Folsom City Council
May 10, 2022

Pollutant Exceed
PMro
PMz.s
Source: SMAQMD 2020b; SMAQMD 2020c
As shown in Table 3, the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SMAQMD daily or annual thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substontial pollutont concentrations? Lessthan Significant. Crematories are a potential source of TACs as a result of trace metals and organic compounds that accumulate in the body and are released during combustion, and trace organic compounds that are formed in the combustion process. An HRA was conducted to determine potential community health risks from exposure to TACs emitted from the proposed crematory, as described in the Methods section above.

Health risks associated with cancerfrom development projects are estimated usingthe incremental excess cancer risk expressed as cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. The incremental excess cancer risk is an estimate of the chance a person exposed to specific sources of a TACs may have of developing cancer from that exposure beyond the individual's risk of developing cancer from existing background levels of pollutants in the ambient air. For context, the average cancer risk from TACs in the ambient air for an individual living in an urban area of California is 830 in 1 million (CARB 2015). Cancer risk estimates do not mean, and should not be interpreted to mean, that a person will develop cancer from estimated exposures to toxic air pollutants.

Health risks associated with chronic and acute effects from a development project are quantified using the maximum hazard index. A hazard index is the potential exposure to a substance divided by the reference exposure level (the level at which no adverse effects are expected). A hazard index of less than one indicates no adverse health effects are expected from the potential exposure to the substance The maximum hazard index is the sum of hazard indices for pollutants with non-cancer health effects that have the same or similar adverse health effects.

The modeled point of maximum impact for the project (geographic point outside of the project site with the highest estimated incremental cancer risk and maximum hazard index) would be a point near the project boundary approximately 96 feet southeast of the proposed crematory exhaust stack, at approximately UniversalTransverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates Zone 10,657982 meters easl,428L757 meters north. The maximum health risk exposure at this point would be a residential incremental cancer risk of 3.2 in 1 million and a residential non-cancer chronic hazard index of 0.09. This point of maximum impact is in an area zoned as Open Space Conservation District containing dredge tailings from past gold mining. No residents or workers are anticipated to be at the point of maximum impact for prolonged periods.

The maximum estimated community incremental excess cancer, chronic and acute health risks due to exposure to the project TAC emissions from long term operation of the proposed crematory are HEL'X
Threshold?
No
No
Envi B nfi e nla! P lati n itt Q

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

presented in Table 4, Moximum Exposed lndividual lncrementol Concer Heolth Risk ond Hazard lndex.

These estimates are conservative (health protective) and assume that the resident or worker is outdoors forthe entire exposure period. The modeled locations of the Maximum Exposed lndividual Resident (MEIR) and the point of maximum impact, along with the residential cancer risk isopleths (contours of equal risk), are shown in Figure 4, Cancer Risks. The complete HRA model output, including tables of health risks for all modeled discrete receptors and isopleth figures for incremental cancer risk, noncancer chronic hazard index and acute hazard index are included as Attachment B to this letter report.

Table 4

MAXIMUM EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL INCREMENTAT CANCER RISK AND HAZARD INDEX MEI Acute
Hazard lndex
Results o.20
Threshold 1
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: Lakes AERMOD View version 9.8.3 and CARB ADMRT version 19121-. See Attachment B for model inputs, outputs, and risk isopleths.

MEI = Maximum Exposed lndividual.

As shown in Table 4, the maximum incremental increased cancer risks and maximum non-cancer chronic and acute hazard index due to exposure to TACs from long term operation of the proposed crematory would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantialTAC concentrations and the impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely offecting o substantial number of people?
Diesel equipment could generate diesel exhaust odors during construction activities. The generation of odors during the construction period would be temporary, would last for a few days and would be dispersed within a short distance from the active work area. Once operational, potential odors from human remains prior to cremation would be minimized by either by immediately processing remains or by temporarily storing remains in the proposed refrigeration chiller. Operation of the crematory would not be a significant source odors or other emissions because the BACTfeatures of the crematory, including process temperature and cycle time controls, and secondary combustion chambers which ensure the complete combustion of all solids, liquids, and gaseous fuels. Therefore, the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people and the impact would be less than significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmenlol Setling
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth includingtemperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Globaltemperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

HELilX
MEI Resident
Cancer Risk
MEI Worker
Cancer Risk
MEI Resident
Chronic Hazard
lndex
MEI Worker
Chronic
Hazard lndex

0.6 in 1 million <0.1 in 1 million o.o2 0.02
10 in 1 million 10 in 1 million 7 1
No No No No
Env i rc il tn e nlal P lail n uig Page 678
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2O2O

These gases are commonly referred to as greenhouse gasses (GHGs) because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with: the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport; electricity generation; natural gas consumption; industrial activity; manufacturing; and other activities such as deforestation, agricultural activity, and solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California's Assembly Bill (AB) 32, described below, include carbon dioxide (COz), methane (CHa), nitrous oxide (NzO), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFs). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its globalwarming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in COze takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only COz were being emitted. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of COze. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), as shown in Table 5, GlobolWarming Potentiolond Atmospheric Lifetimes.

Table 5
GtOBAt WARMING POTENTIAL AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide Nz
HFC-134a
PFC: Tetraflouromethane 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Source: IPCC 2007.

H FC: hydrofluorocarbon; PFC: perfluorocarbon
Reguloiory Setling
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State, regional, and local levels are described below. lmplementation of California's GHG reduction mandates is primarily under the authority of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, SMAQMD and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) at the regional level, and the City at the local level.
1 25
298
HELIX
Enffoan,,nbl Pluntng
50-200
72 114
74 50,000
10,000
3,200
(r;i71r1, 11y I i.,,.1 u 1:1,, 1 r:j;;,, r1
rl
/,,\ ilxrllc trt..l i fr ) 1ii.

I [1,i;1'1 1 1 1, I i{','1,i,1;11 ;))
(iii\yJlr )

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

Executive Order 5-3-05
On June t,2OO5, Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. lt declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO 5-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 20L0, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below L990 levels by 2050. Executive Orders are not laws and can only provide the governor's direction to state agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

Assembly Bill 32 - Globol Worming Solution Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Executive Order B-30- 1 5
On April 29,2015, EO 8-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below L990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California's GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32.

California's new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO 5-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Senote Bill 32
Signed into law by Governor Brown on September 8,20t6, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California's GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO 8-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State's continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO 8-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Colifornio Air Resources Boord
On December LI,2OO8, the CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regionaltransportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project by project basis (CARB 2008).

HEL'X Envlrcnnantal Planning Page 680
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

ln response to EO 8-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. The mid-term target is criticalto help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions (CARB 2Ot4).ln December 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B 30 L5 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017).

Socromento Metropoliton Air Quolity Monogement District The SMAQMD provides direction and recommendations for the analysis of GHG impacts of a project and approach to mitigation measures in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (SMAQMD 2O2Oa).

Socromento Areo Council of Governments
As required by the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), SACOG has developed the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. This plan seeks to reduce GHG and other mobile source emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning to reduce VMT.

City of Folsom
As part of the 2035 General Plan, the City of Folsom prepared an integrated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy (GHG Strategy) to identify and reduce current and future community GHG emissions and those associated with the City's municipal operations. Adopted on August 28,20t8, the GHG Strategy also serves as the City's "plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases", per Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides the opportunity for tiering and streamlining of project-level emissions for certain types of discretionary projects subject to CEQA review that are consistent with the General Plan. The GHG Strategy includes goals and strategies to reduce community and municipal GHG emissions, compared to the 2005 baseline year, by 15 percent in 2020,51- percent in 2035, and 80 percent in 2050 (City 2018a; City 2018b),
Significonce Crileriq
The following potential air quality impacts are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact is identified if the project would result in any of the following:
o) Generote greenhouse gos emissions, either directly or indirectly, that moy have a significont impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an opplicoble plan, policy, or regulotion adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
ln accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15L30(d), and 15183(b), a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of a qualified plan for the reduction of HEL'X
Envltunman|l,l Platfilng Page 681
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

greenhouse gases. The City General Plan Policy NCR 3.2.8 provides criteria for project-level streamlining and tiering (City 2018a):

Projects subject to environmental review under CEQA may be eligible for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions, provided they are consistent with the GHG reduction measures included in the GHG Strategy contained in the General Plan and ElR. The City may review such projects to determine whether the following criteria are met:

Proposed project is consistent with the current general plan land use designation for the project site;
Proposed project incorporates all applicable GHG reduction measures (as documented in the Climate Change Technical Appendix to the General Plan EIR) as mitigation measures in the CEQA document prepared forthe project; and,
Proposed project clearly demonstrates the method, timing and process for which the project will comply with applicable GHG reduction measures and/or conditions of approval, (e.g., using a CAP/GHG reduction measures consistency checklist, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, or other mechanism for monitoring and enforcement as appropriate).

Greenhouse Gos Emissions lmpocl Anolysis
o) Generote greenhouse gos emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may hove o significont impoct on the environment?
Less than significant. To determine consistency with the City's GHG Strategy the criteria outlined in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist are shown and discussed in Table 6, GHG Strotegy Checklist (City 2018c).

Table 6

GHG STRATEGY CONSISTENCY CHECLIST
o
a
a
Checklist ltem Discussion
Port 7: Lqd Use
A. The proposed project is consistent
with the City's 2035 General Plan land
use and zoning designations.
lf "Yes," proceed to Part 2 of the
Checklist.

The project would be located within the footprint
of an existing building in an existing cemetery in
an area designated Open Space in the General
Plan and zoned Open Space and Conservation
District (OSC). According to the City Zoning Code
Chapter 1-1 .39, a cemetery is an allowed use in the
OSC zone with a use permit. While the project may
require a new conditional use permit, the project
would not require a General Plan amendment or
rezone. The project would be consistent with
existing project site use and land use designation
the General Plan.

HELIX En!tr a tiln t ill.tl P lafi n ing Page 682
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

Checklist ltem Consistent?
Port 2: GHG Reduction Measures Consistency
E-1: lmprove Building Energy
Efficien in New Develo ment
E-2: Water Heater Replacement in
Existi Residential Devel ment
E-3: lmprove Building Energy
Efficiency in Existing Development
E-4: lncrease Use of Renewable
Energy in Existing Development
T-1: Reduce VMT Through Mixed and
High-Density Land Use
T-2: lmprove Streets and lntersections
for Multi-Modal Use and Access
T-3: Adopt Citywide TDM Program
T-5: Reduce Minimum Parking
Stand a rds
T-6: Require the Use of HighPerformance Renewable Diesel in Construction Equipment
T-8: lnstall Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations
W-L: lncrease Water Efficiency in New
Residential Development
Discussion
The project does not propose new buildings or
substantial modifications to existin buildings.

The project is not an existing residential development.

The project's proposed equipment would be installed
within an existing metal shed and would not include
conditioned or occu ied buildi
The project's proposed equipment would be installed
within an existing metal shed. No expansion or retrofit of existin buil are
The project does not propose, and the project site open space land use designation and zoning does not permit,
develo ment and mixed uses.

The project does not include construction of new
streets or i rovement to exi streets.

The project is not a residential, office, commercial
retail, public facility or school development. The project would not include new arki ces.

The project would not include new parking spaces.

The project would require minimal off-road diesel
construction equipment. At most, a small excavator or
skid steer loader may be used for a few hours to
re an area for a small concrete d.

The project is not a residential development, does not
propose new parking spaces, and existing parking
ces at the buildin are less than 10
SW-1: lncrease Solid Waste Diversion The project would involve minimal construction activity and would not result in substantial construction waste
which could be diverted.

The project is not a new residential development and
the project does not propose new indoor or outdoor
water uses.

W-2: Reduce Outdoor Water Use The project does not propose substantial addition, alteration, or expansion to existing facilities or new
outdoor water uses.

Source: City 2018c
As discussed in Table 6, the project would be consistent with the project site general plan land use designation and none of the GHG reduction measures listed in the GHG Strategy are applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City's GHG Strategy and the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant.

HEL//X
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Exvi $ n tneslal P lan ni ng Page 683
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2O2O

b) Conflict with on applicoble plon, policy, or regulation odopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant. As discussed in criterion a), above, the project would be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy. The GHG strategy was developed to meet the City's GHG reduction targets which were formulated to meet the statewide GHG mandates of AB 32 and SB 32.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.

SUMMARY
The project's emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would be below SMAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. Community health risks resulting from emissions of TACs from the project's operation of a crematory were evaluated in an HRA following OEHHA guidelines.

Project TAC emissions would not result in increased health risks beyond the SMAQMD thresholds and the impact would be less than significant. The project would not be a substantial source of objectional odors and odor impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not conflict an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.

Sincerely,
4"brA n.EGlrMartin Rolph
Air Quality Specialist
Victor Ortiz
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:

Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2: Detailed Site Plan
Figure 3: Receptor Locations
Figure 4: Cancer Risk
Attachment A: Emissions Calculation Sheets
Attachment B: HRA Model Output
Attachment C: Addendum to the Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
HEL'X Envlrcnmental Plenfilng Page 684
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2O2O

REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January Available at: https ://www.arb.ca.sov / cc/ s neolan/2O30so oo final.odf 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. Available at https ://www.a rb. ca.sov/toxics/rmalrm gssat. pdf .
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan - A Framework for Change. December. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.eov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-chanee-scooing-plan/2008-scopingplan-documents. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
https ://www.arb.ca.eov/ch/ha nd book. pdf .

Folsom, City of. 2OL8a.2035 General Plan. Adopted August 28. Available at:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/communitv/plannine/general plan/2035 general plan.asp. 2018b. 2035 General Plan Appendix A - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy Ava i la ble at: https ://www.fo lsom.ca. us/civicaxfi lebank/blobdload.asox?blobid=34205 2018c. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Consistency Checklist. Available at:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/documents/Planning/Folsom_G HG_Reduction_Checklist_FlNAL. pdf lowa Environmental Mesonet. 2019. Sacramento Executive Airport Wind Rose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.asron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=SAC&network=CA ASOS. lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at:
htt ps ://www. i pcc.ch/re po rtla r4lws U.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2006. OSHA Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Hexavalent Chromium. Available at:
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data General Facts/hexavalent chromium.pdf.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oeh ha.ca.gov/airlcrnr/notice-adoption-a ir-toxics-hot-spots-progra m-Ru ida nce-m a nua lprepa ration-hea lth-risk-0.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2O2Oa. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Revised April. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orelResidents/CEQA-Land-Use-Plannine/CEQA-Guidance-Tools. 202Ob. Electronic communications between HELIX Environmental Planning (Victor Ortiz) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Venk Reddy); attachments to communications containing crematory emissions calculations. August and November.

HEL'X Efi v l. o D m enlel P lanni ng Page 685
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson
December 4,2020

2O2Oc. SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table. April. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orslLandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020. pdf. 2017. Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. July. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orelProeramCoordination/Documents/Sac%20Reeional%202008%20NAA QS%20Atta i nment%20a nd%20RFP%20P la n. pdf .
2014. AERMOD meteorological data files. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orslbusinesses/ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. Health Effects of Exposures to Mercury. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mercurv/health-effects-exposures-mercury. Accessed November 2020 2008. AP 42,Fiflh Edition, Volume lChapter 1: ExternalCombustion Sources, 1.5 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion. Available at: https://www.epa.eov/sites/productionfiiles/2020- O9/documents/l.5 liouefied petroleum sas combustion.pdf.

HEL'X Fnvlr o n m 6nl dl Plen n I n g

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
source: Base Map Layers
HEL'X Regionql Locqlion
7 z
2 (
Project Site

EL DORADO YOLO

SACRAMENTO SOLANO

SAN JOAQUIN
AMADOR

CALAVERAS
SUTTER pLACER,.
clT
HE
'rnini.ffin$t#tiw -..**'
Project Site
M@
0 1 Miles
Envi ronmental P lanning
Figure 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
LEV Designs 2020
Deloiled Site Plon
Sp
(N) 2 X 5OO GALLON PROPANE TANKS
P
d-- +scs,
6o, @il -/
LEGEND:
(E) STRUCTURE
-, q2 Lb\'-
r.''
EAIOB
a
(E) STRUCTURE
o
ie
: - t?
I,to
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I\,\
/\,\
_l \
Ql +l \ Fl\ ol \
t\
1\ l\
I
I
I
,'
I
I
I -"/
{'
(E) SHED
HEL'X
Env i r o n n e ntal P I an n i n g
Figure 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

O project Boundary
* Crematorium Location
Q commercial Receptor
C Residential Receptor
Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)
0 300 Feet
HEL'X Receplor Locqlions
3 (
e
Envi r o n m ental P I an n i n g
{
Figure 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
@ Prolect Boundary
* Crematorium Location
C Point of Maximum lmpact
O Maximum Exposed lndividual Resident
Risk lsopleth
w 2 in 1 million Risk
-
1 in 1 million Risk
Folsom Lakeside Crematorium
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)
HEL'X Concer Risks
3 0 300 Feet
Envi ronmental P lan ning
Figure 4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attochment A
Emissions Colculotion Sheets

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Crematory Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Emissions from Propane Combustion
KBTU/Cvcle 1,800
KBTU/Gallon 91.502
Gallons/Cvcle 19.672
Cvcles/Dav 2
Cvcles/Year 500
Emissions from Combustion of Human Remains
lbs/day lbs/vr
Maximum
Throushput 400 100,000
TotalEmissions
Pollutant
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
Emissions
(tons/vear)
ROG 0.1 0.01
NOx 7.2 0.15
SOx 0.4 0.05
PMlO 0.3 0.03
PM2.5 0.3 0.03
co 0.9 0.11
Notes:

L. Emissions factors for propane from USEPA AP-42 Chapter 1, External Combustion Sources, Section L.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion, Table L.5-1.

2. Emissions from combustion of human remains provided by SMAQMD and are from USEPA Factor lnformation REtrieval (FIRE) Program Data System (3/08).

