It would appear that t6e residents, the Masons, and the Cohn Family (P.C. and Alice Cohn and Rosa (nee Cohn) and Nathan Kohn), forgot that the cemetery parcels were laid out on the original lots and blocks, containing streets and alleys separating them, at the time the Masons obtained the ground for the New Masonic Cemetery from the Cohn heirs.
15 Since title to Lots 4 through 8 of Block 44 vested to Sacramento County with the enactment of Political Code section 3105 of the California statutes, the transfer of this public cemetery to private ownership was unlawful. The Odd Fellows, having no true title to them, could not have legallylold tirem to Lakeside Cemetery.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page l0

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a
the deceased was the more likelihood his coffin would have metal handles. The less influential person's coffin probably had rope handles.

As communities developed over time, it is seen by advertisements in the newspapers that undertaking was only a side business to one that brought a regular clientele. In Folsom, William Murray appeffs to be the first merchant to supply coffins and undertaking services. His furniture house advertisement found in the Folsom Telegraph of October 2,1862, was dated August 1861.

The advertisement, however, touted his furniture business, and said nothing of the furnishing of coffins or undertaking services.

In May of 1869, Munay sold his business to Jacob Miller of Sacramento. Miller's first advertisement included, '(P.S. Undertaker and hearse furnished at reasonable rates.)" Miller's 'Fumiture House" was first located in the building on Sutter Street which was built by Murray and which still stands on the south side of Sutter Street between Riley and Wool streets bearing ttre name "MLJRRAY" on its edifice.

Thereafter, Jacob Miller attended the needs of the dead, providing both coffins and caskets and funeral services as well. He often served as the coroner for the eastem boundary of the county and was responsible for the burial of the unknown or indigent deceased in the vicinity. By the turn of the century, Miller's son Oscar, had gone to undertaking school (a trade his father is not known to have formally studied) and was active in the family business. Jacob died in 1905, Ieaving the business to his son, Oscar.

Oscar Miller continued the business until sometime in the early 1940's, at which time his son, Leland (ke), also trained in the field of undertaking and embalming, had already joined the family enterprise. By this time, the only business being conducted by the Miller family was the funeral home. Oscar died in 1946, leaving the business to his son lre and his wife, Elizabeth. Elizabeth died in 1954, leaving the business to Lee.

Approximately two years later, Lee saw the fufure in owning his own cernetery. Folsom Dam and Lake had recently been completed and the future of Folsom probably seemed brighter than it had in years. A recreational lake near the City of Folsom would draw new "settlers" to the area. Aerojet General was in operation and brought many new residents to the town. The cemeteries of the town were less than well kept, and Lee could see that it would need to be regularly attended and maintained.

This is when he obtained the New Masonic [.awn from the Natoma Lndge No. 64, which was struggling under financial constraints to maintain both its new and old cemetery sections. The tansfer of ownership was made and Lee Miller formed Lakeside Memorial Lawn. Shortly thereafter, through his long association with Folsom Prison and his contract to undertake the deceased convicts, ke persuaded a close associate and relative of the Cohn family to relinquish the Jewish Cemetery so that he could "better maintain it."
After much discussion, the family relented and quit claimed what they may have thought was their interest in the two lots comprising the Folsom Jewish Cemetery to tre Miller. tvtiller, in turn, o
l.akeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 5, 2002
Page I I

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
incorporated the two lots into lakeside Memorial Lawn, removed plot coping and omamentation, and began to inter gentiles in the previously sacred, Jewish burial ground.

Miller sold Lakeside and the funeral home to Robert Claney, a long-time employee, in 1963.

Thereafter, Claney proceeded to "upgrade" the cemetery to brinl it morJinto *nfor*u,,"e with the concept of the modem, "memorial lawn burial park." He bought the historic Odd Fellows Cemetery (unlaurfirlly including Lots 4 tluough 8 of the public,Citizen's Cemetery), and followed this purchase with obtaining the old, historic Masonic Cemetery.

As part of Claney's program to enhance the cemetery grounds, he began to lay the historic tombstone and monuments in the ground supposedly for ease of maintenance. [,ater, fti5 nppears not to have been enough to modernize the grgunds, and he appears to have removed tons of granite, placerite and formed concrete coping pieces from inalienable family plots. In doing so, he was able to remove the original boundary lines of family burying space and was then able to utitize whatever "open" space seemed available. According to the former caretaker of 22 yearc employmenq he ;:ffi,:lh:ffi:llJ,:*J'"f$,,il1','oo unsightrv prot outrining' *i copingiT' as weri as Robert Claney hansfened ownership of the funeral home and cemetery to his son, Loren, and his daughter in early to mid-1995. It was under the ownership of his offspring that the Department of Consumer Affairs investigation began, and which continued until both the cemetery and funeral home were sold in mid-1997 to SCI, Inc., a conglomerate corporation specializing in the funeral and cemetery industries.

For the first time since 1869, Miller Funeral Home is no longer run as a family enterprise. Since taking ownership of Lakeside Cemetery, SCI has increased the number of intlrments within the 'o Th" Masons built a new hall for their organization around 1870. [t soon, thereafter, was a victim of fire and was burned to the ground. All of tlre association's reconds and documents were los! including the record of deaths and burials at their cemetery, The first documented burial in the Masonic Cemetery-was that of Capt. A;M. Hammond who was murdered at Smith's Flat, El Dorado County, and was broulht to Folsom and buried by the Natoma Lodge of Masons.[Mountain Democra! April li, 1861, pg.:, il. t; Sacramento Daily Union, April 12, 1861, pg.3, col.2]. Therefore, the Masons had used thelr cemetery even before the formal purchase in 1862. By 1871, with the loss of the records by fire, any numberof interments could have been made in the cemetery. There appears to have been no anempt-by lhe Lodge to recreate their records in those early years..

It Photogtaphs on file at the Folsom History Museum show many "unsightly" grave sites situated at the rear (north) of the cemetery. One photo is believed to have been taken uiiwing east from the Jewish Cemetery and shows crude brick outlined ptots and wooden markers. 18 Most of what the caretaker removed is located in an old ravine situated at approximately the north end of what was Sacramento Street (New Masonic Cemetery section) and extends easterty behind the Negro Bar (aka: Citizen's) Cemetery section. Since mid-|995, Lakeside maintenance workers have been filling-in this ravine to conceal the materials hidden there. (Also found in this ravine in January of 1995, were pieces of granite coping.)
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researchd Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
t

Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
historic sections of the cemetery grounds, even though the records of interments which they received from the Claney family is known not to be accurate or anywhere near complete.

INTERMENT AI\D IDENTTFICATION LISTING (not included in 12/6/2002 update) The attached listing was compiled using tombstone inventory lists previously published such as a 1935 Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) list and Rest in Peace 1iett, Bayless, et al.).

Death notices, obituaries and articles about deaths taken from the Folsom Telegraph (1S65 - 1943\, Mountain Democrat (1855--1905, lgll-1913) and Sacramento Daily Union (t852-lg6g'0) newspapers were abstracted from miffofilm copies on file at the State Library.

The records of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church and Trinity Church were reviewed, as were El Dorado County Burial Permits. Abstracts of death certificates from Sacramento County deaths20, a record of the Deaths and Interments ln gd From the City of-Sacramento (provided by tire Sacramento City Cemetery Archives), the New Masonic Cemeterf I Plot Sales records, and other miscellaneous documents derived from various other sourceso have also been reviewed for this research.

Where necessary to identiff familial relationships, the U.S. Census indexes and records for 1g60, 1870 and 1880 have been referenced. A more complete record of families from census information would provide additional information for this study, as would the creation of genealogical farnily group records.

METHOD OF COMPILATION
The 1935 and 1981 tombstone inventory lists were first been combined alphabetically and, when obituary information has been available about these persons, it has been referenced and added.

Newspaper source reference citations provide the newspaper title, the issue date, and the page and column numbers of where the reference was found.

Where the names from obituaries did not appear in the previously published listings, the information contained in the abstracted obituaries have been added to the list as separate entries.

Sorne of these enhies cite specific locations of interment as stated in the obituary nbtice, such as le As research continues, additional abstracts may be taken from later issues of the Sacramento Union. tl Ot abstracted by Dennis McCargar (1996-1998), Librarian at the California State Prison, Sacramento, for his study of the historic Folsom Prison Cemetery.
2t The New Masonic Cemetery purchased in 1916, but was not platted until 1924. A copy of the plat map was filed with the Sacramento County Recorder. A copy of the map, with some of the names associated with the grave plots is available through the Lodge Historian. The plot sates register is archived at the Folsom History Museum.

I-akeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver

Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Citizen's, Cook's, Masonic, etc. The names provided by the obituary information that cite the location of burial and which cannot today be located at Lakeside, are indicative of the number of known and unmarked graves which exist at Lakeside cemetery today.

Other entries represent those who died at or near Folsom and surrounding communities. These names have been added and are considered probable burials within one ofthi cemeteries at Folsonr, other than St. John the Baptist Catholic Cemetery. Tombstone inventories for all known cemeteries of the area, have been referenced in order to eliminate the possibility of these burials having occurred elsewhere. The remains of the persons identified from these references, should be considered to probably be in unmarked and unknown graves.

The earliest marker (remaining) at Lakeside is dated 1850. Folsom Telegraph obituary information is not available on Folsom burials previous to 1865 as there are no copies available for referencing.

Additionally, a total of 327 issues of the Telegraph are missing between the years 1865 and lggg.

There is a great deal of information about Folsom burials which -ay nerr"i been known. From 1850 to 1865, and including the327 missing issues, a total of 2l years of obituary information has not been recorded.

To supplement some of the missing Telegraph informatioq the Sacramento Transcript and the Sacramento Daily Union werc referenced for the period of 1850 to 186822. Still, it would be an inlelligent presumption to believe that there are far more unmarked graves located within tfrese historic cemetery sections than is reflected in this listing.

The previously unrecorded n,Imes on the list do not include names determined to have been buried at the Catholic, Eagles, Ifuights of ffiias, Mormon Island or Matthew Kilgore cemeteries, all of which are the closest burials places to Folsom. All names which may have ttaa tne appearance of being kish, or closely related to other known Catholic recognized sumames (such-as French, Portuguese, German, etc.), have not been included on this listing. However, it is recognized that not all hish sumames are representative of the Catholic religion, though it would be diflicult to differentiate between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestant names. There are a vast number of deaths of persons with Irish surnames which have been recorded in my previous research, but which have not been included in this study.23
It is important to note that there were no "Unknown" graves recorded in either the 1935 or l98l listings, nor were there estimates given of the number of unknown gaves visible at those times.

There are also no wooden headboards or cornmon stone markers such as are found in nearly all pioneer cemeteries in surrounding communities. More telling is the lack of temporary metal t2 While it is entirely possible that additionat editions of the Sacramento newspapers will yield fuither death and obituary information not found in the Folsom Tetegraph editions, they havi not at this time been referenced or abshacted.
-
23- Refer to the report and study for the Historic St. John the Baptist Catholic Cemetery for abstracted deaths associated with suspected Cathotic parishioners. It is possible that some of those included on St.

John's listing were not catholics and were buried at what is now Lakeside.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Compiled and Wricen by Sue Silver
O

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
markers anyvhere within the grounds. This is highly unusual, for many other pioneer cemeteries contain these temporary markers even though the name and death information has long since disappeared from the face plate.

It should be noted tlrat addendum listings have been produced from the main listing for names of deceased known to be intened in a specific cemetery (by reference), so that there is a separate listing for unmarked/unknown graves within Citizen's Cemetery, Cook's Cemetery, OId Masonic, and Odd Fellows cemeteries. No attempt has been made to identiff interments within the New Masonic Cemetery, with the exception of including the Masonic Association's plot sales records.

LISTING LEGEI{D:

A first listing which was compiled in 1995, and included color coding with a legend that identified what each colored entry represented in terms of possible interments, previously recorded tombstones no longer found in the cemetery, interments from obituaries which cited specific locations but for which no tombstones were located tombstones dated 1900 and prior, tombstones located and found on previous inventories, etc. This was found to be too confirsing to follow in a listing of this size. (the original listing and all updated listings have been archived for back referencing.)
The new legend has been designed for simplicity.

Bolded enfries now represent known interments based on the recordation from previous tombstone listings or from obituary information found in newspaper accounts which cite an actual location of burial (ie. Citizen's, Cook's, etc.)
Underlined entries now represent probable or possible interments. In cemetery studies conducted in El Dorado Courty over the last 20 months (fiom the date of this printing), it has been found that where one died and there was a cemetery one was buried in that local cemetery. If one was taken to another community for burial, the newspaper would almost always provide that information.

Transporting the deceased to another locale was an unusual occunence, especially in the earliest years, and we must therefore presume that those who died in and near Folsom were probably buried in the Folsom cemeteries.

TIIE UNKNOWN, UI\[\{ARKED AND MISSING GRAVES
In reviewing the compiled listing, it is clear to see that many of the burials which occurred at the Folsom cemeteries are now either ur*nown, unmarked or missing when compared with the previous tombstone listings and references cited. Of those who cannot be located within the grounds today are many family groups, as well as individuals who died and were buried here.

Only one grave representing Folsom's African American residents is marked in the cemetery and ttrat is the grave of James H. "Honey" Cook. All of the other graves of African Americans noied to Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califom ia
Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Page l5
Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
be buried or suspected of being buried at this cemetery, are unmarked. Odd that at a cemetery which was first used by the "Negro" Bar mining camp, that none of the pioneer citizens of that race are able to be located in this cemetery.

It is estimated that between 20 and 30 family plots of coping materials were removed in 1996 from the State park land adjacent to the cemetery. With the "dismantling" of the family plots and the plot coping, a cemetery operator may seek to take advantage of "unused" plots within legally inalienable plot space. The motivation for removal of the early family plots may also have betjn to "re-use" grave sites for current burials, since in digging the new gnwes, only the equipment operator would know whether an old grave pre-existed.

Regardless of the motivation, one fact remains - there are a great number of old, historic graves which are unmarked within the cemetery which have already been, or are in jeopardy of being, buried over through ctnrent burials. This is not only illegal, but immoral. A society, upon discovering such activity, which would allow such activity to continue, evidences itself as having the most frayed of moral fabric. If we cannot protect the dead, those who lie in sacred peace, who can?
The following 6l family plots or grave sites have been identified as either missing, significantly altered by dismantling, or as being in jeopardy:

Adolph Alexander Familv Plot I unmarked
The brother-in-law of Simon Cohn, Alexander's tombstone stands to the northwest of the Simon Cohn grave site in the Jewish Cemetery. In February of 1867, Alexandeds daughter, Esther, died at the age of 18 months. Her grave cannot be located today. It is not known whether Mrs. Bertha Alexander, Adolph's wife, was buried here.

David Bennett Plo! 2 unmarked
Update, 5/l/1998: According to Karen Rader (see Tyler J. Hill Plot), David Bennett was the second husband of Mrs. Lucy Arur Saunders, Marion Caroline Saunders Hill's mother. Both were buried in the Folsom Masonic cemetery. David Bennett was a pioneer of El Dorado County and was an early vintner of the area just east of Marble Valley in the vicinity of present day Cameron park. During his ownership of that ranch, Bennett would have been a contemporary of Benjamin N. Bugbey of the Natoma Vineyard near Mormon Island east of Folsom. Bugbey also had vineyard land near Bennett's vineyard offofpresent day Durock [sic Duroc] Road in cameron park.

Charles Bish.op Family Plot 3 unmarked
Two of the children of Charles and Sarah C. Bishop were buried in Folsom. According to Trinity Church records, daughter Edlth who died in January of 1868, and son Freddie, who died in September of 1868, were buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery. Charles Bishop died in July 1876 Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Compiled and Written by Sue Silver

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
and was brought to Folsom for burial. His interment would have been made with the graves of his deceased children in the Odd Fellows Cemetery.

Peter Bush Family Plpt I unmarked
Located within what is now called the Cook's/American Legion Cemetery section, is a granite coped plot with the name UBUSH' chiseled into the front facing of the step which leads into the plot. lntened within this plot are members of the Fleckenstein family, who arrived in Folsom much later than Peter Bush, who died in February of 1889. According to the 1880 U.S. Census index, Bush, a 50 year old native of Germany, had a wife and five children. Only Pete/s death notice has been located. His grave is unmarked at the cemetery today and his plot has been alienated2a by the interment of the Fleckenstein family members.

Campbell Family Plot 4 unmarked
There is no evidence of the graves of the four members of this early African American family who are known to have been interred at this cemetery. The first of the family to die was Amelia Campbell, the 16 year old daughter of Squire Campbell, who died in August of 1895. The next member was Toy Campbell, the daughter of Squire Campbell, and the sister of ',sandford', Campbell, who died in February of 1904 and was buried in the "Citizen's Cemetery".2s In March of 1907 came the death of little Sanford Edward Campbell, the seven month old son of Yt. -d {p. Squire Campbell, who died March I l, 1907, his "interment being in the Citizen's Cemetery."zo Sanford Campbell, the 33 year old son of Squire Campbell of Pi-acerville, died at Sacramento in June of l9ll, and the obituary stated the "funeral takes place in Citizen's Cemetery."z7 H"was the brother of Toy Campbeli.

None of the Campbell family member's graves are marked in the cemetery today. Whether, being African Americans, they may not have any grave markers originally, is not known. Squiri Campbell died in El Dorado County and was buried in the Placerville City Cemetery.

Mi chael._Can Familltpl ot
No graves are believed to be unmarked or missing from this plot if the plot is, indeed, where the marker is found today. However, the three names of the Can family members, father Michael (died " Californi" Health and Safety Codes clearty state that famity burial plots purchased and used by at least one member of the family are inalienable and may not be used or sold byany other parties. 2t Folsom Telegraph, March 3, 1900, page 3, column l.
26 Fotsom Tetegraph, March 16, lgOT,page 3, column l.
2? Folsom Tetegraph, June 23, l9l l, page l, column 7.

Lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia

Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
1863)' mother Ursula (died l85S), and daughter Mary Jane (died 1857), are all inscribed on the same marble tombstone' That tombstone sits adjacent to a tree and is iiroroughly surrounded by more recent matkers, many of which may be cremains birials. Regardless of the lpe of ttre morl recent burials, the family plot became inalienable under Califomia law. Whetheriire Carr graves are situated in this location is not really known as the marker could. have been relocated from somewhere else in the cemetery. It must be notd however, that in 1857 when Mary Jane died, there was but one cemetery, besides the Catholic cemetery, in use by the residents of Folsom and vicinity - the Negro Bar (aka: Citizen's) Cemetery. The tombston" i, within what was called the Citizen's Cemetery.

I unmarked Simon Cohn Famili plot
The descendants of Simon Cohn, upon transfening the Jewish Cemetery to Lee Miller for use as Lakeside Cemetery SoPd:. reluctantty granted tt{i[.r permission to remove the coping and omamentation from the family plof'. Miller had stated it would be easier to maintain the griunds if these items were removed. Since that time, the grave marker for Henriefta Cohn can no longer be found. (According to Henrietta Cohn Whelan, daughter of Philip C. Cohn, ru Amity is curious as !9 wnat happened to this tombstone.) Included in the Cohn family plot is the grave of Senator Philip C. Cohn, the only Folsom resident in the 20th century to serve the state in that capacity.

James M. Cook Family Plot I unmarked
This man" one of Folsom's African American residents, also known as "Honey Cook,,, is buried in the southerly end of lnt I of Block 44, under a concrete topped grave with a military marker which has been laid flat and embedded in the concrete. This research revealed that Cook was hospitalized at the Veteran's Hospital in Boise, Idalro in 1942. It has not been identified when his death occurred. Cook's wife, Juli4 who he once attempted to kill while living in Folsom, died in Folsom in 1936. Her grave is unmarked and is betieved to be next to or near that of her husband2e.

William Cook Familv plq! 2 unmarked
A large granite rnonument stands prominent within the William Cook family plot located in what is known as the Cook's/American Legion Cemetery section. The only name which appears on the monument is that of Ellen Cook, wife of William, who died in January of 1875. Of nut family, William, the father and William 8., the son, both died and were buried at Folsom. The senior Mr.

