Folsom City Council
May 10, 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
''|
Dear Historic District Commissioners, Date: O'1- c& -7 o;- | IAM:
__*H|GH R|SK FOR. AtR QUALTTY HEATTH IMPHCATTONS.
_Yn pARENT oR cAREGTvER oF A cHrLD oR cHTLDREN.
-_-AN INDIVIDUAI. WHO INTENDS TO HAVE CHILDREN.
---OVER THE AGE OF 65 AND VUINERABLE.
---HIGHLY WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY & LEGACY OF HISTORIC FOISOM.

I write to you with great concern about Lakeside Memorial Lawn's application for a conditional use permit to install and operate a crematorium, Lakeside Memorial Lawn's project site is designated as Open Space and includes historical burialgrounds. ln reviewing Lakeside Memorial's application for a condition use permit, the following concerns require your attention and action on the community's behalf :

TOXICITY LEVELS UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN, VULNERABLE
The lnitialStudy by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notates levels for harmfultoxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Such toxins become the most dongerous when vaporized. The smaller tlre particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the levels as "not signif icant." This applies only to average, healthy adults. The Study fails to report significant and potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing children, elderly, and those with existing health conditions in the neighboring community.

NONCONFORMING USE OF OPEN SPACE
The proposed crematorium would be installed and operated in designated open space that is notzonedfor commercial use. Thousands of families, children, park visitors, trail and lake users will be inequitably impacted by nonconforming use of the land. This will harm the living to profit''bff of the dead. Such an operation does not belong in any child's backyard.

AtR QUAL|TY, SMELL, PARTTCUTATE MATTER MAKTNG HTSTORY
The Folsom Historic District is treasured for its legacy of community, architecture, and natural appeal. Poor air quality, smell, and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community. Visually, the shed, smoke, and heat waves are incredibly out of character for the District. Scent will be detected for miles, even if not visible. A permanent pollutant, foul smell and toxins will leave a damaged legacy.

HISTORIC FOLSOM. PROTECT THE VULNERABLE. NO CREMATORIUM.

Contact lnformation

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachment 3
Public Comment Letters received after the February 16,2022 Historic District Commission Meeting

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Sorensen
Folsom, CA 95630 I
February 15,2022
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
ln my correspondence to you of Febru ary 7 , 2022, I pointed out that an identical request for a CUP authorizing the construction and operation of a crematory at the Lakeside Cemetery was made back in 2003 and resulted in a Staff Report recommendation of denial. In brief, the Findings for Denial in support of that recommendation were as follows:

1. Lakeside is a historic cemetery and the introduction of a crematory on the site was inconsistent with such historic cemetery use;

2. Lakeside is, in fact, a conglomeration of historic cemeteries dating back to around 1850 which, when considered in conjunction with the adjacent Chung Wah Chinese Cemetery and the adjacent California State Dredger Tailings Preserve, creates a rare combination of unique cultural resources in one small area;

3. The crematory use applied for will be detrimental to the health, safefi or general welfare of the neighborhood and the surrounding City as a whole in that the introduction of such use would impact the historical character of the cemetery as well as the historical use of the area; and

4. The use of the proposed project is inconsistent with Goal2 of the City's Historic District Design and Development Guidelines in that it did not maintain the historic use of the site and, in addition, did not further Design and Development Guideline policies 2.1,2.2, and2.3. Specifically, the County Historic Cemetery Commission has stated that a crematory is not a consistent use with a historic cemetery and has identified the site as locally significant and intends to present the cemetery to the Board of Supervisors for designation as a historic pioneer cemetery. Furthermore, approval of a CUP for such a contemporary use would jeopardize the eligibility status of the site and discourage, rather than encourage, national register nomination for the cemetery.

Based on the foregoing it was the opinion of this writer that the logic and reasoning employed by the City in its 2003 StaffReport would be followed by the City on this current iteration of the crematory proposal. But that trust in logic and reason proved ill-founded when the City recommended approval of a CUP for the crematory in its StaffReport released February 10. However, in doing so, the City set forth only two factors on which it relied in affempting to justifr its departure from its 2003 decision on the exact same proposal. Those two factors, expressed on pages 29-30 of the StaffReport, are as follows:

1. That cremation technology "has improved significantly since 2003"; and

2. That the Sacramento County Cemetery Commission did not provide any comment regarding the current iteration ofthe proposal as it did in reference to the 2003 version.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

In the opinion of this writer, this attempt by the City to distinguish its position on the 2003 crematory project from its current contrary position is inuedibly weak and almost laughable. As to the first comment by the City (regarding cremation technology), the comment must be dismissed as inelevant to the discussion at hand. The 2003 recommendation for denial was not based on the state of crematory technology (good or bad), at all, but rather on the factthatthe presence of a crematory on the property was not compatible with the historical character of the cemetery.

Similarly, the second comment (regarding the lack of any expression of concern from the Sacramento County Cemetery Commission in reference to this renewed crematory effort) must be dismissed, as well. If the cemetery was deemed a historic cemetery of local significance and worthy of County designation as a historic pioneer cemetery with potential national recognition back in 2003, it certainly does so today absent some convincing evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the conclusion expressed by the Cemetery Commission that the presence of a crematorium is not consistent with a historic cemetery remains valid, as well.

In conclusion, the reasoning behind the City's 2003 recommendation for denial of a CUP for the construction and operation of a crematorium on the grounds of the Lakeside Cemetery remain valid.

The Findings expressed by the City in its 2003 StaffReport in support of that denial are compelling, have not been addressed, at all, by the City in its current StaffReport, and therefore remain conclusive on the issue at hand and mandate that this CUP request be denied.

Very truly yours,
/s/
Terry L. Sorensen
dglTS
cc: Historic District Commissioners and City of Folsom Staff [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; johnfelts@e5 5tech.com; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 16,2022
City of Folsom
Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected] for distribution to HDC SUBJECT: Lakeside Crematorium - Comments for February 16,2022, HDC Hearing Dear HDC Commissioners:

This letter is to express my objection to the proposed Lakeside Crematorium Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium as currently described and evaluated in the January 2022[nitial Study/IMitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/IVIND"); the staff report and attachments made available on February I0,2022 (dated February 16,2022) and included in the HDC's February 16,2022, meeting packet ("Staff Report"); and February 15,2022, Topical Responses to Comments memorandum made available sometime after 4 p.m. on February 15,2022 ("Topical Responses Memo") for reasons including the following and as discussed in more detail in the remainder of this letter.

1. The Historic District Commission does not have authority to approve the project.

2. The proposed crematorium exhaust stack is not sufficiently described or illustrated to provide the necessary understanding of its design and appearance.

3. Design Review in compliance with the Folsom Municipal Code is required for the proposed shed modification.

4. The General Plan has no land use designation for either a cemetery or a crematorium, therefore the analysis cannot tier from the General Plan EIR.

5. The project description must identifr whether the project would involve public attendance at services at the Lakeside Memorial cemetery and/or other locations within the City and, if so, define the parameters and evaluate impacts associated with such services.

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

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

8. The Staff Report's consideration of fire risk is frighteningly dismissive and warants a full evaluation and definitive determination by the City Fire Department and California State Parks.
l. The Historic District Commission (HCD) does not have authority to approve the project.

The City of Folsom Charter at Section 4.07,"Boards and Commissions," establishes the City Council's authority to create Boards and Commissions and to prescribe the powers and duties of such Boards and Commissions. However, Section 4.07 of the City Charter expressly states that " [aJll boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council." The City Charter Page I of7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 16,2022
may be amended only by a vote of the citizens of the City of Folsom and the citizens of Folsom have not delegated approval authority to the HDC.

Neither City staffi the HDC, nor the City Council has the authority to amend or disregard this limitation on the HDC's authority. Therefore, to function within the limitations presuibed by the citizens ofthe City of Folsom in the City Charter, HDC decisions may not constitute final approvals. Instead, HDC decisions must be treated as advisory recommendations to the City Council for the City Council's final consideration and decision of whether to approve or otherwise take final action on a project.

2. The proposed crematorium exhaust stack is not sufficiently described or illustrated to provide the necessary understanding ofits design and appearance.

Staff report Attachment 8 (meeting packet pages 62 and 63) illustrate a bluned and disproportionate black square that apparently is intended as the applicant's rendering of the proposed crematorium stack (inserted as Figure 1 below). The so-called rendering looks akin to a plastic garbage bag covering a rooftop air conditioner and is meaningless for demonstrating the actual visual appearance and height of the project exhaust stack. The applicant's rendering fails to demonstrate the actual height (which would extend to over 10 feet above the shed rooftop) and looks nothing like any of the five exhaust stacks illustrated in the representative crematorium photographs included in meeting packet pages 298 through 303. The representative photographs (discussed further below) illustrate at least five different crematorium exhaust stack designs, demonstrating the variation and diversity in design options for an exhaust stack, yet, it appears that no real effort has been made to consider and present an actual design and visual appearance of the exhaust stack that would be installed forthe project. The stack's design and visual appearance is critical forthe required design review and to the CEQA analysis of impacts associated with visual character, historical resources, and fire risk.

Figure 1. Applicant's Rendering of Exhaust Stack (from meeting packet pg. 62) Page2 of7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 16,2022

3. Design Review in compliance with the F'olsom Municipal Code is required for the proposed shed modification.

The proposed shed modification with addition of the exhaust stack requires design review pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) section 17.52.300, ooDesign Review," which requires design review fot, "B. All exterior renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures." FMC Section 17 .52.310 provides design review application submittal (including design review application fee) requirements. The Community Development Department has errored by not identiffing design review as a necessary entitlement and, therefore, by not requiring the project applicant to submit an application for design review.

The Staff Report notes that comments on the ISAvIND raised the issue of "whether a design review application is warranted" (meeting packet page28) but the Staff Report provides no explanation of why a design review application has not yet been required for this project.

An application for design review containing the required submittals must be submitted and design review application fees paid before a decision regarding the CUP can be made. The design modification addition of a lO-foot exhaust stack above the roof of the existing shed is an integral component of the proposed use. Importantly, design review would consider whether the structure modification is consistent with Historic District design standards and guidelines or if the design ofthat structure requires additional modifications to comply with Historic District design standards and guidelines. The design review would necessarily consider the actual proposed design and visual character ofthe project exhaust stack which is currently unspecified.

As noted at item 2, above, the Staff Report (meeting packet pages 298-303) clearly demonstrates that various diverse designs for an exhaust stack are possible; but the design must be vetted through a public review and decision-making process, not ignored or addressed as an afterthought. Two examples from the StaffReport are presented in Figure 2 below and demonstrate the variation and importance of selecting an appropriate design for the exhaust stack. Without design review, the exhaust stack could be constructed with an intrusive oversized vertical pipe appearance (left photo) whereas with design review the HDC could ensure that the exhaust stack is thoughtfully designed in consideration of its context which is the very reason for design review for structure modifications in the Historic District.

Figure2. Exhaust Stack Varia
Page3 of7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 16,2022

4. The General Plan has no land use designation for either a cemetery or a crematorium, therefore the analysis cannot tier from the General Plan EIR.

The ISAvIND incorrectly states that the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Open Space. A review of the General Plan intent for the Open Space land use designation reveals that there is no basis for concluding that a crematorium is consistent with the General Plan Open Space land use designation. The General Plan mentions "cemeteries" just one time and crematoriums not at all.l Table LU-5 of the General Plan (page 2-7) defines the Open Space designation as, "The Open Space land use designation encompasses the preserved natural open space areas of Folsom." Throughout the General Plan, policies encourage that development incorporate areas of open space. It is unreasonable to suggest that the intent ofthose policies is that such open space areas could or might be used for siting a cemetery and a crematorium.2 The ISAvIND's incorrect interpretation and the subsequent analysis which tiers fromthe General Plan EIR are fundamentally flawed. The ISAvIND must be revised to eliminate the effoneous approach to General Plan consistency, and the impact analyses must fully evaluate the project without attempting to tier from the General Plan EIR.

Further, while FMC section 17.52.550 identifies "cemeteries" as a permitted use in the Open SpaceiPublic primary area of the Historic District (subject to a conditional use permit when proposed by a private entity), the FMC does not extend the definition of cemetery to a crematorium. Additionally, the FMC is subordinate to, and may not conflict with, the General Plan. Therefore, attempting to expand the unspecified FMC definition of a cemetery to include a crematorium (and especially as an "accessory use" as asserted in the February 15 Topical Responses Memo; pg. 3 of 4) even further strays from the General Plan's Open Space definition and is impermissible.

5. The project description must identiS whether the project would involve public attendance at services at the Lakeside Memorial cemetery and/or other locations within the City and, if so, define the parameters and evaluate impacts associated with such services.

Neither the Staff Report nor the IS/IVIND provide information on whether cremations (up to 4 per day and 500 per year) would or could be attended by family, friends, or other members of the public. If no such attendance will be permitted, a condition of any use permit for this project must specifically state that such attendance is prohibited and must include a mechanism to ensure the prohibition is enforced. Alternatively, if such affendance will be permitted, the IS/MND must be revised to discuss the maximum anticipated attendance at each cremation and evaluate the impacts associated with vehicle trips, noise, parking capacity, neighborhood vehicle circulation and pedestrian safety, effects on other services and activities at the cemetery, and other factors associated with public attendance.

I The single General Plan cemetery reference pertains to Noise Compatibility Standards (Table SN-l) which is unrelated to establishing land use designations and uses 2 Example: Policy LU 3.1.1 - "Encourage mixed-use development in nodes located at major intersections that include housing, open space, and offices." The IS/MND's interpretation would suggest that the expectation of that policy is for those open space areas to be eligible for siting a crematorium.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Figure 3. Viewshed from Folsom Boulard

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
cA 95630
PageT of7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

Concerned abutting neighbor.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture wa$ taken January 13th, ?:O2?. This is what the maintenance gt currently. The new storage shed is in the baekground and the existing shed metalsecurity lencing surrounds the grounds and has a locked security gate Tailing Pile condition. lt has been disturbed over the years.

I
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Thls picture uuas tal<en January L3th, ?fr22. Thls picture illustrates ffte currel malntenance grounds, sheds and security fencing. The metalshed on tfie ri proposed crernatory is to be installed.
{
4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture shows the propane tank pad right of the building under the large photograph was tal€n January 13th, 2A22. The application site pfan conftrn prnpane pad. ln addition, the site plan calls for 2 x 500 gallon franks, not the tanks in the Negatlve Seclaration text.
(
5

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This photograph taken January 13th 2021 displays another angle of the loca tanks pad. Blocked by a wonden fence, metal securl$t fencing, a large redu metal shed.
{
6

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture was taken on August 4th, Z0eI. This is Lakeside Memorial t-av Valdimir Semenyuk, driving out of the cemetery with a 250 gallon propane ta disturbing on many levels. lt is my opinion that the Caring Service is very cc cutconre of the Conditional Use Ferrnit. lf indeed this tank is for the Crematr arrogant tor the Caring Service Group to show no discretion in their activities {
7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,?:0?,2
Historic Dlstrict Commissioners
City Council Members
City Manager
Kelly Multett
My narne is Dave Higgins, I live across the street trom Lakeside Memorial L proposed crematorium is to be built. Over the course of sumrner to the pres taken pictures of activity at the cemetery. I wish to share.

This picture was submified by the Caring Service Group and Mllfer Funeral I application fsr the Conditionai Use Permit lo install a crematory. Two years the rnetatrstorage shed and surrounding grounds looked like in 2-27-2OZA.

B

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Richard and San I
Folsom, CA 95630
From: Richard Perez
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:29 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <kmullett@folsom,ca.us>
subject: cREMATORIUM
You don't often get email Learn whv this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

IO:

Subject:

Attachments:

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

LAKESIDE
CREMATORIUM PN 02-258 Staff Reports-Minutes.pdf; FOLSOM LAKES|DE.docx; Historic Cemetery Designation.docx; CREMATORIUM Excerpts.pdf
You don't often get email 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.

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

Excerpts are from the Staff Report, page one attached below, about 2003 Bob LaPerriere
Bob LaPerriere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95865-5345
U RL: http://www.coroner.saccou ntv. net/sccac/Pages/defau lt.aspx x

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

Please consider our concerns about the inappropriate location for a crematory.

Thank you
Bob LaPerriere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
URL : http ://www.coroner.saccounty.net/sccac/Pages/default.aspx

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Cemeteries designated were:
l.Bellview Cemetery

2.Union Cemetery

3.Lakeside Cemetery

4.Matthew Kilgore Cemetery

5.24th & Meadowview Cemetery

6.Chung Wah Cemetery
T.Elder Creek Cemetery
S.Rancho Murieta Cemetery (North & South) (2)

9.Sacramento Historic City Cemetery
I 0.Michigan-Bar Cemetery (Ione Road)
I l.Sloughhouse Cemetery
l.Sylvan District Cemetery
l2.Galt/ArnoDistrictCemeteries (2)

13.Elk Grove Consumnes District Cemeteries (5)

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

The text of the plaque is as below:

THIS SITE HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY

SACRAMENTO COUNTYAS A
HISTORIC CEMETERY.

FMRE REST MANY OF THE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO SAW THE BEAUTY

AND VALUE OF THIS LAND, CHOOSING TO SETTLE HERE
AND BUILD THE COI-INTY WE CI{ERISH TODAY.

PLEASEHELP US PRESERVE TFIESE GRAVES, MARKERS,
AND LANDSCAPING FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

SACRAMENTO COIJNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

AND CEMETERY ADVISORY COMMISSION

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLE:

PROPOSAL:

RECOMMEITTDATION:

APPLICANT AI\D O$IER:

LOCATION:

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:

ATTACHED REFERENCE MATERIAL
I
Agenda Item No. l
PNO2-258
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 Street
070-0082-014, 070-0130-002, 070-0130-004
a
I
W#ndrr#M
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION STAtr'F REPORT
PROJECT PLAITIITTER:

1. VicinityMap

2. Site Plan, dated 12/19197

3. Project Description and Crematorium
Illustrations

4. Documentation from the Sacramento
County Historic Cernetery Commission

5. Lakeside Cemetery Research Paper
written by Sue Silver

6. Letters from the Public

7. Site Photographs
Jane Talbot, Assistant Planner

BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit and Variance for Mausoleums at Lakeside Mernorial Lawn in 1991 (PC91-042). An amendment to the approval was granted in 1995 (PC95-033). That approval allowed for the construction of twelve mausoleums. To date, one mausoleum has been built and one additional mausoleum is under constnrction. 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 "u"rgt""tt
trees. The front of the cemetery, along Forrest Street, is bounded by a brick wall capped with wrought iron fencing.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
o
Attachmerfi 4
Documentation from the
Sacramento County Historic Cemetery Commission
o

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
t lflrassfi
,to co,T Cemetery Advisory &**ssion
48oo Broadway, Suite roo
Sacramento CA 9582o
City of Folsom Historic Dishict Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Attn: Jane Talbot
DearMs Talbot::

The sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission is in receip of yourNotice of public Hearing r"g*diog PN 02-i58 Conditional Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1201 Fonest Steet'
The corn:rrission is charged with the duty to encourage the preservation and a"rigt"ti"" of historicafte,meteries. Wi are currently preparing a fist of those cemeteries in Sacramento County, which should be considered historic' It is my opinion th31 Lakeview cemetery *itt u" one of the cemeteries in sacra:nento county that will be on the list that is to be presented to the Board of Supervisors for designation as an historic cemetery.

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

Sincerely,
Janes A. Purcell, Chairman
Ce,metery Advisory Comrnission
srf* * . w&
,
,i#
Vice Chair, Dr. Robert Ta Perriere

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

OO
sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission
48oo BroadqaS Suite roo
Sacramento CA g58zo
January 2,2003
Ms. Jane Talbot
city of Folsom Planning, lnspections and permitting Department 50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95690
Dear Ms Talbot:

The sacramento c?ql!'loqrd of supervisors on June 12,2oo1approved ordinance No. scc-1193, which established rhe sacrar#nto cotiitv 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 proposalfor a crematorium at Lakbside cemetery, fn" commission would like to submit the following:

The_ar99 incorporating Lakeside cemetery,.the chung wah Historic cemetery, and the California State Dredging Tailings Park is possibty-the onty site irin" !i.i. .r California that combines these important aspects of our heritage in one smafi' area. Lakeside cemet"y,.!n facj, may be a grouping of lgth dentury .emeGri"., which would most likely fit the criteria turrenily ueing-oeveiopeo to uLtnJ a tiistoric cemetery. lt is the opinion of The Commission thatlhe addiiion or a crematorium on that site would have a negative impact on the historical silnificance of the aiea. lt is believed that a crematorium could be placed in an industrLlarea within Foliom to avoid the impact on the history of our countywide communig Chair, JamesA. purcell Vice Chair, Dr. Robert La perriere

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Ms. Jane Talbot
.Ja4uary 2,2003
Page2
o o
Area residents have notified our Commission that they oppose the placement of the crematorium on the site.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Date:

Attachments:

Subject:

Bob LaPerriere
Josh Kinkade
Lakeside
Tuesday, February !5,2022 11:01:10 PM
Cemeterv bv SK2 docx.docx
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Here is an additional (individual) letter from one of our Commissioners. Thanks Bob LaPerriere
Bob LaPerriere
Chair Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95865-5345
URL : hffp ://www.coroner. saccountv.netlsccac/Pages/default.aspx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February !5,2002
Folsom Historica I Commission
To Whom it May Concern
Back in 2003 there was a plan to originally build a Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery. Lakeside Cemetery is not 100 years old but was formed from smaller cemeteries dating back to the Gold Rush. As such, the current cemetery borders another cemetery occupied by the Chinese and is currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Chan Trust on a previously arranged agreement. The Chinese cemetery is a registered National Landmark and another close by has potential for a National Landmark nomination. The proposal could push nomination into oblivion.

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

This late notification of this meeting has not allowed the Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Board due diligence to respond in a timely manner to the meeting taking place on February 16,2O22. ln the past we were against this same proposal taking place at this cemetery. I consider this is a historic cemetery and the records for this location are poor in nature and the possibility of disturbing the graves ofthedeadishighlyirregular. lnthepastgraveshavebeendestroyedduringconstructionphases.

Yours,
StephAnie Kadle
District 2
Sacramento County Cemetery
Advisory Commission

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachment 4
HELIX Topical Responses to ISAvIND Comments

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Memorondum
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc,
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, CA 95630
916.36s.8700
www. helixepi.com
Date:

Project:

RE:

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

The crematory would be placed inside a metal structure that already exists on the property and is already mostly shielded from public view. The only external modifications would be the addition of two 25O-gallon propane tanks on a concrete pad near the edge of the building and the addition of a small exhaust stack to the roof of the shed. This stack would be approximately L9.5 feet above grade and would project approximately 10 feet above the existing roof of the shed. This physical improvement to an already existing metal structure would not significantly impact the visual character of the project setting. An existing wooden fence would shield the propane tanks from view from the publicly used areas of the cemetery.

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

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

Localized concentrations of TACs were modeled using Lakes AERMOD View version 9.8.3 and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT)version L9727. SMAQMD provides two sets of

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February t5,2022

meteorological data files for use with AERMOD: one for the Sacramento lnternational Airport and one for the Sacramento Executive Airport. Data for the Executive Airport was recommended for use by SMAQMD staff (provided by Venk Reddy on 8/28/2OI9l.

Though it is uncertain whether the exhaust stack will include a rain cover, for the purposes of dispersion modeling, assuming a rain cover is installed on the crematorium exhaust stack is the more conservative approach. The rain cover would limit the initial dispersion of the exhaust gases, thereby resulting in increased concentrations near the source. Without a rain cover, the exhaust may travel farther, but would result in decreased concentrations in any given volume of air. These decreased concentrations would result in decreased exposure and health risks.

HELTX's coordination with Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) began in August 2019 when HELIX's Senior Air Quality Specialist, Victor Ortiz, reached out to SMAQMD Air Quality Engineer, Venk Reddy, via phone. Ongoing coordination via phone and emailwith SMAQMD staff, including Venk Reddy, Karen Huss, Steve Mosunic, and Brian Krebs, continued through the end of October 2021. lnitial coordination included discussion of SMAQMD approved methodologies, models, and emission factors for use in quantifying emissions and risks associated with crematory operations.