3. ROG fraction of TOC for propane combustion unavailable, ROG assumed to be equal to TOC.

Pollutant
Emission Factor
Ilhc/t nnn oallx
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
Emissions
{tons/vearl
ROG3 1 0.04 0.005
NOx 13 0.51 0.064
SOx 0.054 0.00 0.000
PMlO 0.7 0.03 0.003
PM2.54 o.7 0.03 0.003
co 7.5 0.30 0.037
Pollutant
Emission Factor
{lbs/ton)2
Emissions
{lbs/dav'l
Emissions
Itons/vear)
ROG o.299 0.06 0.007
NOx 3.560 0.77 0.089
SOx 2.170 0.43 0.054
PMlO 1.130 0.23 0.028
PM2.54 1.130 0.23 0.028
co 2.950 0.59 0.074

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Substance Test Results (in lbs/lbs charge)l lbs/hr lbs/year Acetaldehvde 3.64E-07 7.27E-05 3.64E-02
Arsenic 2.52E-07 5.04E-05 2.52E-02
Benzene 1.77E-07 3.54E-05 7.77E-02
Bervllium 1.14E-08 2.28E-06 1.148-03
Cadmium 8.59E-08 1.72E-05 8.s9E-03
Chromium (Hex) 9.57E-08 1.91E-05 9.57E-03
Copper 2.77E-07 4.34E-05 2.77E-O2
Formaldehyde 9.50E-08 1.90E-05 9.50E-03
Hvdrogen Fluoride 4.01E-06 8.02E-04 4.01E-01
Lead 5.77E-O7 1.03E-04 5.17E-02
Mercurv2 2.77E-05 4.16E-03 2.77E+OO
Nickel 2.99E-07 5.98E-05 2.99E-02
Selenium t.72E-07 3.44E-05 1.72E-02
Toluene 5.73E-06 1.15E-03 5.73E-01
Vinvl Chloride 1.85E-08 3.70E-06 1.85E-03
Xylenes 9.53E-08 1.93E-05 9.63E-03
Zinc 2.76E-O6 5.51E-04 2.76E-Ot
Total PAHs 2.64E-08 5.28E-06 2.64E-03
BenzoIa] anthracene 6.67E-77 1.33E-08 6.67E-06
BenzoIa]pVrene 2.458-L0 4.90E-08 2.45E-05
BenzoJblfluoranthene 5.61E-11 7.72E-O8 5.61E-06
Benzo Iklfl uora nthen e s.06E-11 1.01E-08 5.05E-06
Chrvsene 3.49E-10 6.98E-08 3.49E-05
Dibenzola,hl anth racene 4.52E-tI 9.04E-09 4.52E-O6
ldeno[1,2,3,-cdl pvrene 5.39E-11 1.08E-08 5.39E-06
Total PCDDs 1.50E-10 3.00E-08 1.50E-05
2,3,7,8-TCDD 5.11E-13 1.02E-10 5.11E-08

1.2,3,7,8-PeCDD 7.498-12 2.98E-10 7.49E-07

1.2.3,4,7,8-HxCDD r.77E-12 3.54E,10 1.77E-07

1.2.3.6,7,8-HxCDD 2.55E-72 5.10E,10 2.55E-07
1,2.3,7,8.9-HxCDD 3.t6E-r2 6.32E-10 3.16E-07

1.2,3.4.6.7.8-HoCDD 2.42E-tt 4.84E-09 2.42E-O6
Total PCDFs 2.37E-70 4.61E-08 2.31E-05
2,3,7,8-TCDF 3.43E-72 6.86E-10 3.43E-07
I,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 7.91E-r2 3.81E-10 7.91E-O7
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF s.82E-r2 1.16E-09 5.82E-07
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 6.78E-12 7.24E 09 6.18E-07
7,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 5.49E-12 1.10E-09 5.49E-07
7,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 7.07E-rr 2.15E-09 1.07E-06
2,3,4,6,7 ,8-HxCDF 2.238-12 4.45E-70 2.23E-07
I,2,3,4,6,7,9-HICDF 2.94E-77 5.89E-09 2.948-06

7.2,3,4,7,8,9-HoCDF t.79E-72 3.58E-10 7.79E-O7

CREMATORY TAC EMISSIONS
Max hourly throuehput (lbs) 200
Max annual throughput (lbs) 100,000
Notes:

1. Emissions factors provided by SMAQMD and are from CARB Test Report No. C-90- 004, Evaluation Test on Two Propane-Fired Crematories at Camellia Memorial Lawn Cemetery (Oct. 29, 7992).

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attochment B
HRA Model Output

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Residential Cancer Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc v19044 t7/20/2O209:!7:O7 AM - Cancer Risk
REC
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R15
R17
R17
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R24
R25
R25
R2l
R28
R29
R30
R31
R32
R33
R34
R35
R36
R37
GRP
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL

NETID X
658172
658204.3
658177.6
658227
658216.2
658211..2
658184,6
658186.7
658189.5
6581_94.3
658196.8
658103.2
658071.8
658050.4
558051.7
658043.1
658012.3
658000.9
657988.3
657977
557966.5
657954.9
657944.2
557933.3
657921..4
657910.8
657900.6
657888.2
657811.8
657866.5
557855.3
557844.1
657832.5
657820.3
657808
657791..5
657764

Y RISK SUM SCENARIO
1-.30E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH 3to70

9.77 E-OB 30YrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH 3to70
]'O2E-07 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

6.15E-08 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

6.25E-08 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

6.15E-08 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

7. 50E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH3to70

7.55E-08 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

7.98E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH 3to70

8.82E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH 3to70

9.45E-08 3OYrCancerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

4.65E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

5.80E-07 30YrCancerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

5.87 E-07 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

5.62E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH3to70

5.2IE-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH 3to70

4.88E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH 3to70

4.1 7 E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

4.58E-07 30YrCancerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

4.42E-07 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

4.25E-O7 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

4.LOE-O7 30YrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH3to70

4.07 E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH3to70

4.I7 E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH 3to70

4.44E-07 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

4.80E-07 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

4.93 E-07 3OYrCancerDerived-l nh-FAH 3to70

4.44E-07 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

3.79E-O7 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

2.97 E-O7 30YrCa ncerDerived_l nh_FAH3to70

2.28E-07 30YrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH3to70
L.73E-07 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70
L.34E-07 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

1.06E-07 30YrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

8.38E-08 3OYrCancerDerived_lnh_FAH3to70

6.80E-08 3OYrCa ncerDerived_l n h_FAH 3to70

4.64E-O8 3OYrCancerDerived lnh FAH3to70
4281577
4281.599
428168L
428173t
428L738
428t758
428t790
4281798
4281.81.6
4281838
4281851
428t928
428L960
4281973
4281986
428L998
4281990
428t983
428t975
428!966
4281958
4281949
428L940
428L932
4281923
428L9L4
4281906
4281897
4281889
4281880
428L872
428L863
4281854
4281845
428t834
4281834
4281.874

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLEj
Residential lncremental Cancer Risk
o
oo
N
6 N
ri
oc) ol
F(\rf
E8
!@
O\t z
=F
-to
t\
coNt
o
o(o
6 C\ $
o
6 ro
@t!t
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300

0.5 1.0 2,0 5.0
CO[/lMENTS:

Risk in chances per million
SOURCES:
1 COIVIPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:

Risk
SCALE: 1:4,963
0l----- I0.1 km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Residential Chronic Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v!9O44 LI/2O/2O20 9:!8:L4 AM - Chronic Risk

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO
R1 ALL 658172 4281577 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R2 ALL 658204.3 4281599 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R3 ALL 658lll.6 4281681. NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R4 ALL 65822t 428773L NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R5 ALL 6582L6.2 428L738 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R6 ALL 65821,7.2 4281758 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R7 ALL 6581-84.6 428I79O NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R8 ALL 558186.7 4281798 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R9 ALL 558189.5 4281816 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R10 ALL 658194.3 4281838 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R11 ALL 658196.8 428785t NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R12 ALL 558L03.2 4281928 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R13 ALL 658071.8 428t96O NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R14 ALL 658060.4 428L973 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R15 ALL 658051.7 4281986 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R16 ALL 658043.1 428L998 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R17 ALL 658012.3 4281990 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R17 ALL 658000.9 428t983 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R19 ALL 657988.3 4281975 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R20 ALL 657977 4281966 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R21 ALL 657966.5 4281958 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R22 ALL 657954.9 4281949 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R23 ALL 657944.2 428L940 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R24 ALL 657933.3 428t932 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R25 ALL 657921.4 428L923 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R26 ALL 657910.8 428L9L4 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R27 ALL 657900.6 428t9O6 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R28 ALL 657888.2 4281897 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R29 ALL 657877.8 4281889 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R30 ALL 657866.5 4281880 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R31 ALL 657855.3 428t872 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R32 ALL 657844.1, 4281853 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R33 ALL 657832.5 4281854 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R34 ALL 657820.3 4281845 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R35 ALL 657808 4281834 NonCancerChronicDerived-lnh
R36 ALL 65779L.5 4287834 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnh
R37 ALL 657764 428L814 NonCancerChronicDerived lnh
MAXHI

3.62E-03

2.72E-03

2.85E-03
!.71E-03

1..74E-03
L.7LE-03

2.08E-03

2.10E-03

2.22E-03

2.45E-03

2.53E-03

1.29E-02

1.51E-02

1.63E-02

1.56E-02
r.45E-02

1.36E-02

1.33E-02

1.27E-02
L.23E-02

1.18E-02
r.t4E-02
L.t3E-02

1.16E-02
r.23E-02
1,.34E-02

1.37E-02

1..23E-02

1.05E-02

8.27E-03

6.34E-03

4.81E-03

3.72E-03

2.95E-03

2.33E-03

1.89E-03

1.29E-03

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLE:

Residential Maximum Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard lndex
o
o
c\I
cO(\{
oo()
(\l
@N
rt
oo(')
@C\t
E
ots z@
=oF e.l Frt
=
oof.-
@
N
$
o
(o
N.ri
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300

0.020 0 050 0 100
COIVIIVENTS:

Risk in maximum hazard index
SOLJRCES:
,l

COIMPANY NAME
HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:

Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,808
0---
-t0.1
km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Worker Cancer Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v19044 n/2A/2O20 8:5L:22 AM - Cancer Risk

REC GRP NETID X Y RISK-SUM
c1 ALL 65828t.4 4281574 1.04E-08
c2 ALL 6s8296.2 428158s 9.41E-09
c2 ALL 658208.6 4281691. 1.30E-08
c4 ALL 6582L7.1 428L9LA 2.02E-O8

SCENARIO
25YrCa ncerDerived_l n hSoilDerm
25YrCancerDerived_l nhSoilDerm
25YrCancerDerived_l nhSoilDerm
25YrCancerDerived_l nhSoilDerm

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLE:

Worker lncremental Cancer Risk
o
o(f
c! @
a{ $
o
oo)
@C\t $
'FoEo
LNO<r z
F
lf <>o
t.-
@
c.l $
o(>(o
@
c{.$
o<>|r)
@
cq$
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
6581 00 658200 658300

0.1 00 0.500
COIMN4ENTS:

Risk in chances per million
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT ryPE:

Risk
SCALE: 1:4,963
0 t-- --.f 0.1 km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Sottware

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Worker Chronic Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc vL9044 77/20/2020 8:52:49 AM - Chronic Risk
REC
c1
C2
c2
c4
GRP
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL

NETID X
658281.4
658295.2
558208.6
658217.r

Y SCENARIO
428157 4 N o n Ca n ce rCh ron i c De rive d_l n hS oi I D e rm 4281585 NonCancerChronicDerived_lnhSoilDerm
428169 t N o n Ca n ce rCh ron i c De rive d_l n hSoi I D e rm 42819t0 N onCa n cerChron icDerived I n hSoi I Derm
MAXHI
8,37E-03

7.57E-O3

1.05E-02

1.62E-O2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLE:

Worker Maximum Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
oo
(\l o(\st
oo
o(\l
cO(\t t
(f
o
a
€(\t{
E
c
o5z@
FRFst f,
ooF
co
C! t
(t
o(o
cof\t <i
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [mJ
658100 658200 658300

0.050 0.100 0.500
COMMENTS:

Risk in maximum hazard index
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:

Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,808
0t-- --t0.1 km
MAX: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Acute Risk
*HARP
- HRACalc vt90441.1./20/2020 8:38:30 AM - Acute Risk

REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO
R1 ALL 658t72 4281571 NonCancerAcute
R2 ALL 658204.3 428t599 NonCancerAcute
R3 ALL 658177.6 428L681, NonCancerAcute
R4 ALL 658227 428t731 NonCancerAcute
R5 ALL 6582L6.2 4281738 NonCancerAcute
R6 ALL 6582tL.2 4281758 NonCancerAcute
R7 ALL 558184.5 4281790 NonCancerAcute
R8 ALL 658186.7 4281798 NonCancerAcute
R9 ALL 658189.5 428I8t6 NonCancerAcute
R10 ALL 658194.3 4281,838 NonCancerAcute
R1-1 ALL 658196.8 4281851 NonCancerAcute
R12 ALL 558103.2 4287928 NonCancerAcute
R13 ALL 658071.8 4287960 NonCancerAcute
R14 ALL 658060.4 4287973 NonCancerAcute
R15 ALL 658051.7 4281986 NonCancerAcute
R16 ALL 658043.1 428L998 NonCancerAcute
R17 ALL 658012.3 4281990 NonCancerAcute
R17 ALL 658000.9 4281983 NonCancerAcute
R19 ALL 657988.3 428t975 NonCancerAcute
R20 ALL 657977 428L966 NonCancerAcute
R2L ALL 557965.5 4281958 NonCancerAcute
R22 ALL 657954.9 428t949 NonCancerAcute
R23 ALL 657944.2 4281940 NonCancerAcute
R24 ALL 657933.3 428!932 NonCancerAcute
R25 ALL 65792L.4 4281923 NonCancerAcute
R26 ALL 557910.8 428I9L4 NonCancerAcute
R27 ALL 657900.6 428t9O6 NonCancerAcute
R28 ALL 657888.2 4281897 NonCancerAcute
R29 ALL 657877.8 4281889 NonCancerAcute
R30 ALL 657856.5 4281880 NonCancerAcute
R31 ALL 557855.3 4281872 NonCancerAcute
R32 ALL 557844.7 4281863 NonCancerAcute
R33 ALL 657832.5 4281854 NonCancerAcute
R34 ALL 657820.3 4281,845 NonCancerAcute
R35 ALL 657808 4281,834 NonCancerAcute
R36 ALL 65779t.5 4281834 NonCancerAcute
R37 ALL 657764 42818L4 NonCancerAcute
C1 ALL 658281.4 4281574 NonCancerAcute
C2 ALL 658296.2 4281585 NonCancerAcute
C2 ALL 658208.6 428169t NonCancerAcute
C4 ALL 6582I7.L 428t9t0 NonCancerAcute
MAXHI

7.2tE-A2

6.97E-02

9.50E-02

8.54E-02

8.64E-O2

8.93E-02

1.03E-01

1.06E-01

9.55E-02

9.39E-02

9.03E-02

1.08E-01

1.16E-01
t.t4E-ot

1.11E-01

1.07E-01

1.15E-01
L.2tE-Ot

1.25E-01

1.33E-01
L.44E-O'J.

1.53E-01

1.59E-01
L.72E-Or
L.74E-O1
1_.82E-01

1.92E-01
t.7gE-Ot
'J..t9E-O1.

1.79E-01

1..67E-01.
1_.66E-01

7.62E-Or

1.98E-01

1.78E-01

1.57E-01

7.L7E-Or

5.58E-02

5.51E-02

8.41E-02

7.37E-O2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PROJECT TITLE:

Non-Cancer Acute Maximum Hazard Index
oo
o(\I
o
c\l rf
C) o(t)
6 6l +
trc*cO€5b$z
=F
rg
IE(\l t
oo(o
aOAI +
oorO
o(\t
657700 657800 657900 658000
UTM East [m]
658100 658200 658300

0.20 1,00
COMMENTS:

Risk in maximum hazard index
SOURCES:
1 COMPANY NAME:

HELIX Environmental Planning
RECEPTORS:
3541
OUTPUT TYPE:

Hazard lndex
SCALE: 1:4,963
0 t- --- I0.1 km
MAx: DATE:
11t21t2020
PROJECT NO.:
coF-32
AERMOD View - Lakes EnMronmental Software

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
[sAc] SACRAM ENTO/EXECUTIV
Windrose Plot [All Year]
Period of Record: 0L Jan 1970 - L4 Jan 20Lg
N

6.1 N-W
w
SW $E Summary
n: 444759
Missing: 17816
Calm: 20.6%
Generated: 14 Jan 2019 s Avg Speed: 6.6 mph
Wind Speed lmphl
;I z-r I s-r 5 z-ro @ffi ro-rs I u-zo I zo+
N-E
E
., 4.9
-- .3.7
--2.4
2 t'
I
I
l
t
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
j
I
I
I
I

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Gontrol Pathway
Titles
C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\ Dispersion Options
[l Regulatov Default l_L Non-Default Options
Dispersion Coefficient
Rural
Output Type
IEL Concentration
fl rotut Deposition (Dry & Wet)
E oo DePosition
fl wet Deposition
Plume Depletion
E ooRemoval
fl wet Removat
Output Warnings
E *o output warnings
l-L Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Options
Pollutant / Avera tn Time / Terrain O ons
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 1
AERMOD
Terrain Height Options
fl nat m Etevated
Exponential Decay
Option not available
SO: Meters
RE: Meters
TG: Meters
Pollutant Type
OTHER. MULTIPLE
Averaging Time Options
Hours trtrt] trtrtrtrtr
1 tr tr
2 34
Month
6 I 1224
Period l--L Annual il
[|ves E*o
Default Height = 1.20 m
Flagpole Receptors
11t2112020 Page 706
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Control Pathway
Optional Files
l-l ne-Start ril" l_L tnitrile l-l Mufti-YearAnalyses l_L EventlnputFile tr Error Listing File Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.err
AERMOD
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 2 11t21t2020 Page 707 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Source Pathway - Source lnputs
Point Sources
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1
AERMOD
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Release
Height
lml
Emission
Ratels/sl
Gas Exit Gas Exit
Velocity
lm/sI
Stack lnside
Diameter
lml
X Coordinate
lml
Y Coordinate
Iml
Temp.