Cook's obituary from June of 1905, states that he was buried in Cook's Cemeterfo. Son, William tE Se" description of the Cohn plot ornamentation and coping under Simon Cohn in the tisting. 2e This is not the only missing grave of an African American resident buried at Lakeside Cemetery. 30 [t should be noted that William and Ellen Cook's daughter, Maggie, married David Blower. Btower,s name appears on the County Tax Assesso/s maps as being the ownei of lots 14 through 16 of Block 44 sometime in the 1890's' Maggie's brother, Frank W. Cook, is the man from which the name ,,Cook,s,, cemetery originated.

Iakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, California

Updated: Decemeber 6, 2OO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
t
F',' ** killed tying t9 board a moving tain in stockton in september of 1901. Both men are believed to be in unmarked graves withil the william cook family plot.

B.W Cornell Family plot l_2 unmarked
The name "Brob- w. Cornell" is found on the 1935 DAR tombstone listing. Research which located the 1906 obituary of Mrs. A.M. Cornell revealed that she was the wiL of B.W. Comell, they having come to Catifomia in 1854. The couple is listed in the lg60 U.S. Cenzus. There were no children living with them at the time. Mn. Ctmell's grave is not markrJaauf It has not yet been ascertained whether Mr. Cornell's grave remains marked as it was in iq:s. [SS note, 5/1112002: on Peter Kroffs I 999 inventory.l Jesse Couch Family plot 3 unmarked
only the tombstone of little Margaret Jane couch, who died in April of lg6l, at the age of g months, can be located at Lakeside todav. Couch's wife, Margaret, and two other children atso died while he lived in the area3l. The graves of wife tvtargaret, r"" g.s. Love, and daughter, Jessie Jang are not found' The area surrounding baby Margaret Jane's grave has bein extensilvely usea in hter times' Jesse couch once served as the county supervisor ortne aistrict in which cranite Township was located.
o
l unmarked
As featured in the book Folsom Fables - Pieces of the Past(Sue Silver, 1995), in the story titled ,'A widowed 'woman," the graves of the first two husbands of Mary Tucl Rid;il"r; crawford, are located in the odd Fellows cemetery, just east of the Little Famiiy plot. simuel tu"t, Mary,s first husband died in March of 1867 and she provided him with a beautiful marble tombstone in the odd Fellows Cemetery. In october of t889, Mary buried her second husband, Henry Rightneyer, a woodchopper for th9 railroad company. She had Henry's name and dates inscribed into the same tombstone as samuels, and the two men n9w lay sidi by side in th, ;;;;.' ,* died in February of 1898. Her obituary states that she was buried-in the odd Fellows 6emetery, though there is no marker there today. She is believed to be buried next to her first two husbands. A date of death or burial location for her third husband, Alphonse crawford.is ,"i;;;."* E.L. Currier Familv plot 3 unmarked
Located toward the rear of the cook's/American kgion cemetery section, is the tombstone of Addie S' currier, who died in May of 1880. The tom6stone has been laid flat in the ground and is in the shape of an upright obelisk. A photograph taken of the windmiller r*rirv pf"t around lgg9, shows this tombstone standing erict, behind and to the northwest of the winamilter plot. The 3r Jesse couch was one of Folsom's earliest pioneer residents. For a time, however, he did live at Iatrobe, El Dorado county, after the extension of the railroad to that town. In his life in ihe are4 couch once served as a Supervisor for Sacramento County.

I-akeside Cemetery led and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, California

Researched, Compi
Updated: Decemeber 6, Z0Oz

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
32 Folsom Telegraph, May 22, 1936, page2, column 3.
. i since Ralph died in 1936, it is difficult to believe that rhe family plot could have been dismantled before the time of his death, since he was fully aware of his own family's burials. 3a Folsom Telegraph, October 3, 1g96, page 3,column 2.
o
grave plot is surrounded by picket fencing and is estimated to have been approximately l0 feet by 20 feet in size.

E'L' cuniet the patiarch of the family, is known to have been a produce grcwer who was quite admired in Folsom. He is believed to have died between February t-ggz ana Febnrary of 1g92. The last mention of him in the-newspaper appeared in the former month and year and the latter occurred at the time his wife, Arvilla" died a widow in 1892. Their son, Ralph currier, sometimes refened to as "Pet" in newspaper re-ferences, died in May of 1936 and his "interment **lr}r. familyplot in cook's cemetery l:t"."" Ralph served- as the ag.i.urtu.ar commissioner for the Granite Township dishict of Sacramento county in the early zo6 cent'ry.

Today there are markers for many people who are unrelated to this family on every side of Addie,s tombstone' It is not known if these later graves were buried o1o tt, rirrr"i cunier family members33, or if these later markers were simply moved to this location. si;; many are dated 1ffi-r$,":Tainder
of Ralph's lifetime, it is'certain that no buriars o..urr"aln the famity ptot George Custer Family plot 2 unmarked
The graves of George and Annie custer cannot be located at Lakeside cemetery. George died in 1895, a native of Pennsylvania and a 40 yey resident of the area. wife, Annie, died in l g96 was and buried in the "Folsom city cemet"ry.lo." Undentanding the history ortnrl.*"teries now included in what is Lakeside, this could be either the Negro Ci 1ut u, citizen,s) cemetery or what is now called the Cook'VAmerican trgion Cemetery.

H.M. and B.J. Dains Family plots 9 missing and unmarked The
Georgetown
elder patriarch of these two pioneer families was Henry M. Dains, an early pioneer of in El Dorado county. Air son, Benjamin J. Dains, and his family *o aro buried at this cemetery' There is no trace whatever of any member ;irh" Dains futt ili g*"", at Lakeside today.

Among the known intened of the trvo {niliel are, Benjamin Dains (died lg2g) buried in the "Masonic" cemetery at Folsom; clarence G ^Dains luiea rlrij, son of B.J. Dains, who was buried at'cook's cemetery"; Elton Dains (died 1902), son of Benjamin Dains, who was buried in the odd Fellows cemetery; Elwood Dains (died 1908), son of g.l. Dains, who was buried in the odd Dains,
Fellows cemetery; Herr IVIontgornery Dains'(died 1900), nluana of susan and father of B.J. who was buried in the odd Fellows cemetery; Maggie (nee Robson) Dains (died 1903), wife Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Sacramento County, Catifornia Page20
Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, ZOO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
of B.J. Dains, who was buried in the Odd Fellows cemetery; Susan Dains (died 1907), wife of H.M.

Dains, whose "remains were brought to Folsom for interment at the Odd Fellows cemetery"35; and Almira Dains (died 1897), the sister of H.M. Dains, whose obituary did not state which slction of the cemetery she was interred.

In the mid-1880s, H.M. Dains senred as the undertaker for the people of Georgetown. As part of his endeavors he also became the fint monument dealer in that county to offbr Zinc gnve monuments. The Zinc monuments were introduced and highly touted as lasting longer than many other materials used for such purposes. Unfortuantely for Dains, this new product does not appear to have been very successful.

SS Note. 5/11/2002: Also among the missing is Sabria or Sabrina Dains Johnson, sister of H.M.

Dains, who died in 1897.

Michael Doll FamilyPlot I unmarked
The tombstone of Michael Doll (died 1886) also bears the name Phillip Henneman (died 1879) and is located in the Odd Fellows Cemetery section. The gmve of Michael's widow, Emma L.ouise Doll (died 1920; formerly Henneman), is unmarked today, and there are many recent interments which have been made all around the Doll/flenneman monument. Phillip Henneman was Emma's first husband with whom she bore their daughter, Elizabeth (Lizzie).

Drgsser Family Plot 4 unmarked
This missing and unmarked plot contains the graves of William W. Dresser and his family, and the grave of his brother, Jesse Dresser. Early pioneer citizens of Folsom and vicinity (including prairie City), none of the known Dresser graves can be located today. Among the family who died and were, or are believed to be, buried in the cemetery are: Edmond R. Dresser (died 1867), son of William W. and Mary J. Dresser; Jesse Dresser (died 1874), brother of William Dresser, who the Trinity Church records state was buried in the Masonic Cemetery; Sherman Dresser (died 1906), the son of William and Mary Dresser, who died at Aubum, Placer County, and was "buried in the family plot in the Masonic Cemetery" at Folsom36; William W. Dresser (died 1870), father of Shermhn; Edmond, brother of Jesse, who died in Folsom at the age of 52 years; and Rebecc4 aged 16 months and 13 days, the daughter of W.W. Dresser, who died at Folsom on Decemb.rl6, ft6937
3t Folsom Telegraph, February 16,lgOT,page3,column 4
'u Folsom Telegraph June 20, 1906, page 3, column 4.
37 Sacramento Union, 12/20/1869; page 2, column 4.

Granite Township, Sacramento County.
1870 U.S. Census Mortality Schedule for
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Cal ifornia
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page2l

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
? a
Daniel Eisner Familv plot I unmarked
This family plot is located in the Jewish Cemetery just behind the Jacob Hyman family plot. Today only the tombstone of little Sophia Eisner (died ls62), daughter of Danieiand M. Eisner, is found. The tombstone of her brother, Jacob (aged 12 years in 1860, date of death unknown), was vandalized in August of l89l when it was overturned and broken. It is no longer in the cemetery in any condition. Next to Sophia's tombstone is an empty space which *"y r.ir"r.nt Jacob's grave.

More recent burials have occurred all around Sophia's stonl. The 1860 u.s. census lists the Eisner family as being parents Daniel and "M." with five sons - Jacob, David, Charles, Marcus, and Milton. No trace ofthe family was found in the U.S. Census for Sacramento Co*ty't;;t,iligt6 or 1880- This may indicate that son, Jacob, died previous to 1870. It is not known if any of the other Eisner sons may have died and been buried in the Jewish Cemetery with their sister and brother. (Daniel Eisner's eldest son went on to become one of the first regents of the University of California at Berkeley. ) W.H, Farmer Family PIot 2* unmarked
Located next to a tree, behind the Thad Mgfarland family plot in the Masonic Cemetery, is the tombstone of Margaret F. Farmer (died 1869), the wife of Wi[iam H. Farmer. William Farmer died in 1884 at Oakland and his "remains were brought to Folsom" on the evening ofNovember 2g, 1884, for interment. He was buried in the Masonic Cemeterf8. william's gnrve-cannot be located today.
* Between the U.S. Census of 1870 and the U.S. Census of 1880, baby Margaret Farmer (ll months old in 1870) seems to have become absent from the family. It may be ttratitre also died and was buried in the Masonic Cemetery next to her mother, or possibly in the same grave with her mother.

Joseph Fiel Family Plot 5 missing and unmarked
Originally located near the Lery family plot in the Jewish Cemetery, the entire Fiel family plot is missing today' Known to be interred in the plot were: Jewish pioneer and family patriarch, joseph Fiel (died 1876); his wife, Rosa(nee Kirsky) Fiel (died l90l); son, Israel3e laiea itozy; son,Isaac (died 1916), who was buried in the Jewish Cemetery; Isaac's wife, Gertrude (nee Sartain) Fiel, who died in December of 1899 of injuries sustained in a fall from a two story window in Oakland and was brought to Folsom and buried in the Jewish Cemetery.

According to Professor Austin Wahrhaftig, the son of lrma l-evy Wahrhaftig, his mother used to tend the graves of her relatives, the Fiel family, when he was a child. His recillection was that the Fiel plot was near the Levy plot toward the outside edge of the cemetery. His aunf Lotta Levy, r8 Folsom Telegraph, November 29, lh}4,page 3, column 5, and December 6, lgg4, page 3, column 4. 3e Israel has also been referred to as "It'win" in some history accounts of Folsom. According to his death notice, however, his name was Israel, not frwin. lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Page22
Updated: Decemebo 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
) o
later had her gardener tend to the graves in this plot. Professor Wahrhaftig only remembers wooden markers on these gnves. (Whether the "outside edge" of the Jewish ceiretery means to the west, south or north, was not ascertained.)
In the vandalism which occurred at the Jewish and Odd Fellows cemeteries in lg9l, two tombstones of the Fiel family were broken off, indicating that at that time, both b'rials to that time had been marked with permanent markers. Whether thJ markers were totally destroyed and never replaced, is not known. The surviving family, though, is known to have been financially capable of paying for their replacement.

David Finch Family plot 3 unmarked
There are two David Finch family plots. One is located near the rear of the Negro Bar (aka:

Citizen's) Cemetery and contains the grave of David's fint wife, Cyrilla, and that of fri, mother, Frances A. Finch, which is not marked today. David's fathe(?) William liieA 1SAZ;, and Wilie E.

Finch (died 1877), possibly the son of David and Cyrilla, are also located in ttris section.

The second family plot, located on the western end and to the front of the Odd Fellows Cemetery, has had it's sumame marker and coping removed. Today all that remains of the plot are markers bearing the grven ftlmes of the deceased and vital statistics dates. Withoui study or prior knowledge of this family, one would be unable to determine their last narne.

Of the known deceased Finch family members, the following graves cannot be located today:

Daisy Belle (died 1896), the 2O-year oid daught"r of David Finch and Lucille Finch (died 1900), rhe infant daughter of David Finch, who was "laid to rest (yesterday) in the Odd e"ffo*, C"r"t".y.im The tombstone of Henry Finch (died 1889), son of David Finch, over whose grave J.L. House erected a "pretty liule tombstone....in the Odd Fellows Cemeteryal" in November of lgg9, is now located near the rear of the Negro Bar (aka: Citizen's) Cemetery.

David Finch was the Superintendent of the Natoma Company Vineyard before retiring to Veron4 California. Because of his stature in the community, his famity ploi would have been handsomely arayed.

J.W. Gains Family plqt I unmarked
Located in the Masonic cemetery, only the tombstone of John william Gains (died lgg5) remains in place. His wife,.Mary Ann (nee Scurlock) 91nr (died 1895) is noted as having a tombstone by the 1935 DAR tombstone listing. DAR noted that the marker was inscribed witi'Neylaid Soutir Wales." Mary Ann's name may be inscribed on the underside of the stone which now bears John,s name only. The Gains'had two daughters who survived childhood. One became Mrs. Minor Miller and is interred at the Mormon Island Relocated Cemetery in El Dorado Hills. The other, o0 Folsom Telegraph, April}l,1900, page 3, column L
ol Fotsom Telegraph, November 30, 1889, page 3, column 3 Lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, California Page23
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2AOz

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Elizabeth Beatrice, died sometime around l9l4 and may be buried with her parents or may be one of the "[Jnknown" graves relocated to the Mormon Island Relocated Cemetery by ttre U.3. Army corp of Engineers in 1954 for the construction of Forsom Dam and Lake.

RH. Gegax Family Pld I unmarked
The children of Folsom building contractor Richard H. Gega:r were buried in this cemetery. The concrete markers for Charlie, Emma and two unnamed infant sons, rue located in the Odd Fellows Cemetery. Absent is a marker for Anna Elizabeth (died l89l), who died of diphtheria in April of that year. Records from the O'Keefe Funeral Home in Placerville, indicate the death and burial of Arthur F. Gegax, the son of R.H. Gegax in August of 1893. Those records indicate that Arthur was buried in "Johnson's Cemetery" in El Dorado County. Johnson's Cemetery is located off North Canyon and Cleese roads below Camino. With other of his children buried "iFolronr,
is it likely he would have had Arthur buried in such an out of the way cemetery? Edward Hicks Familv plot 5 unrnarked
There is not one tombstone or marker for any of the members of this pioneer African American family known to have been buried at this cemetery. While patriarch, Edward Hicks, is known to have been buried in the National Cemetery at the Presidio in San Francisco, the graves of the members of his family who were buried at the Folsom cemetery cannot be located today.

Among them are: Alice Hicks (died l9l5), daughter of trrtrs. George Hicks, granddaughter of Edward Hicks; Garfield Hicks (died 1935), son of Mr. and tvtrs. Edqird Hicks,"who greiv up in Folsom; George Hicks (died 1940), the son of Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hicks, who was intJrrea in tfre ]lilizenll Cemeterya2"; Mrs. E. (Eliza) Hicks (died 1901), wife of Edward Hicks, and Mrs. Isabel Hicks (died 1933), the wife of George B. Hicks, and daughter-in-law of Edward Hi"kr, mother of the late Alice Hicks, was a "member of a former Folsom colored family43,', and buried in the Citizen's Cemetery.

Tvler J. Hill Family Plot 3 missing and unmarked
Pioneer Folsom blacksmith and hotel keeper, Tyler Joseph Hill (died 1875), was a member of the Masonic fratemity and is believed to have been buried in the Masonic Cimetery. His daughter, Ada Marian (died 1374) was buried in the Masonic Cemetery according to Trinity Church records. The tombstones of T.J. Hill, Ada Marian Hill, and Mrs. Marion Caroli-ne Hill (died lg21),Tyler's wife, were recorded by the 1935 DAR tombstone inventory. All three g,xu", are unmarked and their location unknown today. T.J. Hill served as the Constable for the town of Folsom and Iater served as a Deputy Sheriff of Sacramento County.
n2 Fotsom Telegraph, March l, lg4},page l, column 6.
a3 Fotsom Telegraph, April 14, 1933,page l, cotumn 7.
?
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Page24
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
) o
Update. 5/l/1998: Met with Karen Rader, a family descendant, who has visited the graves since lh" l a young girl. She has not been b3ck for several years, since about.the time she got manied in 1975. In addition to the three Hill family members mentioned above, ttre son of Tyler and Marioru charles Hill, and his wife, August4 were also buried at Lakeside.

A second meeting with Karen, accompanied by her mother, Marion Rader, was held at the cemetery. Mrs. Rader was unable to locate the Tyler Hill plot and stated thai ttre last time she visited the plot with her mother (who has since deceasedl in the mid-1960's, the wooden markers which had always been in place at the graves, were still at the cemetery. Despite ttre many drastic changes to the cemetery, including the removal of the fencing along the present driveway/parking are4 Mn. Rader was able to show me the location of where the Hill gave; should be.

J.L. Holrnes Famill_plot 3 unmarked
John L. Holmes was a painter when he lived in Folsom around the tum of the century. The grave of his wife, Cora' who died in Folsom at the age of 23 (probably of complications of*ritaUiitr) anJ was buried in the Citizen's Cemetery, is unmarked today. The couple'r inf.-t daughter, Lizzie, died in June 1905 at the age of 2 months 9 days old. According to the records of thJSacramento City Cemetery Archives, Linie was buried in Folsom. John died in Sacramento in l9l0 and is believed to have been brought to Folsom and buried next to his wife. Mrs. Holmes assisted Constable Donnelly by identi&ing that some of the convicts who violently escaped Folsom prison in Juty of 1903 had passed by her home on the way to Sacramento. Her observation led to the capture of two of the convicts in that city just a few days later.

John Holmes may have been an African American citizen or possibly a mulatto.

William Jarvis Family plot
No one is believed to be missing or unmarked in the William Jarvis plol However, the removal of the omate iron fencing and granite coping which once outlined this plot is nearly as criminal as would be the loss of their graves. Jarvis and his wife, Rebecca Russeil vanlandigilam, were early pioneers of both El Dorado and Sacramento County. tn the mid-1850s they weri the owners and proprietors of the Natoma Valley House, a road house on the Sacramento to Colorna Road, just west of the El Dorado and Sacramento county line. They also owned what was called tfre Vaitey Home, another property located on the Sacramento Road in El Dorado county, approximately onl mile east of the Natoma Valley House. The Valley Home appears to have-been the Jarvis, residence at the time.

A trustee of the Natoma water and Mining Company from its very earliest years, Jarvis alternated residency benryeen Natom4 Folsom and Sacramento. He is also believed to have lived in San Francisco, probably after the Company's headquarters were moved to that city. The photograph of the Windmiller family plot shows the Jarvis plot behind and diagonatly to the.ight-of thut family plot. Today the joint headstone of William and Rebecca Vanlandingham RusselT jarvis, his wife, has been laid flat in the ground, is layered granite bases are nowhere ro b" fo*a.