Mr. Reddy provided Mr. Ortiz with the SMAQMD approved toxic air contaminant (TAC) emission rates and the recommended meteorological data for use in the AERMOD dispersion model. ln the late spring of 2027, Mr. Reddy and his team conducted a review of HELIX'S AERMOD and HARP modeling files used in the health risk assessment (HRA). All comments made by Mr. Reddy following his review dealt with confirming manufacturer specs included in the modeling. ltems specifically called out, including exhaust flow rate, physical dimensions of the equipment, and hourly burn rate, were provided by Hartwick Combustion Technologies, lnc.

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

Criteria pollutant emissions are compared to the SMAQMD thresholds of significance, which are established with the goal of helping the SMAQMD attain the ambient air quality standards. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. By resulting in emissions less than the thresholds developed to attain the standards aimed at protectingthe most sensitive populations, the project's criteria pollutant emissions are not expected to result in adverse health effects on said populations.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The presence of the nearby historic Chinese cemeteries was acknowledged in Section 5.1 of the required confidential cultural resources technical study prepared for the project, which was used to support the lS/MND. However, these cemeteries are not located within the project area. At their closest points, the Chung Wah Cemetery is located approximately 263 feet southwest of the project area, and the Young Wo Cemetery is located approximately 847 feet north of the project area. The local historical significance of the Lakeside Cemetery itself and its origins and historic use extending back to 1846 were addressed in Section 3.5.4 of the confidential cultural resources study prepared for the project.

HEL'X
tflrljn"$tifilAi t't {niltt:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February L5,2022

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

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

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

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

The project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Vegetation on the property is irrigated and includes maintained lawns and well-spaced trees with a generally open canopy and limbs pruned near ground level. Furthermore, the project is subject to standard structural separation requirements from the Fire Department with regards to the crematorium's distance to the propane tanks and potentially flammable material.

Land Use and Planning
Cemeteries are a permitted use within the OS/P Primary Area upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) per Section 17.52.550 of the FMC. The subject cemetery has been in operation since the 1800's and pre-dates the requirement for a CUP. The cemetery did receive a CUP for operation of a mausoleum in 1995. The proposed crematory would be operating as an accessory use to the existing cemetery, not as a stand-alone business.
ln this case, the cemetery is the primary or principal use and the applicant is proposing a crematorium as an accessory use to the existing cemetery. As proposed, the crematorium would be subordinate in area, extent,andpurposetothatoftheexistingcemetery. ltwouldprovideaservicerelatedtoand HEL'X f tr!(rilttdrtrd t!l'ItroS

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
February 75,2022

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

HEL'X gifgrfi#a!ffint

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
iti'c)lt-,s3(c)w[
llrltl|ic rrvu rlY xiluot
DRAFT

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES
February 16,2022

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

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

MINIII'ES: The amended minutes of the January 19,2022 meeting were approved.

Oath of Office Administered to John Lane

NEW BUSINESS

1. PN {9-182. Lakeside Memorial Lawn Grematorium Conditional Use Permit. Mitiqated Neqative Declaration. and Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram A Public Hearing to consider a request from lgor Semenyuk for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a crematory to operate in an existing metal structure situated within the Lakeside Memorial Lawn cemetery located a|1201 Forrest Street. The zoning classification for the site is OS/P, while the General Plan land-use designation is OS. An lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Project Planner: Josh Kinkade / Applicant: lgor Semenyuk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic District Commission
February 16,2022
Page I of 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER RAITHEL MOVED TO ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM, PER ATTACHMENT 11; AND MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE pERMtT (pN 19-182) FOR OPERATTON OF A CREMATORTUM WtTHtN AN EX|ST|NG 1,071-SQUARE FOOT METAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1201 FORREST STREET, WITHIN THE LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CEMETARY AS ILLUSTRATED IN ATTACHMENTS 5 AND 6, WITH THE FINDINGS (A-K) AND CONDTTTONS (NOS. 1-30)
Historic District Commission
February 16,2022

COMMISSIONER ANKHELYI SECONDED THE MOTION

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION PASSED

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kelly Mullett, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
APPROVED:

Historic District Commission
Februmy 16,2022

Kathy Cole, CHAIR

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachment 6
Public Comment Letters Regarding the Applicant's Appeal

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Elaine Andersen
Wednesday, March 23, 202211:20 AM
Josh Kinkade
Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium - City Council Meeting 4/12/22 ---Original Message----
From:Adam and Katie Musfelt lOyahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23,202211:19 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium - City Council Meeting 4lI2/22 [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at http://aka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentification,l
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members,
We, Adam and Katie Musfelt, are unable to attend the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium meeting on April 12,2022.

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

Our quality of life will have a significant negative impact if this crematorium is allowed to be built; families and businesses will suffer repercussions for years to come. Please consider the future of this neighborhood by preserving the historical and cultural integrity of it and voting no on the crematorium.

Thank you,
Adam and Katie Musfelt
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, April 1, 2022 3:31 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
From: Bert p
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 3:tS PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected],us>
Subject: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
You donlt often get emailfro"Elearn 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 Anderson,
l, together with my neighbors at Lake Natoma Shores, a community next to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery am asking you to halt the proposed construction of a crematorium there. The crematorium will be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, the Historic District, and the American River Parkway. This area resides near many outdoor activities promoted by our city as family-friendly, safe, and "distinctive by nature". lt entails a farmers market, outdoor concerts; city-sponsored festivals, and sits adjacent to the American River Parkway that is actively used by many walkers, runners, and bicyclists daily. The Parkway serves as a window to the naturalworld, for all those that live and visit Folsom. ln researching the toxicity impacts of a crematorium I went to the National Collaborating Center for Environmental Health and found the following information, as per an article written in the US National Librarv of Medicine:
"Cremation is a combustion process whereby a casket and human remains are incinerated at a high temperature in a closed chamber. The process of corpse cremation generates numerous harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. These pollutants are carcinogenic and could have severe effects on human health and the surrounding environment." (*).

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Please consider our concerns and let that serve as your guide forward.

Sincerely,
Bert Pittari,
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
Patricia Zuccaro
Resident Lake Natoma Shores
(*)"Toxic atmospheric pollutants from crematoria ovens: characterization, emission factors, and modeling"
>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2O2O Dec
z

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

IO:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, April 1, 20222:32PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium proposal
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2O222:3tPM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected],us>; Mike Kozlowski <m kozlowski @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: Crematorium proposal
Some people who received t}is.message don't often get
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My name is Breanne Higgins and I am opposing the proposal for The Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium, I am a resident of the Preserves Neighborhood and have many family members and friends within this small community. So this is very important to me, I am opposing it for many reasons: quality of life, cultural insensitivities, and not belonging in a historical district,
This has already affected my quality of life and consumed my time, lt has been difficult, as many of us have careers, young children and households to maintain. I have a 21 month old and am 35 weeks pregnant. I should be looking up baby names, but instead I find myself researching crematoriums and city council meeting dates. Our neighborhood is a tight knit community with many young children. Should our kids have to see white puffs of smoke and know that a body is burning in a storage shed. At the age of 7 should you really know what a crematorium is? ls that age appropriate? There is a big difference between living near a cemetery and living next to a crematorium. Being next to a cemetery is peaceful, somewhere you show respect, it's quiet and green. lt's wonderful to see family's come to visit buried loved ones, A crematorium is loud with the noise of propane tanks being transported in and out. The sight of smoke indication a body being burned, Although the propane tank is "not anticipated" to be seen, there is no guarantee. As a neighbor I don't want to hear this, see this or smell this. Do you think someone visiting a deceased loved one at the cemetery does? Can YOU gaurtenee me that there won't be any smell? Can lgor gaurtenee this, would he put it in writing? My husband, Kyal Vongunten spoke during the Historical Commissioners meeting suggesting the environmentally friendly aquamation instead of cremation. We are offering different alternatives and locations to his crematorium. lt just doesn't belong in a neighborhood, especially one within a historical district, The crematorium hasn't even been out in yet and it is distributing our lives. lf this is approved, lcan guarantee once I smell the scent of burning bodies, I will call and report it. Every time, ln the Historic District meeting, it was reported that residents living next to crematoriums did call to report "smells." Nothing is guaranteed about not having a smell associated with the burning of a body, Another resident of the Preserves neighborhood, Sean Gates, mentioned during the Historic District meeting that we can smell the Kikkoman's food plant on certain days. This is true. The Kikkoman's Food, lnc. building is less than 1 mile away from my house. One can only assume, with the right wind, that the smell of burning bodies from the proposed crematorium would be present at not only my house, but on Sutter Street, which is 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
within a mile radius of the proposed crematory. Do we really want our visitors who are enjoying the business on Sutter Sffeet saying "What is that smell?"
The chung wah Cemetery, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is in the center of our neighborhood. The Chung Wah cemetery is less than a .2 miles away from the proposed crematorium. As a historic/sacred site, it should be preserved and protected. Recently, The Murer House was also listed as a National Register of Historic Places. We as a city should respect and protect these unique additions to our neighborhood.

I have thought about the pros of putting this crematorium in our neighborhood. lt is really just convenient for lgor. lf Folsom needs a crematorium, place it in a properly zoned area. Not in open space within a historical district. Do we really bend for one person? What does the city get out of placing a crematorium in a historic district within a residential area so close to Sutter Street? Sure, there are other crematoriums in residential areas, but are they in a historical district? No, they are not.

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

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

Thank you for your time,
Breanne Higgins
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

I live at L357 Young Wo Circle. The region where the crematory will sit (currently a shed) is within about 400-500 feet from our home. My wife Dawn, and our twelve-year-old son Austin, have lived here for L2 years-we enjoy the lake, our wonderful neighbors, and the Folsom historical areas nearby. The Chinese cemetery in our neighborhood is an awesome tribute to the past Chinese immigrants. Unsurprisingly, we prefer our current situation, and we prefer to not smell or breath the output from the crematorium.

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

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

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

Best,
Brian Paciotti
Ph.D. Ecology, UC Davis. M.S. Healthcare lnformatics, UC Davis Medical Center lvouns wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95530

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Thanks for your time
Dave Higgins
Fon st.

Cc: Mari Peshon

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

17.52.710 titled Appeal Hearings.

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

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

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

Please rescind the rescheduling and reset the Hearing to April 12,2022 David Higgins
Folsom resident

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Monday, April4, 20227:26 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Please vote NO on the Lakeside Crematorium Proposal From: lsaac Monica
Sent: Sunday, April3, 20229:47 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected],us>
Subject: Please vote NO on the Lakeside Crematorium Proposal Some people who received this message don't often get email Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern with the City of Folsom leadership, The Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium proposal is deeply troubling to me and my family. The Caring Service Group is not a small business and states outright on their website that they're in the business of buying up and aggregating small funeral home businesses. This model further distances the business from its community's concerns and it shows with the "lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2021, The TAC (Toxic Air Contaminants) assessment in Appendix B of the "Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2O2L is flawed and irresponsible. Most specifically in terms of the evaluation of the impact to "sensitive Receptors". The report by Helix Environmental Planning notes the fact that the adjacent residential houses are as close as 450 feet which is not that far! That's about the width of 5 or 6 lots in our neighborhood. 5 houses down the street. The report makes it sound like the combustion stack is remotely located away from our neighborhood which couldn't be farther from the truth. I walk the neighborhood regularly with my 1 and 3 year old children and it's a short walk from the closest house to the proposed site which is where my son likes to occasionally ride his balance bike. The Historic District Historical Society write-up of the cemetery (https://www.folsomhistoricalsocietv.orslpost/lakeside-cemeterv) concludes with "The next time you are in town I highly suggest you take a visit to the cemetery; the older burial sites are beautiful, and its quiet location makes a perfect Fall afternoon walk," This will certainly change when there are constant emissions adjacent to the cemetery and increased vehicular activity carting the deceased to and from the crematorium "shed".

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

For a city that wants to define itself as distinctive by nature, this is a far cry from the current mission statement. The benefits to the community are substantially outweighed by the safety risk and miss-use of the planned site, It's been noted by the Folsom Historic Commission that nearby crematoriums exist and they have been shown to have issues from time to time as shown by the historic commissions own research, Equipment breaks down and we don't want to be subject to issues when they inevitably rise. I ask why would the commission assume this project would be any different?
The first time a request for a Crematorium came up many years ago, the Historic District did not believe the historic site was appropriate for this kind of activity and nothing has changed except for the aggressiveness of the applicant.

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
choose from and the carbon footprint to get there is in the noise so there is no environmental benefit of having one in the requested location.

The Historic Commission evaluation criteria was as follows: " The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will or will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City" - The peace and comfort of the neighborhood will be violated with inevitable smell especially when equipment breaks down.
- The industrialization of the site will be injurious to the properties cultural/historical significance going back to the violation of the Chung Wah cemetery in the first place - time to stop that cycle - The need to disclose the industrial site near a residential neighborhood will undoubtedly hurt property values thus be injurious to property and the neighborhood.

I strongly encourage the Folsom City Leadership to reevaluate the applicant's intentions to monetize a currently quaint property with a toxic industrial process directly adjacent to a family oriented neighborhood and world class nature trail.

Sincerely,
lsaac Monical
fFong Ct
Folsom, CA 95630
-
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

I*l_siilir'l r:ll'i!, r::L!:::F:l{i,.ci slF i
ijl;ll Fi[i:a'?l? rli :: I fi$
Fehruarv 2:3,2022
Cnuncil Memhers
Toxic Air Contaminants {TAC's)
AiieEhecl ie gn sx*$'iicrlt srfie;c riiir:r?rniirg tlie toxicity frsss,liaied wilii cremations. During the Historic District Commission hearing comments were rir*.de {:trfti:eii:ring the Flelix Report arrd A.ir Quality Sisffkl stanrJr.rd,s fer emissions resulting in a less than significant impact. The findings were accepted as they *houirJ be. The issue ot Toxie Air Cr:i-rtaminanis {fAe} iri the t$lFvlft{D was covered by Josh Kinkade ln his presentation. Howevet I betieve the topic was dismissed. The TAC's metals and inorganics listed in the IS/MND; lvteials, (mercury, arsenig,berylliuin, caelmiurn, chtomiurn, cFpFFi ityrlrogen fiuoride, lead,nickel' selenium)
VQS'${ benzene, ioluene, xyl€ires, vinyl chloiides).

Aldehydes,
P oiy aramatic Hydrocarbpns, {PAHS)
Polychtorinated Dibenzod ioxins
Polych lorinated Di benzofurans
These TAC's at'e not, a Air Quality Bqard eoncqrn, These TAO's faii under the EPA. The Sac County Air Board's mission is carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, sulfrir dioxide, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibiiify reducing parlicle emissions. The ISIMND defined mercury in a generic form, naturally occurring.

TIre IS/MND does not disqiiss vaporieed mercury. Mercury when vaperiasd becomes a deadly concern along with the other TAC's tisted and should not be released in a residential neighborhood. This health risk is unexceptable.

Please read this doeument,
Yl^
-
..t . \J^. .
| {tctilK tuu
Kim Higgins
At least please review page 6 of this document

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
"l?w? t 1FPfid \&gil d:iBfierhft t+tgnlA.f4i*qF. fiirf*:l} -,Iahrr i(tldr dr"rrrDrr" Rr.rrirl-SArrl$€$t

JOHH IYIUIR GREEN BURIAL

SANCTUARY
a beautiful green burial in a spectacular location

WHY CREMATION IS NOT A GREEN CHOICE
lQGrepn Reasong TpJ*vold ths Tbxlclty sf,Crsmqtion

1. [Ulercury Vapors. This is the #]. lethal toxin in crematory vapors. Currently, no crematories have adequate filters for mercury or the many other heavy metals, plastics, and dioxins that are emitted in the vaporization of a body. Most mercury vapors are due to the mercury-silver dentalfillings (eight on average in each body) that are liguified and vaporized into the air from each cremation, With over a million bodies cremated each yea6 that's a lot of toxic mercury in the air thatwe breathe.

2. Alzhelmerb Disease (#3 cause of death in the U.S,) and other neurological diseases such as MS, ALS, Parklnson's Dlsease, Depression, etcare caused largely by mercury build-up in the body over 2O-40 years, Unlike cyanide poison which has an immediate effect, mercury has a long half-life in the brain. Mercury 4?|122,6:58 AM
Paoe i ol 27
https:i/g reenbu rialsanctuary.com/'r,.1 ry. ct'ematlon. ls- not-g reenl Page 1596 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
contarnination is due to mercury dentalfillings, coal mining, and,., you guessed it, cremation vapors. The United Nations 2019 estimates show that 680,000 pounds of mercury is emitted from dental amalgams into the wastewater and air annually, Even if all rnercury fillings were removed prior to cremation, most human bodies, including children's, have unsafe levels of mercury in the liver and other organs.

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

3. Clirnste Chai''ge: Cremation is a huge climate change contributor: each cremation uses about 28 gallons of fuel and releases about 540 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Estimates from the UK say their cremations contribute about 160/o of total climate emissions, There are no statistics by the EPA, though 70% of westerners unknowingly choose cremation, mis-informed by the industry to believe it is "green" because of decreased land use. About 1.7 Billion pounds of COZ are er-nitted eveiy year !n the US eloire from about a million cremated bodies.

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

4. l$ereury ca*tarni*atEon cf oiir global enviroitment, Mercury is kncr.vn to travel long distances, and biologists are finding mercury in alarrning levels infarreaehing p'iaces arouridthe planet. Folar lrears in the arctic nou.r have peali bioaccumulation of mercury, Mountain lions and deer are drinking mercurycontarninated fcg drepiets, and showine high lcvels in their fatty tisslies in coastal areas of California, and mammals in the eastern U.S. and Europe also have high levels in their blood and fur.
5, l$dgFstry dEseases reletee! t+ r*ereuri- rise - CrennatoDr rjnotnurs, biologists and other handlers of mercury tainted mammals, dental workers, mortuary and morgue workers are all showing evidence of chronic illness from mercury vapors ,:rltFf:;(ir(,firll'i( itl,iarttiit1,i'.GCii't:i,l.i\,., f€r lAl;(,,, ,.'-, (,r i,l'.':il/ 'at:tl! Page 1597
05/10/2022 Item No.18.
that arc rising in alr pollution, through skin absorption, in officevapors and v;ithin the air surrounding the site of mercury contamination. They sufferfrom higher rates cf neurologicaldisease as wellas rates of acute aird chroiric respii'atory disease,

6. A positive reason to choose an alternative like Green Burial is Restoiatloilcf the Earth's Soil. Giving your body back to the earth after a lifetime of food, water, sustenance and enjoyment of natureb bounty helps restore the rich sgricultural biome that America has enjoyed over three centuries. Scientists predict that the topsoil across the U,S. will be depleted by 2060 at the rate we continue to use it.

Even though bodies contain contaminants, experts maintain that mercury and ol.her heavy metals rvill trickle down into the soil to form deep mines from where they originated. The safest place for mercury is actually back into the soil to be returned deep into the earth.

7. Y+i:r tffaikt - Green burial has the least cost of all funeral choices at $lk te $3k onaverage, compared with cremation costs of $6,O00 and conventional cemetery costs of $7,00O to $2O,000 or more.

8. Censervatleir and Restoratia* af Hatr.rre - ;t legal and beautifii! se+se ef Flace for your body to be held in a natural reserve that your descendants can visit.

Location of your ptot is through GPS, and Conservation certified cerneteries have a long-term easement for nature to return to its beautiful state. Planting a Legacy tree or other native tree of your choice can help restore native forests to be enjoyed by many future generations. Conservation burial meadows can help restore pollinator meadows, wildflower meadows, and habitat and food for a wide variety of wildtife. Many certified green burials are open to the public on weekends foy quiet enjoyment of the naturalsurroundings and a new aprpreciation of cemetery use. Since there is no use of pesticides, herbicides like RoundUp, or embalmirrg fluicls, the localwaterst-red is free of toxin runoft as found in conventional cemeteries. No concrete or steel vaults are used for the sole purpose of lawn care as in conventional cemeteries. Saving these resources could h1{t:):.t;i,.c ill, iir;,i5ar" iuaivrUfir;,.i.,'-Cfer',ai,Ol -;i .''lt'gle' I'i Page 1598 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
ossist with rebuilding failing infrastructures acrCIss the U.S.

9. The enly nefi*texic, tr$!y green chsice i$'Jeethc*re is grb-en k-ruriul. So-called 'alternatives" of Alkaline Hydrolysis {"r,rrater cremation"}, Human Composting, and ConventionslCnerretion allare extnemely poiluting in their lack of resBonsibie mercury handling, hazardous waste disposal, and housing of hazardous waste sites in residontial neighborhosds and industrial sites. These expose the publie to dangerous availability of mercufy in the form of vapor, contaminated wsstewatefi and rraturaldisasLer unprepraredrress irr Ll"re evenL of wildfire, earthquake, or otlrer' environmental Cisasters.
1O. T+ki*g time f+r :ratu.rai grief, *ni+'ynseE?t *f * heautifu! f*ner*! ist natrEre. i'..4ost green cemeteries don't put a limit on how long you and your family can take alongsiele a green grave-side burial. Memorial Halls with spectacular views of nature can remind us of its eternalaspect and the naturalcycle of life and death.

As John Muir wrote in L869, in "My First Summer in the Sierras", "Anoiherglorious Sierra day in which one 5gerns to be drbsolved and absorbed and sent pulsr'ng onward we know not where- Life seems neither long nor short, and we take no more heed to save time ar make haste tha* da the trees and stars. Thrs is true freedom, a good practical sort of immortal$^. One is constantly reminded of the infintte lavishness and fertility of Nature.,, no particle of her ntaterialis wasted or worn ouf. lf is eternally flowing f rom use to usq beauty to yet higher beauty; and we soon cease to lament waste and death, and rather rejolce and exult in the imperishable, unspendable wealth of the universe.,il#t* faithfulty watch and waft the reappearance of everything that melts and fades and dies about us, feeling: sure that its next appeatance will be befter and more beau#ful that the lasf. " Additional statistics relating to cremation pollution:
r Thr: Envircirmentsl Protection Ageircy estimntes ffernntorirlns emit 320 poun<ls of merctiry per yefi; while activists say the real figure could be as higlr as three tons in 2007. A review of a strrcly dan+ by the EPA that estiniated emissions fi'om dentel arnalgam h:rs since been underestimated. The United Nations Envircnmental Programme current (2019) accounts ',;l1i ;i1r. \ji ,{1,'ri,a l'.',',rrclUi, i,s;,}/,'l' ' lir,,;t1'r',' rb , rri't}r(irstl/ ir i..i

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
indicate that 340 tons (680,000 pounds) of mercury is discharged into the environment from dental amalganr. 100 tons of which enters the waste stream. Frour cremation, tooth loss, human waste and infectious waste are released significant releaseso and it was detetmined that cremation is the most mitical because of the invisibility ofvapors into the air without adequate or appropriate filters.
r Mercur.v in dental amalgarns has been banned in Denmark, Nonvay and Sweden. Horvever il. is estimated b1' the EU EPAthat 1,500 tonnes (200.000 pounds) of mercury is held in hunan bodies and u'ill be releasccl h ctemation. rvith 75o/o of 500 million EIJ residents having had mercury fillings in their older gener:atious, 1,500 tons (3 million pouncls) total mercury in thr:ir bod ies to becolne crem ated. I'Ittp ; //wn'w. eea.e u ropea.e rr/p u blicati o n s r Clverall die US has u 51o/n crematiorr rate. q,-hile Otegon ancl Washington irave TlJo/o rates rnoslly due to the rnyth in advertising;tltat cremation saves on cernc'ter1'land use ancl is therefore "greet)".Ilowever. Ne1:tune Sooiety. the largest funeral monopol-v in the IJS^ r.r,ill not crommenl about higli fossil fuel use or about merour,v vapor ernissions, c.lairning instead ttrai:
crematiou i$ "grcen".
e 34A tons of clental rneruur.v'in fhe lvorlcl is clumped di.r:ectl;v into u,aste water sysfem$, 34l.ons at miniruum in the tI.S. In 2008, the average European held 2-5 gralns of mercury irr their bodies, r.vhile lhe alloi,vable amounls are zero grams. r For an excellent discussion of the link between mercury vapors in the environment and the link with Alzheimer's Disease (the 3rd largest cause of death in the US), watch the documentary
"iil'idcirce olHzti'rn" a 1'outubc vidccr brv AD rescarchc.r Dr Bo5'd !l:ilc1'. PhDhtf*s11=ww.wys and@ Hergsgs,
This is a documentation of Dr Haley's 26year NIH career linklng mercury toxicity with Lewybodies in Alzheimer's Disease and other neurologicaldiseases. 7i2tl't'J, L.58 rtri
Page s ,.tf ;7
https://greenbr rl ralsirrctuar',,, com/wlly-cfenlation-is',11ot-g lse nl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
!t is cofi'tr*only thought tha't cre mation is m*re e*r;ironrnentally-friendiy beea'rse it seems ta sirnptify the funerallbr.rrial process ancl minimiaes land usefor cernetelies and their inherent pollutarrts, Hcwever, research shcr*s the faets which reveal disturbing problems for the environment. ln our research into the effects of cremation on the environntent, there was a strange lack of studies, particularly by the EPA and U.S. government"
'In20!2.,the EPA Crematorium Working Group reported that crematoria are significant '. sources of mercury, dioxin, and particulate matte,r: Incineration ofbodies, body parts, and infections altl ctrernotherapeutic wastes collectively reprcsent the second largest lftorr'n sollt'c* of dioxin and rnercnry poltution in tlre US. The World Health OrganizatioE, the US EPA nnd 6(her prr}tic hc:rlth. experft cclrsid*r any level, uo matter horv krrv, of elltissi.+rls ttf mercury, dioxins, furans, and particulate rnatter from incineration to be a threat to human lrealtlr. Vulnerable populations such as babies, children, women of ehiklbearing age, and the etderty are particutarly at risk from exposure to these toxins. Employees who work in these e.rrvirolments, as well as those poptrkrtions who live neeu'the scrurce are exposed to highe.r levels of these pollutants.The effects of mercury yapor sxposure can lagt long after the ex1locrtre has eud*d, While typical syrnptonrs and signs, such as ttemcrs, gingivitis and salivation may quickly disappear af[er exposure has stopped, mechanisms of longJasting or re.mote *ffecrts have not been investigated. This is possibly dtttr to the dill:t:tgrr rr*ttsed by meyg1;ry vapor sxposure remaining for a long period of time, or by nrercttry remaining iu tlre trady nucl contilruirg to cau$e atlverse effeets, or to t!.t+ prior exposllre $olneltott' stimrrlntin g agi n g, resu I ting in poorer netr robeh nvioral perfiorma nce.