IKI
657967.00
Stack
4281782.00 50.33 5.97 1.00000 855.37 4.47 0.5'l
Source
ID
STACKl
Source
TyPe
POINT

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Source Pathway
Source lD: STACK,I
Heights [m] (r0 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
'130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44

3.44 3.44
Widths [m] (10 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg

12.51 14.85

16.66 12.51

14.85 16.66

10.24 16.22

17.25 10.24

16.22 17.25

7.65 17.10

17.31 7.65

17.10 17.31

8.26 17.46

16.84 8.26

17.46 16.84

10.81 17.29

15.87 10.81

17.29 15.87

13.03 16.59

14.41 13.03

16.59 14.41
Lengths [mt (10 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
130-180 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
31 0-360 deg

17.46 '16.84

8.26 17.46

16.84 8.26

17.29 15.87
't0.81

17.29 15.87

10.81 16.59

14.41 't3.03

16.59 14.41

13.03 16.66

12.51 14.85

16.66 12.51

14.85 17.25

10.24 16.22

17.25 10.24

16.22 17.31

7.65 17.10

17.31 7.65

17.10 Along Flow [m] (10 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
1 30-1 80 deg
190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg
-15.63
-12.12
-0.93
-1.82
-4.72
-7.34
-15.49
-10.58
-1.1 9
-1.79
-5.29
-9.63
-14.88
-8.72
-1.41
-1.71
-5.69
-11.62
-14.41
-6.59
-1.59
-2.26
-5.92
-13.26
-14.47
-4.26
-1.72
-3.18
-5.97
-14.50
-'t3.30
-1.81
-1.80
-4.01
-5.84
-15.30
Across Flow lml (10 to 360 deg)
10-60 deg
70-120 deg
130-180 deg
'190-240 deg
250-300 deg
310-360 deg

0.34 -5.84
-6.08
-0.34

5.84 6.08
-0.85
-6.39
-5.44

0.85 6.39

5.44 -2.02
-6.75

4.64 2.02

6.75 4.64
-3.21
-6.90
-3.70

3.21 6.90

3.70 -4.22
-6.85
-2.65

4.22 6.85

2.65 -5.',!1
-6.59
-1.5't

5.'11

6.59 1.51
AERMOD
Building Downwash lnformation
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 1 11t21t2020 Page 709 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Source Pathway
For Concentration
Unit Factor:

Emission Unit Label:

Concentration Unit Label
1E6

GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Emission Rate Units for Output
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 2
AERMOD
11t21t2020 Page 710
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (lf applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (lf applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Gartesian Receptors
project File: ClUsers\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 1 1112112020 Receptor Grid Origin
X Coordinate Network lD lml
UCARTI 657622.00
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate lml
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis [m]
Spacing for
Y'Axis [ml
4281537.00 70 50 10.00 10.00
Record
Number X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m]
Group Name
(Optional) Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
1 2
3 4
5 b
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
658'171 .99
658204.25
658177.63
658220.99
658216.22
65821 1.1 5
658184.55
658186.65
658189.46
658194.31
658'196.77
658103.22
658071.77
658060.39
658051.68
658043.07
65801 2.30
658000.94
657988.34
657977.03
657966.52
657954.91
657944.16
657933.29
657921.43
657910.81
4281576.80
4281599.32
4281680.58
4281730.59
4281737.74
4281758.13
4281789.89
4281798.48
4281816.10
4281838.45
4281 850.98
4281927.78
4281959.88
4281973.04
4281985.75
4281 998.03
4281 989.53
4281982.74
4281974.95
4281966.32
4281958.41
4281949.27
4281940.37
4281931.72
4281922.83
4281913.81

56.25 56.72

56.34 57.89

58.30 58.69

58.01 58.07

58.09 58.23

58.27 55.35

54.86 54.92

55.07 55.31

53.82 53.45

53.12 52.45

51.82 51.24

50.78 50.35

49.89 49.47

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Receptor Pathway
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 657900.56
657888.20
657877.82
657866.46
657855.34
657844.10
657832.49
657820.26
657807.97
657791.51
657763.95
658281.43
658256.17
658208.56
658217.08
AERMOD
4281 905.53
4281897.13
428'1 889. 1 0
4281879.84
4281872.06
4281863.28
4281853.90
4281845.37
4281834.37
4281834.17
4281813.59
4281574.43
4281585.05
4281 690.93
4281910.37

49.05 48.45

47.97 47.51

47.00 46.48

46.03 45.60

45.10 44.60

43.54 57.67

58.20 56.99

58.57 Plant Boundary Receptors
Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software REI - 2 1112112020 Page 712 05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met lnput Data
Surface Met Data
Filename: ..\Exec 10-14 NlMD.SFC
Format Type: Default AERMET format
Profile Met Data
Filename: ..\Exec 10-14 NlMD.PFL
Format Type: Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
fl wina Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]
Potential Temperatu re Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 10.00 lml Meteorological Station Data
Stations Station No Year X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m] Station Name Surface
UpperAir
2010
2010

SACRAMENTO/EXECUTIVE ARPT

OAKLANDA/VSOAP
Data Period
Data Period to Process
Start Date: 11112010 Start Hour: 1 End Date: 1213112014 End Hour: 24 Wind Speed Gategories
Stability Category Wind Speed [m/sl Stability Category Wind Speed [m/sl A
B
c

1.54 3.09

5.14 D
E
F

8.23 10.8
No Upper Bound
project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes'isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 11t21t2020

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Output Pathway
Short Term
Averaging
Period

RECTABLE
Highest Values Table

MAXTABLE
Maximum
Values Table

DAYTABLE
Daily
Values Table
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1 oth
1 tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr I tr No
Tabular Pri nted Outputs
Contour Plot Files (PLoTFILE)
Path for PLOTFILES: COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.AD Project File: C:\Users\mdrol\Desktop\COF-32 HRA\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes\COF-32 Lakeside Crematorium Lakes.isc AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software OU - 1
AERMOD
Averaging
Period
Source
Group lD
High
Value File Name
1 Period
ALL
ALL
1st
NiA
Ol Hl GALL.PLT
PEOOGALL.PLT

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

HARP Project Summary Reporttl/2t12020 10:12:35 AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 19121
Project Name: COF-32 LAKESIDE CREMATORIUM HARP
HARP Database: NA
*+*EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:39
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrlD StklD ProlD PollD PolAbbrev Multi
75070 Acetaldehyde
71432 Benzene
7440417 Beryllium
7440439 Cadmium
18540299 Cr(Vl)
7440508 Copper
50000 Formaldehyde
7664393 HF
7439927 lead
7439976 Mercury
7440020 Nickel
7782492 Selenium
108883 Toluene
75014 Vinyl Chloride
L330207 Xylenes
7440666 Tinc
56553 B[a]anthracene
s0328 BlalP
205992 B Ib]f I uora nthen
207089 BIk]fluoranthen
218019 Chrysene
53703 Dla,hlanthracen
19339s ln[1,2,3-cd]pyr
t746016 2,3,7,8-TCDD
4032L764 1-3,7,8PeCDD
39227286 1-4,7,8HxCDD
57653857 1-3,6-8HxCDD
I94O8743 1-3,7-9HxCDD
35822469 1-4,6-3HpCDD
51207319 2,3,7,8-TCDF
57II7416 1-3,7,8PeCDF
57tt73L4 2-4,7,9PeCDF
70648269 1-4,7,8HxCDF
57t17449 1-3,6-8HxCDF
7 291.8219 1-3,7-9 HxCDF
60851345 2-4,6-SHxCDF
67562394 1-4,6-8HpCDF
55673897 1-4,7-9HpCDF
7440382 Arsenic
MaxHr Ems MWAF
(lbs/hr)

7.27E-05

3.54E-05

2.28E-06
L.72E-O5

1.91E-05

4.34E-05

1.90E-05

0.000802

0.000103

0.00416

5.98E-05

3.44E-05

0.00115

3.70E-06

1.93E-05

0.000551

1.33E-08

4.90E-08

1.12E-08

1.01E-08

6.98E-08

9.04E-09

1.08E-08

1.02E-10

2.98E-10

3.54E-10

5.10E-10

6.32E-10

4.84E-09

6.86E-10

3.81E-10

1.16E-09

7.24E-09

1.10E-09

2.15E-09

4.45E'L0

5.89E-09

3.58E-10

5.04E-05
Annual Ems
(lbs/yd
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
sTACK1
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl.

STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKl
STACKlSTACKl
STACKl
t
L
1 t
L
t
L

1. 1
1 7
I
L
t
l7
1 1,
1 1
L
I
I
1 t
7 1
1 t
1 t

1. L
T
I
1 1
7 t
T
t
t
1,
1,
1 t
1 1.

I
1 1
L
1 1
1 1
1 t
I
T
1 L
7 t

1. 1
T
1 L
t
1 1
t
1 L
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.0364
o.0177

0.00114

0.00859

0.00957

0.0217

0.0095

0.401

0.0517

2.77 0.0299
o.0172

0.573

0.00185

0.00963
o.276

6.67E-06

2.45E-05

5.61E-06

5.06E-06

3.49E-05

4.52E-06

5.39E-06

5.11-E-08

7.49E-07
\.77E-07

2.55E-07

3.1-6E-07

2.42E-06

3.43E-O7

1.91E-07

5.82E-O7

5.18E-07

5.49E-07

1.07E-06

2.23E-07

2.94E-06
L.79E-07
o.0252

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\H EALTH 17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH19252
Official: True
PollD PolAbbrev
75070 Acetaldehyde
71432 Benzene
7440477 Beryllium
7440439 Cadmium
18s40299 Cr(Vl)
744O5Og Copper
50000 Formaldehyde
7664393 HF
743992L lead
7439976 Mercury
7440020 Nickel
7782492 Selenium
108883 Toluene
75014 Vinyl Chloride
t330207 Xylenes
7440666 Zinc
56553 B[a]anthracene
50328 BlalP
205992 B [b]fl uora nthen
207089 Blklf luoranthen
2L8019 Chrysene
53703 Dla,hlanthracen
193395 ln[1,2,3-cd]pyr
1746016 2,3,7,g-TCDD
40321764 1-3,7,8PeCDD
39227286 1-4,7,8HxCDD
57653857 1-3,6-SHxCDD
19408743 1-3,7-9HxCDD
35822469 1-4,6-8HpCDD
51207319 2,3,7,g-TCDF
57!t74L6 1-3,7,8PeCDF
57tt7314 2-4,7,8PeCDF
70648269 t-4,7,8HxCDF
57L17449 1-3,6-SHxCDF
729t8279 1-3,7-9HxCDF
60851345 2-4,6-8HxCDF
67562394 1-4,6-3HpCDF
55673897 I-4,7-9HpCDF
7440382 Arsenic
lnhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL

0.01 0.1

8.4 15
510 0.5

0.021

0.042 0.0085

0.91 0.27
lnhChronicREL OralChronicREL
470 L40
273

0.007

0.o2

0.2 I nhChronicSHRREL
300
3 L00
55 240

0.6 0.2

0.03 0.014
20 300
700

0.002

0.0005

0.02 0.04

0.00016

0.011

0.00s

0.06 0.06
9 74
9 0.39

3.9 0.39

0.39 0.039

4.t

0.39 130000
130000
13000
13000
13000
L300
13000
3900
39000
13000
13000
13000
13000
1300
1300
72 1,.2
72 t.2
L.2

0.L2

4.1 t.2
130000
130000
13000
13000
13000
1300
L3000
3900
39000
13000
13000
13000
L3000
1300
1300

1.5 37000
180000
22000
o.2

4.00E-05

4.00E-05

0.0004

0.0004

0.0004

0.004

0.0004

0.0013

0.00013

0.0004

0.0004

0.0004

0.0004

0.004

0.004

0.015

1.00E-08

1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-07

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-07

3.30E-07

3.30E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-07

1.00E-07

1.00E-07

1.00E-05
1-.00E-06

3.50E-06 0.015
X*XLIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD lnput File:

AERMOD Output File:

AERMOD Error FiIe:

Plotfile list
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

AcuteGLCList.csv
AcuteHRAlnput.hra
AcuteNCAcuteRisk.csv
AcuteNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
AcuteOutput.txt
AcutePathwayRec.csv
AcutePolDB.csv
ResCa ncerCa ncerRisk.csv
ResCancerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResCancerG LCList.csv
ResCancerH RAI nput.hra
RescancerOutput.txt
ResCa ncerPathwayRec.csv
ResCancerPol DB.csv
ResChronicG LCList.csv
ResChronicH RAlnput.hra
ResChronicNCChronicRisk.csv
ResChronicN CChro nicRiskSum ByRec,csv
ResChron icOutput.txt
ResChronicPathwayRec.csv
ResChronicPolDB.csv
WorkCancerCancerRisk.csv
WorkCa ncerCa ncerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkCa ncerG LCList.csv
WorkcancerHRAlnput.hra
WorkCancerOutput.txt
WorkCancerPathwayRec.csv
WorkCancerPolDB.csv
WorkChronicGLCList.csv
WorkChronicH RAlnput.hra
WorkChronicNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkChronicNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkChronicOutput.txt
WorkChronicPathwayRec.csv
WorkChronicPolDB.csv

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attochment C
Addendum to the Folsom Lokeside
Cremolorium Project Air Quolity ond
Greenhouse Gos Emissions
Assessment

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 150
Folsom, CA 95630
9't6.365.8700
www. helixepi.com
HEL'X
Env i r o n m e ntal P I an ni n g
November 5,202L Project 02576.00032.001
Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Folsom, Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Subject: Addendum to the Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Dear Mr. Johnson
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. (HELIX) completed lhe Folsom Lokeside Cremotorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gos Emissions Assessment in July 2021 (HELIX 2O2t). Following the completion of the July 2021 analysis, Caring Services Group (Applicant) has requested alterations to the operating hours and number of daily cremations to occur on site. This Addendum provides an updated analysis based on these alterations.

PREVIOUS ANATYSIS
The July 2021 letter report assessed the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project (project), including a health risk assessment (HRA) to evaluate potential community health risks from the project's emissions. The analysis was prepared to support environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The analysis assumed a maximum cremation process rate of 200 pounds per hour, 400 pounds per day, and 100,000 pounds per year based on information provided by Applicant. The project's emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors were found to be below Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) thresholds and result in a less than significant impact. Community health risks resulting from emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from the project's operation of a crematory were evaluated in an HRA following the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidelines. Project TAC emissions were found to result in less than significant impacts. The project was not found to be a substantial source of objectional odors and odor impacts were disclosed as less than significant. The project was found to be consistent with the City's integrated General Plan and GHG Strategy and GHG emissions impacts were disclosed as being less than significant. The project was found to not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and the impact was disclosed as less than significant.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,202t

REVISED ANATYSIS
As discussed previously, the Applicant has requested alterations to the operating hours and number of daily cremations to occur on the site. The Applicant has requested an increase in the daily process rate from the previously analyzed 400 pounds per day to a new value of 800 pounds per day. There are no changes to the project that would affect the construction analysis previously conducted. The analysis that follows focuses on daily operational emissions.

The HRA previously conducted to evaluate potential community health risks from the project's TAC emissions relies on the maximum hourly emissions rate and the average annual emissions generated by project operations. The hourly cremation process rate was previously set based on the maximum hourly capacity of the crematory; therefore, there is no change to the hourly process rate or maximum hourly emissions. The Applicant has not requested alteration to the total number of cremations to occur per year; therefore, there is no change to the annual cremation process rate or average annual emissions profile. Therefore, the potential health risks from the project would remain the same as previously disclosed.

Methods
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for'long-term operation of the proposed crematory were calculated using propane combustion emissions factors from the USEPA AP-42 Compilation of Emissions Factors Chapter 1.5 (USEPA 2008), and crematory emissions factors provided by the SMAQMD, which combined USEPA AP-42 data and the USEPA Factor lnformation Retrieval Program (SMAQMD 2O2Oal.

Air Quolity lmpocl Anolysis
Operation of a propane-fired crematory would be considered a new stationary source of emissions. The project may be subject to SMAQMD's Rule 2Ot, Generol Permit Requiremenfs, and Rule 202, New Source Review. The project would be required to implement best available control technology (BACT) for the minimization of emissions. BACT for crematories is incorporated into the product design in the form of controls which ensure maintenance of the correct temperatures and cycle times, and a secondary combustion chamber which ensures oxygenation and complete combustions of all fuels. As described in the Methods sections, above, criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for longi-term operation of the proposed crematory were calculated using propane combustion emissions factors from AP-42 and crematory emission factors provided by SMAQMD. The project's calculated criteria and precursors operational emissions are compared to the SMAQMD thresholds in Table L, Operationol Criteria Pollutant ond Precursor Emissions, and the calculation output sheets are included in Attachment A to this letter.

HEL'X

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Project Emissions SMAQMD Threshold
Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,2O2t

Table 1

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS
Pollutant
Exceed
Threshold?
Doily Emissions dqv)
Source: SMAQMD 2O20a; SMAQMD 2020b
As shown in Table 1, the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SMAQMD daily thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.

SUMMARY
The project's daily emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would remain below SMAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than significant impact. All other quantified emissions and significance determinations remain unchanged from what was presented in the July 2O2I Folsom Lakeside Crematorium Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.

Sincerely,
'!t
-
L--.-*-
Victor Ortiz
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Attachments:

Attachment A: Emissions Calculation Sheets
HEL'X
co
SOx
ROG
NOx
PMro
PM:.s No
No
No
No
No
No
o.2 65

2.4 65

1.8 None

0.9 None

0.5 80

0.5 82

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Letter to Mr. Scott Johnson, AICP
November 5,202t

REFERENCES
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAaMD). 2O2Oa. Electronic communications between HELIX Environmental Planning (Victor Ortiz) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Venk Reddy); attachments to communications containing crematory emissions calculations. August and November. 2O2Ob. SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table. April. Available at:
http://www.airqualitv.orellandUseTransportation/Docu ments/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008, AP 42,Fitth Edition, Volume I Chapter l": External Combustion Sources, 1.5 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion. Available at:
https ://www.epa.eov/sites/nroduction/files/2020-
O9/documents/].5 liquefied petroleum sas combustion.pdf.