I-akeside Cemetery led and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, Cal ifornia Page25
Researched, Compi
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
) I
W.D. Johnson Family plot 3 unmarked
Only the grave of Charles Edward Johnson (died 1885), the son of W.D. and philenia Johnson, is marked in the cemetery today. His monument, presumably located in the Odd Fellows Cemetery, wasvandalizedinl891andwas''smashedtopieces.4a'.W:PeterKrqffs inventory does not list Charles Edward Johnson.] Another son of Wittiam ana phileni4 Emmett Oliver, committed suicide in l9l7 and was buried at the Odd Fellows Cemetery. He was a six year Army veteran who had enlisted in Portland, Oregon. William D. Johnson liiea teZo;, ^g"i 64 years and a native of Califomiq was also buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery, his grave L*ing no marker today. Mrs. Philenia Johnson died at Sacramento in 1925 at age 66 years, and was buried in the odd Fellows cemetery at Folsom. Her grave is arso unmarked.

Zaghariah Jones Family pJot 3 unmarked
Three of the members of this familS patriarch 7-achaiah,and his twin infant children, are buried in unmarked graves at this cemetery. The twins, who were born and died on October lg, 1g67, were the infants of "2. and H.A." Jones. The 1870 U.S. Census lists a Haniet Jones as head of her household in Granite Township. According to the records of Trinity Church, Zachariah Jones (died 1868), was buried in the citizen's cemetery on December 4, l g6g.

H.T. KnightFamilvplot
While the grave of Henry T. Knight supposedly remains marked by his tombstone, there is evidence from the investigative excavation that his granite coped plot was dismantled ana ttre omamentation dumped onto the adjacent State park land. Nathaniel Xnight, the father of Henry T., John (buried Mormon Island Relocated Cemetery), and Thomas Knight (buried El Dorado Cemetery, H iorado county), died at Folsom in 1871. He was a native of Vermont, as were Henry, fohn ani nro-*.

The location of Henry T. Ifuighfs tombstone to others known to have had a familial relationship with the Knight family, brings to question whether their graves were also enclosed in the "Knight Family Plot." There were pieces of coping ranglng up to 20 feet in lengttr that were removed during the 1996 excavation. This may have been long enough to have also enilosed the grave sites of F.A.

Blanchard and family, Elvira Bradner, and W.H. Comstock and family, who wJe all inter-related by marriage to the Knight's.

Kni ghr/Shumway Familv plol
l,ocated at the western edge near the front of the Odd Fellows Cemetery, the Knight/Shumway family plot represents the burials of members of the Knight family who'inter-m".riea with the Shumway family. While no missing graves have been notid, ttre mititary tombstone of K. Loren Knight has been laid flat in the ground. Because of this, it is slowly being destoyed by the equipment which runs over it during maintenance activitites. ^ ]l -rqsom
Tetegraph, August 22, l8gl, "A Ghoul's Work", page 3, column 3, in which the Jewish and Odd Fellows cemeteries were vandalized.

Lakeside Cemetery led and Written by Sue Silver
Updatcd: Decemeber 6, 2002 Folsonl Sacramento County, California Page26
Researched, Compi

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
) o
Samuel Kvburz Familv plot 2 unmarked
The graves of samuel Kyburz (died l89s) and his wife, Rebecca (died 1903), are unmarked in the old Masonic cemetery today. Each of their obituari., ,tut"d they were buried in the Masonic cemetery, though no markers can be found. some of their children'ana g*a"iirdren,s graves are found in the New Masonic Cemetery.

Samuel and Rebecca were early california pioneers, and are known to have operated a hotel at Sutter's Fort at the advent of the gold rush. Samuel *^ on" of the men to first discover the Manhall
coloma valley where James Marshall and capt. John Sutter built their ru*riu, *rrere shortly after discovered gold in the mill's tailrace.

Edward R. kv.v Family plot I unmarked
only onc I-evy grave is believed to have been unmarked in the Jewish Cernetery. This was the grave of the infant son of Edward trvy and wife, who died in July lgTO t;;;d"y, after his birth. He was the only son born to the couple. The remainder of the f:amily pr"ii* i1*, significantly altered by the remov-al of coping (maierial unknown) and the replacement of piacerite tombstones with more modem flat markers. The headstones, originally facing east, have been turned so that they face the drive straight on. The gnves would trave ueen 9ra1t facing at an angle to the present day markers' There are many' many more recent burials which have occurred all around this two- row family plot and a likelihood that some of the Levy graves have been disturbed by the more recent interments.

O,C. Lewis Familv plot
There are no burials believed unmarked or missing from this plot. However, there are scratches to the marble obelisk monument which bears the n*., of the four Lewis amry .r*bers buried here' It is believed the granite base which once adomed this monument was removed (hence the scratches on the marble obelisk), and dumped lnto th. state park lands. surro*Jing these graves which date from lB79 to 1954,aremore reient burials and markers.

George Little Family plot 3 unmarked
The Little family plot is located near the east edge and at the southem front of the odd Fellows cemetery. It is coped and concrete capped, and bean the name "Little,' on the face of the step. In the mid to late-1970's, the operators of rakeside Cemetery erected three cremains niches around west, north and east sides of this plot. During his t992 tour of the grounds *itrr l"ruers of the Folsom Historical society, the former caretaker stated that there were no burials in the Little plot. Evidence bears otherwise.

Ashland pioneer George Little raised his family on his ranch across the river from Folsom. His wife, Elizabeth (died 1895), was a nativc of Scotland and a resident of the ronom vicinity from as early as l85l' George.Little's obituary information (died 1908) placed him in san Francisco in 1851, and at Negro Bar in t852. He was a member of the Granite Lod,geNo. 62 IooF. one of the Iakeside Cemetery
Folsom,
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Sacramento County, California Page27
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2OO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
) o
couples' sons, William (died 1930), died there at the age of 77 years, having lived at Ashland since 1853. He was buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery. it is not [no*n *t ui*uyiurr";ffi;^;; the other son, John Little, William's younger brothei.

The placement of the uemains niches around this family plot is at best rude, since people visiting the cremated remains of their loved ones there, are now walking on top oi tft" Little famiii membet's graves. Under Califomian law, the plot purchased bi George tittle gamered him interment rights and rights to erect an appropriatl monument on the sudice of the graves. The erection of the cremains niches, under Califomia law, would therefore violate the contact between Little and the odd Fellows. Every cremated remains niche sold atop the Little flot is tantamount to double selling (or more) the interment rights for that space in the cemetery. '- - r- - -
Walter L,ovelady Family plot
According to Dorothy Rollins of Stockton, the granddaughter of Walter Lovelady, this plot was once concrete capped. and bore a black granite marker with four names inscribed. Three of the names represent actual burials; the fourth name being for memorial purposes only. In 19g0, Mrs. Rollins visited the cemetery and was unabte'to locate her family's g*""r. wft"nifr" contacted the cemetery operator she was told that the concrete was removed because it had become cracked and dangerous and that ttre marker was placed directly onto the ground and was stolen from the cemetery sometime thereafter. Granite weighs 175 pounds per cubic foot. Mrs. Rollins estimated the marker to have been approximately 2 feet high by 4 fiet wide - " rtt"il*!" marker. The weight of subh a marker would prohibit its having been taken from the *;.t ry;thout benefit of equipment such as a tractor or backhoe. The grave site, according to the ""-"t ry operator, is registered in their interment book. ISS Note. 5/l l/2002: Peter froffr inventory lists Regina Lovelady b. 5/311962, d. 5/19/1962; don't know if relatertJ Isaac Maltby Familv plot I unmarked
located near the rear of lot 14 in Block 44 (Cook'VAmerican Legion Cemetery), the family plot of Isaac lr4altby (died ls87) was originally used for the burial of little Elizabeth idtay,the couple,s infant daughter who died in 1859. (In 1859, this portion of the cemetery, Lots 14-16 of Block 44, was owned by William Murray.) After Isaac Maltby committed suicide in lgg7, his probate case file in El Dorado County indicates that the family puichased a "grave yard lot', for$25.00 as shown on the bill from Jacob Miller, undertaker. The price for a grave at most other cemeteries studied during that time rangcd from $2.00 per graye to $zs.oo per toq depending on the loisi zn. A,,grave yard lot" for $25.00 in 1887, therefore, might represent a six person burial lot.

In a photograph taken by Mary Bowen, and printed in the Folsom Telegraph in the mid-1960,s, the tombstone of little El-izabeth is shown upright and to ttre east of a lariet, ttt*-il*o monument. To the right of Elizabeth's marker is what appeaxs to be concrete plot lining. Today the large monument is no where to be found, and to Elizabeth's right, is u tnurbl. obelislimonument bearing onlt Isaac's rulme. Eveline Maltby, Isaac's wife, died h rggq and was buried next to her husband and child. There is no grave stone for Eveline uittt" o-"t"ry today and it is believed that the large monument shown in Bowen's photograph represented both iveline and Isaac, *J tft"t the obeliik Lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, California Page28
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
marker now bearing only Isaac's name probably beam Eveline's name on one of the unexposed sides' More recent burials are encroaching on ittir 'gr; yard lot, which rras so obviously been dismantled. ss update- Julv 1998: on a recent visitto the chung wah cemetery, adjacent to r,akeside, I visited several of the tombstones I believed bear additiolnal names ttran ttrose which are presently showing' Using a piece of_twig, I scraped the mud pack on the sides of a few, one of which was the Isaac Maltby marker. on the west side of the marke., I ro*a the letters 'gy'i "oda be found. This is where Eveline's name is going to be found. wsr' J.K. McComber Family plot
This plot is located at the rear of the MSonlc cemetery and contains the graves of seven and possibly eight of the John Mccomber family._ one untnowri gftlve, that of little Marion Mccomber (died 1907), the infant daughter of Fred Mccomber, may exist within the plot. It appears that the plot coping has been removed based on the lack of dressed granite comer pieces on the westem edge of the adjacent coped plot. ordinarily, comer pieces oiruno-"toi. pi"o *rri"r, are coped, bear finished or dressed comerpieces with smooth ,*rf.r., which provide a nice visual effect. The prcsent corner pieces on the plot to the immediate east of the Mciomber ptoi strows evidence that other pieces of granite originally abutted it. Further, the upright marble oLrir[r"*ing the names ground'
of John and his wife, Mattie, has been removed fr; irs'granite base and placed directly on the More recent burials appear to have encroached wiitrin this inalienable plot and may have impacted the older graves.

Dueand McMillan Family plot 3 missing and unmarked
Little historically is known of this family. The first death recorded is that of George McMillan (died 1900), the 15 year old son of "Mr..and Mrs. Dougall McMillan,,, whose ,,remains were
intened in the city cemetery near Folsom.as'] Daught"r Eirma (died l90l), whose death resulted from a pine nut lodged in her throat, was "buriJ at Folsom.,, The family patriarch, Dugand McMillan (died I9l2), a native of scotland and 65 years old at rhe time orr,ir.il":trrlwas intened in "cook's cemeterya6." Mr. McMillan left a wife and several children. Non" oitt L graves of this family can be located today. ' 'iv'v va lrrv J.E. Moon Family plot 2 unmarked
In 1935, the DAR tombstone listing recorded the markers of infant Edna Lorraine Moon (died 1916) and her brother, infant Kack Moon, the children of J.E. and Hazel Moon. Th. Iggl listing produced in Rest In Peace also picked up the marker of Edna Lonaine, but not that of Kack. Neither of these markers was located in l9-95, when a brief inventory was taken at the onset of this ar Folsom Telegraph, January 13, 1900, page3,column l.
a6 Fotsom Telegraph, February 23,lglz,page l, cotumn 7.

Lakeside Cemetery Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
o
t
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
!
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Page29
Researched,
Updated: Deccrneber 6, 2OO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
research' No location of the parents graves was noted and they will have to be relocated upon additional inventorying.

SS Norc. 5/11/2002: Peter Kroffs 1999 inventory lists Edna Lonaine Moon (d. 1916), Hazel M. Moon )d. 1958), J. Edward Moon (d. l95s) and "Jack" Moon (d. r9r l). - \-- Peter Monis Family plot 2 unmarked
The British born Monis family c:lme to California in 1849, landing in san Francisco. By the time of the Cholera epidemic of 1850, at least one of the sons ** Iiuing in Sacramento. They eventually settled near Alder Creek and Mississippi Bar and remained ilere roi,rt. rest of their lives. Only their daughter, Louis4 who married -Don
Juan M. Winder and died at Lim4 peru in 1868, leftthe family fold. fatiarch, Peter Monis (died 1882), had been manied to wife, Eliza, for 55 years at the time of his death. Eliza (died 1888), was 8l years old at the time of her death. Their sons, Richard and Robe4 both died in 1894, Richard being the first-of the two to decease in March ortnut y"-. He was "buried near his father, mother and sisteraT", which would have been near the rear of Lot 16 in Block 44 (Cook's Cemetery), where the headstones of Peter and Eliza are found today. Robert Monis, died in November of that year and was interred in the Masonic crn'"t"Fl ilil;; Richard nor Robert's graves are marked today.

It is uncertain whether sister, Iouisa Winder, was retumed to Califomia from peru for burial. At the time, embalming compounds utilized arsenic, which arrested decomposition ana allowed for long distance transport of human remains. Certainly, if the body had been returned for interment at Folsom, one of the local newspapers would have found space to mention it. This becomes a question of whether Richards obituary, which stated he was buried near his fattrer, mother, and sister, was speaking of Louisa or another sister, possibly unknown to us. only one article has been noted linking any other felale offspring to the Monis family and that mention stated that Mrs. Monis had come to town with her daughter, Mrs. Lewis. The only Mrs. Iewis this researcher is aware of living in Folsom and vicinity was Mrs. Margaret Lewis. She, however, was a native of New York, while all the other Morris family membeis were natives of England.

Musso Familyplot
Two graves of Musso family members exist at the cemetery and are located within the odd Fellows section. The grave of mother, Annie M. Musso ldied t86z), wife of l.aurence Musso, is marked with a large marble tombstone which has !1n laid flat in the ground. The grave of her son, Frank (Francis) H. Musso (died 1870), who was l2yearsold at the tiire ofhis deaih, is located within the t7 Folsom Telegraph, March 10, 1g94, pagel,column 4.
o8 FolsomTelegraphNovember 10, 1g94, pagel,column I
l,akeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, Catifomia

Updated: Decemeber 6, ZOO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Peter Imhof family plot, some two grave sites west of that of his mother. According to the records of Trinity Church, Francis Musso was interred in the odd Fellows Cemetery. ii is pruzfing that Frank's tombstone is not located next to his mother's and that no familial i"tuiio*hip has-been located linking the Imho(f)'s and the Musso's. It is far more likely trrat frankls,ornbrton" has been removed from its original location and deliberately placed inside the eoped l*toiptot. ES Note. 5/tl/2002: Peter Kroffs inventory does not appear to have included tri" mrroiplot, and he does not list Frank H. Musso.J William H. Nichols Familyplot
There are no known missing or unmarked graves within this plot. However, according to family descendants, this concrete topped plot was once adorned withgnnite coping;J iron railing and chain all around it- That ornamentationis missing today."u.uling trr"t po.tlonr of this plot-have been dismantled and without permission from the family.

William N_utcher Familv plot
The marker of the grave of Elsie Olive Nutcher (died 1928) was inventoried for the first time in 1995. A death notice for her husband, W.1l-liam Nutcher (died 1936), was found in the pages of the Folsom Telegraph- The 1995 inventory did not note a marker for wiltiam, uutiti, uncertain ifone does not exist or if, because the inventory only sought to identify markers through 1930, his was deliberately not noted. The obituary stated that hC was laid to rest beside hijate wife in the Citizen's Cemetery. tSS Note. 5/l l/2002: Peter Kroffs 1999 inventory does not inctude William Nutcher.J
John Odell Family plot
This concrete capped plot is located in the Masonic Cemetery. The tombstone which bore the names of John Sr. (died l88l), John Jr. (died l90l) and wife and mother, Mrs. R.S. (nee Berrl,) Odell Freese, was found in the Oleander bushes behind the maintenance sheds in f gq+. The front of the plot is marked "ODELL' and there are two small marble plates bearing ttt" initi"fr R.S. and J'A' embedded in the concrete topping, presumao-ly marking the location of tie gruu", of John Sr. and his wife. A concrete monument base is also embedded in the topping and remlains in place.

After complaint about the tombstones being found in the bushes, tlre odell monument was moved back into the cemetery but was placed near the tombstones of Rosalie and Camille Lamblett, behind the Benjamin F. Bates plot under the Cedar of Lebanon trees.ae Thomas On Sr. Familv plot 2 unmarked
califomia pioneer Thomas on and his family, travelled to the new state with a contingent of Mormon immigrants in 1848. The family initially settled in the Salmon Falls area of El Dorado ae At the same time, the monument of John woods was also placed in this location.

Lakeside Cemetery Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6,2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
County, but was well known in Folsom and its sunounding communities. The grave of Catherine Orr (died 1879), the wife of Thomas, is located near the front of tot t5 of -ntoct 44 (Cook's Cemetery). This large, once ornate marble tombstone has been removed from its granite bases and laid flat in the ground. In July of 1891, the Orr's son, James, died at Rolling Hill-(near present day El Dorado Hills at salmon Falls Road) and was buried in the ,'Folsom cemJtery"sl. presumably hL would have been buried near his mothey's grave.

Family patiarch and one of the "oldest pioneer inhabitants of the county"52 @l Dorado), Thomas Orr died at Shingle Springs in 1893 at an advanced age and was buried at Folsoms3. Tliere is no marker at the cemetery today to indicate that Thomas' remains were interred next to those of his wife. Cunent interments are coming dangerously close to this location which is believed to contain the two unmarked, east facing graves of James and Thomas On.

Hiram Parker Family plot
A resident near the Fifteen Mile House on the old Placerville Road, Hiram parker (died lgg5), a thirty year resident o{,the vicinity, and was buried "in the Odd Fellows plot in the Citizen's Cemetery at this placeto". Parker's wife, Marie, who remarried after his deatir and became Marie Hall (died l90l), was buried beside "her first husband in the Odd Fellows Cemeterfs".

The blue and gray veined marble obelisk momrment (supposedly) marking parket's grave bears chain mars and scratches, and is located near the front of the Odd Fellows Cemetery (no where near what could be considered within the "Citizen's Cemetery"), next to the coped "pitterson" plot. It appears to have been moved in toward the abutted corner of that plot and thi one directly behind the Patterson plot.
a vifg tape of this plot taken in 1990 by historian Armand Kimball (now deceased), shows a small pine tree growing in the location of where the Parker monument is now found. There is no sign of the Parker monument behind the pine tree or anyrvhere near the location where it is today. It is highly questionable whether the Parker graves are where the monument is today or whether the monument has been moved from another location in the cemetery. _ l0 Reference photograph taken by Mary Bowen (circa 1965) which appeared in the Folsom Telegraph.

This photo is on file at the Folsom History Museum.
5' Folsom Tetegraph, July 25, I 891, page 3, column 4.
52 Mountain Democrat, November t8, 1893, page l, column 3. --
t' Tit per the joumal of El Dorado County pioneer, James S. Russetl, who, ironically, was the grave digger for the communities of Rescue and Green JalleV from as early as l86l until the tum of the cen-tury.

Russell's son, Frank, and his grandson, are buried in the coped Russell plot at Lakeside Cemetery. tn Folsom Telegraph, August 29, 1885, page 3, column 3. t5 Fotsom Tetegraph, May 4,1901, page 3, column t.

Lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Folsom, Sacramento Coungl, California
Page32
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Franklin Risgins Family Plot 3 unmarked
Three members of this family were interred at Folsom. Son Owen (dicd 191l), was twelve years old at the time of his death and was buried at "Citizen's Cemetery." His father, Franklin B. Riggins (died 1912), a fifteen year resident of the vicinity, and the husband of Emily (nee Saul) Riggrns, was buried at the "Citizen's Cemetery". Emily Riggins (died 1932), the sister of Ed Saul and the daughter of Charles Saul, was buried in the "Citizen's Cemetery." None of ttrese graves are marked in the cemetery today. There is a Saul Family plot located in the Cook'VAmerican Legion Cemetery, and it should be reviewed to determine if the Riggins graves may be located within it. [SS Note, 121612o02: Peter Kroffdid not record grave markers for the Riggins family in 1998.] Caroline Rose Family Plot 2unmarked
Caroline (nee Riley) Rose (died 1887) was the wife of Milton Rose, one of Folsom's African American pioneers. Her death resulted from burns received when the Rose's home bumed to the ground. The funeral services for Mrs. Rose were held at the Episcopal Church (Trinity) and she was later buried "by the side of her son, in the Citizen's Cemetery.56." No death notice has been found to indicate the name of the son next to whom she was buried, or how old the child may have been at the time of his death.

Her husband, Milton, who is featured in the book,Iolsom Fables - Pieces of the Past, in the story titled, "Three Gentlemen of Color," died in Sacramento in 1890 and was buried at New Helvetia CemeterysT where he was likely removed and re-interred in the mass grave now located at East Lawn Cemetery. Mr. Rose's name appears on very early county tax assessor maps as owning properly in Folsom.

Frank Russell Family Plot 2 unmarked
The son of El Dorado County pioneer James S. Russell, Frank Russell was killed in a dredge accident in September of 1912. His infant son (name unknown) died in February of that same year.

The coped Russell family plot is located in Lot 8 of Block 44 (Negro Bar [aka: Citizen's] Cemetery), but the two markers once located here can no longer be found58. Only the military marker of Lawrence P. Paulsen, Frank's brother-in-law, is in place in the plot. According to the Folsom Telegraph obituary for Frank Russell, he was buried in the "Citizen's Cemetery." J.P. Schaffer Family Plot 2 unmarked
tt Folso* Telegraph, September 10, 1887, page 3, column 2. 5t This per the records on file at the Sacramento City Cemetery archives. tt Per Russell descendant Linda (nee McBeath) Van Gundy, daughter of Elmer McBeath, there were two markers for Frank and his son at one time.
o
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated : f)ecemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Historical background on Mr. and Mrs. Schaffer has not been recorded in this research. Caroline M. Schaffer (died 1891) was a Folsom resident at the time of her death. J.P. Schaffer, died in Sacramento in 1900 and his "remains brought to Folsom and interred beside those of his wife who preceded him to the grave..."Se. The location of the graves is not given in either obituary, nor were markers recorded in previous tombstone inventories.

Melchoir Schlittler Farnily Plot l-2 missing and unmarked Another review of the cemetery grounds may be in order before it can be fachrally determined that this observation is accurate. In 1994, while wandering the cemetery in search of the grave stones of people identified in earlier research, the marker of Melchoir Schlittler was noted. The 1935 DAR inventory listed both Melchoir and Mary Schlittler, but the marker for Mary was not noted in 1994, nor wali it found in 1995.

Melchoir Schlittler (died 1890), a native of Switzerland, is buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery section. His son, Meichoir Jr, (died 1905), a native of Folsom, was buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery'0, though no marker has been found to identi$ his grave. Melchoir Sr.'s wife, Mary I. (died I 9 1 4), a native of Germany was interred in the "family plot in the Odd Fellows Cemetery6l ", though no marker is noted as having been found. Therefore, the "family plot" is not evident and the graves of Mn. Schlittler and son, Melchoir, probably located next to Mr. Schlittler, are unmarked today. l'SS Note. 5/1112002: Peter Kroffs inventory lists Melchoir Schlittler b. 1827, d. I 890 AND Mary E. Schlittler (no dates). Mary's marker was not next to Melchoir's marker in 1995!l Crozier Slayback Familv Plot 2 unmarked
Born October 13, 1819, Crozier Slayback, who resided at 501 Figueroa Street, died at Folsom on October 13, 1889, his 70th birthday. His wife, Minerv4 died in Sacramento in 1903 and was "buried in the Folsom cemeterf2." (This should be interpreted to mean the Citizen's Cemetery, though Crozier's tombstone is located next to the coped l.awson plot in the Cook'VAmerican kgion Cemetery.) There is no tombstone for Minerva at the cemetery today, but it is believed that if Crozier's stone which has been laid flat in the ground, were excavated, Minerva's name will be found on one ofthe unexposed sides.

The Slayback's son, Dr. Charles M. Slayback, who once owned the home at 606 Figueroa Street and practiced medicine in Folsom, died in San Francisco in 1910. "His remains were brought to re Folsom Telegraph, December 15, 1900, page 3, column 2. * Folsom Telegraph, Apnl29,l905, page 3, column 4.
6' Folsom Telegraph, January 30, l9l4,page l,column 6.
u2 Folsom Tetegraph, November 7,lgl3,page3,column l.
kkeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page34

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Folsom...63". There is no tombstone or glzrve marker for Dr. Slayback in the cernetery. A manied man, no information has been found about the death or demise of Mrs. Ella Slaybach his wife.

Many recent burials have begun to encroach toward the location of Crozier Slayback's tombstone and there is a fear that the unmarked graves of Minerva and Charles will be eventually be impacted.

Ira Sowles Familv Plot Zunmarked
Located toward the rear of Cook'VAmerican Legion Cemetery (within Lot l6 of Block 44), close to the tombstones of the Jarvis and Monis families, is the marker for the "Infant son of lra & Ella Sowles" who died in 1887. Ella Sowles, wife of Ira and mother of the infant, died in 1889, though no location within the cemetery was mentioned in her obituary. Ira Sowles died in Sacramento in 1909 and was interred in."Cook's Cemeteryfl." He was survived by three children - Ett4 Chester and Bert. Etta Sowles died at San Francisco in 1918, but there is no indication that she was brought to Folsom for burial. At the time of her death, she was survived by both her brothers.

It should be noted that the tombstone for the Sowles'infant son is now surrounded by other, nonfamily related tombstones. It is not known whether these stones represent burials (unlikely) or if the markers there now were removed from other locations in the cemetery.

SS Note. 5/l l/2002: Another review of the cemetery might be warranted. While cleaning the Chung Watr Chinese Cemetery in April, I took a walk around Lakeside. I believe I noted a Sowles grave marker at the rear of the Citizen's cemetery along the line of bushes. A re-check is recommended.

Edward Stockton Farlrilv Plot 5 unmarked
In 1935, the DAR tombstone inventory listed "Stockton, Edward No dates visible.", and "Stockton, wife No dates visible." There are no markers with the name Stockton located at the cemetery today. Research, however, has revealed that there were likely five members of the Stockton family interred at the cemetery.

Edward Stockton, famous as the industrious man who built the Stockton flour mill on the American River above Folsom, and his wife, Emily, lost two children in December of 1856. A son, Edward Coover65, died December 13, 1856, and a daughter, Emily, died December22,1856. The couple lost another son, John Thomton, in March of 1862.
ut Fotsom Telegraph, April 15, 1910, page l, column 4.
6a Folsom Telegraph, February 19, 1909, page I, cotumn 2. 6t Coover was the sumame of Stockton's partner in his flour milt.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento Cornty, Califomia
Compiled and Written by Sue Silver

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Emily Stockton died at Folsom in November of 1867. Her funeral was held November 11, from Trinity Church and she was buried in the Odd Fellows Cemetery66. Edward Stockton, having lost his mill in a lawsuit involving his partner, died at Truckee in June of 1868, where he was working for the railroad. His remains were shipped to Sacramento from Reno and forwarded to Folsom where he was buried by the Committee of the Sacramento Pioneers "by the side of his wife in the Mason's plot.67"
Having found the death notice for John Thomton Stockton in the Sacramento Daily Union of 7862, a review of the 1935 DAR tombstone inventory has revealed that DAR also picked up the name "TI{ORNTON." The 1935list includes: Edward Thomton, Mrs. Emily Thomton, EmilyThornton, and John Thomton, with the notation "No dates visible on marker." There is too close a similarity benveen these given narnes and the given names of the Stockton family members to ignore. It is believed that the "Thomton" family recorded by DAR was, in actuality, the Stockton family members. Still, no markers with the name Stochon or Thomton are found at the cemetery today.

James H. Sturees Family Plot 5 missing and unmarked
James H. Sturges, a pioneer of Folsom and vicinity and jewelry merchant on Sutter Streeg was buried in the Masonic Cemetery in 190458. His wife, Henrietta (died 1902), who preceded him in death and was also buried in the Masonic Cemetery. Sturges also became the first weather recorder for Granite Township under the original U.S. Signal Corps.

According to the 1870 U.S. Census, the couple had three children - Charles, Mary L., and James.

The first of these children to decease was Mary louetta (nee Sturges) Martine. The 1935 DAR tombstone inventory liss Mary l,ouetta Martine, age 24 years, died July 30, 1888. No tombstone for Mary was located in 1995 and a 1997 telephone inquiry to the cemetery operator was unsuccessful in finding the location of the grave.

The second of the couple's offspring to die was Charles H. Sturges who died at Folsom on August 30, 1900. He was buried in the Citizen's Cemetefe. At the time of his death, Charles left a wife and five small children. The son of Charles H. and Margaret Sturges, Hugh Charles, the grandson of James H. Sturges, died in Folsom December 23, 1892, though the obituary did not indicate his place of burial.
66 As per the records of Trinity Church as transcribed by lois A. Dove, docent of Sacramento City Cemetery Committee.
67 Sacramento Daily Union, July 13, I868, page 3, column 2. 6t Folsom Telegraph October 22,lg}4,page 3, column 2.
6e Folsom Tetegraph, September l, 1900, page 3, column 4.

L^akeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page36

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
In October of 1940, Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Martine of Nevada City, Califomia, visited the graves of his grandparents, Judge and Mrs. J.H. Sturges and his mother, Mrs. MartineTo. Today there are no marked graves bearing the name Sturges or Martine in either the Masonic cemetery or the Citizen's Cemetery.
70 Folsom Tetegraph, October25, 1940, page t, cotumn 4. o
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002
Page37

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
John Whire Farnily plot 5 unmarked
Between 1856 and t 862, four of the children of John White died at Folsom and were attended by the minister of Trinity Church. They were: Anna Belle (died 1862), Charles Alexander (diei 1856), Charles Henry (died 1862) and Clara Louisa (died 186l). The 1860 U.S. Censurs lists John White (age 30 yn), Ann White (age 26 yrs), John White (age 9 yn), Clara White (age 3 yrs) and Emma White (age9 mos.).

John White, listed on the transcribed records of Trinity Church as John uWaiteu, died June 3, lg6l and was buried in the Citizen's Cemetery. His estate was probated in Sacramento Countyt', *ith one of the estate appraisers being W.W. Dresser. There are no grave markers for John White or any of his children at the cemetery today.

Carl Windmiller Family Plot 5 unmarked
Photographs of the Windmiller family plot were taken circa 1889 and 1908. The earlier photograph shows the graves of Rosa (died 1889) and Charles Martin (no date available but shown in photo), each mounded in the ground. The 1908 photograph shows the family plot as it was when it was coped with gnnite with the name "Windmuller" inscribed into the face ofthe top step into the plot.

Today the coping has been removed and there are no markers in the plot to identiff the names of those buried there.

Charles Martin Windmiller, the son of Carl and Wilhelmina Windmiller, was the first to be buried in the plog since his grave existed at the time Rosa Windmiller was buried in 1889. According to family records, Aurora Anne Windmiller, another daughter of Carl and Wilhelmina is also buried in the family plot though no record of her death has been located in this research. She would have had to have died after Rosa's death in 1889 as there are only two gmves visible in the plot in that ye,al
Carl Windmiller died in 1897 and was buried in the "Folsom City Cemetery72", although the remaining face plate from the top step of the coped plot has been left in the ground within the Cook's/American legion Cemetery, just east of the J.B. Schmidt coped plot. Wilhelmina Windmiller died in 1908 (the year the granite coped plot was captured on film) and was buried at "Cook's Cemetery.?3" This would be consistent with the present location of the name plate and is also an example of how the section known as "Cook's Cemetery" had previously been referred to as the "Citizen's Cemetery" or "Folsom City- and "Cityu Cemetery.

This family plot has been severely desecrated with its dismantling. With five unmarked burials within the (unknown) boundaries of the plot, current burials which are presently encroaching within tf SacramentoDailyUnion, June25,l86l,page3,column l: AnnWhiteappointedadministrator t2 Folsom Telegraph, November 20,l}gl,page 3, column 4. 73 Folsom Telegraph, November 14, t908, page t, column 6.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, California
Researched, Compiled and Written by Sue Silver
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
this area and are of great concem. Portions of the granite coping can be identified as those taken from the State park lands during the 1996 investigative excavation.

SS Update. July 1998: Ric Windmiller, a descendant family member, obtained a Ground Penetrating Radar survey through NorCal Geophysical Consultants. According to Ric Windmiller, and Jerry Nelson, NorCal's consultant, the mapping of this survey clearly shows where overburials have occurred at or near the Windmiller plot. In viewing a copy of the mapping, one of the overburials may be of a Slayback family member.

John G. Woods Family Plot I unmarked
lncated at about the half-way mark of t ot 15116 of Block 44 (Cook'VAmerican Legion Cemetery) is the marker of Mary Woods, the wife of John G. Woods, who died in 1888. In February of l8S-9, Folsom monument dealer, J.L. House, put up granite coping around the Woods grave in the Citizen's Cemetery. In April of that year, House erected "one of the finest monuments in our cemetery..." at the grave of the wife of J.G. Woods.Ta
May's marble tombstone has been laid flat in the ground at its present location. The large, onrate marble marker bearing the_name J.G. Woods, ws found in the Oleander bushes behind ttre maintenance shed in l9g4.7s With the information provided by the Telegraph, we know that the plot was coPed with granite and that a "handsome" monument was erected over Mary's grave in 1889.

John Woods died in Placerville in May of L923. He was buried in "Cook's Cemetery.',76 He was over 80 years old at the time of his death and was survived by his daughter, Mrs. Roy Celio of Oakland, California.

Today, in the grave to the east of Mary Woods, is a 1974 burial. It is not known to which side of Mary's grave John was interred. If he was buried to the east of her present marker, he has now been buried over by the more current burial. If he was buried to the west of Mary's marker, he is in danger of being buried over by a future interment. In either case, the granite coped and enclosed Woods plot, has been desecrated.

SS Update. 1215/2002: From the GPR map provided during the Windmiller family plot survey, it appears that the grave ofJohn Woods has been impacted.
?a Folsom Tetegraph, February 16, 1889, page 3, column l, and Aprir 13, 18g9, page 3, column l. t5 Like the Odell tombstone, John Woods marker was moved back into the cemetery and placed in the Lamblett family plot behind the Benjamin Bates family plot in the Masonic Cemetery. t6 Fotsom Telegraph, March g, lgz3,page t, column 4.

I
I
!
!
Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento County, Califomia
Compiled and Wriften by Sue Silver
Page39
Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2002

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Peter Yager Familv plo! g unmarked
The Iirst burial believed to have occuned in the Peter Yager family plot in the .Citizen,s Cemetery,,, was that of william Hudson Thomas, the grandson of Peter Yage;. accoaing; the tanscribed records of Trinity Church, this two year old was interred in the 'Folsom Cemeiery" lreaa Citizens Cemetery) in February of 1870. He was the son of Thomas and Elizabeth Thomas. This burial was followed by the budal of little Mabel Thomas in July of 1881. The infant *"*il; of Mr. and Mrs. David (nee Emma Yager) Thomas, and the grand*ughter of peter yalerJ;i. Mabel died at Oakland and her remains brought to Folsom by t6n.zz - 'Peter Yaget's wife, Elizabeth (nee Ruman of the Ruman family of Michigan Bar, Sacramento County) was the next to be buried in the familyplot in t885. She was Uiri"a in the Citizen's Cemetery near a nephew and trvo grandchildren.Ttr Yaget's step-son, John o. Brown, the son of ;iJff;'"%1i8"?"?#{nee
King) Brown Yager, died in l8e7 and was "interred in the ramly Peter Yager, the renowned brewer who moved to Folsom around 1871, and whose building remains on Sutter Steet' died December 31, 1898 at Folsom. He was buried in the ',Blower Cemetery near Folsom."80 He was survived by his wife, sarah, and son, r.fGouis) yager.

Elizabeth (nee Emma Yager) Thomas, wife of Thomas Thomas and daughter of peter and Elizabeth Yager, died in 1904 and may also be buried in the family plot. Her hr.rsband, Thomas, died in Los Angeles in 1894, though the only notice of his deattr r*" fro* Elizabeth's oUituu.l.

Louis T. Yager, son of Peter and first wife, Elizabeth Yager,died in 1907 in a Sacramento hospital. "His remains were brought to Folsom where he was buriid."sl of the eight unmarked graves noted as being part of the Peter Yager family plot, only ElizabetJr and Thomas Thomas' graves are questionable as to city of interment. The remainder of the family, Yager's and Thomas', were either buried in the same plot or very near each other. None of the graves are marked today.
tt Fotsom Telegraph, July 23, 1881, page 3, column l.
t* FolsomTelegraph, March 14, t885, page3,column 7.
te Folsom Telegraph, November 20,lggT,page 3, column 3. 80 Note that in the discussion of the Cook'b/American Legion cemetery, Maggie Cook, daughter of william Cook and sister of Frank Cook, had married David B-lower. There was a time on the assessorrs records that David Blower was listed as owning these tots or a portion of them. 8l Folsom Telegraph, January 4, 190g, page l, column 5. lakeside Cemetery led and Written by Sue Silver
a
Folsom, Sacramento County, California

Researched, Compi
Updated: Decemeber 6, ZOO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o

KNOWY DISINTERMENTS AND RELOCATED REMAINS
Qra{ the research performed for this study, only two instances of disinterments were encountered. The first occurred in February of 1924, wtren ttre granddaughter of Folsom railroad pioneer, John Kinney (died 1864), and the daughter of lifelong Fokom Jtution master, ror"pt En r"v, had the remains of her grandfathea father and mother disinterred and relocated " " "r.rir"y in San Diego. Her brother, Ned Kinney, lived there and they wished the graves to be closer to f"*iiv.

The second occasion of disinterment came after the death of Katherine Blanchard, wife of Folsom,s beloved school professor, J.E. Blanchard. Mrs. Blanchard was interred at East Lawn cemetery in sacramento and the surviving family apparently had the remains of professor Bianchard (died l9l4) and their son, Leland (died 1903),removed from the cemetery at Folsom and transferred to East Lawn for re-interment.

CONDITION OF TITE CEMETERIES
At the end of the compiled listing may be found accounts of the condition of the cemeteries as folnd in th9 newspaper-throughout the years. The first article noted occurred in March of lg70 when a thief or thieves desecrated the graves in the Masonic cemetery by removing plants, flowers and shnrbs. A $25 reward was put up by the Masonic todge. with the exception of the vandalism and desecration which occurred in the Jewish and Odd Fellows cemeteries in 1891, no other instance of deliberate damage to grave markers has been 82 Folsom Tetegraph, August 7,lgg7, page3,column l.
83 Folsom Telegraph, May t l, l9l l, page 3, column 4.
l"akeside Cemetery Compiled and Wriften by Sue Silver
o
Charles Zimmerman Family plot 2 unmarked
The only marked Zimmerman grave in thl cemetery today is that of Bertha Zimmerman who died in August of 1897' She was interred in the "City i.tn"t"ry..." "the remains *irrg.a to their last resting place in the family plot."82 Previous to Bertha's death, however, her sister, Ethel Zimmennan, died in lgg3 at the family home in clarksville, El Dorado county. charles Zimrnerman *ru th";;;;;r;f ;;w.stern Hotet at !t9 corner of Riley and Sutter street, the building of which r"rn"in, today. there is no record of Ethel being buried at Clarksville, and with the business being in F"b;; iiir'u"ii"".d she was buried in the Citizen's Cemetery, where the tombstone of her siJter is locatej toaay. charles Zimmerman's sister-inlaw, MaryAnderson, died at Sacramento in l9l l, and was b'ried in the "Folsom City Cemetery."83 There are no markers in the cemetery for Ethel Zimmennan or her aunt, Mary Anderson; Folsom, Sacramento Coung, Califomia
Page4l
Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, Z0O2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Masonic
found' In June of 1890, "A Desbuctive Fire" occurred within the cemetery which spread over the and citizen's cemeteries. "A great {eal of a",nug. *, done to irr" en ", enclosing graves the and nearly all the tombstones were blackened or badiy cracked up.,, mowing
The dismal condition of the cemetery was remarked on in June of lg9l. The grounds needed previous
and
year'
there was fear another fiie would spread trt rgr, the grave yard as had occuned the "The remains of a great many people who- have -no cemetery, ,ri"ti* rr* repose in the and only a wooden board marks theirlast resting plac.e.s. A lre all would acquiring any headway at burn them up and no way to determine the buriaiwould remain.,!;il;u,['. wrote. great
Another
deal
fire occurred in 19a4, this time at the Jewish cemetery. It was reported to have done a of damage to the fences.