The tinal report ofthe Senate Crematoria Study Committee was prepared in 2012.'This report noted that while there are emissions of other chemicals during the cremation Procesq mercury is of the most coneem to communities near crelratol{ums. When lr.erctlty is btrrlred, i{ becomes a colorless and odorless gas that cnn travel long distnnces. While mercury exposure has the potential to cauge a variefy of health problems, the brain and kitlrreys are especially vulnerable. According to Dr. Anne Summers ofthe University of Georgia, therc is no known lower level for toxicity of mercrrry, and scientists clearly agree that mercury 11:r,l ,i{:i nh; .. j . ,n. irln riDnir, ri: ail'irr, r, .1,r r ti: ti .ll i?i

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
toxicity can have serious consequences on human health," (from Meratry Contaminationfrom Dental Amnlgam,20l9)
Amy Cunningham,a "green" funeral director of Fitting Tribute FuneralServices (and Crematory) in the Greater New York City area wrltes in her well-known blog:
'Cremation takes up less land and might Save some money, but here's the downside with some crematories: it takes a lot of fossil fuel to heat that retort (or cremation chamber) to 18OO degrees F and keep it heated for two to three hours...

Then perhaps, if you are not satisfied with the answers you're getting and your family is open to changing plans quite dramatically, consider the love of my life (sorry Steve)-Green Burial. Pine box. Or simple shroud. Drive out of the city and convene in a green cemetery. Let your loved one descend into the soil naturallywithout chemicalsor vaults or barriers to Mother Nature." More studies and research have been done in Europe in recentdecades as the rate of cremation has increased slowly over the last century. Several articles reveal periodic surveys of literature over twenty years that showed a largely unregulated industry by the US Environmental Protection Agency. At the grassroots level, citizens in both Canada and in over 35 U.S. states have set up blocks and ordinances, built a library oJ research for other states to refer to and assisted in local initiatives to deconstruct or prevent the further building of crematories, Several studies in the last two decades have shown a correlation between local crematories and stillbirth, anencephaly, and increasingly widespread air pollution containing toxic gases. Finally, a visit to the Crematorium willshow you that both tie time a family can say goodbye to their loved one's body and naturally move through the letting-go process is very minimized and tends to make the grief process interrupted.

Cremation involves a box or casket containing the body to be placed in a steel incinerator and heated to temperatures from 7600 to 21000 F" Atthe highest ternperature, most of the body is vaporized and oxidized as water within about htlps:/litreenbil tialt ancltary.comlwlry-fi'ematir:n is" rlot' rJreell/ i|.121122. fi:r?" i\t\A D^Ae a .,1 ')'l

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
two hsurs. However, gases released are then temporarily held in a second metal chamber or "filter" and then released to the outside air through an exhaust system.

It is commonly thought that crematories have ufilters" -adjacent storage tanks that are supposed to catch and "hold" toxins such as merflrry. The EPA'S answer to this has been to add a second "chimney" in effortto somehow ucatch" soffie of the toxic vapors'
,,Gaseous emissions are by far the greatest source of cremation pollution and thus far the only crematorium waste that is regulated. ln addition to harmless compounds such as water vapon emissions include;
c the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
. extremely toxic mercliry vapors
r toxins and carcinogens of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, arrd sulfur oxide; I volatile acids such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, both of which form during vaporization of plastics and insulation
I compoundssuch as benzenes, furans and acetone are also emitted and react with HCI and HF under combustion conditions to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (pCDDs)and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), both of which cause cancer' ilThese and tncneury are otspeeial concernbecause they aresusceptible to bbaccumulatlon."
An estimated one-third of all air-borne mercury pollution is due to the cremation of bodies containing mercury from dentalamalgams in the deceased person's mouth.ln a "Summary of References on Mercury Emissions from Crematoria, Septemb er 25,2OL2",Jon Reindl, P.E. investigated studies in both the U-S. and Europe for three aspects of cremation: mercury emissions, deposits in filters and chimneys, and mercury found in cremains (cremation ash):
"Crematora represent a signiticantsource of mercury emissions to the ,ilti!17 $:iiB At,
;rrgc f: ol hitns.rr(iipr{nl)lriiils;nciunt'c.)tn/'whr-cr€tlallon'rs'nol-ilr€e;l/ Page 1603 r)f 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
efivirafiffient. t"y'hile est'ff?ates af ihe quantftr'es vary significantly, it appears that each crematian releases between 2 and 4 grams, with the maximum seen by this reviewer at 8.6 grams in an ii'tdividual crentation in Switzerlar,d. There has been an increase in the number of cremations annually and forecasts include both a further increase in the nunber of crematians aver time and an increase in the amaunt af mereury released in the next few decades due to an increase in the number of the deceased having a larger number of their own teeth with amalgam restorations. Ihis increase rb expected to be follawed by a decrease in mercury emissionsfrom industrialized countriesas the nextgeneration af peoplehasboth fewer cavities and an increased substitution of amalgamresforations with restorations that do not use mercury."
"ln the US, a mercury flow worksheet developed for Region V of the EPA estimates that in 2005, just under 3,0OQ kilograms of mercury were released to the environment from cremation to the US. Bender estimates that this will increase to 7,7O0 kilograms by 2Q2O;'
"Most of the mercury from crematoria is released into the air, although some rnay collect on the walls of the oven and chimney. Soil surveys have shown that while there is often an elevation of mercury in the topsoils near crematoria, most (over 997o) of the mercury emitted to the air does not settle to the soil in the nearby area, but is instead added to the general atmosphere. Mercury levels in the ash have been only rarely tested, and have been shown to be negligible in those tests." One wondered whatthe blood and tissue levels of air-borne mercury is in crematory industry workers who breathe in mercury fumes every day. "Mercury emissions from crernatoria are regulated in few places in the world, although the amount of regulation is slowly growing. Possible control of mercury from crernatoria includes the removal of teeth with amalgam restorations before cremation, the use of selenium capsules to bind up the mercuryand exhaust gas capture systems. The effectiveness of the selenium capsules is controversial and the effectiveness of the exhaust gas capture systems is not well documented," '1.1 1,2 ' $:lJil /ifr,l
Fi.Jr rl of ?/'
htlns JrgrBenlirriielsanaiUa,i./corti/rvh!-i:tetnatiori-ir9-i,1'1;r;6;,p7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Although laws now require crematoriums to Blace ffiercury storage tanks on their incinerators, most of the toxic residues are released. These also include toxic rrretals or piestics that can leach into ilre ai-r' and tiren waiel eausing a public health concern. One study of the Cremation Association of North America found that "filteringcrenratariumfurries has iittle effect otr tire tsxiirs reieasec|" l.n lticJia, where outdoor cremation has been the norm for thousands of years, air pollution is i6 the top five lrighest percent in the world. Mearrwhile, nlore research needs to be done ln the U.S. to assess these very real effects of crematory air pollution. ln addition, there is the issue of cremation remains and their dispersal irrto the sii. "Cremains are often sprinkled somewhere in memorial, releasing whatever corTlpounds ancltoxins found in thent back into tlrc environment in a fcrrlR that is easily picked up by wind or wate6" writes Huffman. A scientific method for analyzing crernains is X-ray diffraction and has found that "calcified compounds within cremains can contain metals such as lead, boronr cadmium, chromlum' Cobalt, sopper, tin, lithiu3n, magnesium, rnanganese, nickel, and strontium.

Metals such as arsenic and selenium, though present in a live human body, are volatile ancl decompose eiuickly uporr burrrirrg... I have found no studies of whether or not sprinkling cremation remains could have a significant impact on tlre levels of metals in tlre soil." Often the aslres ate then stored in tnetal urns or other non-biodegradable receptacles, and then buried in cemeteries which are already over-filled. Many cemeteries, particularly in larger US cities, as wellas in Japan and Europe have reached maximum use. ln London, a space crisis led to proposals to reopen old graves to create more space for the burial of cremains and thedeceased,
"Not all that remains is bone. There may be melted metallumps from missed jewelry, casket furniture, dental fillings, and surgrcal implants, such as hip rcplacements. Breast fmplants do not have to be rernuved before cremation Large items such as titanru m hip replacements (which tarnish but do not melt) or casket hinges are usually removed before processing, as they may damage the processo r, (lf they are missed at first, they musf ultimately be remaved before 'l2t!': i':,'tl !-;l i'tt[r]'i(,ic(i.rrlrilii6lSannttleiy.tonil,it\t-Cfe',lAli(,11-i!-i,{lt'ilrccn/ Page 1605 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
processing is cornplete, as items such as titanium ioint replacements are far toa durable to be ground.) lmplants may be returned to the family, but are more commctnly sold asferrous/non-ferrous scrap metal. After the remains are processe d, smaller bits of metal such as tooth fillings, and rings (commonly known as Eleanings) are sieved aut and may later be interred in common bonsecrated' ground in a remate area of the cemetery."
While cemeteries may have the illusion of holding consecrated ground, they are actually sites of heavy metal waste that accumulate over time and which cause leaching downstreaffi, especiallywhen located adjacent ts naturalruater sourcss such as creeks, rivers, and oceans as is more common in older cemeteries.

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

The CAN Website reports:
"Vy'hen first faced with this daunting task, it was noticed that there ale communities who had challenged crematories near their residential areas... but with varied results. Wanting to learn from the success stories, and the failures, many hours were spent online searching blogs and forums of newspapers around ;l?1122 k:!'B /,t'l hlins,l,grni'n,)ili'ialsanritrr,i,,.ccir/Whr'"cIer,1;tlOti i';-xrt-l,?reert/ Page 1606 FAFG 11 nf ,7 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
the country. The successful communities all had one thing in common: somesne in that community was willing and able to stop everything else they were doing and devote tlreir energy to finding the data, and these voluntary warriors rnotivated their neighbors to act. These communities fought back and won - but at a huge cost. The cost was so greatto most of these "activists/advocates" that once tlre fight was ove6 they mostly just wanted to go back to their normal lives. Who could blametliem? The fight is exhaustlng. The only reward is winning - preventing or stopping or even closing down a crematory. There is no financialgain, only the stop-toss prevention of property devaluaiion and keeping one more pollution source away. For the communities that have lost - the cost to their health, homes, and happiness has no measure. How can you measure that? lt was decided that no community should ever have to re-invent the wheel when faced with a crematory near their homes. No community should win or lose based on whether or not there is a volunteer activist among them. No more communities should have to spend months of research just to determine if the crematory is going to be unsafe and then prove that to their local government authority." ls it not strange that a government agency such as the EPA would not preventatively or even extensively study the toxic emissions of cremation? Why is the cremation industry largely unregulated when there clearly aretoxic gas emissions? With cremation reaching an all-time high of nearly 5O-7Oo/o,and with humanity's huge impact on the environment worldwide orrer the last two centuries, the mercury and gaseous emissions of our cremains must now be extensively studied, and existing crematoria must be regulated by local, state or federalagencies. Further building of crematoria should be halted while alternatives for our deceased and their descendants and environment should be put first. Alternatives include green burial which allows for the natural return of our bodies to the earth.

Finally, cremation does not allow for the necessary time essential for the natural letting-go and grief process that is made "real" for people with burial. People tend to "send away" the body, or if they actually visit the Crematory, there is a short I,:, '/' ;./itul
i.ai. "", i,i ?7
hript t/ci.eer'lliiflali;inf,iiliiV 4ot'ij/\rJ11;,-J:t(:Dir'l1lo[-i^-ilnl-gl'=.'n; Page 1607 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
amount of time to "say goodbye" to their lo',red one's body. Numerous experlences and videos show how there is limited time at a crematory. The "industrial" enviisnment of cenrent walls and stee!ovens has little an:hianee of en:oti+nal safety for the grieving person or family. The grief process then tends to be aborted or put off for some other time when it is n-lore "contenient". Although some families have a memorial prior to cremation there is often still a lingering feeling of difficulty accepting that a loved one has died. A grief that is cnmplicated from a sudden loss, traumatic accident or suicide becomes even more difficult v,rhen the body is boxed away and cremsted before I person can fully accept it and come to terms with the surreal feeling, numbness and other feelings specific to these types of loss.

With mernorislization and burial, there is ntuch n'lore time to see the body, tend ta it, and bury a beloved in a finalgoodbye with an attitude of acceptance and in a tirnely way. Grave-eidefuneials also ailotru for the ir'fluence of nature, where v'.re can see that everyone is given the gift of both birth and death in the naturallife cycle. With the hryenty-year-c'ld natura! burial fiovernent, which is really a return tc ancient million-year-old traditions, there is much more involvement by the family to be involved in natural deathcare, evel'r if a funeral home is involved. The movement invites people to spend up to 3 days being with their loved one in a home vigil, home funeral, and natural rites of passage that ease and more quickly healthe grief process.

Befarcneps
Reference qn MFr:curyjn Cre[natlgn
Bernhoft ItA. "Mercury t+xicity and treatment: a re.vlew of ttre literature'Jggfllal*gf Environmentajand PuFlic HeAlIh 2012.
hiiF -jiilrF:'rhl,ilal'::inr.iii.,i fl)'jllt l".r iiirr:1i,iloli l'r-f''l rllnniit' i: r- (i,.i: .rl4 r.ilor :3 :1 '? Page 1608
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Carson, Rachel gjlent Spring: The Class[G.Thqt Launched the Environmental Movement New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Mariner Books, zOO2(SOtft Anniversary edition)
Hyman, Mark. MD "How To Rid Your Body of Mercury and Other HeaW Metals" n*ps/td&unan*om/bhe€rup14.5/ /
lpkoff, Dave. Robjn New York Henry Holt and Company, A New York Times Book, 2018.

Queen, Sam and Betty A. ehronic Mercury Toxicity.-Ne!&,Hqpe$SAn$t an Ende..mh Disease
Doctor's Guidefor Lifestyle Counseling (Book 1), Queen and Company Health Communications, lnc., September 1, 1988.
[An excellent reference text for the health professional and victim lnterested i n leaming more about mercury toxicity ls Chronic Mercury Toxlclty: New Hope Ag ainst an Endemic Disease. Doctot's Guide for Lifestyte Counseling by H.L. Queen (1988). The book deecribes the lnsldlougness of hg problem and, more importantly, outllnes protocolsfor propor use of lntravenous vltamln C and othertreatmen t modallties.'
-
Sandra Denton, M.D. frcm Health Consciousness, June f989J {"fne Ooof can be recommended as a suitable complementof the general practitioners llbrary.."the lnformagon, provided in this book will help physicians to realize that fiose important first steps in lifestyte counsellngrhelping patientrs to get rid of heavy metal sxcass-are of a greater importanc€ than haa generally been aesumed."
-
V. Bencko ln tlp Joumalof Hygiene, Epldemiology, Mictobiology and lmmunology, 34, 1990, No. 11.
,'rslhcr, Sd6rt*n, D.P.M, Elcnt':i.its urf Danget Hampton Reads Publishing Co., November 1999. "Signs and Symptoms of Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam" Sourced from K. D. Jorgensen, "The Mechanism of Marginal Fracture of https://greerlhurialsanctuary.com/wny-cremation-is-not-green/ 21211122,6:59 AM O.^a 4,t ^+ D7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Amalgam tillings," Acta Odont Scan. 23 (1965):347 .
"A Comprehensive lntegrative Medical approach to Mercurydetoxification and fu nctional rehabilitation" in
Heavy Metals, ToxicOhpmicals and other Neqfotoxins". See:
httos://yyvyw.,nlhFdQ.corq/lib(arv/deto4-for-fife-glp$s-2-aCdihre$QttrFes/SF;3-pd& Mercury and the Alzhgimer's Epidemiq
Andreoli, V.; Sprovieri, F. "Genetic Aspects of Susceptibility to Mercury Toxicity: An Overvied'lnternat Vol
L4,2QL7,
Bento-Abreu A, et al. "The neurobiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" EuLl NeurosciVol3L, ZOLO.

Bernhoft RA. "Mercury toxicity and treatment a reviewof the literature"Jgu.fnalgf Environrlrental and Public Health 2Ot2.

Bj6rkman L, et al. "Mercury in human brain, blood, muscle and toenails in relation to exposure: an autopsy study" Environ Health Vol.6, 2OO7.

Campbell, S.R., Haley, Boyd E., Khatoon, S. and Slevin, J.T.'Aberrant GTP Tubulin lnteraction in Alzheimer's Disease. Annals of Neurology-Vol.26,210-215,1989.

Cassels, Caroline "Mercury Exposure May Contribute To Alzheimer's Risk" Medscape, Dec,Z,zOtO.

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

Drum DA ?re toxic biometals destroying your children future?" Biometals Yol.22, https://greenburlalsanctuar 17.com/why-cremation-is-not-greerr/ 2121122,6;58 AM Pr<le 15 nf rT Page 1610
05/10/2022 Item No.18.
2009.

Ely, JTA "Mercury lnduced Alzheimer's Disease: Accelerating Incidence?" Bu|letin Environ Contam Toxicol, Vol 67, 2001.

Geier, David A. et al.'A Cross-sectional Studyof Blood Ethylmercury Levels and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults and the Elderly in the United States" Journal of Alzheimer's Dise4Ee Vol.72, no.3, 2OL9.

Gunnersen, D, J.and Hale% Boyd, E. "Detection of Glutamine Synthetase in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Alzheimer's Diseased Patients: A PotentialDiagnostic Biochemica| Marker" 119J9.:lL9-5-9,1992.

Farina, M, Rocha JBT, Aschner M "Mechanisms of methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity: evidence from experimentalstudies" Life Science Vol.89,z0t1- Guzzi G, et al. "Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought" Am J ForenEiq h4llEl Pathgl Vol.27,2006.

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

Haley, Boyd E. and Pendergrass, J.C. "lnhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5- Triphosphate lnteractions by Mercury: Similarityto Observations in Alzheirner's Diseased Brain in Metal lons in BiologicalSystems V34" Mercuflr and lts EffectE on Environfnent and Bjoloeg Chapter 15, edited by H. Sigeland A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker |nc.,1996.

Haley, Boyd E. et al, "Mercury Vapor lnhalation lnhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarityto a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain" 2121122,6158 At\4

https://greenbu rialeanctuary.corn/why -cremation-is- not-green/ Page 1611 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

N eu rotox i co I ogy" Vol. 18, N o. 2, 3L5 -324, L997 .

Haley, Boyd E. 'The Relationship of the Toxic Effects of Mercury to Exacerbation of the Medical Condltion Classified as Alzheimeds Disease. Nordic Journalof @une-July20O3.

Haley, Boyd E. etal. "Mercury Toxicity Presenting As Chronic Fatigue, Memory lrnpairment and Depression: Diagnosis, Treatment, Susceptibility and Outcomes in a New TealandGeneral Practice Setting" Neuro EnclfrcrinqtLqttqfs Vol27, No.4, 4L6-423,2006.

Haley, Boyd E.'A Look atthe 2OOG FDA Hearing On the Safety of Dental Amalgams and Possible Toxicological Concerns" [dgdiga|]&filagl-5, October 2006.

Haley, Boyd, E. "The relationship of the toxic effects of mercury to exacerbation of the medicalcondition classified as Alzheimer's disease." Medis:alVeritas Vol.4, t1lo-L524,2007.

Haley, Boyd, E et al.'Amdioration of Acute Mercury Toxicity By a Novel, Non-To<ic Lipid Soluble Chelator: Effecton AnimalHealth, Mercury Excretion and Orgnn Accumulation in Adult Rats" Toxicolqgicaland Environmental ChemistryVol.94, No. 3, 616-640 ,2OL2.

Haley, Boyd, E et al. "New Science Challenges Old Notion That Mercury Dental Amalgam ls Safe" To*icologi@l and Fnvironrnental Chemistry, Vol O, No. O, 1-8, 2013.
lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. "MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND DENTAL MERCURY: SUMMARY AND REFERENCES" December22,20t6.

Sllmmarusdf
2121122,6:58 AM ht tps:l/greenllu ri a lganctuary coln/v.i hy-cremation-is- not- green/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. 3 COMPREHENSIVE

REVIEW OF THE TOXIC EFFECTS OF MERCURY IN DENTAL AMALGAM FILLINGS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH" October 2OL9. httos:/lfiles.iapfirt.prr'{Wo-cqfittent&pJoadqlConnr$he,ffih&Rqyiew-DeFtqb Mssu!*lCf
lncludes a reference list of 5L7 science journal articles in support of the llnk between mercury dentalamalgams and adverse health reactions. lnternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) Position Paper against Dental Mercury Amalgam Fillings for Medical and Dental Practitioners, DentalStudents, Dental Patients, and Policy Makers Originally Released on April 16,2013 First Update on March 2,2OL6; Second Update on July 23,2OL9.

Johnson FO and Atchison WD "The role of environmental mercury, lead and pesticide exposure in development of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" N eurotoxicolggy Vol. 30, 2OO9.

Leistevuo J, et al. "Mercury in saliva and the risk of exceeding limits for sewage in relation to exposure to amalgam fillings" Arch Erlyiron Health Vol.57,2OO2, Magos L. "Review on the toxicity of ethylmercury, including its presenceas a preservative in biologicaland pharmaceutical products" JAppLtroxicgl Vol.Zl, 200L.

Mount C and Downtown C. llzheimer diseass progress or profit NailrreMed Vol. t2,2006.

Mutter J "ls dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission" J Occr{p,Med ToXiGol Vol.6, zAtL.

Mutter J and Yeter D. "Kawasaki's disease, acrodynla,and mercury. Curr Med 2121122,6r54 AM

https://g reenhurialsanctuary, com/rr'rhy-crematt on-is-not-g leer,/ Page 1613 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Chem Vol.l5,zOLL.