HEL'X Envlrcnnental Planntfig
05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Crematory Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Emissions from Propane Combustion
KBTU/Cvcle 1,800
KBTU/Gallon 91.502
Gallons/Cvcle 19.672
Cvcles/Day 4
Cvcles/Year 500
Pollutant
Emission Factor
(lbs/1000 eal)1
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
ROG3 1, 0.08
NOx 13 r.o2
SOx 0.054 0.00
PMlO o.7 0.06
PM2.54 0.7 0.06
co 7.5 0.59
Emissions from Combustion of Human Remains
lbs/dav
Maximum
Throushput 800
Total Emissions
Pollutant
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
ROG 0.2
NOx 2.4
SOx 0.9
PMlO 0.5
PM2.5 0.5
co 1.8
Notes:
l-. Emissions factors for propane from USEPA AP-42 Chapter L, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.5 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Combustion, Table 1'5-1'

2. Emissions from combustion of human remains provided by SMAQMD and are from USEPA Factor lnformation REtrieval (FIRE) Program Data System (3/08)'

3. ROG fraction of TOC for propane combustion unavailable, ROG assumed to be equal to Pollutant
Emission Factor
tlhs/tnn)2
Emissions
(lbs/dav)
ROG 0.299 o.t2
NOx 3.560 1.42
SOx 2.170 0.87
PMlO 1.130 0.45
PM2.54 1.130 0.45
co 2.950 1.18

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Appendix C
Tribol Consultotion Record

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
€ED Inc.

A N'I'S
January B,2021
Robert Edgerton, AICP CEP
HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc.
11 Natoma Street, Suite 155
Folsom, California 95630
RE: Tribol Consultation Record for Compliance with Assembly BilII 52 and CEQA for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Proiect, City of Folsom
Dear Mr. Edgerton:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended in 2014 by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), requires that the City of Folsom provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA review, and consult with tribes that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) defines California Native American tribes as "a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004." This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. For the City, these inciude the following tribes that previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing:
,q Wilton Rancheria (letter dated January 13,2020);
e; lone Band of Miwok lndians (letter dated March 2, 2016); and u United Auburn lndian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria (letter dated November 23,2015).

The purpose of consultation is to identify Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be significantly impacted by the proposed Project, and to allow the City to avoid or mitigate significant impacts prior to Project approval and implementation. Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
2020- 1 62 Fol so m Cre m atori u m
2525 Warren Drive r Rocklin, CA95677 o Tel: (916) 782-9IOO I Fax: (916) 782-9134 r www'ecorpconsultins'com

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024J.1n applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 , for the
purposes of this paragraph the lead agency shall considerthe significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because the first two criteria also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators and can only be identified by a culturally affiliated ti'ibe, which has been determined under State law to be the subject matter expert for TCRs.

CEQA requires that the City initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements summarlzed above, the City carried out, or attempted to carry out, tribal consultation for the Project. The methods and results of tribal consultation are summarized below, and a copy of the complete non-confidential administrative record is provided in Attachment A.

I.O SUMMARY OF CONSUTTATION
Within 14 days of initiating CEQA review for the Project, on November 25,2020, the City sent Project notification letters to the three California Native American tribes named above, which had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC. Each tribe was provided a brief description of the Project and its location, the contact information for the City's authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. l.l lone Bond of Miwok lndiqns
The lone Band of Miwok lndians did not respond to the City's notification letter, and therefore, the threshold for carrying out tribal consultation with that tribe under PRC 2'1080.3.1(e) was not met.

1.2 UA|C
On December 11,2020, and within the 30-day response timeframe, the City received an automated email from the United from UAIC that acknowledged receipt of the City's notification letter, thanked the City for consulting with UAIC, and attached the tribe's consultation record for the project. The response did not include any information on TCRs and indicated that the Tribal Historic Preservation Department would review the Project and respond; however, no further communication was received from UAIC. Because the tribe failed to provide comments or engage with the City pursuant to PRC 21082.3(d)(2), the City considers this consultation requirement complete.

1.3 Wilton Rqncheriq
On December 1,2020, and within the 30-day response timeframe, Wilton Rancheria representative Mariah Mayberry responded to the City's initial notification letter by email requesting to formally initiate c)
ECORP Consulting, lnc.

Lake si d e C rematori u n P roject 2
January 2021
2020-162

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
consultation under AB 52 on the Project. ln her response, Ms. Mayberry stated that the tribe would like to discuss the type of environmental review that is being conducted for the Project, Project alternatives, any significant effects, and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that the Project may cause to tribal cultural resources. Ms. Mayberry also requested a copy of the cultural resource assessment and results of the record search. Although she did not indicate or suggest that there are TCRs within the Project Area, Ms. Mayberry provided Wilton Rancheria's recommended mitigation measures for TCRs.

On December 14,2020, the City formally initiated consultation with Wilton Rancheria by inviting Ms.

Mayberry to a virtual meeting on December 17,2020.1n the City's initiation letter to the tribe, Associate Planner Josh Kinkade further clarified that the purpose of the Project is to remodel an existing shed, and that there will be no mass grading or excavation associated with the Project. Additionally, Mr. Kinkade provided a link to the Cultural Resources lnventory Report, prepared by ECORP Consulting, lnc. (2020) and a copy of the meeting agenda. Mr. Kinkade requested that if Ms. Mayberry is unable to attend that she contact him to reschedule the meeting to another time that is mutually agreeable.

On December 15, 2020, Ms. Mayberry contacted the City to indicate that she is unavailable to meet at the scheduled time. The City offered another meeting on January 5,2021, at 8:30 a.m. On January 4,2021, Ms Mayberry contacted the City and asked that the meeting be scheduled for 10:00 a.m. instead, and the City accepted. After Ms. Mayberry or any other tribal representatives failed to report to the meeting at the scheduled time, the meeting was terminated by the City after 20 minutes. At approximately noon on January 5, Ms. Mayberry emailed the City to request availability for January 6, and the City offered 3:30 p.m. for another meeting. Ms. Mayberry did not attend the meeting and did not respond to the Cityto reschedule again. Because the tribe failed to engage meaningfully with the City after a reasonable and good-faith effort composed of multiple attempts to meet with the tribe, pursuant to PRC 21082.3(dX2), the City considers this consultation requirement complete. Should Wilton Rancheria, or any other culturally affiliated tribe, submit public comments, the City will consider them in accordance with Section 1 1(b) of AB 52; however, after completing the required notification and consultation procedures specified in AB 52 and the PRC, the City has not been provided any information about TCRs that could be affected by the proposed Project. Therefore, the determination of impacts to TCRs is drawn from other lines of evidence, as summarized below.

1.4 RecommendedFindings
lnformation about potential impacts to TCRs was drawn from the ethnographic context, the results of a search of the Sacred Lands File of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and the results of a cultural resources inventory prepared by ECORP (2020). The methods and results of these efforts are provided in ECORP 2O2O and are hereby incorporated by reference. ln summary, the ethnographic information reviewed for the Project, including ethnographic maps, does not identify any villages, occupational areas, or resource procurement locations in or around the current Project Area. In addition, the Sacred Lands File failed to identify any sacred lands or tribal resources in or near the Project Area. The cultural resources survey did not reveal any Native American archaeological sites within or adjacent to the proposed Project Area. Finally, as summarized above, two of the three tribes notified of the Project responded to the City's offer to consulU however, none provided any information about TCRs in the ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Lakesid e Crematoriu m P roject 3
January 2021
2020-162

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Project Area. This is not unexpected, as the Project is in a highly disturbed environment and does not involve substantial ground disturbance. As noted in the City's initial notification letter and follow up correspondence with tribes:
"the purpose of this project is to remodel an existing shed to install crematory equipment inside of it, which is a high-temperature furnace with associated equipment. The existing driveway area adjacent to the shed will be subject to minor improvements, but there is no mass grading or major excavation associated with the remodeling of the shed. There will be no new construction of buildings or structures" (Josh Kinkade to Mariah Mayberry, December 14,2020).
ln reviewing the lines of evidence summarized above, this Project will not have an impact on known TCRs.

There exists an extremely low potential for the discovery of previously unknown TCRs during Project construction, but if TCRs were to be encountered, the Project activity could result in a significant impact. lmplementation of unanticipated discovery procedures, as provided in mitigation measure TCR-1 below, would reduce that impact to less than significant.

TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. lf potentially significant Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are discovered during ground disturbing constructlon activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. lf deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of lnterior's Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.
lf you have any questions, you may reach me by phone at (916) 782-9100 or by email at LWestwood @ecorpconsulti n g.com
Sincerely,
/,;u*u,**
Lisa Westwood, RPA
Vice President and Director of Cultural Resources
Attachment A: Non-Confidential Tribal Consultation Record ECORP Consulting, lnc,
Lake side C rem atori u m P roject 4
January 2021
2020-162

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

REFERENCES CITED:

ECORP Consulting, lnc. 2020. Culturol Resources lnventory Report for the Lokeside Memorial Lown Storoge Shed Project, City of Folsom, Colifornio.

ECORP Consulting, lnc.

Lakesid e Crematoriu m P roiect
5 January 2021
2020-162

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

ATTACHMENT A
Non-Confidential Tribal Consultation Record

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Folsom Crematorium
AB 52 Log
City received a general request letter dated November 23,2OLS from United Auburn lndian Community.

City received a general request letter dated January 13,2020 from Wilton Rancheria.

City received a general request letter dated March 2, 2016 from lone Band of Miwok lndians.

November 25,2020: lnitial notices were mailed to UAIC, lone, and Wilton Rancheria. The 30-day response window closes on December 25,2O2O.

December !,2020: City received an email from Ms. Mariah Mayberry with Wilton Rancheria formally requesting consultation under AB 52. ln her response, Ms. Mayberry requested the opportunity for a tribal representativeto participate in cultural resource surveys and requested coples of all cultural resource assessments and results of record searches. The tribe also provided their recommended mitigation measures to the City.

December Lt,2020: City staff received an email from UAIC containing a PDF form that acknowledged receipt of the notice of opportunity to consult on the project, but the tribe did not request nor defer to engage in consultation.

December L4,202O: City initiated consultation with Wilton by email, invited to consultation meeting on 72/77. Wilton requested to reschedule to Il5/2021.

January 5,2A2L City held consultation meeting, however Wilton did not attend.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

U, //*,2
ffi ffi" -ffi.. ffi. ,ffi
MtwoK United Auburn lndian Community
MatoU of the Aubum Rancheria
Gene Whitehouse
Chelrman
John L. Wllliams
vlc€ Chairman
Danny Rey
Secrslary
Brenda Adams
Troasurer
Celvin Moman
Councll Membor
RE: AB 52 Notification Request, California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code section 21080.3, subd. (b) Request for Formal Notification of Proposed Projects within the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the Aubum Rancheria's Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation Dear City of Folsom Representative:

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), The United Aubum Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria, which is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area within your agency's geographic area ofjurisdiction, requests formal notice of anA-information on proposed projects for which your agency will serve as a lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a map that depicts the ancestral territory that the UAIC is traditionally and culturally affiliated with. UAIC's traditionally and culturally afliliated geographicarea is supported by, and has been developed through, multiple linesof evidence tcfuAing oral tradition, history, ethnography, geography, linguistic, kinship, biology, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, other relevant information and expert opinion, and Congressiinal action tfriugfr the Auburn Indian Restoration Act of 1994 (H.R. 4228 [103'dD. pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21 080.3.1 , subd. (b), and until further notice, we hereby designate the following person as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes of receiving notices ofproposed projects from your agency:

November 23,2415
City of Folsom Representative
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Lead Contact:

Gene Whitehouse,
Chairman
10720lndian Hill Road
Auburn, CA 95603
9t6-883-2320
Tribal Oflice 10720 lndian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883'2380

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Copies to:

Jason Camp
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
10720Indian Hill Road
Aubum, CA 95603
(s30) 883-2320
j camp@aubumrancheria. com
Marcos Guerrero
Cultural Resources Manager
10720Indian Hill Road
Aubum, CA 95603
(s3o) 883-2364
m guerrero @auburnrancheria. com
We request that all notices be sent via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt and that your noticeJ speci$ a lead contact person for yow agency. Following receipt and review of the information your agency provides, within the 30-day period outlined in Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (d), the UAIC may request consultation, as defined by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 to discuss issues including the type of environmental review to be conducted, project alternatives, significant effects of the project and mitigation measures for any project impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources.

For your information, UAIC's policy is to be present during project cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys, to identifu hibal cultual resources. UAIC's policy is also to be provided ail Jxisting cultr:ral resource assessments, including the request for and results of any records search that may have been conducted prior to the initial survey or consultation meeting, Finally, UAIC's ge,neral policy is preservation in place and avoidance of tribal cultural ,"rorrr""r, and any subsurface testing or data recovery must not occur without first consulting with UAIC and receiving UAIC's written consent.

We recommend that your agency retain this conespondence in your permanent files. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Marcos Guerrero, Cultural Resources Manager, at (530) 883-2364 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gene Whitehouse,
Chairman
CC: Jason Camp, THPO
Marcos Guerero, CRM
Cynthia Gomez, NAHC
Tribal Office 10720 lndian Hill Road Aubum, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883'2380

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

UAIC Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation (for the purposes of California AB 52)
This area includes all of Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter and Yuba counties as well as portions of Butte, Plumas, San Joaquin, Sierra, Solano, and Yolo countiesany the tinal d€t€rmination of thg lyps of environmental document to bs used' G:
1!'
-*- I0
+
,4! 1.

I
I
'/rtrj,l
+
+:

I'.,'
I
d h!: r tlI:i
on
l4!
r {,'
'.;" r ,i*
uAlc Geographic Area of Traditional and cultural Affiliation. . Th€ UAIC G€ographic Area ot Traditionsl and Cullural Allilialion boundary line is dashed to indicate that the boundary miy change as eltiliat€d resourc€s arg discov€red or add€d, lor example Valley and Si€rra Miwok lonitory oxt€nds lsrther 3outh.

Legend oslo20A rr--Miles
map no
commencing any archaeological activities or around sensitive areas. or

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Wilton Rancheria
9728 Kent Street, Elk Grove, CA 95624
January 13,2020
City of Folsom
50 Natoma St
Folsom, CA 95630
RE: Caltfornia Environmental QuaIiLy Act Public Resources Code section 27080.3, subd' {b) Request for Formal Notification of Proposed Projects Within Wilton Rancheria Tribe's Geographtc Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation
Dear Sir or Madam,
As ofthe date ofthis letter, in accordance withPublic Resources Code Section 21080.3'1, subd. (b), Wilton Rancheria, which is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area within _your
agency's
geographic area ofjurisdiction, iequests formal notice of and information on proposed projects for which loui ui"n"y will sJrve as a lead ug"o"y under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seqpursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd, (b), and until furthernotice, we hereby designate the following person as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes ofreceiving notices ofproposed projects from your agency:

Attn: Chairman Raymond C. Hitchcock / Director
Ralph Hatch Wilton Rancheria, Cultural Preservation
Department
9415 Rancheria Drive
Wilton, CA 95693 crd{Dwiltonrancheriansn. gov rhatch@wiltonrancheria-nsn. gov We request that all notices be sent via certified U,S. Mail with retum receipt. Followingreceipt and rwiew of the information your agency provides, within the 30-day period prosoribed by Publio Resources Code section 21080.3.1; suUa. 1A;, tire Wilton Rancheria may request consultation, as defured by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3'2 to mitigate any project impacts a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources.

Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact our lead contact person listed above.

Respectfully,
,€alfl /afrZ
Ralph Troy Hatch
Executive Director of Cultural Preservation
p. [916) 683-6000 o f. [916) 683-6015 Page 735 o www.WiltonRancheria-nsn.gov 05/10/2022 Item No.18.
4-
by, your agency to
thet w- e:.may rccommend,
1i, 2 March 2016"
:i ,IJ-!"
- city oi Fojeot
Communlty DeveloPment DePt
David Miller Director
50 Natoma St.