For many years, committees comprised of members of the odd Fellows and Masonic lodges would
attended to the needs of those ctm"teries and the citizen's cemetery. Later, county Road crews undertake to provide clean-up ofthe Foundr. anicle r" aptr or rg39,-d;";;;;. headlined an about one such clean-up' "oldest Tombstone tvtarksitotr* victim,s G.uue.,, The article informed that the tombstone of Henry Probasco had been found.duringthe clean-up by the county colony
road crews' It related that Mrs. o.J. Miller recalled her father teiling of hearing his uncle say that a of Germans who located near Folsom in early days, suffered an epidemic of cholera. ,,rt seems likely that Henry Probasgo (sic) may have been
"
ui.ir of that.piaie*;"]', ri" pup., wrote, having drawn its conclusion on erroneour hiso.i" inrormation.

In 1942, in preparation
cleaned,
for the "Annual R9a{ Dav" during which the cemeteries would again be the paper noted that "an additional piece of gro,-,ria':
citizen's i"a been taken up and added to the
Cemetery
cemetery. This was likely Lots t through I o?grod. ++ 1*r,i.t, was later sold to Lakeside by the County Ta,x Collector in 1976).

This report contains many facts which are diflicult to fathom or believe. It is incomprehensible most of to us that such activity can and does occur. what we all must reconcile ourselves to is that cemetery
those who participate in the "death industry" are in it strictly ro. on" irring I prott. when a fills to capacity and beyond, there lJtittte profit to be gained in the future. cemetery
when those intened in a cemetery have no one to visit thenr" no one to watch over them, the operators know this. They can track visitations by the lo11eo r"n "t also aware,
thJgxr*s. They are on filling out death certificates for families o, "rri"nor, if there is anyone left in a given family who will be around in l0 or 20 years. become
Funeral directors and employees all act as if they feel your pain- on losing a loved one. They a close confidant because they can.perfoy the 'ugly" business you cannot. you dependent become not be fooled.
upon their expertise and knowledge and you r..i"ilforted by their caring attitudes. Do They teach all this in undertaking clalses.

POSTSCRIPT
Iakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento Compiled and Written by Sue Silver County, Califomia

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6,2W2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
The best reference regarding the modem funeral home and cemetery industy was written by Jessica Mittford in the mid-1960's. uThe American Way of Death" is an excellent resource from which to educate and understand how this most necessary of all industries has evolved ""* ti*.. fr"*,f,ry have a built in businessthat is never going to go away, how you are dependent on their services and that, in the numbness of loss and griei you -a your picketbook are rnrlnerable.

The cemetery industry in califomia is an extremely compt and dirty business. In tggs alone two cemeteries in southem California were closed by the State and taken into receivership. One, Lincoln Memorial Park in Carsoq Califomia, was found to have utilized the same grave and coffin for up to eight burials a day, discarding the remains in a mass grave at the rear o? their grounds.

They had removed gave markers and utilized them for street curbing. Distraught families who broke into mausoleum crypts thinking they would find the coffins of thiir loved oies, found empty space instead.

Other cemeteries are presently under investigation for similar practices. The unfortunate part about these matters is that, after years of being under the control of those employeA in the-cemetery industy, State laws enacted to regulate the indusny have been diluted to the poinrthat there is no enforcement or punishment capability. A law may say "Don't do this.", tut it jives no one a way to stop a comrpt operator from committing the act.

As it sands no% the Departnent of Consumer Affain seems to be actively pursuing those cemetery operators who have raided their "endowment" accounts - stolen from the monies intended to be there when a cemetery could no longer be actively used. DCA's focus does not seem to be geared toward correcting abuses of older graves or the re-selling of pre-owned plots. And mtil laws are enacted which provide enforcement and punishmenL thise unlawful activities will continue to occur.

At Iakeside Cemetery, it continued to occur even while the operators were being investigated. One of the comments made by Robert Claney to the DCA inspector, Ron DeMadeios, w'rs that in the early years the graves were much deeper and over time thi coffins and remains have collapsed and condensed to a thickness of approximately 4 to 6 inches. To paraphrase Mr. Claneybased on what Mr. DeMaderios told me, "We don't bury that deep any longer. If we bury over an Jlder grave, *ho cares?"
Bury your loved ones here, if you like. But keep in mind, it would be nice to know whose grave you will be re-using or atop which pioneer citizen of Folsom your loved one will be interred. a
ADDENDUM. December 6, 2002:

A new pattem of illicit behavior has begun to be discovered by the State Cemetery and Funeral Bureau in Califomia. For many years crematory operators went trnregulated. Although the State has recently enacted legislation which occuned in reaction tor the deorgia incident in which a crematorium operator left hundreds of corpses lying about his property, cremtories in Califomia have also been discovered to have their problems. lakeside Cemetery Researched, Compiled and Written by Suc Silver Folsom, Sacramento Counqr, Califomia

Updated: Decemeber 6, ZOO2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
As one example, in
-1998 Pacheco
the Rogers Family Funeral Home operated the crematorium at the cemetery in contra costa -ounty. The ptingr.pa and flylrr in that rcen"rio *r. christopher
cremated
La'rel Rogers, husband and wife. The state air"o"ila ft"t Rd;-["a irn corpses and remains unattcnded and improperly handled. rrr"rgh the coupte u/as prosecuted, cemetery the operate and
and Funeral Bureau insteaa- rettr.i the case out oi court by revoking their licenses to attaching a condition that if the couple ever again attempted to obtain licensure in ;m" the state would require them to reimbt'se tn" f;iz,ooo i" i""*tig"ti* costs it had Some penalty.

Lakeside Cemetery
Folsom, Sacramento Compiled and Written by Sue Silver Count5r, California

Researched,
Updated: Decemeber 6, 2OOz

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
Attachment 6
Letters from the Public

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
a o
@.%',y,8.9rn4/
September 11,2002
Dear Commissioners of Folsom Historic District
The crematorium proposalfor Lakeside Cemetery must no!be approved! Aside from the obvious zoning violation of putting industry in a residential area, there are compelling health concerns that should absolutely prevent this proposal fr om further c onsider at ion.

As a physician and resident ofthe Preserve, I have researched the health related impact a crematorium would have on the people who live here. I am appalled by the deleterious fficts I and my neighbors would suffer by living next to such a toxic polluter.

Inhaled mercury vapors can cause chemical pneumonitis andmay result even in pulmonary edema (swelling of the lungs). Mouth sores extending down the gastrointestinal tract moy occur. Chronic exposure is even worse as the central and peripheral nerttous systems are afected with brain and newe damage which mty be irreversible. Effects on children are more pronounced as their smaller bodies can't handle as muchpoison. Mercwy is awell-btown teratogenwhich leads to miscarriages and birth defects.

The smokz, ash, and odor, even without the mercuql, pose a pulmonary risk in ocute and chronic exposure to basically, arryone with lungs. This risk is greater for those who are medicallyfrogile or have pre-existing lung conditions such as asthma or emphysema.

Once these puticles find their wry into swimming pools, and our treasured Lake Natoma, more health hazards abound, and they are nearly impossible to clean up.

Our health, Iives, andfutures depend on each ofyouvoting your conscious, and your intellect. Given thefacts, you can't approve such a harmful proposal.

Sincerely,
"g
Terry Murphy MD, MS, CEP & Friends & Neighbors of the Preserve

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
3RS,I : L. J. LF{.NEI{T T !24 m2 wtL#t P4
PN 02-258; applietkn for conditional usc pcrrrit to constnrct end opcrete e crcmatodum in Lakeside Cemetery, dcspitc thc foUowing
l. Crematorium is NOT a perrrittcd use in any Folsom zoning disrict. GrI\,fC Titlc l?)

2. The cemete{y contains mary old trees, ad is part of the forcst atl^akcNatorna - the samc forest that is in a Stce Part on the Ancricrn Rivcr.

3. Tbe proposed site for a crcortorium abuts singlc ftmily horncs on two sidcs. 4. Thc proposcd sitc abuts Fcdcrrl lVatcrs and Fedcral lad opcrtcd a a StaePark on two sidec. 5. The lad is zoncd'Opco Specc Conravetion ' (FMC Tilc f 7) 6. The property hclr rdcqurtc tcsttt for firc urd crncrgcncy protcctioa. There is no acc€ss to the State Part, rhould a crcnstqiun frc rccidcnt occurt

7. Thc applicaion 6lc is iacomplitc notitle. t. ThercrrcmultipleCEQAviolations: Noticanotfilcd. NOlnitislstudyinftlc SndgL. Ocncr said hc did not do oae. 9. Tbe filc contrins absohrtcly_noing4 from ovorsight Trurtce egcncics, bccausc prop€r, leptly madatc{ Nciccswpre nc,ver filedwith the State and Courtyegcocics.

10. Thc ocoretcry ownership hasa chcckcred history whicb includcs nrttiplc sclting ofthc same plots, disappcarancc of gravcs and msrkers, marijuana cultivatioq burial outside boundaries.

In an ordinary city, such facts would prs{rcnt nrcb a proposat ftom bcing prtr forward. I spokc with the :€geter{ glmcrAugnsf,26,2@L linform€d him ofthc CEQA deficiencics in his applioation. I alrc informcd hin it ir neccssary to *tach I copy of the titlc to the property bccruse tc s6fO it rcccntly and rSought it lasl ycar. Thc purclrascr conilactcd me after discovering the reselling ofplots, grave remornls, pd gardcq coclordmentr, rnd more.

I roqu.cst yur ofrce invcstigptc rhiq casc. This is not th only bogu remniagfusc rcqlrest frcing me, Thc city Rczooe Conmiace rccoumcndcd rezoniag a Stcc-rcgulatod toxic tite br Aibrdablc - !rysinq bigb dcosity zoning. Plurning Staf ellowed an application to nakc a public prectrtstion before the llistorio Distict Coustission without rnrking ur applioatioq withoui d"i"i ury notices, and withorn payrng rcquired fees. fhis is typical FokoL opi,ition.

Subnitted gl mmby Lnrcfic J. I-arcot
CC: LNS, media

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
140 Fargo Way
Folsom, Cu, 95630
Sqtembo 27, 2002
f$ Fureira-Pro, Chahman
Hlstotic Dbttid Conunissbnqt
Plnnnhg Inspdion & Pemifrng Dqt
Folsom CIty Hall
50 Natona StTed
Folsom, Ca., 95630
This laq is being twlfren to p?ot6t the Iaheslde Memorial Cerrrdety and Mausoleam Crenatoriam's impacl onthe Nalonal and &lifornia Rqirtaed Landmsh Chung Wah Memorial Cemdq and State EMoricsl Pokt of Intqqt Young Wo Memoriel Cemaay in ordq to nuinnh praemotion of the cbea Chlnae Gold Rush cultural, rellglous and archamlogical specinl feaura,
Thqe circa Chinse Gold Rash cendqls for their dacendants today continue to be held in solemn spiritual rcverence and profound sacrd stcem for those htqned dernally.

The uisting mdal onsite maintcnance buMing at Lahqide Cenetuy and Mausolcum has 2 ga?age rollap doon Because of crenatd ashq ln the ab - eiths from the uema:tofiam chimney; when ashq are put/poured hto a containu; through clun*p of ash raidue waste disposal or cleaning up of ktqior crenatorium - the potential lnpact ovq time wouW be signlfrcant to both Chang Wah Memorial Cendery and Young Wo Menarial Cemaoy. Rentnants ashs thut are at the crenatoriam wlll be in the air and wlth whds will have to lnnd somqlace such as the Chhqe bafial mounds.

If the crenatorium conditlonal use pumit is approvd, the most raponsible conditions should be mandoted to whomevq mns, operala, clcans and renoves the crenatoriam ashq. It is reqauted that thls lder be kdaded tn ton@ht's minates of the HMoric Dtstict Commlssion Meaing.

Rapectfully,
IANE C. CHAN
cc:

O

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

PETITTON TO PROTEST BT]ILDING A CREMATORII'M
We protest the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery and Mthrsoleum building an crematorium at Natoma Street and Forrest Streel \ffe feel that rhis crematorium would impact the Historic District and have an devastatinglbadeffect on air, environment, health' humans, animals,life, cultural, and archeological landmarks, residents etc. We request that both an EnvironmentalStudy and Environmental Impi,et Report be done. +2
49 49
o
o
commsnl (Pn-*)
,hj- {ffif4) <-t <..Lt-ttZ,
Address Pr,;,P
/4o fuvo ttuzl
6/am/&,ltY-z
rla fttryo ath4
Agrrfaa. llala
7r'2ft2ry Wa*rr&-' ' liva
Name LPr,7n*)
Jarneg L. l,/Llv\!)Tn
RI1WD/.tatNG
\Tar- ee*z;fo e{i*
Signature
furu&J "mup ft(,
&,a"u llll
w
Date
qft lfoz
r /r/*
L
I rr6/
%q6t

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

PETITION TO PROTEST BTJILDING A CREMATORIT]M
We protest the Lakeside Memorial Cemetera and Mllusoleum building an crcmatorium at Natoma Street and Forrest Street.We feel that this crematorium would impact the Historic District and have an devastating/bad effect on air, environment,health, humans, enimals, life, cultural, and archeological landmarks, residents etc. lVe request that both an EnvironmentalStudy and Environmental tmpnct Report be done. 4)
?
q
a
Y a lla*
eilfi
es
+
o
Comment CPfu)
C t,^€. krzt at1'wa. lBlr,d t e5 eft (e6'tate,rq il-r r t Ip,t* Ad,r h t t O U ertne. Letuet<tfu, I
,6un e-il, o* _lbty,rn rUE 6o Tun e Haust.tg Q ev q(op, /t\ 7A is is foo cLas
!
e ')rcs iden
;N
AddrssC?ria+ )
lfuhuo tthtt foldita.Waa
a c2 /?nrgav)
45q C Leq,vsfoae ' PLa' cc
.z^tffi/@.t0i> fit3$61q 4 zfte2
xame(Pnht)
'4<an4cx(l Dt ,
Mcr',rKs
A -,'on 5- Dr,rc!
GLaA ys D" vid
.46r<.++nn e-r+ftrr-t
Sigpahrre
{TJD,J
ry'4"""A
"++ffiDate a / Tiul Abe Yz, olelox ?y'rF'

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
j
I
9 ")

PBTITION TO PROTEST BTIILDINC A CREMATORIUM
We
We protest the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery and Mousoleum building an crematorium at Natoma str€et and Forrest Street feel that this crematorium would inpact the Ilistoric District and have an devastating/bad effect on alr, envlnonmeng health, humans, snim4lsr life, cultural, and archeological landmarks, rsidents etc. we request that both an Environmental Study and Environmental Impriit Report be done. o
o
0 Address
/ooz
)
\oozTt
7ce-
-ft;b4 -#
&6
6 9
tuo\ tud4,
is'sn^?Vi
k*?4'a
Neme ? Tq{{ BuY/tr
Tx^ia"i<- T3uu{ter
C \ur, fr i^ ronk t
,\ .r l \ i: ;
\ j /, j{a{ r ;' i !/{1. \
,(e rlDoYT
Signahrre
V/e/4]'
NAtalo.t
b,&L
E&'rt
{kotJeqO
('.tt't ,rrrl
u
Date
8- f-oz
4':"c7
7-f -do
/s'e'.
1+u
-f-al

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

PETITION TO PROTEST BTIILDING A CREI\,IATORIT]M
We protest the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery and Mousoleum building an crematorium at Natoma Street and Forrest StreelWe feel that this crematorium would impact the Historic Dlstrict and have an devastating/bad effect on air, environment, health, humans, animalsr life, culhrral, and archeological landmarks, residents etc. We request that both an Environmental Study and Environmental Impritt Report be done. o
I
I
t9
t)
/)
l3
o
Address Comment
so?
4ed;r''t 3'-
{4?
49,,{,27 tt
tzb/ee/?/
d
glJ
"4otvwrn Xnfannc'
501 flofucu
W^ldNE
Name
Qa rd I 1-lowo td
ltztk hbrr&/
AF &tzzE
0 t1t " 1Jut0 Kea
uLLee n)
B oh r\LI-
+
Signature
e"J
Naao,4
%;/, 4"-4
ey'/ EI'ZL
,D;r*.t- " &tt ,)!t^
bohorf
^
Oo0!te4\
Datc
q/sle
r/r/-z
lfr4
7/s7t
rfthr
ik&

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
September 27,2002
Mr. David Storer, Director
Planning, Permitting & Inspections
City ofFolsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
o
ot
L,
t$sl
Sge
?s$es'
RE: Comments on the Initial StudylDraft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Lakeside Cemetery Conditional Use Permit,l20l Forrest Street (PN02-258) Dear Mr. Storer:

I have reviewed the above-referenced CEQA documents and I have the following comments
Descriotion of Proiect
The project description does not provide adequate information to assess the potential environmental impacts. While this section does describe where the crematorium will be installed, it does not include information on the crematorium structure itself. CEQA Guidelines state that the description should include "the whole action involved" to help the public understand the whole project. In addition, I believe that the following information should be provided:
l. What are the propoSed hours of operation of the project?

2. How long will thiS proposed project be allowed to operate under a conditional use permit? Is there a time limit, i.e. 2 years, 20 years? Environ mental Factors Potentiallv Affected
It states that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and with applicable zoning. According to Section 17.39.020 of the City Municipal Code, permitted uses in Open Space and Conservation Districts do not include crematoriums.

In addition" the City is relying on a l4-year old Environmental Impact Report @IR) and General Plan for assessing potential significant effects for this project. As many changes and much growth have occurred in the City since 1988, I believe that information in these documents is too outdated to be relied upon for this proposed project.

I. Land Use and Plannine
As stated above, this proposed project is not consistent with existing zoning and the General Plan, so "b", should be checked either "potentially or "less that with mitigation" rather than "no impact."
Under the discussion sectio4 it states that this proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Open Space, based on the assumption that a conditional use permit is required for a cemetery. This analysis is confusing and misleading.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

David Storq
September 2T,2002
P4e2of 4
o o
As the proposed project is located in the Historic District, reference to any conflict with the Historic District Specific Plan should be discussed. Also, aooording to the City's Municipal Code Section 17.52.360, Conditional Use Permit review, it states that the Historic District Commission has the final authority relating to the issuanie of conditional use permits for projects looated in the Historic District. This information should be included in the discussion and the analysis of potential impacts.

VII. Noisq
As the hours of operation for this proposed project are not included in this initial study, I do not believe that a determination on whether this proposed project complies with the Crty's Noise Ordinance is possible.

Also, the discussion section states that a "standard condition regarding hours of operation will be included with the conditions of approval of this proj.ect," It is difficult for the public to assess possible noise impacts without having a description of these conditions.

As such, I believe that "potentially significant" is more appropriate.

IX. Air 9ualitv
This section does not adequately assess potential environmental impacts from this proposed project. This section includes a comprehensive discussion of the Sacrarnento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District standards, but it does not include specific information on potential air quality impacts from this proposed project. For example:

1. What are the pollutants ftom the crernatorium?

2. What will the levels of pollutants be for the orematorium?

3. What are the prevailing winds for the area? What is the projeoted trajeotory for air pollutants?

4. What will the odorlevels be?

5. What about air emissions from metals such as mercury, lead, etc? As there is no specific information and analysis on potential air pollutants from this proposed project, an analysis and determination of potential impacts cannot be completed. As such, I believe that "potentially significant" should be checked instead.