Mutter J. et al.'Alzheimer disease: mercury as pathogeneticfactor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator" Neurpeldocrinol Lett Vol 25, 2OO4.

Mutter J. et al. 'Amalgam studies: disregarding basic principles of mercury toxicity" I nt J H ygfnyirsn-Health V ol. 2O7, 20 O 4.

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

Mutter, J. et al. "Mercury and Alzheimer's Disease" Fortschr Neurol Psvchiatr. Vol 75, No. 9,2OO7.

Mutter, J. et al.'A Hypothesls That Mercury May be an Etiological Factor in Alzheimer's Disease" International,Journal of Enviroflr-mentalResealehgnd-Pubtic Health. Dec.2OL9.

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

Park, Jung Duck and Zheng Wei. "Human Exposure and Health Effects of lnorganic and Elemental Mercury. Journalof Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2OL2; 45, No. 6,2OL2.

Pigatto, PD Costa , A &Guzzi, G2Ot8, 'Are mercury and Alzheimer's disease linked?" Science of tW: Total Enviranment VoL6t3-6L4,2O18.

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

Public Healttt Vo\.74,5L9,2Ot7 ,
2121122,6:58 AM
Pag€ 19 of 27
ht tps: //g reenburialsanctuary. com/wlry- crsnlation-is-not- g rsen/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Sun, Y., Nfor, O.N., Huang, J. etal. Association between dental amalgam fillings and Alzheimer's disease:a population-based cross-sectionalstudy in Taiwan"Ale3gs IhenPu\t ol, 7, 65, 2oL5.

Walach, H., Mutt% J, and Deth,R. "lnorganic Mercuryand Alzheimer's DiseaseResults of a Review and a Molecular Mechanism" Science Direct Nov.2014.

Weiss, Bernard. "Lead, Manganese, and Methylmercury as Risk Factors for Neurobehavioral lmpairment in Advanced Age", Special lssue: Metals And Alzheimer's Disease.lnternationalJournalof Alzheimqr's Di$eASlr Dec.2010 World Health Organization.lnternational Program on ChemicalSafety. "lnorganic mercury: Environmental health criteria" 118. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.

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

Mercsry in Crgmation Vapors in Our Air and Lqngsi
Batchelder, Philip Donald, "Dust in the Wind? The BellTolls for Crematory Mercury" Golden Gate University Environmental Law Jqurnal, Vol.2, lssue l" August 11, 2010, 45 pages.

Berglund, Sandor, "Kvicksilverutsldpp frAn krematorium" [Mercury emissions from crematoriuml, NSD [a Swedish newspaper], April L2,2OO8. http://www.nsd.se/a rkiv/2O 0 8 l O 4 l tZl Nyheter/355l348/Kvi cksi lverutsla/oE4ppfrkrematorium.aspx "Blood and Hair Mercury Levels in Young Children and Women of Childbearing Age
-
United States,1999', MMWR Weekly, Vol.5O, No.8, March 2,2OAL http://www.gdc.goUF rryr/preview/m mwrhtm l/m m59 OFa?. htr4 ?121122,6158 AM
Paga 20 ol 27
https:l/g reenbu ri a lsanctuary, com/r,,,hy-cremation- is-not- groen/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Burton, V. J. "Too much Hg" Natwe Vol 351, June 27,L99L.

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

Cain, Alexis, "Estimating Mercury Releases Resultingfrom Use of Dental Amalgam", Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee" US Senate, May 26, 2ALO,4 pages.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,'AirToxicology and Epidemiology. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (chRELs) Dec. 18,2008" htto://oehha.ca.gov /airlallrels.html Carns, Warren T., Dexter, Matthew A., and Stockwell, Peter B., "Mercury in Crematoria Using Atom ic Fl uorescence Spectrometen/' I nterniltional Envi ron menta I Tech n ol o gy-, Sept/O ctober ?OLA, 49 -5 0.

H€r3!dS25S5,
u
s$rveuzgsTe
Cowger; Scott ?n Act To Limit Mercury Emissions from Crematoria", Maine Legislatu re. h!!p:{r"q n,usS tq}p,n e. us4
lD=280017861
Craft, David, "Crematory Toxic Emissions Inventories, Risk Assessments, and Risk Reduction Measures", Monterey Bay Unified Air Polution Control Districtand memben a subcommittee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA)Toxics Air Rlsk Managers Committee (TARMAC), February 27, 2At2, 54 pages.
21211?2,6:58 AM
Paqe2lofzT
htt ps://g re€nburia lsanctua ry. com/w hy-c16mation-ls- not-gre€n/ Page 1616 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

De pa rt mq n Uo r E nyif qnment, Food a n d R u ra I Af f a I HDelra,JKX2gla-Prgge5.:

Guidance Note 5/2 (1O .Statutorv eu ia, Fenruarv 2q12,
pa@
at http:/larchive.def ra.pov.u k/environm$lnt/qual itvJholl utionln@ uida nce/notes/pffi notes/docu,rTe rlts/nq5-JQ2.n4I
Dummer, T J B, Dickinson, H q and Parker, L,'Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes around lncinerators and Crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England,1956-93' Jpurnal qf EpidemiologyS Communitv.Health, Vol.57, No.6, June 2AO3.

Edwards, Rob, "Your fillings will live on after your death ... to kill the environment" Sunday Herald Online (in the UK), FebruaryLL,ZOOL,
http://www€u nCayhera ld.corTZ'news/ngwsi.hts?secjioJr = N ews&_sto rv_id:14270.

Available on the lnternet for purchase
th rough http://pqas b.pgg rgh iver.com/smgpu bs/
Env i ro n me nta I P rotect io n A ge ncy, n$ n :itlUww.p nf, soy/tt nlFh (official document on mercury vapors)
EPA, "Mercury in Dental Amalgams" (2010)
ntm:rtwwwe le
EPA (1997a1,"9,O Source Test Procedures", in Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds, EPA-4541R-}7- A12,L997,72pages on the lnternet
at htF://www.gga. gpv /$nc h
EPA (1997b), Mercury Study Reportto Congress Volume ll: An lnventoryof Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the united states, EPA-45aR-gz-004, L997, On the Internet at http:l/W.Ww.eoa.eoy/
2121122,6;58 AM
Pa,ae 22 61 27
hitps :/lgreenbu rialsanctuary.com/why-cremation- is- not- green/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

EPA, (1997), Mercury Study Reportto Congress, VolumeVll: Characterization of Human Heatth and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States https:/lwwwepagov/sites/production/files/2015-0g/documentsrlolumeT.pdf EPA (1999), Emission Test Evaluation of a Crematory at Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx, NY September 1999, EPA-4541R-99-049,3 volumes,1355 pages.

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, "Great Lakes Mercury Emission Reduction Strategy" December 7,2OLO, 133 pages at htto:llwww.Elfpo ipsion* tspdVcJion-$trates
K0nzler and Andr6e, M, "More Mercury From Crematoria" Naturg Vol. 349, February 28, L991, pages 7 46-7 47 .

Maccabee, Paula. "Testimony in Support of Minneapolis Ordinances to Reduce Mercury Emissions, Spills and Discharges" Just Change Consulting for Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, May 1, 2006.

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

Nieschmidt" R. K, and Kim, N. D,, "Effects of Mercury Release from Amalgam Dental Restorations duringCremation on Soil MercuryLevels of Three New ZealandCrernatoria" Bulletin of Environmental CqntAflnlnfltion And Toxicolggy, Vol 58, No, 5,L997.

Reindl, John. (compller) "Sufnma{y of Refqrsnces on MB ufylmlgdamjrcm Grematoria"
January L2,2Ot5. Retired P.E.from Dane County Department of Public Works, Madison, Wsconsln. joh n.rei ndl @att.netReuter News, "Pull Mercury From Mouths of Dead [Proposalof the Swedish 2lzu22,
Page
6:58 AM
23 0f 27
https ://qreenburialsa nctu ary. corn/$rhy-cremation-is- not- g reen/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

National Chemical lnspectorate For the Removal of Teeth Prior To Cremation.l May 21, zOO4.And KEMI, "The Swedish Chemicals lnspectorate has not Proposed to havethe Teeth of Deceased Persons Extracted", May 25,2AO4.

Weier, Anita, "Cremation Adds to Mercury Load" The Canjtallimes-page 4A,May 3L,2AO4
World Health Organization,Internet page on mercury'
httn://www.whprin
Refarenees on Mercuqvjn Deathcare Warkalasg
Arenholt-BindsleV D., "Dental Amalgam - Environmental Aspects" Advanc€s in Dental Resear.ch September 1992, pages 125-130.

Basu, M. K., and Wilson, H. J., 'Mercury Risk from Teeth" Natufe-Vol 349, Jan. 10, 1991, page 109,
Bender; Michael, "Testimonyto the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing on Assessing EPA's Efforts to Measure and Reduce Mercury Pollution from Dentist Offices'". Mercury Policy Project/Tides Center, May 26,2OLO,8 pages.

City of Palo Altq CA, "DentalOffices and Mercury", specifically, "Dental Mercury: A Comparison of Waste Management Practices for the Dental Office" ntto:ttwwW.citv n
Doughty, Caitlin, Smolre.Sets ln Ypur Eyes & Other Lessons ftont the G{arnato$t. W.W. Norton Publishers,2OL4. Pages: 22,49,106, 108, Ll2, and page 221(The Art of Dying chapter).

Maloney, Susan R., Phillips, Carol A., and Mills, Allan. "Mercury in the Hair of Crematoria Workers" IheLa.ncd Vol. 352, November 14, 1998. ,:121122,
Page
https:llg reenbrJrialsarrctuary conr/wlry-cremation-is-not-green/ 6:58 AM

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Vandeven,.la$ "Mercury Use inthe Dental lndustt'y", ENViRf,IN international Corporation, Envirpnffrental LAw lnsti January 2AO5.

Warwick, R., O'Connor, A.& Lamey, B. "h4ercury vapor BxFosure durlng dental student training in amalgam removal" J Occup Med Toxicol 8'127 (2013).

Referenees on Mercurf ln The Envirunment and$lf,rumglfii.

Ackerman, J.T et al. "Mercury Contamination ln Residentsnd ft,4igrant Songblrds and Potential Effects on Body Condition. fOyircn-ESilutian Vol. 246, 201.9.

Ali, Hazrat, Khan, E. and llahi, l. *Enrrironmentalehemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bioaccu mulation" @ 2OL9.

Bank, M.5., Crocker, J. 8., Connery, B.& Amirbahman,,4.'Mercury bioaccumulation in green frog and bullfrogtadpoles from Acadia National Park".Enqifpn,J,exigpl, Chem. Vol. 25 2OO7,
Bechshoft, T, et al. "Hair Mercury eoncentratlons in Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Family Groups" @ Vol. 5O, 2016.

Gossaboon, Jennifer et al, "Seal Molting Alters Nearshore Mercury Cycling" Proceedings of the NatisnaL{ced.emy-qf5giences. Vol 112, No. 39, Sept 2015.

Durkalee, Maciej et al. Jan. "Bioaccumulation of Lead, Cadmium and Mercury in Roe Deer and Wild Boars from Areas with Different Levels of Toxic Metal Pollution" lntef natignal Journal of Enyirpnmqltfal Research Vol. 9, 2015.

May,Jason, Et al.'Mercury Bioaccumulation in Fish in a Region Affected by Historic Gold Mining" US Geologicalservice, 1999.

Newman, J., Zillioux, E., Rich, E., Liang, L. & Newman, C. "Historical and Other 11i '
'. t::
.
.,'r,', riqt:/il

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Patterns of Monomethyland lnorganic Mercury in the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi)"" Arclr"Environ. Corrtanr. ipxic.pL Vol. .48, 2004.

No€|, M.et al."Grizzly Bear Hair Reveals Toxic Exposure to Mercury through Salmon Consumption" {rryk'or"t. SFi. Tbclrrrol. Vol. 48, 2OI4.

Obrlst, D. et al. "Tundra uptake of atmospheric elemental mercury drives Arctic mercury pollution." Nature Vo|.547, 2017.

Phillips, Carol, Gladding, Toni, and Maloney, Susan "Clouds with a Quicksilver Lin i ng'" C hqnrist rlr i rtBritait656, 1994,
Ritchie, C. D, et al. *Mercury in fog on the Bay of Fundy (Canada)" Atmos.

Environ, Vo|,.40,2006,
Swaddle, J. et al. "Exposure To Dietary Methyl-Mercury Solely During Embryonic and Juvenile Development Halves Subsequent Reproductive Success in Adult Zebra Finches," Jggrnal of Envitr:rttrrrgntirl Science anrlTgshnolqgyVol. 52; 2018.

Weiss-Penzias, PS., et al. "Marine fog inputs appear to increase methylmercury bioaccumulation in a coastal terrestrial food web" Scientific Re.oorts Vol 9,2019.

Wolfe, M. F., Schwarzbach, S. & Sulaiman, R. A. "Effects of mercury on wildlife A com p rehensive rev iew" Env i r$n. Ttrx icol. C trern., Y ol. L7, 199 8.

Rsforens*$.on Grssnwashlng. ln the g$ath lndustryDoughty, Caitlyn. Snr*keG-qts In Yoql.Eyeg: A e Crerrm'tqry* New York: W.W. Norton Publishers,2015.

Greenspan, Miriam. Healing Throu$lrlhe Dark Emotiorrs: The Wisd*m of ftrjef.

Fear'.alrd Despair"Global Healing ln a Brokenhearted World" Bostoru Sharnbhala 2004 ?42-265.
212',1122,6 58 Af,I

https ://g reanbu rialsanctuary,com/vyhy-cremation..ls-not- grsenl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

I am Marie Gonzales and my husband and I have been living in the Preserves for over 10 years. We have a lovely neighborhood and I love my small community. I have asthma and I had thyroid cancer 4 years ago so I do not have the best respiratory system. I love the clean air that we breathe and love to keep it that way. I know lgor has presented his views on how there's no concern for us as to air quality but cannot believe there will be 0% toxic emissions. Just like the HCD has voted no to this project, please let me have trust in that you'd do the same. ln a poll that somebody did on FB chat, a large percentage of our local residents do not place a lot of emphasis on being cremated here in Folsom, a lot answered they did not care where they were cremated. I know a lot of people may think what's the big deal, but I think they are thinking, "oh l'm glad it's not in my neighborhood!". Nobody is going to say, "Oh how lucky are those people living next to the crematorium! I wished I lived there!" Will you? Thank you for being so understanding. Marie Gonzales
Marie Sent from my iPhone

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Glose @
TO' trT
E
[email protected] [email protected]. us Sarah Aquino [email protected] M mkozlowski@folsom. ca. us CclBcc:

Subject: Crematorium
Council Members,
After reaching out to Dr. Bob Lapeniere, of the of the Sacramento Gounty Cemetery Advisory Commission, he answered a few of my questions after the Historic Gommission meeting regarding the historical site designation of the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. Here is our email question and answer text (receiv ed 2119122 at 1 0:52pm):

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

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

Bob: I can see where he is not clear on "registered" as it is not on the State or National historic designation...only the designation that our Commission requested of the board of supervisors. However it is difficult to not believe or deny the historic significance of the cemeteries that "became" Lakeside and date back to the 1800's in addition to the adjacent Chinese Cemetery. We did give a large aluminum sign to the Funeral Home to post at the cemetery with its historic designation on it but do not recall ever seeing it posted.
2127122,5:41 AM

httpsrimail.google.com/maiUmu/mp/903/#co

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Bob LaPerriere
Chair, Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
[email protected]
(916) 481 -4525 (voice)
(916) 712-8991 (text)
POB 255345, Sacramento CA 95865-5345
During lhe 2116122 Historic District Commission meeting (at the 4:46 mark) the applicant, lgor Semenyuk, states, "this is not an historical cemetery." Clearly, he is mistaken. His partner Lorin Claney's father purchased the funeral home in 1962, so Lorin Claney had been a part of the family business when the funeral home received their designation and plaque.

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

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

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

The Lakeside Memorial Cemetery has Historic Designation! Let's protect it! Thank you for your time,
Nicole Gates
View Gmail in: Mobile I Older version I Desktop
@ 2021 Google
2127122,5:41 AM

https://mail.google.com/mail/mu/mp/903i#co

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
$llrtorlcrl Doslgnntlon On lhc rr"tonrntcudutiun ol'thc ('trntnrissiullt lhd Buurtl ul' Supcr'visors hir.s tlcsignttcd 2l ccmgtcril'..t ils "hisltlric", Thi"t is phurc I ol'thc projcct, us lhcrc ilrc nuny othcr historic ccnrct$rics in $nt:rumcnhr (ttuttty. cr,rnr,,turicr* dc.*igu*rcd wcrr:: ,r,"*"..#f.j._[ft'.f_ll;[,f.::
*
I ,llcllviuw ('clrrtcry llurrrurnsntrr (iruntv Hi'it*-etuvt{ -':lct+ellite' urr u"J ?,tJlrhln ('entclcfy !.iucftultelttl (.irunty Nal - ont.g ',9 tl"one"tortc I l,Llkusido ('ulttclury liulsunr P
4,Mullh*w Kilgoru ('crrntury Rnttthrt('tinlt,rt - No c r ertratr:rq(ervratil !'"4 5,2{llr & Mcudnwviuw ('cntuh:ry ll$crnlllcllt(t ('ily
- No (ff rn6'{'or"9 -rt€i?Hiil.ry,
{r ('hung Wuh ('ctnctury liulsrtnt fr
?,lilclrrr('rcth ('crtrutcry l;.;il.tt[t * Fi., (:ren^r'\'tt'''1 - chr( onl.'.'nn6p31' lt<l l{,Runsho Murir.rlr ('cnrulcry (Nprtlr & lioilthl{3t Rrltrcho Mrriell - Nul'errnnft /t4 t errkr^ I '1,1:.{ I.Sue ratncntu llirilrrric ('ity ('ctrrulr.rry ilitcr*tnl:ttfrt ('ity - Nit cfcrnnFoltl (r yl:l ..,
t';il
l(l.Michigur.lllr ('cnrutcry {t.tne Rrilrt} llusrillttetttrt (trunly - 616 (-rcrvtn4uvLJ ( c /l^cur 'v;?5) l l.slougfihuus$ ('umutcry tilqtlghlr1u.*T * hlu c /c n 6'H/rq ( e vvrct'i: '1ti5) l,sylvui Disrricr ('rmclcry ('irrrrs llciphtx - t'Jo cren rrturyl (:ittt ?rr)) ll,(itlt ii\rnu t)ir*tricl ('cltt$lsrius {l} (iult - Nu cr+rnn*or"r,1 ( evpcr" l "t/tt ) \ lS,lilk (irpvc ('rnrunurcs tlisrrict ('enruturir:s (5) lilk (iruv(' - l-,tb ((?nacrlnr,9 (er$4Lr t rl ?s) l4.F'uir()irkn tlistriel('cnrr:tcry |rur(hkx -.Nlocyp6u.'lu,r71 letmr;uit 4a*r) Plirqur".s wcrc pro!'idctl lbr cilGh $cnrctcry, rnd ws still ltrvt'scvcrill to tlistrihutc.

Tht tcxt $l'tho pluquc is us hulowl
TTITfi,IIIE TI,IS BEEN NEfiIGNNTEI' frV
'f'l('ff{ttff,ryfi, COltNTl' rLf i
ilAqTilNIC CEITETENV,
llliRli lttiiil'MANV t)f Tllli Ml;.N, WttMF.N ANI) ('lll[.[)BF.N WIK]t{Arr- Tllli BliAlJl'Y AHI) vAl.ljli ()r'nll$ l,AN[). ('ll(xtslN(i T(l.qli'l'l'Lu lltiltfi ANlr lil Jll.l)'fl lli ('( )l JNTY wli ('llliltlsl I'tr(rllAy, PL liAllti l l lil-l' t lti I'l{llsl{ RV li'n l H$tr (iltA v F.$. MA lt K l{Ks, AN I ) LANt)s('A F lN(i F()ll f, tl'rt JR li ( ihN liR A'f 'l( )N.s, r,lr'F.tlur I I rt ( {tl rll 11 llr^Flt I }} rllrllt'llLtllii ,1tlr { l.tl}:'f }:llI ,lltvlrlfif I'rtillllrirE}t

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
'F+ ,,.r A - r '-..-, ^ A
Mcil*heurt (i fgora (em tw.rg - Na tr trna'rarru(Y)
Fro m : Steve Harriman sh arriman@cityof ra nchocord ova.o rg Subject: RE: Crematory question
Date: Feb 22,2022 at 10:40:59 AM
To: nicole higgins niki-ttiggirrs@yahoo,com
Hi Nicole:

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

Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Thanks! Steve
Steve Harriman, Operations and Maintenance Division Manager City of Rancho Cordova Department of Public Works
I910)j.fl:f210
-----Original Message-----
From: nicole higgins
Sent: Tuesday, February 22,2022 9:06 AM
To: Steve Harriman <sharriman@cityofrc g>
Subiect: Crematory question
Hello,
I was wondering if your cemetery has a crematory on the premises? Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Fronr:

Subject:

Date:

To:

Cc:

Dennis Buscher
Re: Sloughhou se metery
Feb 25, 2022 at 6:49:55 PM
niki-hig gins@ya hoo.co m
eghs@el kgrove historicalsoc iety.co m
From: nicole hlgglns
Date: Fri, Feb 25, U:UI' AM
Sublect Sloughhouse Gemetery
To: <Cghs@el kgrovghi$toricaism
3!1p Michiqan Aar (?arm[ **rn,frffi%)
* tt S{oughouS€
* ft Vlv 6m{€ CaYrsu v1ne5
\
Ail haveno Uemalaries
Hi Nicole
I am a Board member of the Elk Grove Historical Society and also a Trustee for the Elk Grove Cemetery District.
ln answer to your question, Sloughhouse Gemetery does not have a crematorium in their cemetery, nor do any of the 5 cem6teries in the Elk Grove Gemetery District.

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

I would think that the zoning laws would be very restrictive for the placement of a crematorium for the cremating of bodies. Check with the Gounty of Folsom to see what rcstrictions there are for a crematorium. lt sounds like the cemetery your concerned about is privately owned, so they may have rights that public cemeteries do not.
ln the Elk Grove Cemetery District, we do have Niche Banks for the placement of ashes in 4 of our 5 cemeteries. These niche banks are about 5 feet high' $loughhouse does not have a niche bank.
lf you have any other questions, please let me know.

DennisBuscher Yg Rancho MurieU(trr+s)
2nd VB EG Historical SocietY
HI,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
*q Sac Cig (.ernrreY- No ct'emiahr4
From: Lori Bauder [email protected]
Subject: RE: City Cemetery lnformation
Date: Feb 23, 2022 at 8:04:36 AM 'Io: nicole higgins
Hi, Nicole;
l'm sorry we do not have a crematory on site. Lori
Lori Bauder
Cemetery Manager
1000 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95818
Cell: 916-201-6254,
-----Original Message-----
From: nicole higgins
Sent: Tuesday, ry
To: Lo ri Baude r < L Bauder@cityof sacra mento.org >
Subject: City Cemetery lnformation
Hello,
I was wondering if the Sacramento Historic City Cemetery had a crematory onsite? Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From: Sylvan Cemetery [email protected]
Subject: Re: Crematory
Date: Feb 22,2022 at 9:55:37 AM
To: nicole higgin
No, we are the cemetery only.

Sylvan Cemetery District
(910)tzs+400
On 11resday, February 22,2022,09:39:38 AM PST, nlcole hlgglns <nik|higghsgygng0.Cg6> wrote:

Hello,
I was wonderlng lf you have an on-site crematory at the Sylvan Dlstrlct Cemetery? Thanks,
NicolE
Sentfom my iPhone
*t L")
5V I varl Ceme fe No crerna+o13

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From : [email protected]
Subject: RE: Cremetory
Date: Feb 22,2022
To: nicole hlggins
at 1:50:15 PM
Good afternoon Nicole,
We are solely a cemetery. There is no crematory on site.