Folsom Calif.956&:,.
,lxryffi::v
t&
*F, ut), #rt*-
for Tiibal Consultaiiou Pursuant to the California Enviromnental section 21080.3.1, subds. (b), (d) and (e) for City of Folsom Quality Act (CEQA), Puhlic ffi
f
the following discretionary topics listed br:low(Friblic RE:

Dear, Mr. Miller
rneasures
Significant the project
The lone Band of Miwok Indians also requests consulthtion on Resources Code section 21080.3.2, subd. (a)):
t;
'l'hi3',letter consultation
provrslolls lity Act (CEQA) (Public
subdiyisions (b), (d) arrd (e)) for the rnitigation of potsntial ect impacts to tribal fomial notice and information for all projeots within youi p*$+f l4i*ok Indians reque$ts Cultural and environmental resources fbr the above The lone 'Ih-e Ione Band of which shall be included
oonsultation if
Alternatives
2l
' -' '.t
:?fi:t:ffifil'Emi::l'iTi ,ffiu*, flHil::e:H#11-,i;li#i,, .tn
o
!
G
G
3 Typc of mvi
s
sign
of'tho
altenatives
including, but not
resources
on uibal cultural
messures for
ronnrental rcview rtec€ssary
of triba I cultuni!.,r'esources, includ ilg any regu I at ion s, (l) Avoidance and prcscruation of ilre resoutces in placc, pursuant to PlrlliC Res.o1l1ce-s Code seotion 21084.3, - '
including. bur nnl lirnited to, planning antl construction, geotechnic,il.:te*tsr Utility.'location, and pedestrian surveys to avoid harming ths rcsourrcs (including water, endongered &ibat plant resotrcos, and endangered nrrinrsl resources), and to protect the oultural and natural contextl oi planning g'reetrspio6, parks or other open spaoe, to incorporate the rresources witlr cultumlly npprnpriaie protection an{ management criteria; pO gox 6rtV V?.h2 Sush Strecl .Plynroullr.CA tsddg.n' 2(19-2'15"5800.rrx ?09;2,t$'31l2 www'lonomlwok.or0

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
l,j i i-iL i
.,Ir,,:.i {tt,,t,i
.'
i!'r'!F$* '*Srtgu
"fr
(2) Treating the resou.rces with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cUltufal values and meaning of the,ft{gr.ces, including but not limited to the foliowing:

O Protecting thg cultural clrslEgE&and intcgrity o1'tlte resou(@iir;' f,Fj::ru:lfiii#xlffi#;:,:fi#n*r'eresouds;i 6b,,
(3) Pennailent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriatemanagement criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resout'ces or placcs "area of project effeot" (APB), including,
(4) Protccting the rcsourcu .dgffi
Adiitionally, thc Ione n*a offit Indians would like
aspgppmenlo that haie been coEpleted on all or part of the jbrit.iidt, limited to:
,o ,*#, un, culrural resou*os ***r*"offiiirn"''
' 1' Flistorical Resouices lnformation System (CI'IRIS), #,T"i",ffq&ry' of thc Califomia all known cultural ltsoulces that have already becn rccorded on or adjacent to that may have been.provided by.the
):
culturaj
by the to iletenniire Uhethsr previously
afe present
t
including:
o A
o all cultural resource recotds
Informnti on Centcr as palt ofthe rscords search
G Notification of whether the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural APE
lF Notification indicntes a low, mocleratc or
resoultes atre, APE
O Notification
irnrecorded
O etty rcport that may contain site forms, site significance, and s-uggested mitigation m€asures O Ail information regarding site locations, Native American human remails, and associate{ funer-ary objects; such information should be placed in a separate confidsntial iidt{endum, and not be made .auuilubl" for public disclosure in accordance wiih Covenunent Code Scction 6254.L0' pO Box 6?9 gZSZ !ush Slrool .Plymouih.CA 95669.rtr,209-245-5800.rox 2O9-245-3117. wvtw..lQnemiwok.org 2 Page 737
05/10/2022 Item No.18.
r{ir
'tr"
"lhe,Ione Band of
contaot the Cuttural Cornmittee of tltc lone Band of
Ttrank you,
Randy Yonemura
Cultural Committee Chair
P.O. Bdx 699
9252 Bush St., Suite 2
Plymouth, CA 95669
Tel. (209) 24s-s800
l'sr frl:
to begin consuttation within 30 days of your reccipt of this lettsr. Please *t-:T
r
''l J;'"" -
#
,1ffi.t:
.
+r)"'
'ill
e
p() 8()x og., 9237 6urh Strsol . Plymcuth.cA ?$6d9.r'r', ?09-215..t800'rar 20?-?.l5.sl l3 www"lonomlwok.ato 3 Page 738
05/10/2022 Item No.18.
!Btoilt
{ooc !dlql
tltl t0ltot0t
rllnn
m{{r
uls(
Ir,Ufllt
d.llr *r$ l0Ur
!nul
Itlb!!{o
ila$
ilut
lrltlltr
rtru
rrati!
,llrrtu
nlio
HTgI'
tl0t
l{r|lt
$llgtl0t0 trl
lrrrllllllt
rdlu$
l!tliGll
0$r$
ntillrflt[to
Jmq0l
trtt|lllr il0ltoD

IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS

INDIGENOUS TERRITORY
otrpb*
\
\
GI

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
Plar:;rirr.cl l\4anager
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 9'16.461.6206
Scott Johnson <[email protected]>
Thursday, April 1-8, 2019 8:53 AM
-
FW: New Contact Info
ffi {t0
llrr *t F$Lf;I$}fi
@ www.folsom.ca. us
From: Cynthia Turner <Cynthia @ ionemiwok. net>
Sent: Thursday, April 18,20\9 8:41 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: New Contact lnfo
Good Morning
We received your letter; Randy Yonemura is no longer our Chairwoman at the lone Band Of Miwoks The new contact is Sara D. Setshwaelo - Chairwomen
Thank You,
Cynthia Turner
Ad min istrative Assista nt
Office: (209) 245-5800 x403
Cell: (209)418-8435
lone Bank of Miwok lndians
9252 Bush Street
PO Box 699
Plymouth, CA 95669
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

November 25,2020
If;'r{} ]f- F* t{}l*il
Sara D. Setshwaelo
Chairwoman
Ione Band of Miwok Indians
9252 Bush Street
P.O. Box 699
Plymouth, CA95669
RE: Notice of Opporlunify to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Chairwoman Setshwaelo
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 areto determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

In accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Depaftment, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630.

You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or at916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20'160.If I do not receive a response rvithin 30 days, then we will proceed.

Thank you and we look forward to your response.

Respectfully,
frfr-fl"a
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95530
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

November 25,2020 nr f{ } il_ F$ r{} }},tl
Gene Whitehouse
Chairman
United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria
10720 Indian Hill Road
Auburn, CA 95603
RE: Notice of Opporlunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Chairman Whitehouse
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby noti$ring you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 areto determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

In accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630 You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or at916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.

Thank you and we look forward to your response.

Respectfully,
H{ft,l,& Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95530
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
':

November 25,2020 il'-ct)t-Flr$}*i{
Ralph Hatch
Director of Cultural Preseruation Depatlment
Wilton Rancheria
9415 Rancheria Drive
Wilton, CA95693
RE: Notice of Opportunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160) Dear Director Hatch
The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at l20l Forrest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notifying you of an opporhrnity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 areto determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

In 4ccordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630.

You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or a|976-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160. If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.

Thank you and we look forward to your response.

Respectfully,
H{ft,l& Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

F-(}LE{}]}fl
November 25,2020
Raymond C. Hitchcock
Wilton Rancheria
9415 Rancheria Drive
Wilton, C495693
RE: Notice of Opportunity to Consult under Assembly Bill 52 for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project, City of Folsom (File # PN 20-160)
Dear Chairman Hitchcock:

The City of Folsom is initiating environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project. Igor Semenyuk, on behalf of Lakeside Memorial Lawn (applicant), is proposing to repurpose an existing corrugated steel storage shed at Lakeside Memorial Lawn, located at 1201Forest Street. The project includes the installation of a human crematorium in an existing shed, located northeast of the existing mausoleum structures in a previously disturbed maintenance area. Minor improvements to the small existing access road adjacent to the shed are also proposed. Project site plans are enclosed for your reference.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) require that we respond to your written request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe. We are hereby notiffing you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential for this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed project. If Tribal Cultural Resources may be significantly impacted, then consultation will also help to determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts.

In accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Please send your written response to my attention at the City of Folsom, Community Development Department, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, 95630.

You may also reach me by email at [email protected] or at916-461-6209.In your response, please reference the following project name: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed, PN 20-160.If I do not receive a response within 30 days, then we will proceed.

Thank you and we look forward to your response.

Respectfully,
p{frd&
Josh Kinkade
Associate Planner
City of Folsom
50 NATOMA STREET
FOLSOM, CA 95530
WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
tffia--
ffiiEitiA1 .0I-AKESIDE MEMORIAL

LAWN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
LEy DESICNS

VADIM ZANKO
7&4 MADISON AE
STE 106 FAIR OAKS CA
ss28
916-3122131
[email protected] /..;
,t:;.';'i

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK
grffLue85
1201 FORREST ST
IN
1700260001 0000)sc
523591 Sa. Fl./ 12.02ACRES
ZONINGCONSTRUCTION flPE FOLSOM, CA 95630

PROJECT DIRECTORYDESIGNER
VADIM4NKO

LEV DESIGNS
(916)ir 2-2131
[email protected]
OWNER

SHEET INDEX

SHEET OESCHPNON

BUILDING INFORMATION ABBREVIATIONS

SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
DEFERRED SUBMITTALS:SEPARATE PERMIT:VICINITY MAP
N.i.s.
/"u':
,,1r
Ij

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

A2.0

LAKESIDE MEMORIAL
LAV\N CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST,
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
uy OESIGf,S

VADIM ANKO
7€44 MDISON AVE
SIE 1 06 FAIR OAKS, CA
95628
u&a12-2131
supFd@lsdeignrcom
,i?i
PATCH LEGEND:

PROPERW UNE
.2-- qFIEARq
, .:.

EXIStrNGSTOOP/hMNG
E
43 ?&q'\ *F:
d ---
\
\
\
\-
ilsnre nEE
/
I
I
I
I
I
/g
orq\
- 'f \_ 2,':".' \t\ 1..

I
I
I
I
I
I
-/
g-1", ./- ii
,./ l' ./?
-/'
r /l u&,/' '| .2' I
./l
-l'i
.t'f:
.,
, !, '8/
l.
-rtt\
Ft
4- rrr"
:':,'
'"r(to^,
-
\'
., d?'
.**
l : .rf.;j
{
t\
!; \,,
I'i, I *\ t-t-/
+ e-'
I ,:. \- \{Jtq: \-
\ -r\_
I-{l
t----\-
-9
, t/. )-'
@
+
.rVtrEtAI I SITF PI AN ,1il - Eo'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

A2.1
lEv

DESIGNS

VADMANKO
784 MAOISON AE
SE 106 FAIR OAKS. CA
95628
916-312-2131
[email protected]
1' z:
r,' /

LAKESIDE MEMORIAL

LAWN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
Sf
(N) 2X5OO GALLON PROPANETANKS
9 d-- +3'ss,
6o/
El
LEGEND:
(E) STRUCTURE
asre! - /'
PALCH
EX6nN6EXFNNG REE
t
(E) STRUCTURE
o
(E)
e -.- Q'
I
'ia.
t
l
l
I
I
/
I
I
l\
I
l
_l
;/
I
I
I
I
I
l
/
I
I
{
(E) SHED
hETAII trN QITE DI Al.I 1" - tnl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

43.0 r!L-19' ryffiLAKESIDE MEMORIAL

LAWN CEMETERY
1201 FORREST ST
FOLSOM
cA 95630
07002600010000
lEv
DE5IGNS

VADIMANKO
7844 MADISONAVE
STE 106 FAIR OAKS, CA
95628
916-312:2131
suppod@lev&signs.com / ... .)
,'z!7i'
(N) CREffiTORY
(N) COOLER
(E) SHED
evtc?tlla Et n AD Dl A \l 4r nI
fleqE-PLANNsIEsi LEGEND WAI EGEND
6rs.0.!. :o,acil.o'c. - PUNARil SOUARE FOOTAGE BRAKDOM: ilFNNG SHEDAR4 1,071 SQ. FT,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
cf'tu o+ tbtsorn
6D N4foY\.a- $trzet
le ortt, Of\ q 5u7o
crT14 oF VWEb\A
Eo $rrytoMA gr.

FoLSoM r CA 9dco3D
&ene Nhif€hoq,s€
lol eo lndian ft\lt U . Auburn
,
ch 96Loo3
Joson Carn P
lo1 2o /nd.ra.n trll PA.

Anb,aFh r CA q866=.
.f",
*'**'* n
""
I l, -::a:i=:i- ". Li.l. g us, PQSTAGT
nz 1p $ 0$S.SS* 010'$ i ?fr60fi i{cv ?5 2020
t"4AiLe 0 FRCtd ztP cclrE s5s77 . #:r';C! $
fn; .-lt{--:.'T-A-r;# :11\ SLtSPOSTAGE
$ 0s0.s0s
r:lIT
EA-I
rlmr!
mtrt
trt trl
trl
rrrru
ITFl E
rr
{/} {n4J
|*{.e
=
J
t-- {a6 oa { D
000"t 17s60s hJcv 25 2020
MAti-ED FROi,4 Zrp CSnE 856 t7
r{s
Fl{| tr
,R- ]E;ttl l()

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Cth o{ Fotoorn
5D NAttwlt Gtrael
F'olsom, CA 96@30
CtTt.l pF FoLgoubb UPsto lr,{fr $a.

VoL'olvl, cA gOb?O
cft tn
Jt)
F{tt *, TL
_ $oirlFs . iI' '.
-'t1 /----:J:
: t{'{" g US POSTAGE
oz 1F $ 000"500
0001 1 7s600 h'Ov 25 2020I{AILED FROM ZIP CODE S5677
Snra- D. Se*shwaelo
gLqz Bush €4rzetPo BoX bqq
Pttlvxo I*14, OA 96teb1
MAecos GutP;R'Fe-o
lol z-o I'rdio.n l+fll ru.

AaBuuN, * 95Go3
-#sE" "
,-* ---- - 1t{d gUSPOSTAGE n2 lP $ 000.500 0001 1 7s600 Nov 25 2020 il4AILFD FROM ZIP CODE 95677
$ia
5 *(/,
tr

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
orrY aF FoLSoFt
g" NAT?M2' trpggy
?ol-ibl* ,f.A 9F,to}o
crq oF FoLsolvr
Eo NAIDI\IA ST,
Fot-soM, cA 1qb\O
b$ff] 4
J("i
F{fJ trtt
{fl .4J
c)F
{nil
* rj: \Y'' 's i. ' r d:r./_-{-:/ry
." LrF:. : US F0STA6L
$ s00"5CIs nfr01 t 7960':) l,l0V ?5 2820
il4Ail_ED FROM ZIP C{jDE S5677
3 -__\jr rsrs$rj,_1.;]iLl
?Ar'{MoND c. {4tTCHCoeF q4|5 RANcHforA Pe.

WTLTofr.r I cA eEUqg
PALPH HATC+{
?lttg' PAN*teEtA DB.
\^ttLlDN r cA lSto,?
: t, F-17:/':- -..Uh 'g Us POSTAGE
nz 1P $ 000"500 c0011796$0 l,iOv 25 2020i,TA|LED FROM ZIP CODE 95S77

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
(
bo&
$-- F6tm R@iPt (olstrcnici
$$
$
Doli!€ry
R6*icted D€llv9ry
Mail R6srict€d
gignatu€ Required
Signatur€
cetrlfiod
BAduitnAdult
n
(hardcoPY)
visit out website at
U.S. Postal Service'"
cEnlrrrD MAIL@ REcEIPT
Domestic Mail
Postmark
Here
A.

E Agent x tr
D. ls delivery address fom item 1
lf YES, enter delivery address below: El No
r Complete items 1,2, and 3.r Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you.
r Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space Permits.
to:
&ene tljta*ehause
to"ao lndian l'A'lf Bd.
*utbqrn, CA gqbat
iltlillr lllr illlll llll llll ll lil Illlll ll ll lll
9590 9402 5809 0034 9782 65
rIr€
.-o
rlmr!
m
ctEI
trt
EIrur
ru
tr
r{(fr!

2. Article Numbef
811 E1?0 tlEtll, 3?31 balL

3. ServiceTypeO Adutl Signature
Resrided Delivtry
Cerlifl€d Mail Restrict€d Delivery
0 Collel on Deliveryn Collst on Delivery Resfticted DejiveryE] lnsured MailD Mail Restricied DeINery B PriorityMail ExP6s@B R€gisteFd Maifil tl Regi$ered Mall Restricted I Delivery r*8etum Reeipt for ' Mschddi$
tr Signatue ConfirmationtuE Signature Confimation
Restricted Delivery
COMPLETE TH'S SECI/OA' ON DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE rHrs SECTION PS Form , Juty 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-90s3 Domestic Return Receipt '

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
ryber
10, 202011:'12 AM
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
1-Mitigation-Measures-CEQA-Avoidance.docx;2-Mitigation-Measures- CEQA NativeAmericanMonitors.docx; 3-Mitigation-Measures-CEQA-Discoveries.docx; 4 _Mitigation_Measures_CEQA_Construction-Worker-Awareness-Training 04-19-19.docx Follow up
Flagged
I
Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
Associctte Plcntner
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6209
F'OI,f;T$}[
rt F.r r x !r rv G Ff ;lltlrt !
@ www. folsom. ca . us
@
fo1,5ost
rf,I\Tit(} I.;PDATfi.

Flnd out morol
From: Cu ltura I Resource Department lnbox <crd @wilton rancheria-nsn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December I,2O2O 12:31 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Cc: Cultural Resource Department lnbox <[email protected]> Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
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.

Good afternoon,
This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(a), including the type of environmental review to be conducted for the project; project alternatives; the project's significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources. As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment. 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. lf tribal cultural resources are identified within the project area, it is Wilton Rancheria's policy that tribal monitors must be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. ln the letter Josh Kinkade is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (9L6) 683- 6000 ext. 2O23 or email at [email protected] to begin the consultation process.

Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected.

Sincerely,
Mariah Mayberry
Wilton Rancheria
Tel: 916.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.683.6015
9728 Kent Street I Elk Grove I CA | 95624
mmavberrv(owil ncheria-nsn.sov
wiltonra ncheria-nsn.gov
1\
'1.1.1
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
4:26PM
Ro Edgerton (RobertE@ ixepi.com)
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
Josh Kinkade
.rl.s.sor:ici te P I o rt rt er
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6209
ffi$
Bq
rsr,f;iffine *rr? *F
rl sl I H 61 !V B FV ll!!llll !:

O g @ *tt.fotrot..u.r,
f {]1..$oil
r"{}xl$c t-:F$A'ru
Flnd qui$qrul
From: Josh Kinkade
Sent: Monday, December 14,2020 4:25 PM
To: Cultu ra I Resou rce Department lnbox <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Joh nson <sjoh nson @folsom'ca'us>
Subject: RE: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project Dear Ms. Mayberry,
Thank you for your response, below, regarding the above-referenced project. We appreciate the tribe's interest in this project and weicome the opportunity to discusslhis project in further detail with you. We are hereby initiating consultation with you under Assembly Bill 52 by inviting you to a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams at 8:30 a.m. on December 17,2020.If you are unable to attend, please contact me to schedule an altemate date.