XII. Hazards and Hazardous Mate{ials
The discussion section states that no health hazards are assooiated with crematory use.

Other than Sacramento County, has the City researched or consulted with other health and research entities to make this determination? Has the County conducted health and risk assessments on crematoriums to be able to make this statement? If not it appears to me that this statement is not appropriate unless zubstantiated by experts. Whot obout potential health risks from mercury?
In addition, how will residual cremation remains be disposed of? XV. Cultural Resources
As the proposed project is adjacent to an historical landmark (Chung Wah Chinese Cemetery), and is located within a Gemetery with historical significance of its own, I don't believe that there will be "no impact" on a historic resource. The Lakeside Cemetery contains many graves of California Pioneers.
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

David Storer
September 27, 2002

XYIIL Earller Analvses
As stated previously, relying upon an out-dated 1988 EIR for the General Plan is not adequate, and tlus the impacts are not adequately addressed. Further, mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project are also inadequately analyzed, and sitespecific information is not provided. while earlier analysis may be used, GEQA requires that mitigation meazures be described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Other Comments
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan
What mitigation monitoring or reporting program will the City establish for this mitigated negative declaration? CEQA requires that the City adopt a program of monitoring or reporting to inzure that mitigation measures are complied with @ublic Resources Code, Section 21081.6).

Approval of Other Public Agencies
The CEQA Environmental Checklist Forrr included in the CEQA Guidelines includes a question on other public agency approvals. Doesn't the Historic District Commission have to approve this project, and ttre State Cemetery and Funeral Board approve the license? Also, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District should be included.

Publis Noticing and Comment Period
The public comment period was not provided on the CEQA package signed August 29, 2002. Also, when and what mediawas the public notice made forthese cEeA documents?
Environmental Impact Report
Due to tlre reliance on an out-dated EIR, and due to potentially significant impacts, I believe an EIR is more appropriate than a mitigated negative declaration for this proposed project. In addition, as I believe that this is a controversial project it warrants an EIR.

Sincerely et".t*tL
Nancy Carroll
1348 Young Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
cc: JeffStarsky, Folsom Mayor
cc: Kerri Howelf Folsom Vice-Mayor
cc: Cyndi Dow, City Council Member
cc: Eric King, City Council Member
3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

David Storer
September 27,2002
Page4 of4 o o
cc: Steve Miklos, City Council Member
cc: Jeff Ferreira-Pro, Chair, Historic District Comrnissisn cc: Dan Burgoyne, Member, Historic District Commission
cc: Candy Miller, Member, Historic District Commissisa
cc: Mary Hegarty, Member, Historic District Commission
cc: Dan McNeil, Member, Historic District Commission
cc: Jobn Messner, Member, lfistoric District Commission cc: Jerry Fry, Member, Historic District Commission
cc: Martha Clark Lofgren, City Manager
cc: Mary Rigney, The PreservesA.{atoma Shores
Neighborhood Alliance
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o LauretteJ. Laurent
Land Use Consultant
l2l2 ForrestStreet
Folsom, CA 95630-2468
November 23,2002
o
Members, Folsom Historic Distrist Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
Request for ofrcial notice: 1200 block ofMormon Street, public street in the city of Folsom DearHDC Members:

With the assistance ofFolsom stafi, I was able to obtain records for property which is ttre subject of a Conditional Use Permit by owners, Messrs. Claney. Purzuant to FMC 17.52.360 the Historic Dstrict Committee has jurisdiction.

Using legal records, it was possible to identify Mormon Street as a dedicated Folsom street and Right of Way existing for over 100 years. City stafrwere kind enough to show me that Mormon Street southwest of Forrest Street is the dedicated city street providing access to ApN 020 0130 002 000, commonly known as l22l Mormon Street, Folsom Cd ILLEGAL TO CREATE A LAIID-LOCKED PARCEL: City staffreminded me that under California law, Mormon Street COULD NOT be abandoned because it is ILLEGAL to create a legal parcel that has no public occGSSr l22t Mormon is accessed/served by Mormon Street, RECORDS SEARCH: a searoh of records indicated that Mormon Street southwest ofForrest Stre€t WAS NOT ABAI{DONED by the city,
STREET SIGNAGE: The 1200 block ofMonnon Street southwest ofFonest Stre€t is posted with an ofrcial Folsom street sigu
ATTACHMENTS: Metroscan APN records from Sacramento County Clerk Recorders' Office: l. l20l Forest Street, Lakeside Memorial Lawn 2. l22l Mormon Street, Chung Wah ACTION REQUEST: I am requesting the Members of HDC take official notice of fact that Mormon Street southwest ofForrest Street is a dedicated Folsom street and public Right of Way, which has edsted continuously since Theodore Judah drew the city zubdivision in the nineteenttr -
c€nturyi and that l22l Mormon Street is a Lot/parcel ofRecord in Sacramento County, (
-J
J. Laure,nt
Att:

Cc: Preserves Natoma Shores Neighborhood Alliance

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
LauretteJ. Laurent
land Use Consultant
1212 Forrest Street
Folsom, CA 95630-2468
November 24,2002
Members, Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
Re: DEED Required in Application for Conditional Use Pennit 1201 Forrest Street DearHDC Members:

In reviewing this application file, I noted that if the property has changed hands within the year prior to the initial applicatio4 the owners are required to submit a oopy of the deed. This requifement is stated on the city of Folsom Application, It is my understanding that the Application must be complete in order to proc€ed fo a Public Hearing and Finding of Fact Hearing
I beliwe Lakeside Memorial Lawn was purchased by Messrs. Claney from a large corporation during 2002, I believe this because several weeks ago Mr. Loren Claney told mi this personally, He stated he repurchased Lakeside I\[emorial from the corporation to which it was so[d the previous year,
Since the propertl in qlestion changed ownership with one year, the new owners are required to file a copy of the Deed with the Apptcation for Conditional Use.

If I were a member of the IIDC I would desire to know the facts and circumstances surrounding the sale and quick repurchase oflakeside Memorial by Messrs. Claney, because they pertineni When the Deed is obtained, I request to be informed so that I may obtain a copy of the tiltiplete Condition Use Application File,
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincere,ty...-'t,--"'
--!^i
Lurette J. Laurent
o
Cc: Preserves Natoma Shores Neighborhood Alliance

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
Laurette J. laurent
Land Use Consultant
I 2l 2 Forrest Street
Folsom, CA 95630-2468
November 25,2002
Members, Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Strest
Folsom CA 95630
- Re: STAI.IDARDS for granting Conditional Use Permits
Dear HDC Membe,rs:

I would like to obtain a copy of the STAI{DARDS utilized when evaluating a conditional use permit purzuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.360.

What I am seeking is the set of rules, gui{elines, formal criteria, which the Historic District Commission is required to use when evaluating an application received for a CUP, as well as any zupporting material contained in FMC and enabling legislation.

I have an immediate noed for this information. Please ask your city zupport staffto forward this information to me.

Thank you for your atte,ntion to this matter.

Laurette f. Laurent
Cc: Preserves Natoma Shores Neighborhood Alliance
ATT i FnC 17, t1. 3 6 O
o

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
oeuuurt L t .Ja.Jrrrt t-uuuluullal uuc pcruur revlgw. rage I or r haptg: t?.sz n-p. HrsroRrcel*TRrcr o
Section t7.52.360 Conditional use permir review.

A. The historic district commission shall have final authority relating to the issuance of cond.itional zsa-permits fo1-any of the uses or purposes for which such perrrits are required or permitted by the tcrms of this title, within the boundaries of the historic distict. B. In acting upon applications for conditiorul use permits, the historic district commission shall adhere to the proccdural requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60, except for matlers of appeal, which shall be governed by this chapter. (Ord. 890 $ 2 (part), 1998) http://www.ordlink.com/cgi-bh/hilite.pUcodes/folsom/-DATA/Title_17t52t360.hfrnt?con... lllZLtZ}Oz

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

I lt",nf'l;', t
t ls\,
f l,aulettc J. Lanrrent ' IEnd Ue Coosrrltant
_
l2l2 ForrestStrcet .

Folsom, CA 9S69C,246S
November 27, 2W2
o
8ffi ?"ff1:*4 Firo Department
50 Natoma Stre€t
Folsono, CA 95630
Doar ChiefDutton:

Re: LAKESIDE CREII{ATORIUM PROPOSAL
In decades ofpractice, I have always herl an eynntto-+ ,a__^r _ t.t - il;;;';ihtil;ffi-,il,###trH:ig;Hffi
smeuing the smoke rom oe ffiffif"il$:H*Hflff "ildil uF *e hill t#;;; t ; ;.;ffid;iirr,,r, orrain. The fires underscore serioys problems,,id thil apprication. Tqtq*t owncr rril-ir*uy, who said he was unable to afford €xp€rts b*.r;;;i'fir n"iiii"r'".i1'Jrioo rio.. n'u ffi; )rp*n rr lakeside.

I ry *"tioe ri'" rur*Hrff trr3}ffiffiif{rTt Tlffitc rurracq in whar is i}:;s ::TTi-t anach 4""-i'*'' * o.*r"J '-dfti;oi"s
u,""ert;****mf***m"g*fffi pq*ir",, M chaer rohnson. or ,tffirh:iffi#h; ffi::rffiHHXll*ic land' rnou i';tqd'ili;"; ailowing ooasideration or this EACTS: t' A crematoriurn is NoT a use eligible for a ft?S*{ use p_ermit within the Historic District' nor anv zd'g-d-iGJ i;;;r**.rft rii. i, i,t_q* space conservation. ? In: propo_scd tin shed to nou* rn, n r**-.l"il i ffi:{6;nnl.r# * 5' rhe ou'n€rs have a tntot-J r"g.l-*Jrrit* rirlgo-c **, orr"o to repruchase it. ,",.:; ff ffi,i1ffi;ffi*ifi$dffiJd ffi -fr",'fr?",,n,oi, .,,
-"
buriar ,i;,5tff:T$"*:*?r*y*i" ir u"*li'so* pavement and Right orway with "'*r",1;Tl}1"ffi1#ilffiy#* 'n"oachments have a direst impact on fire & 9' Tte Mormon stti* *tto;m-t resfiicts the use g!.accees to abutting chinese cemetery

10. properrv
rhe o*T whi* *"i.i*';ffid cJo.i, lui;k sites of lnteresr. uroc* anJroct-pubri, il*t Jffi;:. ou*o1,toH,ffffiS# iilffil-1"^ i'p"ility"L, cou_*or !,pon operalors or ::T,rrffi :llffi1r#ffi$F"ffiT;.:I**J.

H"[Tl#ffi,*r.ffi: ;ffiH.fruilffi il ;; ;ffiil;iL trees d'mped I rcquest e violetion oo'.i Uo lrr_":{ p thc owner, and firc hazardr be immodietcly iLllff;tr'fr1ft*1"tv "d'* ti" ifibes i-*ii,, ir.i'irlaio-*, subaivisioricods and

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

LsrcdbFolsomFircCldd ^
r,J\f,rl.1 GF rflrltl-I 1tJi3
LnTn{aLg,2 o a

13. For unknown rcaross, a full Environmedal Impact Rcport has not boen done, despite the hugo implications for Iake Natoma/Amsrican Rivcr and Federal Lands, StCe Park. (PIP statr appar;;ry havc bcen direstcd to rely upon verbiagt io t!9 l98E Gcneral Plan to iusdry Nogative fi&hations. Howwer, the CaliforniaAttorney General has deolared the Gen€ral Plan INVALIID.) Givon the facts, and the Bttached information about pollution iszues, it is apparegt 1full investigation oitle application was not performed. Iszues for Fire lvlarshall include:
l. Illigal encroachments on fire access stre€ts and ri=ghts of way,

2. podndal deseoration of graves during legal Fire Deparhent access to l22l lvlormon Steet for firc protection orother €mergency,

3.-C\dting of protected trees, then dumping and leaving them as fire hazards, a, Inpaciof incroachments and obsbuction of public-strests on cooperdive agreements under ufiioh trbhom Fire Department provides em€rgency assistanc€ to orther ageooies,

5. Impact of encroaohments on FFD ability to serve Young Wo Circle properties, o. peimitting a gns ftrnace in open Spaoe conservation zone, Z. p€rmitdtrg a las furnace in fola*ed unimFroved location (State Park) habitat for many forest .
creafires and protected sPecies,
E. (Fautry) pto"or, bywhich this application reached the Rrblio Hearing stage without formsl Findiirgs of itict by Folbm Fire De,partment regardi4g safety iszues, -
e- t'auatioo oia firll CuP Application, including ALL required doanments, and palment of all fees nec;sary to cover the costs of FFD investigeting the applicatiorl

10. Insdtudng changes necessary to ensre.Folsom FireDep{*tg reviews ALL applications for dorelopr.it, impiovement, e,lrcroaohment impacting fire and safety ac@ss. Checklist' This last point is very importaut. My home is located within a few hundred feet oflhe prypo$ furnace. A wild fire-could destroy abulting homes as a result of the mizuse of public lands and willftl obstnrstion of ptrblio sreis and ROWs. I have docume'med moving of markers, and gnding "n"og6
in public ROWs in the cemst€ry, which make mg sulpe{ tlgf mi8$ bury more bodies in dedif,1gd sir".t nOm. (tsaby Land" is in Mormon St.') Note in the anached Cella Barr Plat the .Encroaohmeuts" is bhcfed out. The original doctrment must be produced. I would like to see a copy of the original,
\ilhy is the city not prstccting public streets and rights of way for FFD access? Why is the city not enforcing ugaiort the fee desftrction and dumping of them to create fire hazards? Un y isthe city_ not enfoicin! the State Codes governing proper use of land and protection of the hedtb safety, and welfare?? fhy doesn't the city require full street improvements to Code? \ilfhy is publio land allon'ed to be used for pivzte laini Wny is this property ownor p€rmittcd to urdanger us and hinder ourFireFight€rsfrom doing their job?
Beoagse ofthe gavity ofthe situation, I am copying this lett€r to impacted entities. I arn snre you will address these setbus questions in order to protect us. I request a copy of your report. If you bave questions, please oontact me at 985-4488.

J.Iauent

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

D-iPP/l INL
DRAf ^' P I P€ FP,iM Ar<-e* 0F
DumP nl e o MT o ET+TS PA et
Ee tou),
C €/V6T€B
L
co"r/S7/?Ucu oal
(FtD, t-*nrl)
L\ernkro&V
eo0sfz't'ntt oA)
p4PD
+ A NcailT@L(-€L
/vruD * SOIL
&aaR- o€ t>Al Foe^C.eSf
L*KEst b€
lvCtvlorct& L
LA TD^!,
Fo usoi BLID
Loc.4Tt d N
I eLt
rn o rzm oAJ s7.

L A K€3 tDE /VEln, LAd^) /
oF 4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
'v P1- 3z P IN€ TE€E
TlNbeK' DC Y :
4 P.etnfrn/s (rF
c UT D&<t*t
L IV€ oAK
Tee E, buttPeg
QFtr knzes tb€
Ds-1")U R*r'tMt,'
sr ulvtPS
I=gDEFAL (M
At ftmttztcAtv .R€fre tQtVsZ lN
6€
PF+oTb
SIGN
PotNrtN e To
MotllwOM STftA:f
l^/S r bO LeK€rDg
fvl€M, tA<DN
6ftr6
Lhtl^s t De M€fn, Lfrdt)
e rT I

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
{\
4so3:1..
c6u erde/
hu.L e re€€s
ntD { Larcs N*rc) mA ft/vt&- tcnM rtr
/
S ru ne/eepftnra8

UF PJNO W
R€frL W
I,'a 1 mtruaN
Lfrrces lD€
/w{tutAta4u L*dN
ftNDorz b,4/
ve<
Lerc6s r>6 ut€rh, L#d^) J oFt/

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

LIFr SZ*rronl .
l33o wuve Lilo
btu
DR"UM I
kecErvtnl r'-
,'V€NT,, GAS6,
LEAPINE t-tQUID oilTD
8T*16 P*eL
4a
Dc,u14 WtrH F6EA TUB€ INTO UJET WeLL
CHLoPltutE 7 >
LOC-l<Eb
Dadu
W6LI-,S xT ss LI FT STp.1164
/33o YouNctlo
e( Kt-Lqt ru60t
S PI LL ED LIqu tD
FR.DM sS gA" .

Copr*tuap_ r
? IPE.

PEA )
aN
bA'/ ,
Wer A
Pr+oro D/<'/
rJoF 4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

ESI :"#,lr':'orL'3
f o yl nt s''s t ovl"
Laurette J. Laurent
Land Use Consultant
l2L2 Forrest Street
Folsom, CA 95630-21168
o
Deoember 6, 2002
To: Interested Party, Organization, Agency

LAIGSIDE CREMATORY IN THE FOREST
As you know, November 27,2002,I wr-ote a detailed letter to Folsom Fire chief Eric Dutton' I hand-carried it to rir. r"rurrt u[ Ron phillips and trad 1 ggg.d discussion with him and t*'o others.

December Z,2OO2,I had a telephone convlrsation with Chief Dutton' I called him because I did not receive tU" rrtu*
"atl
promised to me the2f, He told me that everything is "great" in Folsom and he r"*
"U
a"ntlopment and improvement proposals' I reminded him that he never saw the incinerator;;ilt r, proposal t"a'" e.rgrrst2111,until I brought the records to him on ;.i;;.;;{-ii"r"t"r.o hirn of anoiher huge local development proposal that has never been submitted to him even though it was discussed at Public Hearing" lrealiz*that the development interests micro-manage the entire city of FOlsonl but it is o,rt "g*.$ to endanieritr" tt
"nn
and safetyof a ciry fol the sake of aiding private interests" In this casg I refe*pdn.lty to the potential for a 20b0 degree inferno machine in a forest where there is No AcciSS!! There is no access to the garage-ufiere the Claney's wantto put an incinerator, ff" "p.rts
to have natural gas or PRbPAlilE in-a location unreachable in an "*.,g.n y. I documented the forest natrue of the location" the lack of access for emergency vehicles" r aocrmeniJthe misuse of dedicated public str@ts, and inappropriate re-grading, I appealed to chief Dutton's sense of decency in protecting the lives of his fire-fighters who are called upon to lay their lives on the line for tirese property owners' I gave him color photos of tt r i*rJ illegalli .[op-p"A i"*" and dumped ol itre T*-"t -ty and adjacent !*qt - creating tuel
for an inferno. I g";him the news articli detailing the healh objections of a physician' I told him r learned that
"
g.r opiorion could blow a firJengine 300 feet away. Itold him I learned a g; fir. could rpt"oitfnotigftthe entire forest along the AmericanRiver, and destroy our homes easily" I described the smell of the ptum witdnru tl.king place as I wrote my Zib letter' I told ffi i,; may think the city is oK but I don't want innocent people endangered" ' UpDATE: There is none from Fire Chief Dutton. He asked me when the application was filed, and when it goes to tn Historic Distrist (Plan) goTmlssion for a Conditional Use Permit tt"rtiog. Ruiror has it, that date is l2tl8t02. Who knows around here?