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

Kristi
-Original
Message----
From: "nicole higgins"
Sent Tuesday, u/am
To: galarn@soficornJet
Subject Cremetory
Hello,
I was wondering if there is a crematory on the premises of the GalUArno district cemeteries?
Thanks
Nicole
Sent from my iPhone
Jt- I2
G.r lt / hvno Distric t Lemet€"r t€5
- No Lr€n4ato15

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From : [email protected]
Subject: Fair Oaks Cemetery lnquiry
Date: Feb 22,2022 at 9:41:00 AM
To:

We do not have a crematory on site.

Fair Oaks Cemetery Districl
e1E-e66-161q
7780 Olive Street
Fair Oaks, CA95628
s\q
Fair Oa ks Dr<,trnc* Cvvne*et - No cr€ua+o3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
2126122,6:35AM
Cemeterv
24th & Meadowview
Cemetery
Alder Creek Cemetery
Arlington Cemetery
Kinney School Cemetery
Prairie City Cemetery
Monument
Complete Sacramento County Cemetery List
Coroner
Complete Sacramento County
Cemetery List
This list of Sacramento County Cemeteries is a project in progress/development. Data on many is limited or non-existent. Accuracy of entries may need to be verified. We will appreciate any comments, additions, corrections, additional information, documents or photographs relating to these cemeteries.

Please respond to the Sacramento Gounty Cemetery Advisory Commission at:

Dr. Bob LaPerriere, Vice-Chair
Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission
Phone: (916) 874-9103
Email: [email protected]
(please include your email address for correspondence)
Catesorvt
No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
No longer exists - no
remains
Notes More lnformation
Cemetery
History
see Prairie City Cemetery
Cemetery History
see Quiet
Haven
B'nai lsrael Cemetery No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
gFruf,ftfi Brrriats ft$t6?#8. exisrs - oossibtv Notes More lnformation httpsJ/coron€r.saccounty.gov/socac/PagedGompleteSacramentoCounqtCemeteryList.aspx?Page<t=TRUE&plColumn2=Gemetery or Burial Site in Sa-'. 115

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
2126n22,6:35 AM Complote Secramonto County Cemetery List or partially relocated
No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
No longer exists -
or partially relocated
New Helvetia Cemetery No longer exists -
or partially relocated
St. Rose's Cemetery No longer exists - possibly
or partially relocated
Cook's Bar Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Daylorb Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Dry Creek District Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Georgetown Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Grand lsland Chinese Possible other alias or
Cemetery unknown site
Granger Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Hoit Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Nathan Ranch Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
see 24th and Meadowview Possible other alias or
Cemetery?? unknown site
see Michigan Bar Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Sloughouse Cemetery # 2 Possible other alias or (?)
unknown site
.Stage Station Burying Possible other alias or
Ground unknown site
Strait Family Cemetery Possible other alias or
unknown site
Sutterville Cemetery Possible other alias or
Cemetery (ffiqn site Notes More lnformatlon
httpsJ/corone.saccounty.gov/sccacJPages/CompletesacramontocountycemeteryList aspx?Paged=TRUE&p_Column2=Cemelrery or Budel Site in Sa... 215 Buckeye KnollCemetery
Mormon lsland Cemetery
Negro Bar Cemetery Gnow
Lakeside??)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
21i2h122,6:39AM
SanJuan Cemetery
Sheldon Cemetery
Spooner Family Cemetery
Walltown Cemetery
Babyland
Bellview Cemetery
Citizens
Cook
Eagles
Elk Grove IOOF Cemetery
Elk Grove Masonic Lawn
Grand Army of the
Republic (CivilWar)
Jewish Cemetery
Knights of Pythias
Knights of Pythias
Masonic
name
With an alternate
name
With an alternate
name
With an alternate
name
With an alternate
Comd€t€ Sacramento County Cemetery List
Cemetery
see Sylvan Cemetery
see Pleasant Grove
Cemetery
see Michigan Bar
Cemetery
see Wilson Cemetery?
name
Within another
cemetery
Within another see Quiet Haven
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
Within another see Eagles & Knights of
cemetery Pythias
Within another
cemetery
Within another
cemetery
see Lakeside
see Eagles & Knights of
Pythias
see Hilltop Cemetery
see Elk Grove Cemetery
see Sacramento Historic
City Cemetery
Masonic Within another see Elk Grove
cemetery
Masonic (Old) Within another see Sacramento Historic
cemetery City CFrn€terjA--\
oddfellows Within anoth"r S 3599S---/ ,\
Cemetery gggffiry Notes More lnfermA$on
htps://coroner.saccounty.gov/sccac/Pages/CompleteSacramentoCor.rntyc6meteryllst.aspr?Paged=TRUE&p_Column2=Wilh an altemat€ name&p_Ti.. see Lakeside
see Lakeside
see Lakeside
see
a5 Page 1634
05/10/2022 Item No.18.
2126,122,6:35 AM
Walnut Grove Chinese
Cemetery
Barton Family Cemetery
Chi nese Cemetery-Folsom
Complete Sacramento County Cemetery List
Possible other alias or
unknown site
Site in Sacramento County
Site in Sacramento County
(Young Wo) Cemete
Site in Sacramento County
r 31 -60 )
t Cemqtorv Advisorylommlssion
> Brochures
) Cemetervlllsklds
) S4oramento C0untvjmligenl
Burial Sites
) Sacramento Countv Deaths
1850-1933
> BurialDatabasa,
> $scramento CbunF-ecmctqrv List
t pqmrniss,ion pontect lnfo]tnB{on
> Useful Links
nese Cemetery-Fo
Chung Wah Memorial Site
lsom
hltpa://comner.saccounty.gov/sccac/Pagas/CompletesaffamentoCountlpemeteryList-aspx?Paged=TRUE&p-Column2=Cemetery or Bwial Site in Sa". 315

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NFS Fom 10-900
(Oct 19901
OMB No. t0o2't-0018
nli!-:
t,
'J Unltcd Stat$ Department of the lnterlor
Nadonal Park Scrvlcc

NATIONAT REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

BEGISTRATION FORM

1. Name ol Propcrty
historic namo: Chrrnn Wlh Camntcnr
othername/shenumbsr: SzaYuo/SamYuoCametPrv,. . .-, , .-,..--,. ..-,.,.- ,-..

2. Location
street & number: lr{ornon Street vicinitJ . ,
cityftown: Fnlcrrrn
stato: Califnrnia code: JQA- county: Sleramento
El not for publication
tr vicinity
code: -.,1QQl zip code: , 95

3. Statc/Fcilcral Agcncy Gcrtiflcation
As thr designated authority under thc National Historlc Preservation Act ol 1986' a$ amended, I hereby ccrtify that ttri$ lE1 nomlnation s roquost lor dstormination of sligibility rncets ths documentation standards lor reClstering properties in the Nstionsl Rcglstcr of Hlstorlc Places and moets thr procedural rnd profescional requircments cet torth in 36 CFR Part 60. ln my opinion, the property !! meets tr docs not mcet thB National Registet-critatia. I recommcnd thst this property be consioered signllhrnt o statewide I (o see continuation sheet for additional comments.l California Of of ltistoric Presenration
Stata or Faderal agsncy and bureau
ln my opinion, tho properfy El meets tr does not meet the National Reglster criteria. ltr See continuation sheet.l Signature of commenting or other official Date
6 State or Federal agoncy and bureau

4. National Park Scrvicc Ccrtlllcation
I hareby certify that this ptoperty is:

Vgrtot.O ln ilro Nadonal Register 7 s See continuetlon shest E determined eliglble for the National
Register
o See continuatlon sheet.

E determined not eligible for National
Reglster
ll removed from tha National Register
{ of Keeper Date
tr otfier lexplainl:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From
To:

I
Elaine Andersen; kerri(oatlanticcorrosionencineers.com; Sarah Aquino; Rosario Rodriouez; YK Chalamcherla; Mike Kozlowski; Josh Kinkade
Crematorium Council Meeting Change
Friday, March 25,2022 4:46:23 AM
Subject:

Date:

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

Thank you for your time.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

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

To City Manager Anderson.

Hello. My name is Patrick Nooren and I am a longtime resident of El Dorado Hills, My wife and I are currently in the escrow process on a house in Folsom directly across from Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemeterylfong St.). Our intent is to live there with our disabled daughter, Dutch, who has Pallister-Killian Syndrome (PKS) and is compromised in a number of ways, including respiratory issues and being wheelchair bound.

This leads us to "why" we are moving. We are looking to downsize into a single-story house with a short, flat, walk to sutter Street...a rarity in the adjoining neighborhoods...and! Fong is perfect! While performing my due diligence I came across the upcoming vote on the crematorium and, as a result, I have read each of the "Helix" studies, including the Greenhouse Gas and Emissions study (and amendments). The results of these studies indicate the environmental impact would be statistically insignificant, but fall short of indicating there would be "no impact." ln fact, my particular home atlFong would be within the zone of elevated emissions.

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

Please vote no.

While there may be some potential for additional Folsom tax revenue, it is far outweighed by the potential negative ramifications to nearby property values, the Sutter Street experience (and potential odor) and, unfortunately, the health and safety of those who would live nearby with compromised health. 1 Thank you

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Patrick M. Nooren
President
Biddle Consulting Group, lnc,
-
@ection.outlook'com/?url=hltp%3A%2F%2Fwww.biddle.com%2F&amp;data=04%7cot%7cjki nkade%40folsom.ca.us%7C90d79ed9c9dc46fd805e08da12715c29%7Clctb4b4a254c47b48448af77335fd6c0%7CO%7CO %7C637842575334134134%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVC|6Mn O%3D%7C3O00&amp;sdata=Wo4GoxxlbmlENyfrlMVtxUc%2BJVcFCNO83jVzdyDzwYo%3D&amp;reserved=0 I
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%ZF%ZFwww.bcginstitute .org%2F&amp;data=04%7COL%7 Cjkinkade%40folsom.ca.us%7C9Od79ed9c9dc46fd805e08da127t5c29%7C1.cfb4b4a254c47b48448af77335fd6co%7C0%7 CO%7C637842575334134!34%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil5lklha WwiLCJXVCt6MnO%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=88mRA3jYFmzqGqpqGAToZTmDjepmc5drps%2FbASVFjz8%3D&amp;reserv ed=O I
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%ZF%2Fwww.testgenius.com%2F&amp;data=04%7COt%7 Cjkinkade% Ofolsom.ca.u s%7C9Od79ed9c9dc45fd805e08da1271-5c29%7CLcfb4b4a254c47b48448af77335fd6c0%7C0%7 COo/o7C637842575334734134%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lkLha WwiLCJXVCI6MnO%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=g2TYrT85J8gRDXYh4hpxYnGtiKPNrahBT0PqcwWYuSE%3D&amp;reserved= 0 lrong St. (hopefully)
Folsom, Ca 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

There are several details regarding the appellant's lnitial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISA4ND) that do not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Among the shortcomings, the ISA4ND does not address key environmental safety and health issues that may significantly affect the surrounding communtff, despite that fact that there is substantial evidence indicating the potential for such significant effects. It would be very important to achieve a well-informed project review by preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) with all the relevant environmental topics where potential impacts could occur, sufficient substantial evidence to describe the nature and magnitude of potentially significant effects, and feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts.

A summary ofthe CEQA inadequacies is presented below:

1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The explosion risk and consequences in the event of explosion from two 250-gallon propane tanks are not analyzed. The potential for an explosion is dismissed as not likely without evaluation or evidence. Although there is a low probability of an accident, there would be high impact if it in fact occumed. As an example, the following story is from the website news feed of MTI Industries, a manufacturer of fire alarms, regarding the explosion of a2l}-gallong propane tank in Prunedale, Monterey County.

Propane Tank Explodes in Prunedale, 2 Iniured (Jul 28, 201 1) Prunedale, CA. Two people are injured after a propane tank exploded in Prunedale Thursday morning, said the North County Fire Department. The propane tank held 250

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
gallons ofpropane. The explosion happened around I I am on the 500 block of Strawberry Road. Both of the victims were taken to the hospital with minor to moderate injuries. Fire fficials say that there was a leak in the propane tank that ignited and caused the explosion. Witnesses say that they couldfeel the explosion all the way across the street. According to thefire deportment, the explosion sent a shockwave through the house that blew out the windows and shifted the walls of the house.

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Salwa Kasabian
Iro.,"st Street
cA 9s630

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

IO:

Subject:

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

Council Members,
I live in the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood with my wife and two young children. This is a wonderful neighborhood, Each house shows pride of ownership. I can look out my front windows and see slivers of Lake Natoma. We have neighborhood access to the trails and lake, The bald eagles fly over my house and perch at the Lakeside Cemetery.

Putting a crematory in the historic cemetery will change all this. I don't want to look out my back windows and see "puffs of smoke" per lgor's words. I want to enjoy the beauty of the cemetery out my back windows. Lake view out the front windows and smoke puffs out the back window. What a contradiction.

I don't want to have to close my windows while 90 minute cremations are happening. I don't want to tell my kids to come in the house and stop playing with the neighborhood kids because the crematory is running, This effects our quality of life
During the t/LI/22 city council meeting there was much concern for the preservation of the oak trees with the Toll Brothers at Folsom Ranch Phase 2 Subdivision Project. Ten minutes was spent discussing grading concerns, buffering, and the probability of survival of one oak tree. I hope the Council gives the history at the cemetery, Historic District, open space, and residents of The Preserves/Lake Natoma Shores community as much time, concern, and thoughtfulness as the oak trees received.

Thank you,
1 Sean Gates

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Terrv Sorensen
Eooest Street
Folsom, CA 95630
April3,2022
City Council
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Conditional Use Permit
(PN-19-r82)
Hearing Date: April 26, 2022
Dear Councilpersons:

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

Should this crematorium proposal pass, I will call to report every time there is odor. I will call every time there's smoke. I will call if there is after hours burning, I will call if ANYTHING from Lakeside disrupts the neighborhood, I would like to add that I personally collected numerous signatures on the petition from people inside the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood who use the trail to Lake Natoma that's located on Young Wo Circle. lt's not just the people in this neighborhood who don't want the crematorium here, it's people from the greater Folsom area that use the neighborhood for recreation. Please listen the the public outcryl Fotsom's City Councit motto, " The Folsom City Council is dedicated to ensuring Folsom's high standards for public health, safety, and quality of life." I will protect my children's quality of life. Please help me protect it. I hope the council keeps their motto in mind during their vote.

Thank you,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Nicole Gates
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachmerfi 7
Public Comment Letters Received After Publication of the April 26,2022 Staff Report

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Peter I
Lucyga
Voung Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
Via E-mail
Pam Johns, Community
Director
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
Community Development
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95530
April27,2O22
Mayor Kerri Howell
Vice-Mayor Rosario Rodriguez
Sarah Aquino
YK Chalamcherla
Mike Kozlowski
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
City Council
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95530
RE: UPDATE FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 26,2022 - IAKESIDE MEMORIAI LAWN CREMATORTUM (PN t9-L821
Dear Mayor Howell, Vice-Mayor Rodriguez, Councilmembers Aquino, Chalamcherla and Kozlowski, Director Johns, Ms. Freemantle, and Mr. Kinkade,
I really appreciated the opportunity to provide citizen input at yesterday's Council Meeting, it was my first time in the chambers. I was the speaker who suggested that the city consider providing an incentive (tax or otherwise) to facilitate the siting of a crematorium at an alternate location further away from residential and especially the Historic District.

I have two additional insights after this meeting which l'd like to share with all. #1- Why the focus on needing a crematorium with Folsom city limits? The city and residents of Folsom leverage numerous other key services from Sacramento County instead of having it provided by the city itself or by businesses within city limits A few moles:

Weeklv residential and commercial trash disposal - Folsom doesn't insist on it's own landfill, we use Kiefer landfill for this important service function. I know because l've had occasion to use Kiefer and always seem to see Folsom "Distinctive by Nature" painted dump trucks there.

Electric utilitv - Folsom doesn't insist on having its own electric utility, it uses SMUD for this i mporta nt service function.

Folsom Police Department - Folsom doesn't insist on having its own "Police Academy" to train new police officers, it relies on other larger police departments like the City of Sacramento to a
a
a

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
conduct Police Academy training for this important service function. I know this because a relative is attending the Sacramento Police Academy next month. #2 - Cremation as a Service function. I took a fresh look at the funeral process to connect the dots a bit better, at least for myself. The base components are:

Funeral home - a service function not usually located on cemetery property. lt's a business housed in a business-zoned area that provides families with body preparation and funeral services such as viewing.

Cemetery - a phvsical plot of land for the express purpose of burying or housing the remains of the deceased. Traditionally cemeteries have cultural or religious significance and are considered sacred by many people, not to mention having historic significance as in this case. There is a service ceremony with burial but primarily it's o sacred resting place for the deceased.

Crematory - - a service function usually not located on cemetery sites themselves. lt's a business housed in a business-zoned area. As explained by Mr. Semenyuk, the cremation process is typically done by an attendant and can be facilitated by a live video feed if desired by the relatives or friends of the deceased. This provides great flexibility on location, since a crematory is basically a giant industrial oven.
ln reflecting on the wishes of my own parents before they passed, both asked to be buried in family plots. I have relatives who chose cremation and not one stated "l wish my cremotion process takes ploce in Auburn, Folsom, San Diego". What you do hear is that " Please scotter my ashes in the Pacific Ocean, at Loke Tohoe, the mountains, or keep them at home with family".

My main point is that the physical cremation lacility is really suited to a flexible location as a seruice function- even more so than a funerol home. Folsom is within Sacramento County and we leverage numerous services from the county as stated above. Why struggle to find a suitable Folsom location of greater than 500 feet from residential areas when Sacramento County offers locations with 15-20 minutes' drive that easily exceed the 500 or even 5,000 feet boundary? I see a great business opportunity for a Sacramento County sited location that can provide high volume services to multiple cities throughout the Sacramento area.

As a minor point with the stated quantity of possible cremations, its was claimed that a maximum of 4 per day could take place daily with a 500 annual limit. Given there are 365 days in the year and regardless if cremation days are 5,5 or 7 days a week, the math always excetids 500 annually.

Please consider my additional insights and do not allow crematory operations to take place in our historic area cemetery.

Sincerely,
o
a
T
Peter Lucyga

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Terry L. Sorensen
lorrest Street
Folsom, CA 95630
l[{ay 02,2022
City Council
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Lakeside memorial Lawn
Crematorium Conditional Use Permit
(PN-1e-182)
Hearing Date: MaY 10,2022
Dear Councilpersons:
please accept this conespondence as my attempt to summari zethewrtten submissions that have been made to date by concerned citizens on the 'oloss in property value" issue that has been raised in this matter.

The issue is addressed forcefully in a 4-20-22 email to the City from Victoria Foster, a resident of The preserve and a realtor with Intero Real Estate Services (page 9 of 4-26-22Additional Information Transmittal). She has been a realtor for over 30 years and works fuIl-time at Intero. She asserts that ..being next to a crematorium will absolutely affect our property values.... Some homeowners stated ttrey riil feel compelled to move. This absolutely will affect our home values and eliminate a large number of buyers not only for health concerns, but yes, the creep factor." She further opines that all of this will currs" u loss of home values of o'tens of thousands of dollars and possibly even more...compared to other areas in Folsom because we have a crematorium dropped in our neighborhood."
Ms. Foster states that the CaliforniaAssociation of Realtors requires that a seller of real property fill out a Sellers property euestionnaire which constitutes a mandatory disclosure document that must be inctuded in every sales tiansaction. She points out seven difference paragraphs on page 4 thereof which would requiie the seller to make disclosure of the existence of a crematorium in the area. In her words: o.It,s not something to be taken lightly." She adds that'No buyer coming to Folsom has ever asked me, .how is your ciematorium hei?" They come...and they stay for the qualrty of life - not death."
Nearly identical in tone and substance is an email dated 9-13-21from RE/MAX Gold real estate agent Barbara Krieger (StaffReport part I of 2,page 330). She recounts her inability to sell a property tliat she recently tiea ;in the biautiful Historical District of Lake Natoma Shores because of buyer concerns about the crematorium going in." The third paragraph of her email merits a verbatim quotation:
o.I am not a Folsom resident, but am writing this letter out of concern for the neighborhood.

Having personally seen every single buyer that walked through this beautiful home get tumed off rrom dre highly iesirable location because of an undesirable crematorium should concern every single representative of the people, the nearby homes and the neighborhood itself as an entity. I *oidr. *ty ttt" City has atiowea the cemetery owner to get this far in the planning phase of the project, despite the multiple and loud cries from the Folsom residents and groups, who should not

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
have to trouble themselves with such a threat while living in such a popular, sophisticated and historically protected area. I am absolutely astonished this is occurring at all." Another "decrease in property value" comment is found at pages 456-7 of the StaffReport, Part 1 of 2, a7-20-21email from Preserve resident Kim Higgins. On the second page of that email in the next-to-the last paragraph, she references an article by Mark Agree dated June 19, 2008 from "Applied Economics Magazine" that analyzed.2T months of home sale datea (7 months before and,20 months afte the startup of crematory operations) in which it was concluded "that proximity measured in terms of direction and distance from the crematory imparts a statistically significant negative impact on average home sale prices," the prices increasing the further the home was from the crematory.

Ms. Higgins concludes her email with these comments: "California disclosure law requires us to disclose. Not many people desire to live near one. Do you?...Our quality of life will be affected if the crematorium goes forward. Honestly, would you want this in your backyard?" Atpages144-5oftheStaffReport,Part2of2, wefindanotheremailfromrealtorVictoriaFoster who identifies herself as a resident of the Preserve living on Young Wo Circle. She voices numerous objections to the proposed crematory. Finally she focuses on decreased property values on the second page of her email, as follows:
"Lastly, I am a local Realtor and it will DECREASE oUR HOME VALUES in the Preserves/Lake Lake Natoma Shores if a crematorium is built...I have 3 clients that want to buy in this neighborhood - two of them will not reside here if a crematorium is built and my 3'd client LizChighizola has stated to me, she would want the crematorium to be put in because home prices would then 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??"
Last,I would invite the attention of the members of the Council to an email dated March30,2022, from Patrick Nooren of El Dorado Hills (StaffReport, Part 2 of 2, page 618). I would classi$r this email as a "cross-over" between the issue of property values and the issue of health concerns raised by the proposed crematory. In any event, I found the email heart-wrenching, dealing as it does with the proposed crematory crushing the hopes of Mr. Nooren to obtain the "perfect" home on Fong Street for his disabled daughter (wheelchair-bound with respiratory issues and compromised in a number or other ways due to PKS), As Mr. Nooren puts it: "Should this vote approve the crematorium, I will, unforfunately, not be able to continue with the purchase of this, the perfect home. I simply cannot risk the elevated emissions and the potential for a negative impact on my extremely vulnerable daughter." In closing, I would like to raise a personal concern/irritation in regard to the manner in which many of the issues on the crematory question have been framed. To put it bluntly, I am sick and tired of hearing it implied (if not flat-out asserted) that the residents of the Preserve are motivated by a selfish, "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) attitude, using that attitude to deprive the Applicant of his property rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one is claiming that the Cemetery does not have the right to exist and do business as a cemetery. The Cemetery has preexisted the Preserve residential development by many, many years.

However, that certainly is not the case with the crematory. With the crematory the situation is reversed with the Preserve preexisting even a claim by the Applicant of any right to establish a crematory on the Cemetery property. To put the issue in "territorial" terms, the Applicant is the "intruder" on the crematory issue, not the residents of the Preserve. It is the Applicant who is taking the role of the

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
aggressor here, not the residents. The residents are OK with the Applicant pursuing his cemetery biiiness, but not oK with the Applicant opening a new business enterprise (i.e., a crematory) that intErferes with and diminishes the preexisting private property rights of his neighbors.