In order to facilitate our discussion, I would like to provide some additional information to you. First, the purpose of this project is to remodel an existing shed to install crematory equipment inside of it, which is a high-temperature furnace with associated equipment. The existinf driveway area adjacentto the shed will be subject to minor improvements, but there is no mass grading oirnuior excavation associated with the remodeling of the shed. There will be no new construction of buildings or structures' Second, as requested, below is a link from which you can download a copy ofthe draft cultural resources technical report for the project, titied ,.Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project, Folsom, Califomia,i, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Novemb er 2020). Please note that this report includes confidential information that is restricted flom public distribution by state and federal law. If you are having trouble accessing the documents, you may have to op"nih" link below in Internet Explorer or Microsoft Edge. Let me know if the link isn't working. https ://ecorpconsultin gmisharepointrom/:flpllwestwood/ghToQu3F6Y5IvGZuP8 I ACEoB5nGBTfeXGXTV44SbLeBiRA?e:0on I Ef 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

The link above also includes the link to the virlual meeting and will include a copy of the meeting agenda. If you have any questions, I can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at (916)-461-6209. T\ank you and we look fonvard to consulting with you.

Josh Kinkade
A.ssriciofc It|onnet
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6209
ffiimmr,tsm*r
O S @ *.,"w.fotsom.cu.u,
Hft I r]t.tt]tlt
tf-):ill(; t" PllAllr
Elnd qui mqrr!
From: Cultura I Resource Department lnbox <crd@wilton rancheria-nsn.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December L,2O2O 12:31 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Cc: Cu ltural Resou rce Depa rtment lnbox <crd @wilton ra ncheria-nsn.gov> Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project
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.

Good afternoon,
This letter is notice that Wilton Rancheria would like to initiate consultation under AB 52 We would like to discuss the topics listed in Cal. Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(a), including the type of environmental reviewto be conducted forthe project; project alternatives; the project's significant effects; and mitigation measures for any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts the project may cause to tribal cultural resources. As consultation progresses, we may also wish to discuss design options that would avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources; the scope of any environmental document that is prepared for the project; pre-project surveys; and tribal cultural resource identification, significance evaluations and culturally-appropriate treatment. 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This letter is also a formal request to allow Wilton Rancheria tribal representatives to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Please send us all existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for, and the results of, any records searches that may have been conducted prior to our first consultation meeting. lf tribal cultural resources are identified within the project area, it is Wilton Rancheria's policy that tribal monitors must be present for all ground disturbing activities. Finally, please be advised that our preference is to preserve tribal cultural resources in place and avoid them whenever possible. Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with Wilton Rancheria and receiving Wilton Rancheria 's written consent. ln the letterJosh Kinkade is identified as the lead contact person for consultation on the proposed project. Mariah Mayberry will be Wilton Rancheria's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mariah by phone (915) 683- 6000 ext. 2023 or email at [email protected] to begin the consultation process.

Thank you for involving Wilton Rancheria in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this letter a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected.

Sincerely,
Mariah Mayberry
Wilton Rancheria
Tel: 915.683.6000 ext 2023 | Fax: 916.583.6015
9728 Kent Street I Elk Grove I CA | 95624
m mavberrv(owi lto nra ncheria-nsn.gov
wilton ra ncheria-nsn.qov
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:
ryber
11,2020 3:36 PM
FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation Thank you for consulting with the UAlC.pdf
I
I
From
Sent: Friday, December tI,2O2O 3:35 PM
To: Robert Edgerton (RobertE@ helixepi.com) <roberte@ helixepi.com> Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-150) Notification Confirmation FYl, UAIC responded with a simple acknowledgement that they logged in our letter - no response regarding consultation yet.

From: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri December 1 2020 3:31PM
To
Cc: Scott Johnson <sioh [email protected]>
Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation Here is another letter that came in
Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
A.s.socicrle lllanner
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6209
I
lffitrmf,Lfl'ffinir
[85_J irtunullrl rr ndrsrl
O O @ www.forsom.ca.us

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Bq fot,forl
LohTn"G L:FDATI
Elnd aut Dorol
From: [email protected] <DoNotReplv@auburn rancheria.com> Sent: Friday, December IL,2O2O 2:14 PM
To: Josh Kinkade <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160) Notification Confirmation 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.

The United Auburn lndian Community thanks you for your commitment to consultation for the following project:

Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed (PN 20-160)
You will find a copy of your consultation submission attached for your records Our Tribal Historic Preservation Department will review the project and respond as soon as possible. lf you need to speak with someone regarding the project or your submission, please contact the Tribal Office at (530) 883-2390.

The United Auburn lndian Community is now accepting electronic consultation requests and project notifications. To learn more, click here.
**This is an automated email. Replies to this address will not be received Nothing in this e-mail is intended to constitute an electronic signature for purposes of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), 15, U.S.C. SS 7001 to 7006 or the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of any state or the federal government unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this e-mail.
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Thank you for consulting with the UAIC
Please complete one form for each notification.

How to submit a consultation notification or project update:

1. One form must be completed for each proiect.

2. Forms cannot be saved and completed at a later time.

3. lnclude all relevant project information.

4. Upload file attachments. Multiple files can be attached'

5. Submit form.

6. You will receive a submission receipt via email when submission is complete. UAIC prefers our online submission form over certified or hard copy letters.

Contact the Tribal Office at (530) 883-2390 for questions or concerns. Ask for Tribal Historic Preservation or use the contact form located on our website.

Contact lnformation
Consulting on
Behalf of *
Mailing Address
Point of Contact for
Consultation *
City of Folsom
Lead Agency, Consulting Firm, Tribe
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Postal / Zip Code
State / Province / Region
Josh Kinkade
Primary Contact Name
jkin [email protected]
l- Yes
ls there more than one point of contact for this project? Point of Contact
Email*
Second Point of
Contact
Regulatory
Consulting Under* This project fall under the followng regulatory requirements:
f Federal (l State of California (- Federal and State
a Other
California Select all that apply
f7 Assembly Bill 52 (PRC S21 080.3.1 )
l- Senate Bill 18
l- Envirotrmental Quality Act (CEQA)
l- Forest Practice Rules
l- CaIMGPRA
l- Assembly Bill 168
l- Other
Regulations*

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Project Notification lnformation
Project Name *
Lakeside Memorial Lavrn Storage Shed (PN 20-160)
Please include Name and Reference Number (if applicable) *
lhrs ts a
(i NewProject
C Public Hearing
f Notice of Availability (NoA)
(. Other
c Notice of Preparation (NOP)
f Existing Projeci
f Request for lnformation
Project Description
Location
Please include a brief project description
Please include county, city, and address (if available) Project Documents
Documents to this form are secure and accessible the Tribal Historic Preservation team Notification Attach notilication letters or announcement 12022020 Folsom Lakeside Memorial Lavw Storage
Shed.pdf
50mb maximum upload size (per file)
350.5K8
Reports Attach project reports, project descriptions, or supporting documents 50mb maximum upload size (per file)
Location Map Attach maps and locaiion files. Shape files are preferred File extensions alloued: pdf, ipS, png, kmz, lpk, dbf, prj, shp, abn, sbx, rnl, shx cpg.

NOTE: 50mb maximum upload size (per file).

Send Submission ReceiPt To
ll Primary Contact l- Secondary Contact l- Different Email .**This form submission page is offered for the convenience of consulting agencies, developers, and their respective consultants^ UAIC revievus all submissions received, but makes no guarantee that submission via this online form satisfies any particular consultation or notice requirement that exists under state or federal law.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

AGENDA
City of Folsom and Wilton Rancheria AB 52 Consultation Meeting for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Storage Shed Project
Date
Time:

Location
Host:

January 5,2021
l0:00 am
Microsoft Teams
Josh Kinkade, City of Folsom, (916) 461-6209
Meeting Objective: for the City of Folsom to share project information with the tribe and receive information from the tribe about potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to inform the CEQA document.

Overall Goal: for the City to make a decision about the project in a manner that is mindful of, and takes into consideration, impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Agenda:

1. Introductions

2. Project Orientation and Overview (City)
o Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
o Project Description
o Type and Scope of Environmental Review under CEQA
o Alternatives and Design Options Considered
o Anticipated Project Schedule
o Summary of the Cultural Resources Survey (transmitted electronically to Wilton Rancheria on December 14,2020)

3. Discussion of Tribal Cultural Resources (Wilton Rancheria) o Any Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project Area? If so:
' Description and Location
' Significant Effects, if anY?
I Opportunities to Avoid, if present?
. Mitigation Measures for any Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Impacts, if they will occur?

4. Action Items

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
fJ Searcn
I Mirrorff Office Home X a Lrkeside f remaioriutr - AB 5] : X + iii ,ppr El EC0*PCultvralRes.,. E DoDSAFE O oifice165 p l'Velcometothefc,, trX
Lisa Westwood
- Myfiles
3 Recent
S Shared
E Recy.le binShar€d libraries
@ T Uptoa,l .' d snare r:i: Ccpy fink ! Dorvnload fE Automai€ Sort ir-1 My files Lakeside Crematorium - AB 52 Transfer Folder " n Name
jll -' 20ai-r- t ae-Fo i son Cr€maio rium -1 1 -23 - 202...j;-; -'ngenca-nB 52 lvleeting-Lakesioe f rsnatori.".

Gt't,leetinE Link.doc::

Modifiedtesierilnl !l i ir li'i
i iar, tecandi ago\ereroai i! ir'l{l t-\i
Modified By
liiE !'&!?lsadLi:E gie:r,!"a!
:rii d/is'lr6ad
File sizs
1 i; 5 \'i.q
Sharing
,.i 5f,aErl
JrshE.ex
i Sha.:C
freate shared library'
Get th€ 0neBrive appsReturn to Elassic OneDrive

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

FreeConferenceCall Services < noreply@freeconferencecal l.com > 5,2021 10:19 AM ryFreeConferenceCall.com Detail Repoft
See The Top 3 Reasons People Contribute and Learn How Our Community Helps Us Keep FreeConferencecall.com Free
Learn
More
Account lnformation
Date:

Dial-in number:

Access code:

Account:

January 5,2021 10:'10:23 AM
lE Q12,770-5505
967306
#s50021 20
Audio
+1 916 4616209 - CITY OF FOLSOM
+ 1 916 316 1456 - LISA WESTWOOD
+1 916 7829100 - ECORP SUGNET
+1 916 365 8700 - HELIX
tr
tr
tr
tr
10:10:23 AM
10:10:35 AM
10:'10:37 AM
10:10:48 AM
10:18:49 AM
10:18:46 AM
10:'18:45 AM
10:18:48 AM
9m
9m
9m
8m
Note: All times in Pacific Time Number of attendees
Ioll minutes:
4 35m
Ihank you for choosing FreeConferenceCall.com, the most recognized conferencing brand on the planet. Enjoy the conference? Refer A Friend today lf you have any questions, please call our Customer Service Deparlment at (844) 844-1322 or email us at [email protected].

H

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

FreeConferenceCall.com
r O Box 41069 Long Beach, CA 90853
ret: te+a) 844-1322
:ax: (562) 432-5250
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Appendix D
Mitigotion Monitoring
ond Reporting Progrom

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
LAKESIDE MEMORIAT tAWN CREMATORIUM
Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public Resources Code Section 2LOBL.6, requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be established upon completing findings. CEQA stipulates that "the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." This MMRp has been prepared in compliance with Section 2tOBt.6 of CEQA to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during the construction and operation of the project, as required. Atable (attached) has been prepared to assistthe responsible parties in implementing the MMRP. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, monitoring/mitigation timing, the responsible person/agency for implementing the measure, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The City of Folsom is the lead agency for the project under CEQA and shall administer and implement the MMRP.

The City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. The City shall rely on information provided by the project site observers/monitors (e.g., construction manager, project manager, biologist, archaeologist, etc.) as accurate and up-to-date and shall provide personnel to field check mitigation measure status, as required.

LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
MrrGAT|oN MoNtroRtNG AND REPoRTING PRoeRnvt
7 JANUARY 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This page intentionally left blank.

LAKESTDE MEMoRTAL Lnwru CRrvarontuv
MrrGAT|oN MoNrroRtNG nNo Rrponrtruc PRocRAM
2 Jnruunnv 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE

LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
Verification of
Compliance
Date
AIR qUAIITY
lnitials
Reporting /
Responsible
Party
City of Folsom;
P roject
Applicant;
ConstructionContractor
Monitoring / Mitigation
Timing
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction documents
for implementation
during construction.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure AIR-01: lmplement SMAQMD's Basic Construction Emission Control Practices.

City approval of grading and/or improvement plans for the proposed project shall include the following SMAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control Practices: . All exposed surfaces shall be watered two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads. . Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would betraveling along freeways or major roadways shall be covered. . Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. . Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour' . All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots shall be paved as soon as possible. ln addition, building pads shallbe laid as soon as possible aftergrading unless seeding or soil binders are used. . Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes (as required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site' . Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer's specifications. The equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determine to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

LAKESIDE M EMoRIAL LAWN CREMATORIU M
MrrGATIoN MoNrroRtNG AND REPoRTING PRoGRAM
3 JANUARY 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
QualifiedCultural
ResourceMonitor;
ConstructionContractor
City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
Qualified
Cultural
Resource
Monitor;
Construction
Contractor
Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in all
construction docu ments
for implementation
during construction.

Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in allconstruction documents
for implementation
during construction.

Mitigation Measure CUL-01: Avoid impacts to previously unknown archaeologicalresources.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activity, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to develop and deliver a contractor awareness training program to construction supervisors. The purpose ofthe training is to ensure that contractors are aware of the need to limit their activity, including equipment storage, staging, parking,and ground-disturbance to only those locations identified as work areas on the officialsite plans.

Prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activity, a qualified professional archaeologist shallbe retained to monitorthe installation of temporary high-visibility exclusionary fencing along the toe of existing mine tailings features adjacent to the shed. The fencing shall remain in place until all project activities are completed. City inspectors shall include a verification of the fencing during all required inspections. ln the event thatexclusionary fencing has failed, the construction supervisor must re-install or repair the fence within 24 hours.

Mitigation Measure CUL-02: Minimize impacts to any previously unknown archaeological resources during construction.
lf subsurface deposits believed to be culturalin origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterior/s Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained toevaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professionaljudgment. The following notificationsshall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
a lf the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.lf the professionalarchaeologist determines that the find does represent a culturalresource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the City to consult on a finding of eligibil and implement appropriate a

LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM
MtrcATroN MoNrroRrNG AND REPoRTtNG PRoGRAM
4 JANUARY 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

City of Folsom;
Archaeologist or
Qualified
Cultural
Resource
Monitor;
ConstructionContractor
Mitigation Measure CUL-03: Avoid and minimize impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains.
lf subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a SO-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the lnterior's Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professionaljudgment. The following notificationsshall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
lf the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect thediscovery from disturbance (AB 26411. The archaeologist shall notify theSacramento County Coroner (per $7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code)' The provisions of 57050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, 55097.98 of the California PRC, and Assembly Btll264twill be implemented' lf the Coronerdetermines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (55097.98 of the PRc). Thedesignated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. lf the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (55097.94 of the PRC). lf no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (55097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate lnformation Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easemen! or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the is located 264r lf the Coroner determines that the remains are Prior to and during
construction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in allconstruction documents
for implementation
during construction.
a
treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource u nder CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines or a historic property under Section 106 NHPA, if applicable. Work may not resume within theno-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not an Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15054.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been com d to its satisfaction
LAKESIDE MEMoRIAL LAWN CREMATORIUMMtrGAT|oN MoNtroRtNG AND REPoRTING PRocRAM 5 Jaruunnv 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

City of Folsom;
Native
American
Representative/
Monitor or
Qualified
Cultural
ResourceMonitor;
ConstructionContractor
Prior to and during
demolition andconstruction - this
mitigation measure
shall be included in allconstruction documents
for implementation
during demolition or
construction.

Mitigation Measure TCR-01: lnadvertent discovery of TCRs' lf potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluationand treatment, as necessary. lf deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist meeting the Secretary of lnterior's Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American Representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.
human but are not Native American, then the Coroner will direct subsequent steps to address the discovery. Work may not resume within the no-work radius untilthe City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been com eted to its satisfaction.

TRIBALCULTURAL RCES
LAKES|DE M EMoRtAL LAWN cREMAToRtUMMITIGATIoN MoNITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6 JANUARY 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Historic District Commission
Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium conditional Use Permit (PN 19-182) February 16,2022
ATTACHMENT 12
lmages of Crematoriums Adiacent to Residential
Uses in the Region

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
'i "-;
t"
t
I it
**
I
a
J
lt
I
t'"i "i
I t Jl
if
I
r$'
-rrt i

NORTH SACRAMENTO FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY (SACRAMENTO)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
i ,''

SIERRA VIEW FUNERAL CHAPEL AND CREMATORY (FAIR OAKS)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
\--
*ltFq rilrtrE" .r*,rg U
{}-t
si-:d4:

EVERGREEN MEMORTAL (SACRAMENTO)- VrEW FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCE

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
ts r!
s'+
aa
il
IF
s:
q"1h'
rl
'5
't-
-
[],
t,
',rdt
;r
'r+
4 a\
*'
.F
L
,"lll |l
*
.r'.+ f"'r-
'!al'
,Iffi
. arr -*rll,.1
m ia
m
F
6)
n
m
m
z
rTl
o
v
tU1
(-)
p
m
z
-{
I
r+

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

ST. MARY'S CEMETERY AND FUNERAL CENTER (SACRAMENTO)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

SACRAMENTO MEMORTAL LAWN (SACRAM ENTO)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

AERTAL OF MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL PARK & MORTUARY (FAIR OAKS)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
;
,.{l j;#
s

AERIAL OF SUNSET LAWN CHAPEL OF THE CHIMES (SACRAMENTO) :;1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
t?s1
a
t J,
,*,
?4
rr
&q
t6r
.it_ -l
I +".
&
llt t:,'
t.l
I ,':I - 't*
I

AERIAL OF EAST LAWN MEMORIAL PARK (SACRAMENTO)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

LAKESTDE COLONIAL CHAPEL (MARYSVILLE)- RUN BY APPLICANT

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
r
cHApEL OF THE TWrN CrrES (YUBA CrrY)- RUN BY APPLTCANT

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
r
-..-*t ". .,-ry | Jq
\
r.*
ou{xn'
'd
6 I'!
*
*
il"
t
ib

JONES MORTUARY (LAKEPORT)- RUN BY APPLICANT
{\! r
*

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Historic District Comm ission
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Conditional Use Permit (PN 19-182) February 16,2022
ATTACHMENT 13
Public Comments Received Prior to Staff Report
Publication

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Dear sirs,
I use the Folsom trail systems very regularly for fun and health. The Folsom Historic District is a unique treasure with renowned trails, quality eating and entertainment venues. When I visit (at least twice per week) I often stop for a bite to eat after biking the trails. Should this crematorium be allowed to operate, I will be forced to consider alternate locals for my recreational biking. I simply will not tolerate smoke and ash from burning bodies in my health regiment. Most in the bike club, I belong to, feel the same way. Please be mindful of the jewel you have made in developing Historic Folsom as a tourist and recreation hub. lf this plbn is allowed to progress, I and my friends will be taking our recreation dollars elsewhere. Thank you. I am confident you will make the right decision here.