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
Attachment 7
Site Photographs

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
flJil
tr
ru
I
o
r
I
il
r

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
(l
crw oF FoLsoir o
HISTORIC DISTRICT COiITISSION AGENDA
",o
dlll, fi lit'J"'6'# 3*",
Plannlng, lnspectlons and Permlttlng Conference Room
Folsom, Gallfomla 95030
5:00 p.m.
cAtL TO ORDER HISTORIC I'ISTRICT COMIIISSION: Chair Jefi Feneira-Pm; Mce-Chair Dan Mcl.leil; Commlssioners: Jeny Fry, Gandy Miller, Mark Roberts; Commissioner-Eled Susan Mehdng CITIZEN COmt{UNlcAnOil: The Historic Disilrid Cornmisslon ruelcomes and encourages pailicipdion in Cily Historic Dlstrid Commlssion meelings, and will allour up to 5 minutes for exprsssion on a non-agenda item. Meters under the jurisdidion of the Cornmission, and nol on the postod agenda, may be addressod by the general puuic; horve\ter, Callfomla lavv prohibits the Commission frorn takiq aclion on any matter$rhlch ls not on the posted agenda unless lt is <tetermlned to be an €morgoncy bythe Gommission.
oATH OF OFFICE - FOLSOtrl HISTORIG DISTRICT COMMISSION

1. Susan Mehdng
iIINUTES: Minutes of December 18,2OO2 stand approved unless thene arc con€cilions.

T{EW BIISINESS:

1. PN 02-25E. l20l Forrcst Strcet Conditional Use Pemit to Lorin Clanev oocrlte a c]lmetodum nygg,l5ffi Home
Folsom, CA 95830
A PuHic Hearirg to conskler a rcquest fmm Lakeslde Cemetery for a Conditional Use Permit to opemte I Cremetorlum located at Lakesitle Ceme[ery at en exlstlng cemetery at 1201 Forest Silrset. The site is designated Open Space (O.S) in the General Plan and zoned Open Spaco Conservation Dis{tid (OSC) and ls locatedwithln the Open Space/Fublic Primary Area of the Historic Gommercial Pdmary Area of the Historic Distrid. (Prqec{ Plannen Assisilant Planner Jane Talbd)
Committeor@mmissions:
]ligtoric District @mmlssion:

Dlrecton
The ne:d Historic Di$dd Commission meeting will be held on January 15, 2003. Acldiuonal non-public hearing ltems may be dded to the agenda; any such additions will be poc*ed on the bttlletin boad in the foyer at City Hall at leasi 72 hours priorto the meeting. Persons having questions on any of these items can visitthe Planning, lnspections, & Permitting Department durirg normal business hours (E:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at City Hall, 2- Floot 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, Califomia, pdorto the meeting. The phone number is355.7222 and FAX number is 35$7274.

NOTICE REGARDING Cf,AITENGES TO DECISIONS
The appeal pcriod for Historic District Gommission Action: Pursuant to all applicable larvs and regulations, inc|udingwithoutlimitation,GatifomiaGovemmentCode,Section65009and/or, Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the above decisions (regarding planning, zoning, and/or environmental decisions), you may be limiled to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the publio heafing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written conespondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, this public heailng. Any appeal of a Historic Dis{rici Commission ac{ion must be filed, in wriling with the City Clerk's O,ffice no later than ten (10) days from the date of the adion. A fte of $150 shall aocompany any appeal, payable at such time the is filed.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Terry Sorensen
lFonest Street
Folsom, CA 95630 s16I
Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
September 9, 2021
RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Proposal
Hearing Date September L5, 202L
Dear Commissioners:

The same crematorium proposai herein under consideration was advanced by Lakeside nearly L9 years ago as PN02-258 and scheduled for hearing before this Commission on January 15, 2003.

However, that hearing was canceled and did not go forward when applicant Lakeside withdrew the proposal, apparently in light of the Staff Report prepared by the City recommending the denial of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a crematorium on the property. Copies of that Staff Report (minus voluminous attachments) and the "canceled" meeting notification are attached as Exhibits "A" and "8," respectively.

The reasons advanced in the Staff Report as the basis for its recommendation of denial can be summarized as foliows:
a. The use applied for was detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community in that the use would impact the historical character of the existing cemetery and the historical use of the surrounding area;
b. The conglomeration of historic cemeteries in the area combined with the California State Dredger Tailings preserve dating back to the 1850s creates a rare combination of unique cultural resources that will be impacted negatively by the proposal; and
c. The use of the proposed project is not consistent with Goal 2 of the City's Histolic District Design and Development Guidelines in that it did not maintain the historic use of the site and, in addition, did not further besign and Development Guideline Policies 2.!,2.2, and 2.3 (as detailed at the bottom of page 4. of Exhibit "A," attached).

In conclusion, the CUP sought by the applicant in this instance is identical to the CUP sought back in early 2003, and the applicant has presented no facts to the contrary. The proposal for the issuance of a CUP allowing the construction and operation of a crematorium in the historic area in question was a bad idea back in 2003 and remains a bad idea today, The factual basis and logic behind the 2003 staff Report remains valid, and the current request for approval of a CUP for the proposed crematory should be denied for the reasons expressed therein.
'Tmly
TS/dg
attachments: "N' and "B"

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
i
'., !, a I
\r/Fl+dratuM
EXHIBIT'A"
Agcndat*.,ffiJ
PNOttSifs
HDC Mtg. r-tsftl
AISTORIC DISTRICT COMNflSSION STAX'r NEPORT
PROJECT TITI,[:

FROPO$AL:

Lrkeside Cemetcry Crcmatorium
ru{w
.to dlonr forthoopcaation of s iltl,ip
RSCOMIVEITIIIAIII9NI" i Dmid
APPLICANT AI{D OV}IIYER:

LOCATION' N
ASSESSORIS PARCTL NO.:

AITACIEII NEXMRDNCE I}IATERIAL:

PROJEET PLAIITNSR:

BACKGROTIITTD
Thc Pla'Il|ing Commirrion lpiorovcd
l. Visinitylvlap

2. SitE Plsq darrd. lA$197

3. hojast Dcooiption and Chomatodum
Illurffiiong

4. Docuncntadon fr,om.tbo Sacramento
County Historic Cometcry Commission

5. talccside Colnetcry Rsrsslutr Paper
urittcnby Suc Sitvcr

6. I,cttors from tbs hrblis

7. Site Photographg
Jane Talbo! As$istrtrt Plamer
a Uoe Pcrmit and Vuiancc for Mausolcums atl*rgido
Memorlal Lacmin l99I (PC9l-042). An mcndmeffi to thc Epproval wur gnnbd itr lgg5 (?C95-033). Thnt npprroval allowsd for th, concfiuction of twclw naurcloums. To dde, ong mauoloum hor bcGtr bnriltrrd ono additionsl malsolsum icudcr congbustio!, imiiffinncc'hdHhg, Wnrrhsuly'97ffidHr#$' in j{l$trt ,f. Tbp fiont of the project gltc ls moutly lcvol with a rliglrt to modsrdo downward slopo torrvbrds thp rcar of thB siu.
wcqgltfcn hocs. The front of ihc
witn lfruglrt iron fencing.

Lorh Clancy
l20t Forrst Sfroit
070-0082414, 070-0t 30-0d2, 070{1 30-004
Lakcsids Camvtcry hns avariofy ofmattr deciduouc snd
cemetsry, dong Foncot $Uecq is boutrded by a brick wall cappqd

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o o
ringlo-lSmily nddcnccr to tb.strlb, ftftffitp Across Foncst Strcct 6p rlngle*fi'nrlbr rsldencoe.

PRO.IECT DtrS(NIpITON

GENURAL PUWIZOWNVC CONFCINMANCE
Sprcc/Pnblic Primrry Arca of tbe lfsoric
distict is consigtclrt with thc G€noral Plan daripdim. Cqstqior arG a permittcd uso within 6c OS/PB mniry upon approval of a Condttional crmctcry has bocn in opcnrdon since tb! 18fi)'s and fu a prmlthd usc.

Uso Penntt Thc s$j€ct
I.ANI' USE COMFATIDILITY'COIYDITIONAL USE
is toconnmding based rpon fu Aplopimanore of tbc lad rxc, thcsc n cdtay additionnl currirnnrnciltd stdie havc not bccn prceortil .Should it bc fte I[storic DisUict Commisgion's dpoire to Foaccd withthls qpplisdoq statrwitl oommcno; withthcddidond onvimnmontd studiss.
trilorfcd Slgnilcncc
conglomailion inphdcs the Citizln's,
ldasonic, Nego Bar, Cook' dAnoiorn LsEo., and Odd Fcllows ccmcEisthrt dde backto around I
ffi
slff
2 gtuififiilisu

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
ofr
Condttional Uso Pormit for a oonlmporary land usc (i'o.' the aaqrilorhm) nnv jooPrniltzo the ctidbiltty Etsh$ of he sitc and ni$tuto'*to disaouragc dhcrthmrto mooumrgPNrd nal Rsgrs0crnonindon
Thp

PUM,IC INPUT
csatrnasdn$ Attbc eff ryisntes
Drningtbp$lie
. and qultual nlclultool.
o
CtHuffiHmas:
,To mairtatn restore, ordrecowttzct slteswhlchrepesent tlw lnstory of tlw Folsonffea" Thc srrygorting policior indican hou'lhe cig cur rcoomp_ti8h-qis goal. Policy-2.l.stabs that 1o,rlfigrtfiilr, rE;;h*r rnd ris ihould bo iltcntified and dosumoobdto froilitttu 6€ir pnooarrdon * ****on. To dato, cm'oisdon*r arom sannmmb coutrty Histuic ccm'tery It -ioi* tnve iomtriJ tiEelte u locrlty dpiffctlf, rnd &o Comircimrrr itrhd to prcoont L.k!6ids c;Ghy to fts slcrlncqro Borrd of Supcvicon fot dcdgndoo ss rn histotic offnstcry.
ffi
tr
ffijl
";ht
'ui#
."ffi,
H"'t3

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
o
opfids a srlmdodum rt m c'dsdng
c€mctcry at l20l Fonost SboGt in tllG llinoric Di8[ict, bs|.al on tho blloruiry finirys.

EISTOruC DTSInICT COMITilTSSION ACNON
MOVE TO DEIiIY TTIE COI|IDMONAL USEPERMIT TO OPERATts A ffiEil'TATORIWT AT AT.I E)(ISTINO CEMETBRY AT I2OI FORREST STREET IN TTIE HISTORIC DISTRICT. ffi
A. NOTTCE I{AS BEB{ C}11/EN AT TIIE TIME AI{D IN TIIE IvIANNERREQUIRED BY STATE tAW AI'ID CITY CODE.
o
B.
c.

PERSONS RESIDINO OR WORKINO IN IIIE
NEIGHBORHOOD, AI.ID DBIRIMENTAL OR INIURIOUS TO PROPERTY Al'lD IIvIPRO\IBildENTS IN THE WELFARB OF TIffi
CITY
l.

2. D. TTIE USE OF THE PROPOSBD PROIECT IS -'ffiiii
it ADDmoN, TrIE PRoJEcr DoFrl Nor nTRTIIER'
DESION A}.ID DEVETOPMENT GTIIDELINE FOLICIBS 2.1,2.2,A}'ID 2.3 IN TTIATI

CEMETERYTO TIIE
SACRAIvIENItI BOARD OF ST PERVISORS ftffiroilsf
?F.W ffi
?. BASED ON A IJTTERFROIvT JAIUES A" PI,JRCELL, CHAIRIfiAN OF fiIE SACRAI\4ENTO COI.JNTY HISTORIC CEMETERY COMMIS$ION DATED JAI{UARYz,ZOO3,@,trW W
4

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

EXHIBff "B'
?t fr ?k fs
Ilistoric District
Commission meeting
(January 15, 2A03)
' The Proposed
Crematorium Project
has been withdrawn
by the Applicant.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 3,2421
Dear Historic District Commission,
I am writing to you today in opposition of the conditional use permit set forth and applied by Milleris'Funeral Hsne,at Lakeside Mernorial Lavvn, which is owned and operated by Caring Services Group. I live in the preserve neighborhood and have for the past 3 years and counting, I hope.

As I sit here and vwite tl'lis letter to you,{ think about the reasons my wife and I decided to move into this neighborhood and staft our family. First, we were excited it was so close to downtown Historic Fotsom. We courld walk to atlthe great restaurants and bars to r,neet friends and family for gatherings or just a casualdate night, Next it was the amazing trail head down the street and ttre r,iver, We have used the amazing iralls for years now with it being so close to our horne. The river is right here at our doorstep and who doesn't enjoy a day floating down the river or jumping in during the hot J:uDe" July and August days. Lastly it is a quiet and,quaint little neighborhood that has little traffic and people who all look out for each other and truly give you a sense of community.

We have now grown our family and have a dog and an infent child. We have a swing in our front yard that hangs off of a very nice oak tree. I push our daughter in it very often as she enjoys,being outdoors- Our home sits direc'lJy across from Lakeside MemorialLawn which we really enjoy. The amount of wildlife we are able to introduce to our daughter as she sits in her swing is second to none. We have turkeys, deer, geese, owls, foxes and the bald;eagles that fly over. You really can't ask for anything more. So it saddened me when I heard about Caring Services Groups plan frorn a nejghbor {o put in a cvematolium across the street. We ,tive iust over 000 feet away from where they plan to cremate bodies five to seven days a week. I still have not received a single notice from Caring, Servbes Group about the planned proposal; I thought they were great neighbors but now I see they care more about their bottom line than the cornmun'ity they are so eager lo serve in ,lheir proposal to you all. The City of Folsom already benefits from the revenue the funeral home derives, even though they have to use an out of city crematorium. Caring Services/Miller Funeral Fkame simply iust dbesn't want to drive anymore to do it.

Once I found out about the crematorium potentially entering our residential neighborhood and listening to lgor Semenyuk speak, lidid a llttle research. It still boggles my rnind" Why in a residential neighborhood next to the trails and river? Why was it even a thought to put it in any neigtr'borhood let alone a high.fire zone area? ,ln looking qp what Sernenyuk stated about the device, "[lt] would be a pufi of smoke and then it would only be heat waves after that." I found his statement hard to belbve. The COO of Messinger Mortuarias {James Aheame} stated "Every crematory will smoke; if they tell you they don't, they're lying. lt's just the way it is." When talking about neighbors complaining about lhe amsunt of hlack srnoke that is rsleased from the companies crematoriums. The neighbors made severalcomplaints with the county

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
regarding the smoke and the honible odor that was released. Why would we want this so close to our homes or downtown Folsom?
Semenyuk stated their company wants to be able to serve the larger lndian and Sikh community. I do understand and lbelieve it is needed with the growing population in Folsom. ln speaking to many different people Who are Sikhs, they asked why would they put it in a neighborhood, and secondly, they shared there are a lot of good existing options a few minutes "*iy. I do not believe Sernenyuk wants to really serve any population in the City of Folsorn except his own pocket. You can look it up and see how much of a financialgain they get ofi hav.,ing the cemetery zoned'in open space,but'he wants to put a comrnercial incinerator in an op"n *prr"d area of our city. ln the city plan it states," The City of Folsom Plan Area has been designed to showcase the best of [fe ih Folsorn. tvbre than 3A% - over 10OO acres - of the total plan Area is maintained as permanently protected open space to preserve sensitive habitat areas." This was voted on and approved,in 2004, so:help me understand how comercial incinerator in an open space zoned area which is permanently protected is even on your desk and the city's own planners are helping bring it to your ears? Seerns ludicrous to me. llm sure Ernie Sheldon, who is buried across the street, would be rather upset if you are considering this in a zoned open space.presewe. lt is mind boggling,to think about One of rny other concefns besides the srnells and heavy metal.ernissions which cannot be measured since they fall down so quickly is how the fire and police department are supposed to evacuate us in an emergency situation acaross the street wlth added ignition sources and high fire risk areas. They added fencing along the shed-yes sheds not a building built for a crematoriunp but a shed like one you have in your backyard for mowers and shovels- There isn't a lock box to even get in at night let alone the EMS personnelwould block our only exit out.

No police consideration,has even been given to this project and the increase demand which would reduce resources for the rest of the city with Caring Services wanting to allow in person cremations which according to Semenyuk.the Skh require wlthout creating calls for services for fighting, drunk in public, DUI's and domestic violence issues which can and have occurred. All of these requirernents are clearly outlined in GEQA guidelines and ignored by Caring Serviees Group.

I hope you really look at the motive behind this proposal and what you will beo'ening other zoned open space areas to in the long run, and consider the bad precedent you will 3et with this proposed project. This neighborhood is like a family to many of us, We ask, if it was your neighborhood would you want it with the unknowns presented to you? ls it right for a resirlential neighborhood? ls it right for an open spaced area? ls it right for Folsom? Ask yourself why wouldn't this be in a commercially zoned area?
Please, please vots "Nof'on thb proposalTirn McGarry
1204 Forrest St.

Registered voter

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

February 3,2021
Dear Historic District Commission,
I am writing to you today in opposition of the conditional use permit set forth and applied by fvlilleris Funeral Hsne,at Lakes,ide Mernorial l-awn, which is owned and operated by Caring Services Group. I live in the preserve neighborhood and have for the past 3 years and counting, I hope.

As I sit here and write this letter to you,'l .think about the reasons my wife and I decided to move into this neighborhood and stad our family. First, we were excited it was so close to downtown Historic Fotsom. We cordd walk to allthe gr,eat restaurants and bars to meet ftiends and farnily for gatherings or just a casual date night, Next it was the amazing trail head down the street and the r{ver, We have used the amazing trails,for years now with it being so close to our home. The river is right here at our doorstep and who doesn't enjoy a day floating down the river or jumping in during the hot June, Jtrly and August dbys. Lastly it is a quiet and,quaint little neighborhood that has little traffic and people who all look out for each other and truly give you a sense of communfty.

We have now grown our family and have a dog, and an infant child. We have a swing in our front yard that hangs off of a very nice oak tree. I push our daughter in it very often as she enjoys.being outdoors. Our home sits direoty across fiom Lakeside Memorial l-awn which we really enjoy. The amount of wildlife we are able to introduce to our daughter as she sits in her swing is second to none. We have turkeys, deer, geese, owls, foxes and the bald eagles thatfly over. You really can't ask for anghing more. So it saddened me when I heard about Caring Sgruices Groups plen frorn a nejghborto putin a syernatorium across the stseet. We live just over 600 feet away from where they plan to cremate bodies five to seven days a week. I still have not leceived a single notice from Caring, Sepvbes Group abou:t the planned proposal. I thought they were great neighbors but now I see they care more about their bottom line than the commun'ity they are so eager'to serve in.theirproposal to you all. The City of Folsom already benefits from the revenue the funeral home derives, even though they have to usB an out of city crematorium. Caring Services/Mi$er Funeral Horne simpty iust doesn't want to drive anymore to do it.

Once lfound out about the crematorium potentially entering our residential neighborhood and listening to tgor Semenyuk speak, lidid a little research. lt still boggles my rnind. Why in a residential neighborhood next to the trails and river? Why was it even a thought to put it in any neigrh,borhood let alone a high.fire zone.area? {n looking up what Sernenyuk stated about the device, "fltl would be a pufi of smoke and then it would only be heat waves after that." I found his statement hard to belbve. The.COO of Messinger Mortuarias{James Aheame) strated "Every crematory will smoke; if they tell you they don't, they're lying. lt's just the way it is." When talking about neighbor:s complaining about the amount of r,black srnoke that is rsleased from the companies crematoriums, The neighbors made severalcomplaints with the county

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
regarding the smoke and the honible odor that was released. Why would we want this so close to ourhsmes or downtown.Folsom?
Semenyuk stated their company wants to be able to serve the larger lndian and Sit<h communig. I do understand and lbelieve it is needed with the growing population in Folsom. ln speaking to many different people Who are Sikhs, they asked why would they put it in a neighborhood, and secondly, they shared there are a lot of good existing options a few minutes "*ry. ] do not believe Semenyuk wants io rea{ly serve any poputation in the City of Folsorn except his own pocket. You can look it up and see how much of a financial gain they get ofi hav.,ing the cemetery zoned ,in open space,buthe wanls to put a oomrnercial incinerator in an op"n rp"r"d area of our city. ln the city plan it states," The City of Folsom Plan Area has been designed ts showcase the best of life ln Folsom. Nbre than 3Qo/o - over 1@O acres - of the total plan Area is maintained as permanently protected open space to preserve sensitive habitat afeas." Ttris was voted .on and approved,in 2004, solhelp me understand how comercial incinerator in an open space zoned area which is permanently protected is even on your desk and lhe city's own planners are helplng bring it to your ears? Seerns ludicrous to me. llm sure Ernie Sheldon, who is buried across the street, would be rather upset if you are considering this in a zoned open space,presefve. lt is mind,boggling,to thittk about One of rny other concerns besides the srnells and heavy metal.ernissions which cannot be measured since they fall down so quickly is how the tire and police department are supposed to evacuate us in an emergency situation across the street with added ignition sources and high fire risk areas. They added fencing along the shed-yes sheds not a building built for a crematoriurn- but a shed like one you have in your backyard for mowers and strovels- There isn't a lock box to even get in at night let alone the EMS personnelwould block our only exit out' No,police consideration,has even been given to this projecl and the increase demand which would reduce resources for the rest of the city with Caring Services wanting to allow in person cremations which acmrding to Semerryuk,the Skh requhe wlthout cnealing calls for services for fighting, drunk in public, DUI's and domestic violence issues which can and have occurred' All of these requirernents are clearly outlined in CEQA guidelines and ignored by Caring Services Group.