Respectfu lly submitted,
/sl
Terry L. Sorensen
"muil: City Councilpersons and City of Folsom Staff
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; yk"@-foho-."u..n; [email protected]; [email protected]; ikinkade@'folsom.ca.us; *buokr@folso-."a.,tr; [email protected]; pj ohns@,folsom.ca.us

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From: I
[email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Sarah Aouino; YK Chalamcherla; Mike Kozlowski; Kellv Mullett; Josh Kinkade; SlgJg.EalK; Scott Johnson; Pam Johns subj€ctl
Date:

Project RE:

Wednesday, April 27, 2022 3:04:56 PM
ChunoWahCemetery Natnl ReoHistPl.pdf
Historic Preservation Master Plan plus Cultural Resources Inventorv CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members and Staff,
There was a brief discussion at last night's City Council Meeting regarding the significance of the Chung Wah Cemetery and its National Register of Historic Places status. Attached please find the national application finalized for Folsom's Chung Wah Cemetery to the National Register of llistoric Places on March 21,1995. This appiication was submitted by Mary L.

Maniery, Historian and Cindy Baker, Historian. The national importance of this Chinese Cemetery to the nation's founding, contains valuable information about the Chinese pioneers and events they participated in critical to the founding of the American West, the City Folsom, and the State of California. The Chung Wah is of national importance.

The authentication of the Chung Wah Chinese Cemetery was archived at:
. the Folsom Historical Society and History Museum in Folsom, . the Chinese Historical Society of America in San Francisco, . the Sacramento County Archives and Museum Collection Center in Sacramento, . and the California State Historic Preservation Office.

The Chung Wah Cemetery, the Young Wo Cemetery, along with all eight of the small Lakeside Cemeteries, together, were included in the City of Folsom's Historic Preservation Master Plan and Cultural Resources Inventory List, adopted by the City of Folsom on November 5, 1998. The authentication of these cultural resources and sites on the Cultural Resources List was archived at:
. The City of Folsom;
. The Folsom Historical Society and History Museum;
. referenced in Folsom ZoningCode 17-57 Historic District; . and referenced in Folsom's Historic District Design and Development Guidelines.

How could ECorp's Cultural Resources report, contained in the 2022Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project, have missed all of these publicly available environmental documents in its Cultural Resources report for inclusion in the Initial Study and the C.U.P Mitigated negative Declaration?
Indeed, how could the Community Services Director have missed cultural significance of these environmental documents for inclusion in the Staff Report's Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration?
This information is critical to the Findings that the City Council will make on the Lakeside To:

Cc:

Attachments:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project proposal and C.U.P
Sincerely,
Deborah Grassl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

EGE
loil.ii'I
E
I
[Jll l lul\AL rANh )Env lbE
tll AT'lnfil hl rtEdllCTFP R$Ahlli-l
NFS Form 10-900
(Oct. 19901
United $tates Department of the lnterior
IUational Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of Property
OMB No. 10024-0018
t.'i + ! . !
i.i ;,.
historic name: Chrrnn Wnh Ccmeterv
other name/site number: Sze Yuo/Sam un Cemeterv

2. Location
street & number: Mnrrwrn Cf raot rri ni ni f v
code: CA. county Sacram
E not for publication
tr vicinity
code: -992-
'zip code: 95 ,,
city/town: Folsom
state: California

3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act ol 1986, as amended, lhereby certify that this :€k nomination tr request for dotermination ol eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. ln my opinion, the property F meets tr does not meet the National Register-criteria. I recommend that this propefty be consioered significant s statewide F locally. (tr see continuation sheet for additional comments.l 6 ing
California Offi ne of Historin Frrecervation
State or Federal agency and bureau
ln my opinion, the property E meets E does not meetthe National Register criteria. (tr See continuation sheet.) Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau

4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
\fErtereO in the National Register
r g See continuation sheet.
tr determined eligible for the National
Register
tr See continuation sheet.
tr determined not eligible for National
Register
o removed frorn the National Register
{si of Keeper of Date
El other {explain):

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

5. Classilication
Ownership ol Property
{check as many boxes as may aPPIY}
El private
tr public-local
tr public-State
tr public-Federal
Category ol Property
(check only one boxl
tr building(sl
tr district
E site
O structure
tr obiect
Number of Resources within Property
Contributing Noncontributing
1 buildings
sites
structures
objects
o Total
Number of related multiple propErty listing
{Enter "N/A' if property is not part of a multiple property listing) Number of contributing resources previously listed in
the National Register
None N/A

6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructionsl
Current Functions
IEnter categories from instructions)
FTJNER AFIY/eemafnrv FUN RY/eemeterv
FU ARY/oraves/btr ria lc
7, Description
Architectural Classif ication
(Enter categories from instructions)
Materials
tEnter categories from instructions)
foundation CO.$CRETE,BRICK
roof
walls
other
:
j
!
i
ir
ff
oTl{ rlt
FIRICK- QTONtr/nnhhlcs
Narrative Description
(Describe the hiitoric and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register CriGria
(Mark 'x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing.l
El A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.

B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.

C PropertV embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.

Areas of Significance
{Enter categories from instructions)
ETHNIC HERITAGE/Asian
RtrI IGIr]N
tr
tr
Period ol Signilicance
1906 - 1946
Significant Dates
tr D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history
tr
tr
tr
E
tr
tr
a
Criteria Considerations
{Mark "x" in all the boxes that applyl
A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes. Cultural Affiliation
B removed from its original location.

C a birthplace or grave.

D a cemetery.

Architect/Builder
E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.

F a comrrlemorative property.

G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.

Narrative Statement of Significancc
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.l Significant Person
{Complete if Criterion B is marked above)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

9. Major Bibliographlcal References
Bibliography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on ons or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPSI: Primary Location of Additional Data:
tr preliminary determination of individual listing {36
CFR 67) has been requested
tr previousty listed in the National Register
tr previously determined eligible by the National
Register
tr designated a National Historic Landmark
tr recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
#
tr recorded by Historic American Engineering Record
#
E State historic preservation office
tr other state agency
E Federal agency
.,8 Local government
tr University
a other
Name of Repository:

Sacramgnto Archives and Museqm Collection Center
-
Chinese Historical Society, San Francisco,
Folsom Historical Society, Folsom

10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Propefi
UTM References
{Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.} Zone Easting Northing
1 10 657000 4281540
2 Verbal Boundary Description
{Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) Boundary Justilication
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) Zone Easting Northing
3 4
tr See continuation sheet

2.61 6 acres
1 1. Form Prepared By
NamelTitle: Marv L- Ma Hictorian/Cindv Beker- Historian Organization: PAR ENVI al SFRVICFS- INC-/Citv of Folsom Date: Februarv 21, 1 995 Telephone: (91 61739-8356 Street & Numben P,O. Box 1
City or Town: Saeramento State:L ZlPt cE81 6

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
t8-861
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number _Z- Page # _J_ Property Na
SUMMARY.

Folsom's Chung Wah cemetery encompasses 2.616 acres of land south and west of Block 70 and on parts of Lots 7 , 8, 9, and 1 0. Located on a bluff near today's Lake Natoma, the cemetery is surrounded by dredge tailings, native oaks, and mature grey pines. lts features include burial mounds, exhumation depressions, brick-lined vaults, a burning pit, and the remains of a shrine. Although subiect to vandalism in the 1960s, this site retains a high level of integrity. lts ghysical separation from the main Folsom cemetery, haphazard arrangement of burial mounds and pits, lack of formal landscaping, and rural setting increases the integrity of setting, feeling, and association that cloaks the site.

DESCRIPTION
The town of Folsom, located in eastern Sacramento County, once housed a flourishing Chinese community. Two cemeteries were associated with the community and wers owned and maintained by different associations. The Yeong Wo Association's plot currently is landscaped and partially obscured by a building and retains no surface reminders of its use as a burial ground for members of the Yeong Wo association. The Chung Wah cemetery, used by members of the Sze Yup and Sam Yup associations, is the larger and probably older of the two cemeteries and retains numerous features and burials.

The present 2.616-acre site includes parts of Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Block 70, then extends south and west to the Bureau of Reclamation property line. The larger portion of this cemetery lies outside the original 1855 town limits depicted on Theodore Judah's plat map for the City of Folsom {see Maps 1 and 2). The Chung Wah cemetery is near Folsom's non-Asian cemetsry, which dates to the 1850s. Chinese burials in the motherlode region were typically located in segregated sections of non-Asian cemeteries. The Chung Wah is close to the other cemetery, but is a separate, remote site.

Thc site's irregular shape suggests it was haphazardly planned, perhaps beginning with a few Chinese burials and then spreading out as more Chinese died in Folsom over the years. The lack of historical photographs and maps for the cemetery preclu$es an accurate description of its early physical appearance. Oral testimony presents an image of the cemetery in the 1920s to the 1940s, allowing for a reconstruction of the cemetery's physical appearance. Physically, the site was located on the outskirts of town. Dredging occurred around the perimeters of the site in 1907 and 1908 (Map 3), but the cemetery plot was left undisturbed. Throughout its period of use it nestled on the bluff near the American River, surro0nded by dredge tailings or stgep escarpments leading to the American River.

The Chung Wah plot was accessed from the nofth by passing through a gate. A wagon road led east, then south and west, traversing the perimeter of the cemetery (Map 41. The road exited out the southwest side of the cemetery, allowing mourners to enter at the gate, travel around the cemetery, and leave without backtracking or crossing over their entry path. Graves were dug wherever there was room, with no specific orientation or layout. People were buried in shallow grav€s about two feet deep and were covered with a mound of earth. The earthen mounds were often touching or at angles to each other and protruded about two to three feet above the ground surface. Occasionally wooden markers or inscribed bricks marked the surface of graves. More often than not, however, graves were unmarked. As one Chinese-American related, it was better to be "unmarked and undisturbed" (G. Chan, Jr. 1994). While the deceased were often not identified by surface grave markers, other markers of bricks, stone, or wood inscribed with name, date, association affiliation, and ancestral village or province were placed in the graves to assist in identification of remains during exhumation.

CEIVED 413
JU_ 7 ps$

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 1O-900-a
(8-86t
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service
N.ATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number -L Page # -2.

Properry Name Chtrno Camafonr
Scattered in and around the mounds were depressions from thle exhumation of bodies. While bodies were carefully exhumed, the pits were not backfilled (and could have been used for future burials) and the pits were interspersed with the mounds. Whils the maiority of exhumed remains were sent to China for reburial, others were placed in urns and reburied at the Chung Wah-cemetery. Graves wer6 not well-tended, aside from yearly ancestral ceremonies. The Chung Wah cemetery was not landscaped with lawns, benches, domestic trees or shrubs, or other landscaping elements typical in a non-Chinese burial site. lnstead, the cemetery was left in a natural state and its appearance matched that of the surrounding vacant fields, seasonally covered with grasses with occasional scattered native oaks or grey pines. The road was sometirnes kept clear by mowing, but the mounds were often overgrown.

Apart from the mounds and pits several burials were placed in brick-lined, rectangular-shaped vaults that were laid, into the ground. A large depression was dug just inside and to the south of the entry gate and served as a burning pit where the belongings of ttre deceased were set afire. A rectangular brick, cobble, and concrete shrine, used during the Ch,ing Ming ceremony, was in place on th€ west side of the cemetery by 1940 and was likely constructed by the 1920s or before. This shrine stood approximately four feet high, and was eight feet wide and 13 feet long.

By the 1930s, the Chung Wah cemetery was still in use, although declining, as onty a few families remained in the area to tend to the graves of their deceased relatives and fliends. ln the early 1940s, brick markers still remained on some of the grave mounds, and some lay scattered around. ln addition, the burning pit and shrine were still in use into the 1960s.
ln 1g67 vandals desecrated the cemetery. The graves of Chin Oak, his wife, Ping Woo Choy, and Chin LaiShee were uncovered and their coffins smashed. The Chan family discovered bones left scattered on the ground (H. Chan, Sr. 1981}.ThevandalsalsodestroYedtheshrine,believingittobethegraveofawealthypersonlSacramentoEeen'd.}.A deep hole extending below the shrine foundation attests to this vandalism. Jewelry stolen from the graves was sold and was later traced to San Francisco pawn shops. Those responsible for the desecration were only charged with public healthlawsconcerningunlawfut digginginacemetery(G.Chan,Jr. 1991). TheChansreburiedtheirfamily'sremainson site and covered the giaves with a concrete slab. A brass grave marker was set flush into the concrete at this time'and is the only marker currently visible at the cemetery.

Today ths cemetery retains much of its original appearance (see Map 4). The wagon road, while overgrown, can still be traced arbund th€ perimeter of the site. The cemetery contains between 75 and 100 mounds, many barely discernible dus to settling. The mounds vary from only a few inches to about two feet in height. Their location is haphazard. with many perpendicular to each other and arranged in no set pattern. Exhumation pits, ranging in depth from six inches tci sevgratfeet, are interspersed among the mounds. The entire burial site is overgrown with tall grasses, thistles, and encroaching vegetation and appears hummocky. This untended appearance, however, is in keeping with the historical appearance otlne iite as related by numerous people in Folsom. The graves of Chin Oak and his kin are clearly marked,'Covered by a large concrete slab with a flat brass monument.

The burning pit is evident inside the gate, although immature oaks and vegetation are growing inside it. An ash lens attests to its past use. While the shrine was dismantled bv the vandals, its foundation and pan of its cobble and brick walls are still intact (Map 51. One rectangular brick-lined vault, now empty, is exposed and evident along the west edge of the fenceline. The vault is four feet wide, eight feet long, and about four feet deep. Four courses of brick are ptesent around the top of the vault. ln addition to its physical features, the site remains secluded, tucked between dredger tailings and an undeveloped area along Lake Natoma and physically separated from the Folsom cemetery by a vacant lot.

Its seclusion, humrnocky appearance. and intact features all contribute to the sense of peace and timelessness that pervades ths site, adding to the integrity of feeling and association so apparent at the cemetery. !
i
i
I
i
{

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-861
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Seruice

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number ;g- Page # 1
OMB Approval No.

Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv

SUMMARY
The Chung Wah cemetery in Folsom is unusuatfor its strong association ties and ownership, for its continued existence in an area that has been extensively mined, and for the intact associated features. Folsom's Chinese community once contained the homes, businesses, and gardens of hundreds of people. Today, only this cemetery remains as the last visual reminder of a rich heritge and a viable Chinese population that once flourished in town.

Acquired in 1906, tho cemetery also represents strong district association relationships that were maintained in Folsom well into the twentieth century. lt has numerous features associated with historical use, including burial mounds and ' vaults, exhuination depressions, a burning pit, and a shrine foundation, all attesting to the overall physical integrity of the cemetery and reflecting the spiritual beliefs and practices of the association members. The sense of time and place evident when standing in the cemetery grounds is strong. The historical and ethnic associations of the cemetery, combined with its high level of physical integrity, contribute to its importance under Criterion A, Consideration D and G.

The last burial occurred in 1946, ending a 4O-year period of use and representing the decline of the Chinese community in Folsom.

HTSTORICAL CONTEXT
Folsom's Chinese Hetitagc
Chinese men and women have lived in Folsom since the California gold rush. Arriving as miners, laborers and merchants, their numbers gradually ctimbed through the 1850s and 1860s, sharply rose during the 1870s and peaked in the 1880s. Exclusionary immigration laws, dwindling mining and labor opponunities, and racial tension precipitated a steep population decline during the 1890s and 1900s. By the early twentieth century, only a handful of the original Chinese community remained. Today the Chan family is the last remaining fragment of what was once a large and flourishing community.

Gold Rush En .

The start of large-scale Chinese immigration to California dates to the early months of the gold rush. News of the discovery of gold drew thousands of Chinese to California from throughout the Pearl River delta in South China, particularly the City of Canton. Given the political unrest, worsening economic conditions, end the repressive Manchu rule in China in the mid.nineteenth century, reports of the fabulous Gum Shan (Mountain of Gold) became even rnore appealing, resulting in a mass immigration to California, primarily by people from the Kwangtung Province (cf. Chinn 1969; Chiu 1 967; Hoexter 1 976; Lai and Choy 1972; Sung 1 967). lmmigration records from the Customs House in San Francisco attesttothis migration: 325 immigrants recorded in 1849,450 in 1850, and 2,716 in 1851. This number jumped to 20,000 in 1852 lChiu 1967:12; Hoexter 1976:10; Laiand Choy 1972:45).

Some scholars ostimate that on€ in ten newly arriving Chinese remained in San Francisco, while the others headed outtoeitherthenorthernorsouthernminingregions {Chinn1969;Chiu1967;Williamsl930}. lnthefirstfewyearsof the gold rush, mining in ths northern region focused on the American River because of its proximity to Sacramento (Wiltiams 19301. lt is probable that by late 1849 Chinese arrived at Negro Bar, predecessor to the town of Folsom, where they either stopped to mine or continued up the river'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-86)
OMB Approval No'
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number -.r8- Page # 2
-
Property Name Chuno Wah
Typicaly, a Chinese merchant would set up shop in a central location in a mining region to sellfood, supplies, and clothing to both his countrymen and Anglo miners. Often the store owner would start serving tea to his kinsmen in the back of the store and, if interest was high, might expand into a restaurant business, selling Chinese delicacies as well as beef steaks to American miners (Hoexter 1976:61-621. lf business was steady and profitable, a back room might have housed a few fan-tan or domino tables, or other diversions. Sometimes, a woman might be brought in to entertain the miners. As one merchant thrived, others might join him and a Chinatown would grow. ln larger mining towns, one or more temples would be srected by local Chinese leaders or benevolent associations to allow immigrants to offer prayers to the gods (Hoexter 1976:62).

From sdch humble beginnings a Chinatown would emerge, as was probably ths case at Folsom. While there is some indication that at least one Chinese merchant was operating at Negro Bar in 1852, the location of this center is uncertain (J. Chan lg92; TheTelegrapl, 1966). lt is probable thatthe Chinese center of Negro Bar in 1852 was situated upstream and separated from the Anglo camp, at or near the area known as Chinatown today, The first evidence of a Chinese presence centered in Folsom is found in the first assessment plat of the newly formed town of Folsom, completed in 1gS5. According tothe lgSE Folsom Map Book, Chineseowned lots or owned improvements on lots on Blocks 8,9, 10, and 1g. ln addition, they had a church located in Block 11 lSacramento County 1855). ln the late 1BSos, as the initial gold rush ended and claims were abandoned. many Chinese miners arrived in the region to rework old claims or work as laborers for the Natoma Company. While usually residing at their mining claims, thise men contributed to the growth of tho local Chinatown, frequenting it on their day of r€st. The 16s61 Ss66vqlent association hall (you See Tongl probably served as a social center for the men, providing mail from home, news of friends, gambling diversions, and tea or food. Barbers and doctors took care of personal hygiene and health needs, while the many stores offered a variety of supplies (United States Bureau of the Census 18601.

A Flourishing Community - 1860 to 1900
Folsorn's Chinatown continued to expand rapidly in the 1860s, fed in part by miners retreating to the town to sscaps escalating racial violence, Trouble continued in the region in the 1860s, but Chinese miners found other ways to earn e living. Wtrite independent miners and companies were driven off their claims and harassed, hundreds of others I were beinglmployed to work on Anglo-owned claims, particularly in hydraulic and ground sluicing operations. The i Natoma Company also hired Asian laborers to work their property, especially after 1864 when they acquired legal title to i the eastern half of the historic Rancho de los Americanos (Castaneda et al. 1984:93). i As gold deposits dwindled and Anglo miners left the region, independent Chinese miners and companies once again began working old tailings and claims and the population increased in number. This general pattern is evident in the "enrus
records. ln 1860, g4 miners were enumerated within the Chinese district of Folsom. ln 1870 this number increased to 187. tn addition, at lea$t 370 miners wsre living in camps outside Folsom, but likely visited town occasionally to obtain supplies (United States Bureau of the Census 1860, 1870). By 1879 some 3,000 Chinese were said to be mining in the Folsom area (Askin et al. 1980:11; Plimpton n.d.). lt is probable that many of these miners lived at least seasonally in Folsom and used it as a residential base.

During tho 1gggs, Chinatown continued to grow. This growth was related to anti'Chinese sentiment throughout the region in the late l B70s. As racial violence forced miners and laborers out of the countryside and surrounding communities, they often retreated to Folsom. The San Francisco Alta rcported trouble in the region in 1878, noting that

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 1O-900-a
1024-0018
(8-86t
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 8 Page # 3 Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv Chinese expelled from Rocklin, Roseville, and Penryn had gone to Folsom *where a camp of several hundred strong has been formed' (Alta 20 September 1878; Bancroft n.d.:37). This pattern continued for years. ln the midst of this period of economic prosperity and peak population, two Chinese associations purchased land for Chinese cemeteries. Yeong Wo & Company purchased Lots 3 through 8 of Block 40 from James and Mary Harris for their cemetery in 1 883 (Sacramento County 1 883). Two years later, Chung Wah Company purchased Lots 6 through 1 1 of Block 71 from James S. Meredith for $190 (Sacramento County 1885b).

The Chinese living in town who did not own stores typically formed smalt companies to mine claims, or went to work for othbrs, The Natoma Company continued to be the major source of employment during the 1880s. The company hired Chinese as employees and paid them 91.00 a day, or rented land to them for mining. Company records note several mining companies buying water from the Natoma Company in 1882 {Plimpton n.d.}. As employees, Chinese worked building, maintaining and clearing water ditches, as well as on company agricultural operations.

While manuscript census records are not available for 1890, Folsom's Chinatown appears to have continued to flourish during the late 1880s and 1 890s, despite tepid local efforts to eliminate the Chinese from the city. ln fact, Chinese advertisements in the local paper indicate a growing interaction with the non-Asian community. Three companies placed business ads in the Folsom Telegraph beginning in 1889: Fong Lee Lung, whose store carried groceries and miners' supplies; Cop Kee, a grocer; and Wing Sing Wah, a grocery store owned by merchant Chin Oak. ln 1893 an undetermined epidemic killed many Chinese in Folsom. The local paper reported that "Chinatown is full of sick heathens . . . and the number of deaths is greater than ever before known in history' lFolsom Telegraph 4 November 1 8931. Perhaps this epidemic, striking near ths peak of Chinatown's population, marked the beginning of the community's gradual decline. The decline was also aided by the development of dredging in the region, an activity that effectively ended mining by small, independent companies around Folsom (Askin et al. 1980:131, Declim - 1900 ro 1946
As a new century dawned, Chinatown was holding its own. The 1900 census records depict a decrease in population within Chinatown since 1880, but only by 30 people. The district still had 13 merchants or grocers (three less than 18801, shoemakers, barbers, clerks, gardeners, cooks. butchers, launderers, restaurant owners, and gamblers (United States Bureau of the Census 1 9001. The main difference in 20 years is the numbers of Chinese within Granite Township but living outsid€ of Folsom. This number fellfrom about 300 in 1880 to only 27 in 1900. Without the hundreds of miners and laborers frequenting Chinatown on days off, the economy within th€ district began to fail (Castaneda et al. 19841.
ldeally the decline of Chinatown would have occurred gradually, but was unfortunately hurried by fire. ln August 1901 abigfirebrokeoutinChinatownat3:00a.m. AccordingtotheFolsomTelegraph, thefirestartedneartheTong Hing store (southwest corner of Block 9) and ended up consuming hatf of Chinatown. Firecrackers, bombs, and an oil tank helped spread the fire {Folsom Telegraph 17 August 19011.

By 1910, census records indicate onlyfive merchants remained in town, compared to the l3listed in 1900 tUnited States Bureau of the Csnsus 19101. A few Chinese-operated laundries, some of whom had relocated on SutterStreet after a maior fire, wer€ still open (Sanborn Company 1 899, 1 9101 and several Chinese cooks were privately employed {Unitsd States Bureau of the Census 1910).

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 't0-900-a
1024-0018
{8-86}
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number _.1$_ Page # 4 Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv . .

Over the next ten years Chinatown declined rapidly. ln 1913 the old Chinese temple located on a knoll in Block 11 burned down. This building had stood on the same spot since the early 1850s and was a fixture in the district. By the time it burned, however, the paper notEd that it was 'little used of late due to the small number of Chinese remaining in this community' {Folsom Telegraph 20 June 1913; Plimpton n.d.a}. By 1920 two Asian merchants remained in town, arnong them Chin Oak and his family store on Sutter Street, along with the three laundries and a few cooks. Only 26 Chinesa ware enumerated in Granite Township that year, most of whom lived on Block 10 in Folsom or on Sutter Street (sacramento County 1921; United States Bursau of the Census 19201.