Sincerely,
Andrew Cherniski
&,74,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

PR,OTECT
FOLSOM

HISTORIC

DISTR,ICT
Vote NO on
Lakeslde Memorlal
Lawn Crematorlum
Dear Historic District Commissioners'
I AM:
-{rnen R,tsK FoR Aln, QuALlrY HEAITH llulPtlcATloNs.
--.I PANTNT OR CAREGIVER, OF A CHITD OR' CHILDREN.

AN INDIVIDUAL WHO INTENDS TO HAVE CHILDREN.

Tovrn rHE AGC of 65 AND vutNERABtE.
lZvsnv woRR,tfD ABoUT THI SAFETY & LEGAcY oF HlsToRlc FotsoM' Znlcnlv coNcERNED AEoUT f xTRrl*[ F!Rr *!sK cAUSED BY tP TANKS lN OPEN sPACE.

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

TOXICITY tEVEtS UNSAFE FOR. CI{IIDREN, VUTNER,ABLE
The lnitial Study by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notates levels for harmful toxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Such toxins become the rnost dongerouswhen vaporized.The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the levels as "not significant." This applies onlyto average, healthy adults' The Study lalls to report significant arrd potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developlng chlldren, elderly, and those wlth existing health conditlons in the neighboring community.

HONCONFOR,IIIING USE OF OPEN SPACE
The proposed crematorium would be installed and operated in designated open space that is notzonedlor commerclaluse.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 off of the dead. With only one way in and out for emergency vehicles, One fire will harm thousands. Such an operation does not belong in ony child's backyard.

AIR QUALITY, SMELL, PARTICULATE ftiATTER MAKING HISTOR'Y The Folsom Historic District is treasured for its legacy of community, architecture, and natural appeal. poor air quality, smell, and toxic particulate matter will cause 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 Dlstrict, Scent will be detected for miles, even if not visible. A permanent pollutant, foul smell and toxins will leave a damaged legacy.

PROTECT HISTORIC FOLSOM. PROTECTTHE VULNERABLE. NO CREMATORIUM.

Contact lnformation
D^'.,N/</
Sincerely, 1
A.7Z C/-e-**zAe aot Fs isler- L/{ @Ja-/ao, Corl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Thursday, August 26,2021 9:28 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Folsom Crematorium proposal - in opposition
From: Anne Trim
Sent: Thursday, August 26,2O2!9:'l'6:27 PM
To: Scott Johnson <sjoh nson @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: Folsom Crematorium proposal - in opposition
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Scott
Thank you so much for all that you do to serve the community of Folsom. I am a resident and frequent (twice weekly) useroftheLakeNatomatrail systemwithmuchappreciationfornature. lhaveobtainedyourcontactinformation through a website that aims to share preferences on opposing the Lakeside Crematorium proposal. I would like to express my interest in leveraging a more win-win opportunity for development in our community by exploring alternative options for the crematorium site.

Quick list for your reference on why a win-win situation is beneficial:
o Retail sites that sit vacantly would appreciate the revenue and lease commitment where residents and nature are not impacted
r Lake Natoma is one of the remaining lakes in Folsom with consistent water flow, animals, trails, and appreciation of visitors
The Precautionary Principle (Friis, 2019) in terms of Environmental Health states the four aspects should be exhausted in respect of new or further development:
1) Taking preventive action to harm the environment, people, or wildlife 2) Shifting the burden of proof
3) Explorealternatives
4) Public participation in the decision
lwould respectfully like to implore you to explore alternatives if not already in pursuit. There are retail leasing spaces that sit vacant with no residents, beautiful nature, or athletics nearby that a crematorium could be accommodated in Folsom. The win-win is that a crematorium could be placed at a vacant retail location while not disturbing residents or trail enthusiasts.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Folsom has a trail system that invites residents and visitors to explore and with the imposing threat of a crematorium built.in the prime location of the trail, it would be a disadvantage to Folsom to lose the inviting vistas and Historic Folsom revenue for diners/ pedestrians.

References
City of Folsom (212fl. "Lakeside Crematorium Draft lSMND", https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/5087/637553756605700000.

Friis, R. H. (2019). Essentials of environmental health (3rd ed). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu. 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

I
:
:
{
I
a
:

J
J'
I
t
I
I
-t*
'!r-
.t
,}
ti
I
7 !
t
rC'
{r. -'-j
_9__+i
, Lr,r:
r.,
..gl,,*c+
'
1 I
t
J
I
.
.-;/,4irP;qti
I
"\
I
I !"
r"'
t1.
//
-rb f-T ?
I
t
rl
{
:
'' *\

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
s: .. -.;Jiirlr*iE:*dht -.,
.
/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Friday, luly 23,2021 8:13 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Concern Regarding Historic Area
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S10.

Get Outlook for Android
From: Ashley Martin
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2O2I,7:48 AM
To: Scott Johnson
Subject: Concern Regarding Historic Area
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to start by saylng how much my family adores this tovr'n (particularly historic) and appreciates the work that has gone into making it such a wonderful place to live. We moved into The Preserve in zorT and chose an older home over new construction because of the amazing location. Being able to walk to Sutter Street, paddle board to Negro Bar and utilize the endless miles of trails has been worth every penny. _
We hav-e two children who are 12 and ro that have spent the last 3 years playrng basketball at the park, searching for turkeys and deer at sunset and endless hours biking around the neighborhood. We have raised them to value nature, community and their health. They spend many hours outdoors, plaleng together or on family walks/rides. Even through all of the Covid uncertainty, the hardest weeks for us were those where they could not play due to smoke and poor air quality. The ability to decompress in nature was greatly healing to our family.

We enjoyhosting outdoor gatherings- the first thing we added to our home was a covered patio area to expand our living space to include the outside. Having come from the Midwest, we have a true understanding of how beautiful the weather is here- even in the summer heat. We have a whole house fan and windows are open most evenings to allow the delta breeze to cool everlthing down.

While I attended the meeting with Igor and I greatly appreciated his patience in hearing questions (and even some erratic accusations), I am still against a crematorium being placed so close to where my children play, enjoy nature and even read outdoors. Having lived in Rancho Cordova next to a rendering pllltt I can attest to being told that I would NEVER smell it, that there were very high quality filters being ran at all times and that we could always call the city with a complaint. I can also attest to the fact that we DID often smell it, normally during weekends or dinner hours- when it was very unlikely that someone would come to check that regulalions were being followed. There were even times when we could smell it with all of our windows closed, co-ing in through the stove ventilation. I was told this was a result of wind changes that caused the cloud to rest ovir our neighborhood. While the smell was offputting, what concerns me more is what we DON'T smell but is still lingering in the air. The proximity of this to where families call home and children play is concerning. The study that was done was based on two burns a day but Igor himself said there was no way to know how many would actually be done on any given day. This is not acceptable, in my opinion.

Over the three years that we have lived here, many families with young children have moved in and more have brought new life to this neighborhood. I imagine that many of them have the same concerns for their little 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
ones lung development. I have been so happy to see our neighborhood revitalized by new families with children moving in - it feels very unfair to be putting something like this in an older residential community. I can't imagine that this would even be suggested in an area like The Palladio.

I appreciate your service to our city and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Ashley Msrtinez
St
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Barbara Krieger
RE/MAX GOId
llr"n" Blvd.l
Sacramento, CA 95834
September L3,2O2L
Re: Lake Natoma Shores
Dear City of Folsom,
Sincerely,
I recentlv listeel a nror:ertv in the beaut'iful Historical tlistrirl of Lake Nat0ma Shores. We had our first ;;;;i;;";ii; prfip;ht lha tr,* asent called and left me a message tclling me her clients loved the nomu ,iA want'ed io iitjein tfti Hlitoric District, hut had one concern she wanted to ask me ahout.

Wh;; I i.rr*u r1i':til.[, itto ioia n*r buyers were worricd about the crernatorium going irt rrext doar. i einiained the sitLration-to her und l*t lier know her client-r could check with city planning fo-r more ;"]o;;;'tt';".' io-oJi't o.w ri *rev followecl up or not, trut they etrded up not submitting an offer specifically because of the crematorium.

I also had an apen house tlre first weekend on the trtarket. Several.people canre thrau6h, lnel ther*:
;;;; ;ilrt lit*,t ero"rli i7 Luylis who w*re all conctrned about the crematorium' Ttrey-1jl_lg,Y:j. _. ;ir; [;;";bgt"t niver ireard from thenr nor their agents.ag?jll, Otrt of all the neighbors ancl groups ol t;;t- ih;iiin * tttrooefi,lttbi* *ii orrty one pliign whci.liked the house arrd dld not care about the ireiratorium. Howevcilher husband wai not with her" when she left, ,she told me she.was going to i*lf [i* ounrt the 6o,ise to t** littt*y could purclrase it. I never heard from her again either' I am not a Folsgnr resident, but anr writing this letter out of concern for the neigJrborhood.. Ijaving ncrsonallv *uon *uurvi,nsl'* b,iv*r that w;lked through thi,, beautiful home get turned off fronr the Ii"rii" i-Ji;"rrrn -Ntiri"n'U"ia,ii* of an undesirable irernatorium should conccrn cvery single ;$;;]=;;i;tirett tt e pcoplc, the nearby homes and thc neighborhood itself as art etttitv, I wondcr ;fr" ii1;;[;-h;;"ii;bA fire'cernetery owner to get this far in lhe planning phase.of the.projctl, A.r'"iii;tii*"rtuir,'pt* ina to,,a crics of ihe Folsorn residents and groups, who.should not have to illi6i; ii;;;;l;[t rttf;;;h a threat while livirrs; irr such a popular, sophisticated and historieallv prot""t"O .r"j. f tm absolutely astonished that this is or-curring at all. please don't hesitate to cfrntact nre if you need further infsrrnatian ar details of nly experienct'. I arn ,
attachine the text conversahon betwebn rrryself and the first agerrt {with.lrer pernrission) wlto,showert tlre houie first with t6e buyers who decidecl not to write arr offer I ;lnr also attachlng the locKDox showine activitv tince-*o;u'c b"ort on thc rnarkel . Besides mv open houses, there.lras heett only one other a[ent shdwing (during the open horrse) since_we went orr tlte market, and sllc wotlld not tell ;;;hv [;; Uuyers itid not iubmit'an offer. There have been no other inquiries since' Thank you for time, and hopefully your deep concern for what is happening under your watch. u&#.-
Barbara Krieger, Realtor
lell
)ffice
REIMAX Gold Real Estate Agent
License #Ot3L7657 Since 2001

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
tl Verizon ?
<o
Thank you!
T:59 PM nl ee% ;+ '
: i;
"!.": :.iiir r r..:L; ,;C,'C#,..r,,;l-^:.rii 'tffir4 '+4tY \r-.*- "d
o.

Will do
Yeah it was a bit of a concern for
them I'm sorryl
Yep you're good to go tonight on
Fong Street
Thank you tool Let me know how it
goes
Did they get spooked bY the
crematorium bY fong st? Just
curious cuz l'm gonna write a letter
for the neighborhood I

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
€"orcr
S +-t p r;: $ h r:r ini rt g,& e;? i v !€y ilt e g'! e.' ri. $r-ipn-*?VE ts
'.1
$ iiili #{r} {5$'t t bV*F:"q iie:
!--c,gj ',11i tr: ;1ii.;praV{Fli
Friql_il-;:qt
tlflice Phone
ir.,:rr-!:.::i .i.'r I :. 'lr:
.lsiri:r,::,': r i.-r-r i ,,ir: l,:
i r;i:lrr'l I :' 'jii- ii
I ci:ti;1t il ,tatlg
$e';!ir:x :.j::r ii:{li :,j,ri-r."i r.l'r i!
Jt i. t ia:! ri c,i F.lV . I 1 :iihi''a iir':t-:.1.i I
f.,i:r'il 1.,,,1 t ii i:''
K€yholcl€r Fhong
ii 1 ili,:1.{i'j.1rl
:,i:,' ! 1
Oata
!'r:li 2{}': i r:52 UC irJrl
"1t11 212l /i 4it'ilf.] i:11,I
flr':rr?'0?1 fr 2,'' t1;1 ;:'iti
Tblal I r;rnt,er'.lrorrs ,i
l(oy $eriat
5:iji :)4.i
f'7{ltii\:'}
i:!lij I !ri:

Keyholder
LiiiiLJIiI l{llelur
{:,rrlri:r a l'ir'ieqe
i i;rlr.:y [1r:f.:l;l s,so :r
0fflc*
qEif,rA. x. {-i|l1, r i'l.r i(r'i'r;r5
I?F h4riX :,rrial l'Jitl{l)ita:i
h*llai r,iVrll ariti Re itliy f l)lll'rrn
,. t:I( 5 l.r I iiil
* The inf{rrmation in lhis reporl shcws lhe past g0 days {rf showing activity for keys i.hat have per{crrned an esync wilh lhc supra sy*letn Far a compl€te history oi heytrox aitivlty ycu may a{so read a keybox vritlt yorr kev.

Contaci gupra Support Toll-Free at 87I-699-678-/ lretween $:C0 AM and 7.00 PM, Facific; l.irne ' aj2A13 Unliad Technologie$ Corf)oralion. Ali rislhts reserved' l:'riv;rt;v ilolir:y WirLrsiie Ietni-* & {lll,1iiicns
htFs:/lwww2.suprakim.com/MLSiwebSite/Reports/showingActivlty.aspx?Llstinglo-221112974&LaglD=SKRIEGER&sid=Mb33598-0e704642-a52e-cl" 111

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
'!,r',,;'; I {n.ta- )/ ul ,J v'v1., kd &. t'l
August\ 2021
t/$t uJ -/ a t& ,. /)
.:L,r cl d,'ir, (/tuttc,
J
tJd or'i 7r'', < 3 I'ittt(/^
/ fi( tort/" r''
11,
Barbara Manwell
1310 Fong Street
Folsom, CA 95530
Mike Kozlowski
Mayor City of Folsom
50 Natoma St.

Folsom, CA %AgO
Dear Mike,
My name is Barbara Manwell. I have lived at !fong Street since November 1995. lt is important that you understand my opposition to a crematorium being installed at the Lakeside Cemetery in my neighborhood. The majority of houses in the Preserve subdivision have at least one person who is at risk for breathing polluted air: children 14 years or younger and Seniors 65 Years or older.

The City is aware that homeowners have opposed a crematorium in the past' The developer has stated it will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and the needs of the entire City must be considered. This is a question of the air I breathe, the air a 92 year old woman out for her daily walk breathes, the air a toddler taking her first steps breathes, the air a group of Seniors meeting for yoga three days a week in the Young Wo Park breathe, the air ihree boys racing through the neighborhood on bikes breathe. We are an outdoor group of citizens.

The developers'declaration has information to support his application from the manufacturer of the crematorium, Hartwick Combustion Technologies, and HELIX Environmental planning. Both businesses receive money from the developers. This is not reassuring to me.
lgor Semenyuk, representing Lakeside Cemetery in our recent ZOOM meeting happily informed the participants in the informational crematorium meeting that he had recently sold his property in Old Town for 5800,000. Making a profit is important to this business man' Having safe air to breathe is important to me.

Please deny Lakeside's application for a crematorium'
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Manwell

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Elaine Andersen
losh Kinkade
FW: No Crematorium
Friday, August 6,2021 8:22:48 AM
From: bob lu
Sent: Sunday, August L,2021- 1:38 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: No Crematorium
You don't often get email fro Learn whv this is imoortant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Andersen,
fls longtime residents of Natoma Shores, we are asking you to not allow our beautiful neighborhood to be destroyed. The prospect of having a crematorium in the Lakeside Cemetery is very upsetting and is wrong for so many reasons. For starters, our home is a "Receptor" and we are very concerned about the pollution and the health hazards associated with it. Such a facility should not be built this close to a residential neighborhood. ln addition, this will lower the property value of our homes. How will we be compensated? lf there are health issues arising from the smoke will we be able to be compensated for that as well?
I hope you would honestly consider how you would react if the crematorium was built in your neighborhood and not allow this to happen.

The Barnett Familyff'oung Wo Circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Tuesday, February 8,2022 9:06 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Concerned Historic District Resident - Lakeside Memorial Lawn ScottA. Johnson, AICP
l) Ian r tittq .\I ttrt uq u'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.46'1.6206
thi 6lTY CF rtr€Fltsffihfi
i ot*r'rtscr:vr. E!Y il*-runE
$*@ www.iolsonr.ca. us
From: Ben Gamache
Sent: Tuesday, February 8,2022 9:02 AM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; a nkhelyi@comcast. neU [email protected]; m.dasca [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Concerned Historic District Resident - Lakeside Memorial Lawn Some people who received this message don't often get email ftotE Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Historic District Commissioners
I am writing to express my deep concern at the conditional use permit submitted by Lakeside Memorial Lawn, owned by Miller Funeral Home, to install a crematory.