I hope you really look at the motive behind this proposaland what you will beo-ening other zoned open space areas to jn the long run, and consider the'bad precedent you will set with this proposed project. This neighborhood is like a family to many of us. We ask, if it was your neighbor.hood would you want it with the unknowns presented to you? ts it rlght for a resiriential neithborhood? ls it right for an open spaced area? ls it right for Folsom? Ask yourself why wouldn't this be in a commercially zoned area?
Please, please vote "Nof'on thb proposalTirn h{cGarry
lForrest St.

Registered voter

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
i\dtttirLi str atirre,,is.s istcr n f
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
cFtt oF
Kelly Mullett
Thursday, luly 8,2021 4:31 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Dave Higgins & crematorium plans
trffiT,BffiEM
O9@ www.fotsonr.ca.u,
From: Tim Milne
Sent: Thursday, July 8,2021.11:53 AM
To: Kelly Mu llett <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Dave Higgins & crematorium plans
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.

A crematorium should not be locatied within 1 mile of human habitat!

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
Adtn ini stt'ctl iuc ,'l.ss is lrr ri f
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Thursday, luly 8,2021 10:58 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium concerns.
t ;
grrI €t
lF'slg, **{l}btt
*t !,!rn?'itsl: n!,. t{^ql!pf
OS@ www.totsom.ca,us
FTom: TIMOTHYTHOMAS
Sent: Thursday, July 8,202110:54 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium concerns.

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

Sent from Outlook
From: TIMOTHYTHOMAS
Sent: Thursday, July 8,202110:49 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <thehfra@gma il.com>; siohnson @folsom.ca.us <siohnson @folsom.ca.us> Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium concerns.
1 Dear Council members and City Representatives,

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

I have recently been informed of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn's proposal for building a crematorium onsite and I am extremely concerned.

My fiance and our 9 week old son, plus a 12 year old son live just a stones throw away on Young Wo Circle. I myself have respiratory issues, and that along with having a newborn leaves me with great concern. Not to mention the chilling psychological effects of knowing that bodies are being cremated just a block away. lt will have a lasting effect on our piece of mind, quality of life, health and property values.

With enough concern already regarding the annual wildfire smoke issues, please spare us another health and psychological factor in this beautiful city that we call home.

Warm regards,
Timothy Thomas
Young Wo Circle
Folsom, Ca
Sent from Outlook
Sent from Outlook
2

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

From:

Subject:

Date:

I
Josh Kinkade
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:53:39 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important February 5,2022
Mr. Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom Historic District Commission
Re: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Planning No. PN-19-182
Dear Mr. Kinkade
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium project. The projectsite is zoned OS/P (Open Space/Public PrimaryArea)with an underlying zoning of OSC (Open Space and Conservation). The request of a Conditional Use Permit should be denied because the emissions will degrade the visual character of the area and mercury in the TAC have bioaccumulative and biomaginification effects on the adjacent waterway and its organisms.

The site is located adjacenttoJedidiah Smith MemorialTrial (American River BikeTrail), Lake Natoma, and a residential area. The American River Bike Trail runs adjacent to the American River and Lake Natoma. The trail and lake are used and frequented by families, tourists, and recreation visitors such as bikers, hikers, nature groups, picnickers, kayakers, and otherwater sport enthusiasts. The adjacent residential area is comprised of senior citizens and young familieswho recreate outside and have gardens and fruittreesto add totheirfood supplies.

I disagree with the applicant's findings in the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section 9, Environmental lnitial Study Checklist, Section 1 Aesthetics), the applicant determined a "Less Than Significant lmpact" for letter c. ln rebuttal, the proposed project does pose a "Potentially Significant lmpact".

The proposed project does pose a "Potentially Significant lmpact" under Appendix G, CEQA, lAesthetics, letter c. Appendix G, CEQA states: "c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings." The emissions of a crematorium will 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.
significantly degrade the visual character of the area in respect to both the recreation users/visitors of the American River Bike Trail, Lake Natoma and the adjacent residential area.

The recreation users of the American River Bike Trail and Lake Natoma are humans who are visiting and using the area to experience the natural surroundings of a riparian habitat, which include the aesthetics of the tree lines and skyline. These "viewers" are specifically seeking a view of nature and the surrounding riparian habitat. Emissions from a crematorium will "substantially degrade" the visual quality of the area. Humans seeking scenic views and experiences with nature are especially sensitive to man-created emissions. They are even more sensitive knowing the emissions are the resulting emissions from cremating human remains,
The "visual character and quality of the site" will also be substantially degraded for the residents in the adjacent area. The neighboring residents enjoy the outdoors of their backyards and enjgy the foods from their outdoor gardens. These groups of viewers will be substantially affected by seeing emissions and their awareness that they are from an adjacent crematorium while eating food from their gardens, having an outdoor dinner party, or having their children playing outdoors. The emissions from the proposed project will substantially affect their visual quality.
ln Section lll, Air Quality, letter c or the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, found that "the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant." "Crematoriums are sources of air pollution including mercury emission and may cause plausibly subtle chronic health effects due to long-term low-dose exposure" (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health). More concerning than mercury emissions on chronic health of humans, is the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of mercury. As previously mentioned, the proposed site is adjacent to the American River/Lake Natoma which is the habitat for fish, bald eagles, deer, foxes, skunks, and many other wildlife. The waterway is also used for fishing. Mercury accumulates in organisms, increasing levels, which then is transferred to higher-level organisms such as fish, bald eagles, and humans. The lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not address the bioaccumulation and biomagnification effects of mercury emissions, which is crucial since the sight is next to a State riparian parkway.

Clearly, a crematorium should not be permitted nextto a recreational riparian habitat and residential area. lts emissions will substantially degrade the visual quality of the area and will be a source of mercury bioaccumulation in the riparian organisms. I implore you to deny the conditional use permit for the above project.

Sincerely,
Tracy Wetzel

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
fYoung wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

From:

IO:

Subjectr
Pam Johns
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Datei Monday, February 7, 2022 12:32:47 PM
HiJosh. Please see attached comment.

From: City of Folsom - Website Admin <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 5,2022,2:19 PM
To: Pam Johns
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.

Message submitted from the <Folsom, CA> website
Site Visitor Name:

Site Visitor Email:

Wetzel
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium project.

The request of a Conditional Use Permit should be denied because the emissions will degrade the visual character of the area and mercury in the TAC have bioaccumulative and biomaginification effects on the adjacent waterway and its organisms.

The site is located adjacent to Jedidiah Smith Memorial Trial (American River Bike Trail), Lake Natoma, and a residential area. The American River Bike Trail runs adjacent to the American River and Lake Natoma. The trail and lake are used and frequented by families, tourists, and recreation visitors such as bikers, hikers, nature groups, picnickers, kayakers, and other water sport enthusiasts. The adjacent residential area is comprised of senior citizens and young families who recreate outside and have gardens and fruit trees to add to their food supplies.

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

August LA,2O2L
H isto ric District Commission
Re: Proposed crernatory at Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Dear Historic District Commission,
I am writing to request for your opposition to the proposed conditional use permit to install and operate a crematorium at Lakeside Memorial Lawn.

The crematorium will emit air pollutants that include toxic air contaminants such as trace metals and organic compounds. Emission and deposition of these air pollutants (even at low levels) can have accumulative adverse effects. They have the potential to cause cancer and other deleterious effects to both the human and wildlife populations and the land and water in the American River ParkwaY.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn is located next to a residential area and the American River Parkway.

The residential area that is next to the proposed site contains families who are elderly, with young children, and pregnant women. These families are particularly vulnerable to pollutants.

The American River Parkway that is adjacent to the site is used for outdoor recreation requiring physicalexertion such as biking, running, hiking, kayaking, paddle boarding, etc. These activities require an increased respiration rate.

A crematorium belongs in an industrial area away from residential and recreational areas and riparian habitats. I irnplore you to oppose the approval of the crematorium conditional use permit.

Thank you for your consideration.

Circle
Folsom, CA.95630
[email protected]

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

August I0,2O2L
H istoric District Cornmission
Re: Proposed crernatory at Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Dear Historic District Commission,
I am writing to request for your opposition to the proposed conditional use permit to install and operate a crematorium at Lakeside Memorial Lawn'
The crematoriurn will emit air pollutants that include toxic air contaminants such as trace metals and organic compounds. Emission and deposition of these air pollutants (even at low levels) can have accumulative adverse effects. They have the potential to cause cancer and other deleterious effects to both the human and wildlife populations and the land and water in the Arnerican River ParkwaY.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn is located next to a residential area and the American River Parkway' The residential area that is next to the proposed site contains families who are elderly, with young children, and pregnant women. These families are particularly vulnerable to pollutants.

The American River Parkway that is adjacent to the site is used for outdoor recreation requiring physicalexeftion such as biking, running, hiking, kayaking, paddle boarding, etc. These activities require an increased respiration rate.

A crematorium belongs in an industrial area away from residential and recreational areas and riparian habitats. I implore you to oppose the approval of the crematorium conditional use permit.

Thank you for your consideration
Circle
Folsom, CA.95630

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly Mullett
Monday, September 27 ,2021 8:32 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: proposed cremation facilities in Folsom
KellyMullett
,'1c/rrr r rr isl ru filc .lssr.clGri I
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.46'1.6231
F:916.355.7274
e!t t da
w'ffi,e*s'ffie{r
{*t l.tthF*ttst EF $a5l}6t ihi
O S @ ruv.u.iqtsa,lL'ar€
From: Marilu Craig
Sent: Sunday, September 26,202L 1:00 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: proposed cremation facilities in Folsom
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.

Historic District Commission Members,
Thank you for your time in considering my email to you.

I am writing in regard to the,
Noburningbodies.com campaign.

Evidently it is clear evident that no one on this committee has bothered to avail themselves in going to a cremation site to educate themselves about the process and what it involves.

One only has to ask for an appointment to go through their facility:

Affordable Cremation & Funeral Center
4750 Beloit Drive Sacramento
cA 95838
916-432-8443
To see clearly that the horrific picture captured at the top of a flyer is ludicrous and misleading. lt resembles more of a Auschwitz picture than what is. I realize that to gain a point through fear, loathing and preying on the lack of knowledge in cremation, one would perhaps buy into their tactics to gain favor and a vote against the proposed facility.

The facility that I enclosed is one of the most clean, no odor, no smoke, respectful facilities in the chain of their business'.
1

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

First and foremost in cremating the deceased, there are nine different levels of filters one must go through. There is nothing that tosses any ash from the remain, any odor, any smoke, anything that could pollute the surrounding community at large.

It is clear that the " noburningbodies" campaign is one sided and a detriment to the community at large. lt is a personal point of view that is uneducated, judgmental, and a prevarication.

Dental amalgam is a concern for those who may not know that the dental fillings can and will be removed before cremation at the request of who ever it is that is responsible for the deceased.

All avenues that are of a concern can be addressed with some inquiry to properly trained persons in a position to educate and answer all concerns.

It is my personal opinion that the plans for a crematorium proceed and be of benefit for the community at large.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

Appreciated
Jobekah and Deino Trotta
Sent from Mailfor Windows
2

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

Toi
Date:

Fromi
Subjectl
Attachmentsi
Steven Banks
Josh Kinkade
FW: PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE LAKESIDE CREMATORIUM
Friday, February 4, 2022 10:51:39 AM
Outlook-gdo5gxdbjog
FYI
From: Victori a Foster <vfoster@ i nterorealestate.com> Sent: Friday, February 4,2022 10:51 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Cc: Victoria Foster
subject: PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE LAKESIDE CREMATORIUM
You don't often get email from 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 safeDear Steve,
I am writing to you to get your SUPPORT to DECLINE the proposed Lakeside crematorium in the Historic Folsom district.

As the cemetery name eludes...it's lakeside and not the area to put a crematorium. I strongly oppose this crematorium being built inside such a small neighborhood, next to historic landmarks, in and around adjoining open space, bike trails and the lake. Please!!! We need I live atlYoung Wo circle and am very concerned about the potential FIRE HAZARD propane tanks can cause if there was an explosion. Getting out of this neighborhood in an emergency situation would be horrific. The roads are narrow on Forrest Street and fire engines would have trouble coming through with all residences and the Vets from the Veteran's Hall trying to escape any fire. The light rail at the intersection of Forrest Street and Folsom Blvd runs every 15 minutes and backs up traffic leaving the neighborhood as it is and that alone often causes congestion. The trees and brush along the river gets very dry and we already have had extreme scares of fires from careless people starting fires along the river. There is NO GUARANTEE these propane tanks can be safe and never have an explosion and start a fire. l'm concerned for HEALTH reasons of the dangerous particular matter that would be released into the air, plus the smell and the atrocious look. I have severe asthma and i don't want further respiratory issues, I also have a very strong sense of smell and i don't want to feel trapped in my home. I have children living with me in their twenties, plus i also watch my 2year old grandson and newborn grandson. i fear for lasting known and unknown side effects that they could be exposed to, besides my fellow neighbors and anyone else enjoying the trails and lake. Several running clubs and bike clubs and use the bike trail consistently, plus the river is filled with other sport enthusiast like fisherman, paddle boarders, kayakers and that would be unsafe for their health also.

We also have the affect it can have on WATER and WILDLIFE.

Our PROTECTED BALD EAGLES HAVE A NEST directly across the river from the proposed crematorium.

I'm concerned for the REGULATION of how often they would cremate. The studies were done for a few cremations a day. You know they would need to up that number to make a profit and

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
that's what this business is about. Who would monitor them daily to make sure they aren't going above the regulated amount? You know they will- it's about making a profit to a business! This area is designated OPEN SPACE and in the Historic district. lf a crematorium is needed, this company needs to find a suitable "industrial area " away homes & schools where they can run a business efficiently without harming the residences and wildlife of Folsom. They applied for this permit and were denied and the homeowners here had to take time and resources to fight this proposal before and it was declined. How are they allowed to keep coming back- the Historic Area & Open space has not moved
Lastly, I am a local Realtor and it will DECREASE OUR HOME VALUES in the Preserves/Lake Natoma Shores. Property prices will be affected which in turn means LOWER TAX REVENUE for the city. ls there a crematorium tax on each cremation? and if so, would it even match the difference in property taxes for 150 plus immediate surrounding homes?? No one wants to live by a crematorium so close by where you can smell, see and feel its presence. lt will definitely need to be disclosed on a seller's property disclosure forms for any home sales and will cut out a large number of potential buyers for this neighborhood. I have 3 clients that want to buy in this neighborhood- two of them will not
reside here if a crematorium is built for reasons listed above and the my 3'd client Liz Chighizola has stated to me, she would want the crematorium to be put in because home prices would than drop here and then she would finally be able to afford this neighborhood. Really?? How is it ok for this business to decrease our home values?? Residences bought homes knowlng a historic cemetery was here- we did not agree to hurt our health, environment and property values when purchasing our HOMES next to a crematorium that was not even in exlstence and might have swayed our investment in a home here.

Please be our voice and VOTE NO, STOP and OPPOSE the Lakeside crematorium. Voting No and stopping this is what is right for the families in the City of Folsom.

WE THE LIVING RESIDENCES ARE WHO MAKE UP FOLSOM TODAY AND WE SHOULD HAVE PRIORITY, NOT THE DECEASED.

Lakeside needs to find an industrial area not in historic and open space to expand their business and profits. This will make it a win win for everyone in Folsom.

Thanks for your time and hoping your assistance.

Best regards,
Victoria Foster
Click here to see what my clients have to sa)' about mel

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
"Reminder: email is not secure ot confidential. lntero Real Estate Sevices will never request that you *nd lunds or nonpublic personal intomation, such as credil catd or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. lf you receive an enail message concerning any transaction involving lntero Reai Eslale Seryices and the email tequests thal you send tunds or provide nonpublic pereonal infornalion, do not respond to the email and immediately contact lntero Real Estate Seqices To nolify lnterc Real Eslale Sery/ces ofsuspected email fraud. contacl: lnterc Clienl Sery/ces af 866 334 7356 and/ot clientsevices(AinErorealestate.com

04/26/2022 Item No.8.

To:

Date:

From:

Subjech
Attachmentsi
Elaine Andersen
losh Kinkade
FW: Please stop the proposed Lakeside crematorium
Thursday, October 14, ZOZL 4i29i37P14
Outlook-5fwoerzn jpg
From: Victoria Foster
Sent: Thursday, October 14,2021,4:15 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca.us>
Cc: Victoria Foster
Subject: Please stop the proposed Lakeside crematorium
You don't often get email fiom [email protected]. Leam why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Elaine,
I am writing to you to get your support to decline the proposed Lakeside crematorium in the H istoric Folsom district.

As the cemetery name eludes...it's lakeside and not the area to put a crematorium. I strongly oppose this crematorium being built inside such a small neighborhood, historic landmarks, adjoining open space, bike trails and the lake. We need your support of stopping this bad decision.

I live at lVorng Wo circle and am very concerned about the potential fire hazard propane tanks can cause if there was an explosion. Getting out of this neighborhood in an emergency situation would be horrific. The roads are narrow on Forrest Street and fire engines would have trouble coming through with all residences and the Vets from the Veteran's Halltrying to escape any fire. The light railat the intersection of Forrest Street and Folsom Blvd runs every 15 minutes and backs up traffic leaving the neighborhood as it is and often causes congestion.

I'm concerned for health reasons of the dangerous particular matter that would be released into the air, plus the smell and the atrocious look. I have severe asthma and i don't want further respiratory issues, I also have a very strong sense of smell and i don't want to feel trapped in my home. I have children living with me in their twenties, plus i also watch my 2 year old grandson and i fear for lasting known and unknown side effects that they could be exposed to besides my fellow neighbors and anyone else enjoying the trails and lake. Several running clubs and bike clubs use the bike trail consistently and that would be unsafe for their health also. l'm concerned for the regulation of who and how often they would cremate. The studies were done for a few cremations a day. You know they would need to up that number to make a profit and that's what this business is about. Who would monitor them daily to make sure they aren't going above the regulated amount?
This area is designated open space and in the Historic district. if a crematorium is needed, this company needs to find a suitable "industrial area " away homes & schools where they can run a business efficiently with harming the residences of Folsom.

Lastly, I am a Realtor and I realize it might not be any concern of yours or anyone's unless they live in the Lake Natoma Shores, but it will affect our home prices. No one wants to live by a crematorium so close by where you can smell, see and feel its presence. lt will definitely need to be disclosed on a sellers property disclosure form for any home sales and will cut out a large

04/26/2022 Item No.8.
number of potential buyers for this neighborhood.

Please be our voice and vote NO, STOP and OPPOSE the Lakeside crematorium. Voting No and stopping this is what is right for the city of Folsom. Lakeside needs to find an industrial area to expand their business and profits and make it a win win for everyone in Folsom.

Thanks for your time and hoping your assistance.

Best regardi, Victoria Foster. ilf
Click here to see what my clients have to say about me! "Reminder: emait is not secure ot rcnfidential. lnterc Real Estate Sevices will never requesl that Wu send funds or nonpublic personal infomalion, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank acnunt and/or routing numbers, by email. lf you rcceive an email message rcncerning any transaction involving lnterc Rea/ Estale Servlces and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic peBonal information, do not respond to the enail and immediately contact lntero Reai Eslale Seruites Io notify lntero Real Estate Serulces ofsuspected email fraud, contact: lntero Client Seruices at 866 3U 7356 anilor CIgdSel/[email protected]."