When Chin Oak died in 1924, the last pioneer Chinese in Folsom was laid to rest, signaling the end of the original' gold rush Chinese community. His family continued to live and work in town, although the other few remaining Chinese families moved away looking for opponunity elsewhere over the next two decades. By 1925, non'Chinese residents were building new residences on abandoned s€ctions of Folsom's historic Chinese district (Sanborn 1925). Chinatown dwindled to a couple of old stores, which were all gone by the late 1930s (Fong 1994). Some Chinese bachelors remainsd in Folsom until their death.

During the 1920s and 1930s, other Chinese families who had left Folsom occasionally returned to bury family members and to perform the annual ceremonies at their family grave sites. The shrine was intact and in use during the early 1940s (Puffer 1 994). After her death in 1 946, Chin Lai Shee became the last Chinese person interred in the cemetery (G. Chan. Jr. 1991).

After Chin Oak's death, his eldest son, George, Sr., ran the familv store, the Chan and Chan Market on Sutter Street. Until his death in 1 959, George, Sr,. led his family as they observed the annual cemetery ceremonies. These rituals were modified during the 1930s and 1940s when food became precious during ths Great Depression, followed by World War il rationing (G. Chan, Jr., 1994). Allof Chin Oak's children in Folsom continued to observe these ceremonies, although more sporadically as the decades slipped by.

Today, only Chin Oak's grandchildren remain in town as active representatives of Folsom's early Chinese heritage.

His grandson, George, Jr., continues to run the family store on Sutter Street and is the guardian o, the Chung Wah Cemetery, His granddaughter, June Chan, continues her parents' efforts to honor and preserve the Chinese legacy in Folsom.

District Associations in Folsom
The Chinese who cams to California during the mid-l800s came from24 districts in Kwangtung Province (Map 61.

The overwhelming majority was comprised of three major dialect groups: the Sam Yup {a.k.a. Sam Yip), Sze Yup (a.k.a.

SeeYup, SzeYap), and Heungshan (a.k.a. Chungshan) people (Chinn 1969:4; Leung 1984:15,28; Minnick 1988:6-71' Sam Yup-speaking people came from the districti of Namhoi, Punyu, and Shuntak. Sze Yup:speakers arrived from Sunwui, Hoiping, Yanping, and Toishan districts. Heungshan people immigrated from the district of Chungshan. The Hakka, a fourth-smaller dialect group, came from a scattering of districts throughout Kwangtung Province (Chinn 1969:41.

The Sam yup, Sze Yup, and Heungshan formed separate district associations to assist their members during their time abroad. All three associations offered temporary housing for their new arrivals disembarking in San Francisco, as well as in smaller Chinese communities near mining and agricultural centers. The Heungshan people named their association Yeong Wo (a.k.a. Young Wah, Yong \1t's), while the Sam Yup and Sze Yup used their district name. These

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
!
NPS Form 10-9O0-a
1024-0018
(8-86t
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 8 Page # 5 Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv associations provided employment and legal assistance, recreational and spiritual considerations, advice on dealing with non-Asians, and accsss to familiar foods, medicines, and clothing tMinnick 1988:9-101.

Chinese usually maintained their distance from other Chinese from different districts or associations. According to Chinese-Amsrican historian Sylvia Minnick, "Those from Toishan encamped away frorn the Heungshan diggings, and both kept their distance from the Hakkas' (Minnick 1988:13). This was due to personal preference as well as distinct dialectic differences; people from one district often could not understand those from another district. ln addition, Chinese from these two districts felt a great deal of animosity towards each other and brought their long-standing feud with them to America (Leung 1984:7).
1'he feuding between the districts, especially the Sze Yup and/or Sam Yup versus the Yeong Wos, resulted in "wars' or small-scale battles that occurr€d in the 1850s in several of the mining camps in California. ln Weaverville, disputes over mining claims led to a full scale battle between the 'See-Yups" and the "Yong Wahs' that culminated in a series of fights and numerous deaths between 1 853 and I 859 {Brott 1 982:1 3-1 7; Minke 1 960:14-1 5}. Chinese Camp, in Tuolumne County, was the site of another physical battle between numerous "Sam Yups' and "Yan Wos" over mining claim disputes. This battle took place in 1 856 and ended in four dead and four wounded (Minke 1 960:1 8-1 9; Paden and Schlichtmann 1959:71-7211. While no known battles occurred at Folsom. these incidents point to the level of antagonism that existed between the various factions.

The Sam Yup Association quickly established branches in Sacramento and Stockton to meet the needs of the large number of Sam Yup immigrants heading for the gold fields. During the 1860s Chinese from some non-Sze Yup districts previously under the jurisdiction of the Sze Yup applied to the Sam Yup for membership (Lai n.d.:16). By 1878 Sam Yup membership peaked at 12,000 members statewide (Lai n.d.:17). Unfortunately a feud, climaxing in the 1890s, created tension bEtween Sam Yup and Sze Yup people (Lain.d.:18), although there is no evidence to indicate how this affected the Chinese community in Folsom.

The separation between the Yeong Wo and Sze Yup/Sam Yup lasted in Folsom into the 1920s. The Yeong Wo Association members, while doing business with other Chinese, socialized separately from members of other district associations in Folsom's Chinese community. Yeong Wo members traveled into Sacramento to visit other Yeong Wo rather than socialize with the Folsom Sze Yup or Sam Yup (G. Chan, Jr. 1 994), This, in part, explains why two different groups of Chinese in Folsom bought land for cemeteries instead of sharing one cemetery.

Members of allthree major district associations resided in Folsom. Their association buildings wsre prominent fixtures in Folsomls Chinatown (Minnick 1988:221. The Sam Yup Association established their Folsom branch during the 1850s (Lai n.d.:151. The association rented land on Block 19 for their operations into the twentieth century, including a store, socialhall, and housing for the sick and aging {Minnick 1988:22; Sacramento County, 1893a, 1893b, 1895a, 1895b, 19001. ln the 1880s, the branch corresponded with their headquarters in San Francisco regarding funding for repairs to their association hallbuilding tLai 19941. This perhaps indicates the vitality of the association and its positive outlook for continued membership in Folsom.

The Yeong Wo Association, comprised of Heungshan peopler owned propsrty for its operations by 1883, although it probably rented for many years before buying (Map 71. The association built their benevolent hall and shrine on their property on Lots 1 through 4 of Block 17, on the southwest corner of the intersection of Leidesdorff and Burnett Streets {sacramento County 1883, 1885a, 19121. Their shrine remained in the 1930s. although the structure, with its black doors and peeling red paint, was almost abandoned {G. Chan, Jr. 19941. All that remained of their benevolent hall at that I
i
i
,
t.

I
I
i.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-86)
OMB Approval No,
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number:B_ PaSe # 6 Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv time was a small "shack' wherg a Chinese caretaker tended the gardens and fruit trees surrounding the site {Fong 1994}.

Yeong Wo also owned and maintained a cemetery on Lots 3 through I on Block 40, several blocks from the Chung Wah burial site lsee Maps 3 and 7). No evidence of the Yeong Wo cemetery remains today.

Spiritual Lifc
Associations provided for the spiritual and religious needs of their members. As early as 1855 Folsom Chinatown had two'churches,' on€ on Block 10 and one on Block 11 lsacramento County 18551. ln December, 1865 the Folsoth Telegraph reported:

The Celestial portion of our cornmunity, dedicated their new temple on last Thursday -. Many strange looking images were placed upon their altars. On one side of the altar, there was a picture representing a dragon, on the other side was a tiger. At the entrance there was a representation of his Plutonic MaiesW leading a tiger.

Goats, pigs, chickens and nurnerous other edibles were placed upon the altar for their hungry gods to feast upon.

Despite frequent fires, the Chinese rebuilt and maintained their churches, or ioss houses, into the twentieth century.

Concen for the Spirit After Death
Receiving proper care after death was a major concern to Chinese sojourners living far from their native land and family. Accounts in miners' diaries and newspapers detailing Chinese funerals, care of the dead, and burial practices began appearing as early as 1 849. For example, one Euroamerican miner working in the Folsom region observed that after a Chinese miner drowned on the North Fork of the American River in 1850, his countrymen put gold dust in his mouth and hands and buried him. Four weeks after the burial the remaining members of the dead man's company came down to the qrave, bringing boiled beef, pork, a dozen oranges, raisins and some brandy. They placed the food on the grave, burned cikes beside it, and shared the brandy with the Euroamerican on-lookers (Forbes 1850).

This attention and respect for the dead is deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Two traditional Chinese csremonies annually honor and tend to relatives' spiritual afterlife' During the Pure Brightness Festival lCh'ing Ming ot Chinese Memorial Day) the family elder ritually sweeps the graves of relatives with a willow branch, believed to repel evil spirits.

Once the grave is swept, the family cleans and removes weeds growing on the grave mound. Dishes of cooked food, sueh as roast pork, are placed before the grave, then wine is poured over the grave. As incense sticks, red candles, paper money and paper clothing are burned to send to the deceased in the spirit world, exploding firecrackers create confusion to hopefully stop evil spirits {rom pursuing the deceased, Following the ceremony the food is removed and saten at home. This festival usually occurs during the spring, in the third month of the Chinese calendar (Chinn 1969;76; Culin 1887:1951.

The second festival is calebrated on the fifteenth day of the seventh moon as relatives make their second visit to their family graves. This Spirits' Festival (Shao'/or "burning paper clothing'l is described by Chinese historian, Thomas Chinn as:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-861
OMB Approval No.
united states Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Sectionnumber 8 Page# 7- Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv the day th€ dead were believed to return to roam at will, or to visit living relatives. And since the spirits must hav€ money to travel, more paper money and paper clothing was transmitted by burnt offerings than at the Ch'ing Ming testival lChinn 1969:771.

Associations usually provided for the burial and later return of their members' remains to China, where their families would attend to their needs in the afterlife. Associations also frequently erected shrines within their cemeteries in Arnerica to meet the spiritual needs of the deceased before their remains were hopefully one day returned to China.

These shrines were used extensively during Ch'ing Ming for burning incense and other offerings {Chinn 1969:77}.

The patriarch of Folsom's Chan family, Chin Tock Oak, came from Toishan district in China, a member of the Sze Yup Association, and therefore he and his descendants used the Chung Wah cemetery. The Chan family celebrated Haung lien, looselv translated as 'Climb to Heaven" in the spring and autumn of each year. ln this ceremony, the family would boil a whole chicken, with head and feet still attached, and take the chicken with boiled eggs, Chinese whisky and beer to the cemetery. Occasionally the family would travel into Sacramento or San Francisco to buy special Chinese foods, like leechee nuts, unavailable in Folsom. ln later years, they also brought non-Chinese foods. The elder male would put the food near the head of the grave mounds of family members, pour whisky or beer ov€r the grave, and talk to the deceased. He would also burn paper money and punks, lighting them three at a time, to send as offerings to the deceased, Some punks were thick, some thin, some red and some waxy, each conveying a different kind of message {G.

Chan, Jr. 19941.

By custom, the deceased was buried in a wooden coffin in a shallow grave, about two feet deep. An identification marker was often placed in the coffin, and sometimes on the grave mound itself. This marker provided verification of the identity of th€ remains when the body was exhumed after a period of five or more years for return to China. ldentification markers consisted of either a brick painted or etched with the deceased's name, a marked slip of paper in a bottle, or an above-ground wooden marker (Askin et al. 1980:11-12; Minnick 1988:291-292, 1994).

Professional exhumers from association headquarters in San Francisco periodically traveled to outlying Chinese communities to conduct sxhumations. After ensuring all the deceased's bones had been properly cleaned and accounted for, the skeleton'was reassembled in a crouching position and placed in an urn or small box. Sometime after the turn of the century, remains were only returned to China if relatives existed to pay the high costs of exhumation permits, shipping,andreburial{H.Chan,Sr. 1981;Minnick1988:291-292). Otherwise,theurnswerereburiedinthecemetery.

One account of a nineteenth-century exhumation at Chinese Camp in Tuolumne County serves to illustrate the ceremony that surrounded this precedure, Paden and Schlichtmann (1959:137-1381 quote Mr. Edwin Harper's story as follows:

I remember when a boy, that a group of us used to watch a certain Chinaman when he came here from San Francisco. He was a priest or some important official. We would hide in the bushes to watch the priest with several others as they walked slowly, in single file, to the graveyard. They wore fine Chinese clothing and hung bright-colored banners on the shrubs around the grave they had come to open. Then they chanted and gestured for a time. The officials brought Chinese laborers to do the actual digging but they were most particular to see that every tiny bone was gathered. A piece of silk was spread at one side of the grave and bones placed on that. When every single one was found and aceounted for they were placed in a small wooden box which was given to the Chinese priest with a good deal of ceremony and they all went back to Chinatown.

I
I
t
t
J

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-861
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number j9- Page # 8 PropertyName@
paden and Schlicktmann continue to relate that the box was always the length of a human thigh bone and that the bones were scraped clean and sealed, with the queue carefully placed on top of the bones.

The Sam Yup Association began exhuming and returning remains from California to China in 1858, again in 1863, and then every ten years thereafter untilthe 1910s lLai n.d.). No records exist for exhumations in Folsom, although apparently they did occur untilthe late 1910s {Askin et al. 1980:12; G. Chan, Jr. 1994; H. Chan, Sr. 1981; Lai 1994}.

By periodically removing rernains, hundreds of Chinese could be buried in a relatively small cemetery without running out of space.

Accounts of Funerals in Folsam
Accounts of Chinese lunerals in Folsom offer a vivid image of the spiritual vitality of the Chinese community.

Limited funds made most funerals simple affairs. A few friends of a miner or laborer would follow his coffin to the grave, scattering paper money along the way in the hopes of distracting evil spirits from bothering the dead. The noise from firecrackers, a fiddle or a gong would fill the air to scare away those spirits (Minnick 1988:288). Such was probably the case with Ah Tan, a miner who died in Folsom after a brief illness in 1889. l'le was buried 'with the characteristic ceremonies of his race' in a fine coffin purchased from the Folsom undertaker, Jacob Miller. The coffin had been purchased by a Chinese merchant, presumably acting on behalf of the deceased's association lFolsam Telegraph 30 November 18891.

The elaborata funeral of Ah Chung, a merchant with Num Sing and Company/ was described in the Folsom Telegraph on September 23, 1871 as follows:

His remains were followed to the grave by a large number of his countrymen in carriages and on foot. A son of th6 deceased who seemed almost overwhelmed with grief, was dressed in white, with a white cloth over his head, and carried a pan of ashes in front of him, and was supported in a bent position by a Chinaman on each side of him and presented a singular appearance.

The Chinese communily conducted traditional funerals at least as late as 1910. The coffin was transported in a horse-drawn hearse from the g00 block of Sufter Street to one of the Chinese cemeteries. Some mourners walked along with ths wagon. while others rode with the coffin. As the procassion moved west down sutter street, the chinese tossed food, small change, and red paper with holes in it along the way (F. Hill 1 9941. Strewing perforated strips of red pap6r was a commofl element of Chinese funerals (Minke 1 960:101.

When Chin Oak, a well-known merchant and resident of Folsom for 65 years, died in 1924, his eldest son, George, washed his body and placed him in a coffin, The ceremony and casket were both simple. A Chinese priest, who tended the local joss house, conducted the ceremony dressed in a black gown and black hat. Presiding over Chinese funerals provided the priest,s sole income, amounting to two or three dollars for Chin Oak's service in 1924. Many local iesidents, Asian and non-Asian alike, came to pay their last respects to this pioneer of Folsom's Chinese community (G.

Chan, Jr. 1994; H. Chan, Sr. 1981; J' Chan 1994)'
The Chinese used two locations in Folsom for burning the deceased's belongings needed for their journey in the afterlife, such as their clothes, shoes, and blankets. A finely-built brick oven with steel doors stood near the temple on the yeong wo propefi on Block 17. As the belongings burned, smoke rose out of a large exhaust pipe to accompany I
I
{
t
5

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-861
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lntedor
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORTC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number rL_ Page # 9 Property Name Chuno Wrh Cemeferv the deceased's spirit {H. Chan, Sr. 1981}. Atthe Chung Wah Cemetery, relatives orfriends of the dead person burned their b€longings in a large depression located just inside the main entrance (G. Chan, Jr. 1994). ldentification of Chinese Burials
It is unlikely that the names and number of all Chinese and Chinese-Americans buried in Folsom can ever be discovered. The community of Folsom kept no death records, unlike Sacramento where city officials and cemetery ownsrs maintained comprehensivs records of deaths and burials dating back to 1849.

Jacob Miller, the founder of Folsom's sole funeral business from the 1860s to the present, retrieved those Chinese discovered dead or those who died from unnatural causes. He also signed most coroner's inquest reports. The Miller family funeral businsss sold coffins from their store on Sutter Street to the Chinese and let their hearse for conveyance to the cemetery. Unfortunately the Miller family kept no written business records {Askin et al. 1980:10; Claney 1994}.

The Folsom Telegraph published notices of Chinese deaths, but rarely included given names prior to the 1890s, unless the deceased was well-known by the non-Asian community. The Folsom Telegraph notices indicate that burials were occurring in the Chinese cemeteries at teast by 1871, although interment probably began in the 1850s. The Sacramento County Becorder only began issuing death certificates for Folsom after the Chinese community had dwindled to a more handful. Three death certificates for Chinese burials in Folsom cited in Askin et al.'s report on Folsom's Chinese cemeteries are for Chin Him, 9-11-1916, Wing Sing Wo, 11-20-1923, and Charlie Heoung, 2-28-1935 (Askin et al. 1980:101. The death certificate of Wing Sing Wo, also known as Chin Oak, gives the date of death as November, 1 923, his grave marker noteq that he passed away in 1 924. The majority of deaths in the Chinese community after 1 893 were the result of old age.

As Chinese immigration and population in California declined, the original Chinese Six Companies la composite of district associations and guildsl were succeeded by the Consolidated Chinese Benevolent Association or Chung Wah Wui Kunin Chinese {Minnick 1988:273}. While the Chung Wah Association remained strong in California untilthe 1950s, no membership records have been found for Folsom. The Sam Yup Association does not know when its membership in Folsom ended, although Sam Yup historian, Him Mark Lai, believes it likely ended in the 1920s as the aging bachelor community died off or moved away llai 1994|.

Chung WOh Cemetery
Records of property tax assessments and deeds usually provide concrete evidence of land ownership and use, but this is not the casa with the Chinese. Due to prevailing prejudice, the transient nature of the Chinese sojourner in Calitornia, and lack of funds, among other reasons, it was common for Chinese associations and business people to rent propsrty from non-Asians rather than purchase it themselves, or to rent for a while and then purchase the property. lt is reasonable to assume that lots purchased for cemeteries were already being rented for that purpose prior to acquisition of title. After passage of the Alien Land Acts in 1913 and 1921, Chinese were no longer able to purchase land, but retained title to land acquired before 1913.

The first recorded Chinese burial in 1 871 occurred 1 4 years before the Chung Wah Association acquired their land.

There were certainly Chinese deaths in or near Folsom as early as 1850 (Forbes 18501. While some deceased may have

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-86)
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number _..1S_ Page # 10 Property Name Chugr Wah Cemeterv -
been transponed by their association to burial sites in the New Helvetia or City cemeteries in Sacramento, the majority were likely buried in Folsom. Considering the intensive mining occurring in this area, as well as the great importance Chinese spirituality places on the afterlife, it is unlikely that Chinese were buried in isolated graves.

Comparative analysis of other Chinese burial sites further supports the use of the plot as a cemetery long before its purchase for that use, Throughout Sacramento County, Chinese were buried in segregated sections of non-Asian cemeteries. This did not occur in Folsom. The Chinese who died in Folsom before 1883 were not buried in other Folsom cemeteries. were probably not interred in isolated tocations, and most likely were buried in devalued land already mined out well above seasonal river flooding levsls, precisely the location of the Chung Wah site.

The Chung Wah cemetery is the larger and probably older of Folsom's Chinese cemeteries. Evidence suggests the present cemeteryr along with another adjoining six lots, comprised a large Chinese cernetery dating from the gold rush. lnitially, the Natoma Water and Mining Company, and its descendant, the Natoma Vineyard Company, owned the land, a tiny segment of the company's tens of thousands of acres of property. Although thers appear to be no records of the Natoma Company leasing the land to the Chinese for a cemetery, several factors suggest that this may have been the case. First, the Natoma Company relied heavily on Chinese labor for its canal and ditch operations, as well as its ranch and vineyard businesses. Chinese use of two acres for burials, out of the company's more than 32,000 acres. would probably have been ignored. especially on land mined out early during the gold rush. Secondly, the Chung Wah cemetery is near Folsom's non-Asian cemeteries, which date to the 1850s. Chinese burials in the motherlode region were Wpically located in a segregated remote section of non-Asian cemeteries. The Chung Wah is close to the other cemeteries, but more remote.

The site's irregular shape suggests it was haphazardly planned, perhaps beginning with a few Chinese burials and then spreading out is more Chinese died in Folsom over the years. When the Folsom Development Company deeded the present site to the Chung Wah Company in 1906, the site was referred to on the deed as the China Mission cemetery, suggesting its pre-existence as a cemetery. When fire consumed the last Chinese temple, located on Block 1 1, in Folsom in ibtg, the Fotsom Telegraph refered to the structure as the'China Mission #1,'stating it had stood since the 1850s lFolsam Tetegraph 20 June 1913; Plimpton n.d.), The similarities in their names suggests they may have been related.

Concrete evidence for Chung Wah Company ownership of a cemetery begins in 1885. On October 6th, James S.

Meredith deeded Lots 6 through 1l of Btock 71 to Chung Wah for $190 (Sacramento County 1885b). Previously, the only recorded owner was Charles G. W. French, an attorney who left Folsom to set up a practice in Sacramento after the death of his wife, Abby Hewes {sacrarnento Countv 1875). French owned numerous lots in Folsom as investment property until his death in 1892 (Safiamento County 18921.

The Chung Wah Company owned no other land in Folsom. During this period the Sam Yup Company rented property for a store and possibly a hall, while other buildings identified as tongs (or associations) were prominent fixtures in ihinato*n (sacramenio County 1893a, 1893b, 19OO). lt is probable the Sam Yup and other associations, such as the Sze Yup, combined resources to purchase the Chung Wah site as a cemetery for ioint use. ln 1906 the Chung Wah Company exchanged Lots 6 through 11 of Block 71 for the present 2.616'acre site, then owned by the Folsom Dlvelopment Company. C. G. Lang, listed as president of Chung Wah Company, acted as agent for the association. presuma-bly provisions were made for the removal of any remains in Lots 6 through 11 before the company dredged Block?1 in 1907 and 1908 (Sacramento County 1906a, 1906b).

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
t8-86)
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 8 Page # 11 Property Name Chuno Wah Cenleterv As association membership was eclipsed by family and community identification, Chinese-American families in Folsom continued to bury and honor their relatives in the Chung Wah Cemetery. The last known burial in the site occurred in 1946 when Chin Lai Shee was interred there. The mother of Marie Chan, George Chan, Sr.'s wife, had lived for years in San Francisco. After she died there, the Chan family brought her to Folsom for burial {G. Chan, Jr. 1994; H.

Chan, Sr. 1981).

For decades the Chan family and other families with friends or relatives buried in the Chung Wah Cemetery have celebrated holidays that honor and tend to the needs of the dead; each generation learning from the last, passing on and adapting the rituals to their times. Today, George Chan, Jr. is the trustee and guardian for the cemetery, a natural extension of the family association passed down through the Chung Wah Company lineage.

Comparative Analysis
Folsom's Chinese cemetery is unigue in Sacramento County. All other known Chinese burial sites lie within community cemeteries shared by Asian and non-Asian alike. There appear to be no other separately owned and operated Chinese cemeteries in the county. Of particular note is the proximity of two Chinese cemeteries in Folsom, indicating the strong identification with district associations from China, as well as the vitality of the associations. ln Sacramento, ths New Helvetia and City cemeteries both contained Chinese sections dating back to the gold rush.

The Record of Deaths book for Sacramento City, 1 850 to 1870, lists the first Chinese death in Sacramento occurring on September 25, 1851. This entry lists this individualas'Chinaman,'native of China, no age, no former residence, no cause of death, no attending physician, and cites a burial location in either the New Helvetia or City Cemetery that can no longer be traced due to plot renumbering.

Chinese district and family associations bought large 'family' lots for their member interment. For example. in 1891, Sow Yuen Tong & Co. purchased a 24-foot by 60-foot lot for $270. Burial registers list Chinese burials in the City Cemetery as early as 1865. Chinese associations that purchased lots between 1867 and 1874 alone include Ming Yueng Co., See Yup Co., Sam Yup Co., Foulk Hing Tong Co., Hop Wo Co., Coy Chew Co., Chong Chaw Co., Hong Chew Co., Young Chow Co., and Ouong Chew Co. (Sacramento, City of 1847-1955, 1850-1870, 1871-18741, District.associations periodically exhurned remainsfor return to China beginning in the 1850s. ln 1955, Chinese remains were disinterred from the New Helvetia Cemetery when that cemetery was de-activated. Those remains were either rsturned to China or reburied in East Lawn Cemetery and marked with wooden markers. (A. Lee 1994).

The earliest Chinese burial sites in the City Cemetery, the'tiers,'have been modified and the bodies moved to the southsrn cornor of the cemetery. The Chinese association lot purchase records indicate that the Southside section of the City Cemetery became the Chinese section of the City Cemetery after 190O. No monument, altar or shrine was ever erected in this section. The Odd Fellows purchased the adjacent land from the City Cemetery in 1905 and retain its ownership to the present day. The Masonic Order bought more adjacent land in 1906, Together they presently maintain the appearance of the Chinese section (Bettencourt 1994). ln communities outside Sacramento, this pattern of burial in a section of the larger community cernetery continued.

Elsewhere in the foothills. communities actively excluded the Chinese from the main cemeteries. Chinese can be found in separate areas set aside outside the main confines of the cemeteries (Bettencourt 1994).

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-90O-a
1024-0018
{8-86t
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number I Page # 12 Property Name Chuno Weh Cemeterv - The Elder Creek Distriet Cemetery, between 65th Street and Power lnn road on Elder Creek Road, contained a Chinese section (Hayse 1 994). Franklin had a chinese section in their larger cemetery (t' chan 1 994; Hayse 1 994; P' Lee 1 gg4l. The large Chinese community of Locke never had its own Chinese cemetery (P. Lee 1 9941. There are also no Chinese/Chinese-American burials in Courtland (L. Chan 1994). ln the nearby communities of Rio Vista, Franklin, and Stockton, all outside of Sacramento County, most Chinese burials exist only in the regular cemetsry, not in €xclusively Chinese cemeteries {P. Lae 1994}. However, at least two exclusively-Chinese cemeteries outsids of Sacramento County are known to exist. One is located on Matthews Road in French Camp. This private cemetery was founded in the late 1920s by Stockton's Chung Wah group and is still in usej The leaders of Chung Wah in that area conduct 'tomb sweeping" rites twice every year {Minnick 1 988:290}. Another is located in Auburn. This cemetery, located in behind a gravel plant off Highway 49, still contains the oven used for burning belongs and offerings for the deceased (Costello 1994; Minnick 19941. ln addition, there were three srnall ChineJe cemetery sites at Virginiatown in Placer County. Two were exclusively Chinese and are on two separate hills.

The third is smalter and an oral history map refers to this third cemetery as "the woman's Chinese cemetery' and also notes that th€ Sicktes, a Euro-American family, w€re buried there. Apparently, all bodies were removed from all three cemsteries (exhumation pits are evidentl and no associated features remain {Farnscomb 1994}.

PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE
While it is likely that the cemetery was in use in the nineteenth century, there are no documents to support this supposition, Therefore, the period of signficiance begins in 1906 when Chung Wah Company acquired legalownership of the'plot in a trade with the Folsom Development Company. The last burial occurred in 1946 with the interment of Chin Lai ihee, ending the period of significance. Annual ceremonies, like Ch'ing Ming, continued long after 1946, but no burials or planned exhumations (other than those associated with the 1967 vandalisml occurred after this date.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Chung Wah Cemetery in the City of Folsom is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A, Consideratio; D and G. As the last visible reminder of the viable Chinese population that once inhabited Folsom, the cemetery acts as a link to the rich ethnic heritage of the town. The burning pit, shrine remains, and other features atso attest to the spiritual value Chinese place on the afterlife and the permeation of religious beliefs into all aspects of their culture. One of two district cemeteries in town, the Chung Wah is unusual for its strong association ties and actual Chinese ownership. Elsewhere, Chinese shared a portion of Anglo cemeteries and other cemeteries in the county no longer contain traditional elements like the Chung Wah, increasing its importance on a local level.

Folsom's Chinese comrnunity consisted of stores, restaurants, barber shops, gaming houses, gardens, homes, churches, and association halls that serviced the hundreds of miners working around Folsom. As a commercial transportation center for a vast mining area. Folsom played an important role in the life of Chinese minerss or laborers from the 1gsOs untilaround 1910, when the population rapidly declined. District associations were extremely important, providing a link to the traditional culture and to relatives back home in China. a social center for workers far from home, anO a gulrantee that one's remains would be properly taken care of after death. Regular exhumations, with remains sent home ior burial and care by relatives, was an important role fulfilled by the association'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
1024-0018
(8-86)
OMB Approval No.

United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number I Page # 1,3.- Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv The last burial occurred 49 years ago, in 1946, marking the end ol the period of significance and qualifying the cemetery under Consideration G. The significance placed on the burial place of relatives in Chinese culture is seen in the observation of yearly Ch'ing Ming ceremonies by Folsom's Chinese-American residents for many years after the termination of the Chinatown. The cemetery remains in the care of the Chan family, the last of Folsom's original Chinese families still residing in town. lts natural setting, its location in a rernote area on the outskirts of town, the intact features, and the sense of time and place tha! pervade the site mark a high level of integrity and increase the historical value of the site.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-861
OMB Approval No. 1024-001 8
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Seruica

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 19- Page # 1 Property Name QhuQg Wah Cemetery -

MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Alta lSan Franciscol,
1g7g Report on Chinese miners expelled from Rocklin, Roseville, and Penryn moving to Folsom. 20 September" Askin, Dorene, Robert Docken, and Charles A' Liuinger
lggo Folsam,s Chinese Cemeteries: The Youic Wah Co. Site. Ms. on file, Folsom Historical Museum, Folsom, California.

Bancroft, H.'H.
n.d. Eancroft's Sctals, Volume 3 On file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley' Brott, Clark
1gg2 Moon Lee One: Life in Otd Chinatown, Weaverville, Catifornia. Great Basin Foundation, San Diego' Castaneda, Antonia, Robert Docken, Edith Pitti, and Chandler lde 1gg4 Natomas iiip*v, lg*-lgg4, s""rrrn.nto History center. Prepared for Natomas company. Ms. on file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Sacramento.

Chan, George, Jr.
1 gg 1 Orat History, June Hose, interviewer, 22 November. On file, Folsom Historical Museurn, Folsom' Chan, Howard, Sr.
lggl Oral History, Betsy Strand, interviewer, 15 April. On file, Folsom Historical Museum, Folsom.

Chinn, Thomas (editorl
1969 A History of the chinese in califorrtia: A syltabus. H. Mark Lai and Phillip P. chov, associate editors. chinese Historical Society of America, San Francisco'
Chiu, Ping
1967 Chinese Labor in california, l950-1880. State Historical Society of wisconsin for the Department of History, Universitv of Wisconsin, Madison.

Culin, Stewart
1gg7 Customs of Chinese in America. Journal of American Folktore, Phitadelphia. Reprinted in 1970 by R and E Research Associates, San Francisco.

Fotsom Telegraph (Folsom, California)
1865 Report on Chinese Temple Dedication' 30 December
1871 Report on Chinese Funeral. 23 September'
1889 REport on Chiness Funeral. 30 November'
1893 Report on epidemic in Chinatown' 4 November'
1901 Report on Large Fire in Chinatown' 17 August'
1913 Report of Chinese Church burning' 20 June'
1966 11Oth Anniversary lssue.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
{8-86t
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 9 Paga # 2 Property Name Chrrnn Wah
Forbes, Thomas
1850 Letter wrifien to Hezekel Brainard on March 15, I ASO, from the North Fork of the American Hiver. 0n file, Jennie Grocker Henderson Manuscript Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkaley.

Hoexter, Corrine K.
1976 From Canton to California: The Epic of Chinese Immigration Four Winds Press, New York.

Judah, Theodore D.
1855 Plat Map of the Town of Folsom. Original at the Folsom Fire Department headquarters, Folsom, California. Copy on file, California Room, California State Library, Sacramento.

Lai, Him Mark (Contributing Authorl n.d. A History of the Sam Yup Benevolent Association in the United ,Srates. Fong Brothers Printing, San Francisco.

Lai, Him Mark, and Philip P. Choy
1972 Outlines: Histoty of the Chinese in America. Published by the authors, San Francisco.

Leung, Peter C. Y.
1984 One Day, One Doltar: Locke, California and the Chinese Farming Experience in the Sacramento Delta. L. Eve Armentrout Ma, editor. Chinese/Chinese-American History Project, El Cerrito, California.

Minnick, Sylvia Sun
1988 Sam Faw: The San Joaguin Chinese Legacy, Panorama West Publishing, Fresno, California.

Minke, Pauline
1960 Chinese in the Mother Lode, 1850-1870. Reprinted in'1974 by R.and E. Research.Associations, San Francisco, CA.

Natomas Consolidated of California
1907 Prospoct and Progress Map, Dredge #2. On file, Natoma Company Collection, Sacramento Archives and 1909 Museum Gollection Center, Paden, lrend D.. and Margaret E. Schlichtmann
1959 The 8ig Oak Flat Foad. The Holmes Book Company, Oakland, California Plimpton, John H.
n.d' South Fork American River Research, vol. lV, Natoma Water and Mining Company. On file, California State Department of Parks and Recreation, lnterpretive Services Division, Sacramento.

Sacramento, City of
1850-1870a Record of Deaths in Sacramento City. On file, Old City Cemetery Archives, Sacramento 1850-1870b Record of Lots, City Cemetery. On file, Old City Cemetery Archives, Sacramento 1847-1955 Record of Lots, New Helvetia. On file, Old City Cemetery Archives, Sacramento

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 1O-9OO-a
l8-86)
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number -9- Page # 3
OMB Approval No. 1024'0018
Property Name c Wnh
1 871-1 874 City Cemetery Daily Register Record. On File, OdCity Cemetery Archives, Sacramento.

Sacramento County
1855 Assessment Plats for City of Folsom.

Sacramento.

On file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center' l gTE Assessment plats for City of Folsom. On file, California Room, California State Library, Sacramento' 1g83 Jas. B. Harris and Mary Harris to Yong Wo, 3 May. Book of Deeds 107, p'358' lggsa Tax Assessment Rolls for City of Folsom. on fite, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Sacramento.
1885b J. S. Meredith to Chung Wah, 10 October. Eook of Deeds 116, pp' 306-307' 1gg2 Assessrnent plats for TgN, R7E. 0n file, sacramento Archives and Museum collection center, Sacramento.
1893a Assessment Plats for Citv of Folsom.

Sacramento.
on file, sacramento Archives and Museum collection center, l gg3b personal Tax Assessment Rolts. on file, sacramento Archives and Museum collection center, sacramento' l ggsa Assessment plats for City of Folsom. On file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Sacramento.
l ggsb personal Tax Assessment Rolls. On file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center' Sacrarnento l goo personal Tax Assessment Rolls. on file, sacramento Archives and Museum Collection center, sacramento' l g06a Folsom Development Company to C. G. Lang of Chung wah Company, 12 November. Book of Deeds 245, p'87 1go6b C. G. Lang of Chung wah Company to the Folsom Development Companv, 17 December. Book of Deeds 245, p. 85.
lgl| Tax Assessment Rolls for City of Folsom. On file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center' Sacramento.
1921 Assessment Plats for City of Folsom
Sacramento.

On file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center' Sanborn Company _^^- h,^
lggg Sanborn Fire lnsurance Map of Folsom, California. On file, Library of Congress, Washington, D'L' 1 gl O Sanborn Fire lnsurance Map of Folsom, California. On file, Library of Congress, Washington, D'C'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-90O-a
{8-861
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HTSTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number _.19_ Paga # 4
OMB Approval No. 1 024-0018
Property Name Chrrna Wrh
1925 Sanborn Fire lnsurance Map of Folsom, California. On file, Library of Congress, Washington, D,C.

Sung, B. L.
1967 Mountain of Gald: The Story of the Chinese in America. The MacMillian Company, New York.

United States Bureau of the Census
1860 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, Sacramento County. On file, Library of Congress.

Washington, D,C.
1870 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, Sacramento County. On file, Library of Congriss, Washington, D.C.
1880 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, Sacramento County. On file, Library of Congress, Washington. D.C.
1900 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, Sacramento County. On file, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
1910 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, Sacramento County. On file, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
1920 Manuscript census records for Granite Township, sacramento county.

Washington, D.C.

On file, Library of Congress,
Williams, Steven
1930 The Chinese in the California Mines, 1848-1860. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Reprinted in 1971 by R. and E. Research Associates. El Cerrito, California.

Personal Communications
1992 Chan, June Folsom resident
r 994 Bettencourt, James
Chace, Paul
Chan, George, Jr.

Chan, June
Chan, Lincoln
Claney, Roben
Costello, Julia
Farnscomb, Melissa
Fong, Robert
Hayes, John
Hill, Fern
Lai, Him Mark
Lee. Anna
Lee, Ping
Cemetery historian, Sacramento
Historical archaeologist/Chinese historian
Folsom resident and Chung Way cemetery trustee and guardian Folsom resident
Counland resident
Folsom resident
Historical archaeologisVChinese sites specialist
Historical archaeologist working at Virginiatown
Forrner Folsom resident
Cemetery historian, Sacramento County
Folsom resident
Chinese-American historian, Chinese Historical Society, Sam Yup Association Chinese-American historian, Sacraffento
LockeArValnut Grove resident

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-861
United States Dspartment of the lnterior
National Park ServicE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 9. Pags # Q
Property Name Chuno Cemefanr
OMB Approval No. 1024-001 I
Minnick, Sylvia Sun
W€gars, Priscilla
Chinese-American historian
Director, Asian Collection Cenrcr, University of ldaho, Moscow

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-861
United States Department of the lnterior
National Park Service

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

CONTINUATION SHEET
Section number 10 , Page # 1 Property Name Chuno Wah Cemeterv OMB Approval No. 1024-0018

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
The cemetery encompasses 2.616 acres contained within an iregularly-shaped parcel. The parcel includes a portion of Lots 7 and I in Block 70 and continues south and west on unparceled land to the boundary of the Bursau of Heclamation's Lake Natoma holdings. The boundaries are depicted on attached Map 8, labeled 'Chung Wah Cemetery Boundaries."

BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION
The boundaries delineated for the Chung Wah cemetery include the area outlined on the 1906 land deed transferring this property to the Chung Wah company for use as a cetnetery. The boundaries encompass the area currently held in trust under the guardianship of George Chan. All related cemetery features are contained within the fenced boundaries.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CIITING WAH CEMETERY
MAPS

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

R E
\ll
t
(:
lll )
'r.ll i- tht
' jg
l('
'!,'
JI;
t
t,
t*
ii8
rtJ ,lorik )
,('
r.,
,r*\',
,l
ll
;ll
I
i' s
rJ ' ,t'
(i
I'
I
I
I l'l
lr
It
(
4 !
ii )
{l'' I
p'l
:

L
Ra \
At
c Illgh
scF
(
{
t
. ::'
tt tt---
. ,,'i '{. Walet
o.i ( tt
).
'I
,.,'
1 r.
-.2 ( lt
.l
li.

FOLSOM, CA
t967, PTIOTORDVISBD 1980

7.s MrNU'rE, SERIES (TOPOGRAPTTTC)
SCALE l:24000
O l MILE
r0oo 0 t00o 2000 3000 4mo 5mo 60m T6oFEET
t *
Map 1. Chung Wah CemeterY

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
t.,.
01 c.t.. 0v
EC
t
b
*
1 ,;
t
t.
?j,'+*r,*;1elr4{e ,tt9
C4
att'Y
Map 2. Location of the Chung Wah Cemetery within the City of Folsorn

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
21 DEC.
21 DEC. t3
FEB.28

GHINESE
wo)
MAR 6
7 MAR.29 APR.

CHINESE CEMETERY
(ChungWah)
IVIap 3. Map of Dredged Land Depicting Chinese Cemeteries (Adapted from Natomas Company 1907-1909; ScreenedAreasand Dates Represent Dredged Lands)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
t66I 'alls
,{la1aura3 qu6 Eunq3lo du61 't dut{
#F
:o
o
t
q,
5 6
##
%.
'lol"
{r
I
(r,
t
o
$
o,
!,
3 !
o
g
o'
orcl

8. 5' x(D
z
ll)
o
3 !)
SE
g
erO
I
{F
oo
6 #
ID
'o:
5 (o
o
eGT
o
o.
oc
ID
D
l
:r
at,
o
tfl
TD
o
o.
fl)
a
-n
o
t
o
o
+FO c
m
a
m
z
ct
tgcl
# E F
m

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Chung Wah Cemetery
"Shrine"
'PILI.AR' CONSTRUCTED OF

MORTARED BRICK WITH

COSBLES ON TOP
I
I
I
I
I
VANDAL

BACKDIFT
PILE
0t2
--l
FT Qca
"PILLAR"
LEGEND
n BRIGK
a BrvER coBsLE
Nl colcnere

ASSUMED CONTINUATION

OFALIGNMENT
VANDAL

EXCAVATED PIT

4.5 FT OEEP
Map 5. Sketch of Chung Wah Cemetery Shrine,1994

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
!r.
oFt
?t
a
\c*
cart
HENAN Jrnrucsu
(
? ANHUI Shanghai
HUBEI
\
.^-J Hangzhou
JIANG
)
C;nxcxt
11U1 EAST CHINA SEA
J
(
(-

GUIZHOU
.\-)-J1^, n-fq HUNAN ( ( f- \\ FUJIAN 4a
L
rf I
GUANGXI -1 TAIWAN
{ GUANGDONGI ) ( r Hongkong Macao I
AREA ENLARGED 'sourH cHrNA sEA
o 1AO 360 54O km
Selected Disfficts Within
Guangdong Province
Adapted from Thomas W. Chinn, et al.' 1969
(Guangzhou)
a
G
o Macao cll Hongkong
|ro*r ru"

4. cHur{GsHAN lxeunesrnri
s.suNwul 16. rorsHAN lsuxNtucl l_"=. ,u" 7. HOIPING I
A. YANPING

1. HAtlHol

2.PUNYU3.SHUHTAK

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
29 55
30 55
31 54
32 53
33 52
23 94
51 22
35 6350
78 36
49 a
n
37 47 48
39 t7 t8
45 25 26 27 28
55 62 6t & 59 58 57
74 75 76 79 80 81 82 83 a
96 95 94 93 92 9t 90 89 88 87 86 85
4 3 2 ,|
24 SIDWEIL ST

SUTIER ST
4t44
97 70 69
15 424371
14 13 12 nJ'
16 7 6
LEIDESDOf,FF ST
FTVER ST ffiffi
PI-AZA
r=!!:,E!FFlli+.{iir$lFil l!i:i.li!:;i;i.i.i:::1ti:I:l
]:t:!]:::l-::+i.::::i.ii*l
(:

LEGEND
A. 'Sam Tuck Co.' {1882) B. 'Chinese Church- (1855-1895+) C.'Chinese Chap€l' (1855-'t895+) D.'You S€s/Yue'Y€€' Tong (1855'1874+) E-'Yono Wa' AssociationF. Yecrig Wo Cemetery G. Chunq Wah Cemetery r.-src- Chinese Disirictca. 1880 Fffir Adddonal Chinese Area posl-1886
R NER

TOWN OF FOLSOM
Ctheo
Map 7. Areas of Chinese Use in Folsom and Association'Owned Property

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

POR. SEC. 2, T 9N., R.7E., M.D.B.AM.
( FnoJ. tvlo naNcuo n,o oF Los aurnrcANos)
48-40
N, ,t' s4't t" \,t, - tl.oo
tt
,@/
t-:
a.t lr(/l
F
it4,
t/t
e\'z'
ss
6;j) l4
,d., t8'
.rrc
,o$' ,"'
0 200 lt
Record a{ Survey,O.S. 8k.48,P9.4O rt t t' et I
-r.i'i-;l-:.'- r:--; Ttl
.aFd:?
it)
t75! N
iil
6 5'dtJ

2.6t6t
o t
9 to
.c

CHINESE
CEMEfEEI
t.,--l',.'
69 s7:

I
.t :.-' 7l
I
N
7 l:g
fz
9 4
I
Lt
I
I
t.
:l
I
t2 tt
5 9
I
\' {'J 2 r\
I
s
!
I
t4 t51 16
I PERSIFER S1:
i'tt.,' |!,'
; ta i s IJ \s
.v:i-_- r .
--. -...'':

I
olz
lrJ:
q
q
()
q
:

I
I
t
NATOMA
6i 5
9B
l7
I
I
.J-
"l- -
I
I
lro
I
I
I
'.q 't'
;
:rr
I
.t
'.r 6
:'
|.
t
7i6r5 4 3.2.
9 ,tO.t, t2 rJ H ,r5 t61,
I
I
r6
I
L
T'
I
t
t ll
,ia
Map 8. Chung Wah Cemetery Boundaries

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NPS Fom 10-900-a
{8-06}
United $tates Department of the lnterior
National Park Seruice
National Register of Historic Places
Gontinuation $heet
Section number Page
oMa Apprcva, No, 1O2Hol8

SUPPIEMENTARY LISTING RECORD
NRfS Reference Nuriber: 95000999 Date Listed: Bl2L/95
Chung TIah Cemetery Sacramento CA
Property Name State
N/a
ME[tipte Name
County
This property is listed in ttre National Register of Eistoric.

Places in accordance with the attaehed nornination documentation subject to the following exceptionE, exclusions, or elmendrnents, notwithstanding the National Park Senrice certification included in the nomination docunrentation. a
I
Amended Items in Nomination:

Significance:

The areas of significance are revised to read: Ethnic
Heritage-Asian and Social History in order to correspond with the site's well-documented traditional cultural use by Local Chinese residents over an extended period.

This information was confirmed with Marilyn Lortie of the California SHPO.

DISTRIBUIION:

National Register property file
Nominating Authority (without nomination attachnent)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CITY OF FOLSOM
HISTORIC PRESE RVATIOI\

MASTERPLAN
November 5, 1998
Draft October 20,1998

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Goals & Objectives
Mission Statement
Ongoing Objectives'
Area of Preservation
Objective Actions
Cultural Resources Inventory
Public Education
Mapping
Identification
Additional Recommendations
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Determining Eligibilify for the City of Folsom
Cultural Resources Inventory
Information Packet for General Distribution
City of Folsom, Cultural Resource'fnventory
and Registration Form
List of Cultural Resources
Map of Cultural Resources
Pags-fi
t
3 4
6 6
7 7
7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Acknowledgements
i
The Historic Preservation Master Plan committee as listed below prepared this document. The committee wishes to thank all of the individuals who assisted in the development and review of this document, especially David Storer, Director of the Deparrment of Planning; Inspection, and Permitting, who provided City staff support to thqcommittee. The committee further wishes to thank"the City Council and former Mayor Glenn Fait for their efforts toward protecting and preserving the rich history of our community. r
Cindy Baker: Historic Residences
Stan Gisler: Folsom Historical Society
Patrick Maxfield: Planning Commission
C.andy Miller: Historical District Commission and Historical Area Architectural Review Commission
Chuck Thurman: Gold Mining History
Dallas Grenley: Friends of the Folsom Powerhouse Association S.ue Mehrten: Cattle Ranching History
To:m Hickey: Folsom Prison Museum
Bob Minshew: Folsom, El Dorado and Sacramento Historical Railroad Association, Pacific Coast Chapter, Railway and Locomotive Historical Society a
a
o
a
a
a
a
a
o
2