The Historic District is the crown jewel of Folsom. lts history, incredible landscape, unique shopping and dining experiences, and community provide so much to the city of Folsom. The thought of a crematory burning 800 pounds of human bodies per day will have untold negative physical, environmental, and fiscal implications that will damage both the city and the community.

Our air quality in the Valley has been the worst on record. How can we justify adding more particulate, more carbon, to our already hurting environment? How can we justify putting the citizens at risk? How can we tarnish the shining gem that is Old Folsom?
I implore you and the other staff members to consider all that is to be lost by granting this permit. I thank you for your consideration and welcome any feedback.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Sincerely,
Ben Gamache
Historic District Home Owner
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

August 2,2021
Dear Mr. Josh Kincaid,
l, together with my neighbors at Lake Natoma Shores, a community next to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery am asking you to halt the proposed construction of a crematorium there. The crematorium will be located adjacent to: a residential neighborhood, the Old Town District and the American River Parkway. This area is part of Folsom's historic district and resides near many outdoor activities promoted by our city as family friendly, safe and "distinctive by nature". lt entails a farmers market, outdoor concefts; city sponsored festivals and sits adjacent to the American River Parkway that is actively used by many walkers, runners, and bicyclists daily. The Parkway serves as a window to the natural world, for all those that live and visit Folsom. ln researching the toxicity impacts of a crematorium I went to the National Collaborating Center for Environmental Health and found the following information, as per an article written in the US National Library of Medicine:
"Cremation is a combustion process whereby a casket and human remains are incinerated at a high temperature in a closed chamber. The process of corpse cremation generates numerous harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals, These pollutants are carcinogenic and could have severe effects on human health and the surrounding environment." (*)
It is of great concern to me that scientific papers have been written proving that the emissions from crematorium incineration are toxic. And that the level of toxicity is a danger to people's health and well-being, has destroyed surrounding water sheds & water quality and is of great harm to the natural environment.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, January 14,2022 8:28 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium
From:BertpSent: Friday, January t4,20227:29 AM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Crematorium
You don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

January 14,2022
Dear Ms. Anderson,
l, together with my neighbors at Lake Natoma Shores, a community next to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery am asking you to halt the proposed construction of a crematorium there. The crematorium will be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, the Old Town District, and the American River Parkway. This area is part of Folsom's historic district and resides near many outdoor activities promoted by our city as family-friendly, safe, and "distinctive by nature". lt entails a farmers market, outdoor concerts; city-sponsored festivals, and sits adjacent to the American River Parkway that is actively used by many walkers, runners, and bicyclists daily. The Parkway serves as a window to the natural world, for all those that live and visit Folsom.
ln researching the toxicity impacts of a crematorium I went to the National Collaborating Center for Environmental Health and found the following information, as per an article written in the US National Librarv of Medicine:
"Cremation is a combustion process whereby a casket and human remains are incinerated at a high temperature in a closed chamber. The process of corpse cremation generates numerous harmful air pollutants, including particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. These pollutants are carcinogenic and could have severe effects on human health and the surrounding environment." (*) It is of great concern to me that scientific papers have been written proving that the emissions from crematorium incineration are toxic. And that the level of toxicity is a danger to people's health and well-being, has destroyed surrounding watersheds & water quality and is of great harm to the natural environment.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

Sincerely,
Bert Pittari, Patricia Zuccaro
Resident Lake Natoma Shores Resident Lake Natoma Shores (*)"Toxic atmospheric pollutants from crematoria ovens: characterization, emission factors, and modeling"
>Envirom Sci Pollut Res lnt. 2o2o Dec
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

I,,
Dear People in charge
I am writing in response to the notice that the Folsom Cemetery is planning to install an Crematorium. I have a home that is on YoungWo circle that would be adversely impacted.

I have a daughter who lives on Sunrise Boulevard near the Sacramento Rendering Plant, and when it is in production the fumes it produces make it unbearable to stay out side. From what I understand the crematorium would not have an air scrubber, which would putall of lower Folsom [Erat includes Sutter Street] in the direct path of the same noxious fumes that come from the Sacramento animal rendering plant! I understand thatthe disease Mad Cow syndrome came from cows eating food made of other dead cow carcasses. What will fume and ash from Human cremation do to other Humans who breath in these by products.

Today we are told to wear N95 Mask to go out into forest fire smoke that has invisible particles, how will we feel safe that we are not being exposed to the same toxic and more lethal by products. I would also like to know how the curators of the Muir House Museum, and the Chamber of Commerce of Sutter street would feel about the impacts of these fumes on Tourism in their areas.

After reading the city planning commissions report on the impacts of this new project, I would like to know if the commission has taken a field trip to crematory to actually see it impact to adjacentareas. In reading the commissions report, on page 19 of 11 , section D leaves a question as to what a substantial number of people are and if wind conditions are taken into account I was also quite surprised at the number of pounds of toxic chemicals and elements per hours of use that would be released into the atmosphere, as listed on page 27of 5L of this same report, Home owner on Young Wo Circle
Bob Baker, phone number

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,2022
City of Folsom
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Pam Johns - [email protected]; Josh Kincade - [email protected] SUBJECT: Lakeside Crematorium - Comments on Initial Study/MND Dear Ms. Johns:

This letter provides my comments on the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Initial Stu dyAvl iti gated Ne gati ve Dec I arati on (I S /I\4ND) dated I anuary 2022'

1. The IS/NIND correctly identifies the City Council as having approval decision authority for the project; but is contradicted by the public hearing notice. As limited by the Cify Charter, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is an advisory commission only and does not have the authority to make a final approval decision. This is recognized in the ISA4ND on page 7 (section 5.0, "Required Approvals") which specifically states that the "Folsom City Council" will act as the lead CEQA agency and consider approval of the project entitlements. However, the public hearing notice issued for the project discusses that an appeal would be required for consideration by the City Council. The public hearing notice inconectly identifies the HDC has having final approval authority and should be corrected to be consistent with the City Charter limitations on HDC authority.

2. A design review application is required but has not been submitted. The proposed shed modification requires design review pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) section 17.52.300, "Design Review," which requires design review for, "8. All exterior . renovations, remodeling, modification or addition to existing structures" and FMC Section 17.52.310 provides design review application submittal (including design review application fee) requirements. The IS/IVIND does not identi$ design review as a necessary entitlement and the project application on the Community Development Department's Pending Development Applications is only for a use petmit. An application for design review containing the required submittals must be submitted and design review application fees paid before the City provides further processing of this project. Importantly, such design review would then consider whether the building that would undergo a substantial expansion of use to house the proposed crematorium is consistent with Historic District design standards and guidelines or if the design of that structure requires additional modifications to comply with Historic District design standards and guidelines.

3. The IS/NIND incorrectly identifies the project as consistent with the General Plan, yet the General Plan has no land use designation for either a cemetery or a crematorium, therefore the analysis cannot tier from the General Plan EIR. The ISA4ND incorrectly states that the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Open Space. A review of the General Plan intent for the Open Space land use designation reveals that there is no basis for concluding that a crematorium is consistent with the General Plan Open Space land use designation. The General Plan

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,2022
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 ,pu"" ur"u. could or might be used for siting a cemetery and a crematorium.2 The ISA4ND interpretation and the subsequent analysis which tiers from the General Plan EIR are fundamentally flawed. The IS/\4ND must be revised to eliminate the erroneous statements about General Plan consistency, and the impact analyses must fully evaluate the project without attempting to tier from the General Plan EIR. Further, while FMC section 17 .52.550 identifies "cemeteries" as a permitted use in the Open Space/Public primary area of the Historic District (subject to a conditional use permit when proposed by a private entity), the FMC does not extend the definition of cemetery to a crematorium. Furthermore, the FMC is subordinate to, and may not conflict with, the General Plan, therefore, expanding the unspecified FMC definition of a cemetery to include a crematorium would even further stray from the General Plan's Open Space definition and is impermissible.

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

The ISi\4ND provides no information on whether cremations (up to 4 per day and 500 per year) would or could be attended by family, friends, or other members of the public.

If no such attendance will be permitted, a condition of any use permit for this project must specifically state that such attendance is prohibited and must include a mechanism to ensure the prohibition is enforced. Alternatively, if such attendance will be permitted, the IS/\4ND must be revised to discuss the maximum anticipated attendance at each cremation and evaluate the impacts associated with vehicle trips, noise, parking capacity, neighborhood circulation and pedestrian safety, effects on other sen"ices and activities at the cemetery, and other factors associated with public attendance. Fufthermore, the ISA4ND does not 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.

5. The IS/MND fails to recognize the visibility of the existing shed and proposed modifications from public view locations (X'olsom Boulevard) and the impacts of such visibility on visual quality and locally designated historic resources. The ISA{ND aesthetics and cultural resources analyses are fundamentally flawed by failing to recognize that the existing structure is visible from public viewpoints including Folsom Boulevard and the bluffs on the north side of Lake Natoma. Page 2 of the IS/A4ND incorrectly states that "[t]ailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard 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,A4ND's interpretation would suggest that the expectation of that policy is for those open space areas to be eligible for siting a crematorium.

Page2 of 4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,2022
prevent the site from being visible from that street." This is incorrect. The roof and upper portion of the structure in which the crematorium is proposed to be located and on which an exhaust flume would be installed is clearly visible from Folsom Boulevard at the intersection of Natoma Street. Furthermore, befween Folsom Boulevard and the structure are cobble mine tailings that are identified in the City of Folsom Cultural Resources Inventory as import local historic resources. In fact, this section of tailings is one of the most prominent locations of representative historic mine tailings visible to the largest number of viewers anywhere in the City. The impact of the project's modification to the existing structure would visible in the background of these tailings and must be identified and evaluated in terms of impacts to the quality of views of the tailings and impacts to the historic quality of the tailings viewshed.

6. The air quality and health risk analysis does not use best available information and requires more certainty regarding project design. The air quality and health risk analysis circulated with the IS/\4ND uses a wind rose (wind direction information) from the Sacramento Executive Airport. The Sacramento Executive Airport is nearly 20 miles from the project site and is more strongly influenced by the Delta and Central Valley wind patterns than the project site's location along the American River corridor near the Sierra Nevada foothills. More representative wind flow data from a location nearer the site (e.g., Mather Field) is available and should be used for any air quality and health risk assessment conducted for the project to ensure that locally accurate wind directions and speeds are used in the analysis. Furthermore, the health risk analysis states that the analysis assumes a rain cover will be installed on the crematorium exhaust stack.

However, the application and representative photograph of the exhaust stack do not discuss or identif' the intent for such a cover. Ifa cover is not present during operation of the crematorium, the emissions and resulting health risk analysis conclusions would vary from those presented in the IS/I\4ND. Clarification and certainty for this project design component is needed. If the rain cover is to be in place during cremations, an analysis of potential localized effects of downdraft on memorial lawn visitors while cremations should also be provided.

7. The IS/NIND does not adequately evaluate potential impacts on nesting and foraging bald eagles and other special-status bird and bat species. The IS/IVIND provides no discussion of the annually active bald eagle nest located just 0.5 mile north of the project site and the potential effects ofthe project and exhaust stack on foraging behavior ofthe eagles or other protected bird and bat species. While the ISAvIND discusses that effects of vehicles and workers at the site would not adversely affect migratory birds, the analysis does not address the potential effects on foraging activity of the furnace exhaust heat blast with an assumed exhaust gas temperature of 1,080 degrees Fahrenheit ("F) and a gas exit velocity of 14.7 feet per second that would occur for up to 90 minutes up to four times a day. This analysis is necessary to determine if the project would adversely affect this bald eagle nesting and foraging area or otherwise adversely affect other special-status bird or bat species that may use the area.

8. The IS/NIND analysis of fire risk is inadequate and warrants a definitive determination by the City Fire Department and California State Parks. The IS/\4ND analysis of potential fire risk associated with the project is insufficient. The discussion of potential exposure to wildland fire risks downplays and fails to provide a meaningful analysis of the project's potential fire risk. The IS/\4ND discusses that the "project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Folsom." In fact, the project

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,2022
site contains and is located immediately adjacent to substantial oak woodland areas and oak canopy adjacent to the building proposed to house an exhaust flume with an assumed exhaust gas temperature of 1,080 degrees Fahrenheit ("F) and a gas exit velocity of 14.7 feet per second. Within and adjacent to the site are oak canopy linkages to the large oak woodland open spaces to the north, west, and south of the project. The IS/MND states that, "the project is not likely to cause any ignition, given that the crematory will not emit sparks." Evidence providing a definitive conclusion that the crematory - a facility design for burning and with an exhaust flume - will not emit sparks or other hot particles of potential ignition source is needed. Furthermore, the IS/MND discusses that the City Fire Department reviewed the project and did not raise any concerns regarding water supply or site access. This begs the question of whether the Fire Department raised other concerns and even whether the Fire Department reviewed and considered the project.

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

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
F cA 95630

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 7,2022
Cify of Folsom
Community Development Departm ent
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: Pam Johns - [email protected]; Josh Kincade - [email protected] SUBJECT: Lakeside Crematorium - Supplemental Comments on Initial StudyiNIND Dear Ms. Johns:

On February 4,2022,I submitted a letter with comments on the Lakeside Crematorium project Initial Study/\4itigated Negative Declaration (ISAvIND). In my February 4 comments I expressed concerns with, among other things, visibility of the project shed and fire risk. Having viewed the property more closely with physical observations from Folsom Boulard and review of aerial imagery available online, it is evident that the IS/MND fails to disclose critical information related to existing conditions at the site that arc relevant to the project environmental impact analyses.

Figure 1, "Excerpt of IS/MND Figure 3 Detailed Site Plan," on the following page is an excerpt of the ISA4ND Figure 3 to which I have added red linework and labels. Figure 2, "Photograph of Existing Site Conditions," on the following page is a photograph I took on Sunday February 6, 2022, from the south side of Folsom Boulevard just east of the Natoma Street intersection and facing nofthwest toward the project site. The black linework on Figure 1 shows what the ISA4ND considers to be the existing site condition. However, as illustrated in red, there is another building adjacent to the project shed and located near or on the property boundary that is not identified or discussed in the ISIN{ND. As shown on Figure 2,that building is a metal structure that is taller and larger in footprint than the project "shed" illustrated on Figure l.

Review of aerial photograph on Google Earth indicates that sometime in 2020 or 2021 a concrete pad was installed and the second metal structure was erected. That the structure is one or very near the property line and within 5 feet or less of the project shed.

This additional structure provides a substantial constraint to the ability of emergency response vehicle access to areas surrounding the project shed. Since the IS/MND fails to identiff the structure, the IS/MND also fails to identiff its use and fails to consider the implications of this structure and its constraint on emergency access. Furthermore, the presence of this structure and its bearing on the project's cumulative visual and other impacts must be considered in the environmental review.

An understanding of the project site's actual existing conditions is necessary for any meaningful review of the project's impacts. The IS/NIND's failure to even acknowledge the existence of the largest building on the properfy, let alone consider it in the impact analysis, warrants substantial revision to the IS/MND to adjust the analysis to account for this structure.

Sincerely,
Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
Fo cA 95630

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 7,2022

F'IGURES
(E) SHED
{N) 2 x 500
-r-_]-
'_ *:.-
a
--L:.
- -r/'
PATCH

EXISTING
WAIXWAY.IDRIVETTAY
SlOOP/LANDING
EXISTING IR€E
-7
*AdStructure
(E)
I.FGEND:

PROPMTYLINE
EXISlIIiGAREA
AREA Of \rloftK
New Metal
--"-)
STRUCTURE\'
Figure 1. Excerpt of IS/IVIND Figure 3 Detailed Site Plan New Metal Project
Figure 2. Photograph of Existing Site Conditions

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Bob Delp
Friday, September 24,2021 10:21 AM
Pam Johns; Josh Kinkade
Sari Dierking; Elaine Andersen
Subject: Re: Lakeside Crematorium
€AUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Pam and Josh:

I remain interested in receiving your input on the questions and information about the proposed crematorium requested in my emails below. The feedback I'm requesting is related to basic information about the project that is fundamental to your Department's review of the project, so it's unclear why you would not be able to easily provide it or post it to the Pending Development Applications webpage. (lt is troubling, to say the least, that your Department maintains a webpage specifically named "Pending Development Applications" and yet for some reason the project application isn't posted and it seems you are unable to provide it upon request even months after an Initial Study was prepared and circulated.) After reviewing the General Plan specifically to identify its intent for the Open Space land use designation, it is obvious that there is simply no basis for concluding that a crematorium is consistent with the General Plan Open Space land use designation. Your Department's interpretation (as presented in the April 2021 lnitial Study) is incorrect and could have long-term damaging consequences regardless of the outcome of the currently proposed crematorium project. lf you actually have a solid basis for your interpretation, not only would I and others in the community like to see that, but I would also request that you take that interpretation to the City Council for their concurrance in advance of further consideration of the current or any other individual cemetery or crematorium project'
you must be aware that the General Plan mentions "cemeteries" just one time (and crematoriums not at all), and that is in reference to Noise Compatibility Standards (Table SN-1) having nothing to do with land use designations. TableLU-5oftheGeneral Plan(page2-7)definestheOpenSpacedesignationas,"TheOpen Space land use designation encompasses the presented natural open space areas of Folsom," Throughout the General Plan, policies encourage development to incorporate areas of open space. No reasonable person can argue that the intent of those policies was that those open space areas could or might be used for siting a cemetery, let alone a crematorium. (Example: Policy LU 3.1.1- "Encourage mixed-use development in nodes located at major intersections that include housing, open space, and offices." Are you prepared to argue that the expectation in that policy is that those open space areas would be eliglble for siting a crematorium?)
There very well may be a need for one or more crematoriums in the Folsom area. When a particular type of land use hasn't previously been anticipated in the General Plan but the need or interest in that type land use is identified, I would think that as planners you would recognize that the City should undertake a process to assess whether that type of land use is appropriate for the City and, if so, at what location(s) in the City that type of land use might best be located. That should not be done on a individual project basis, but through a 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
more broad (City-wide) planning and General Plan (and perhaps also zoning code) amendment process that would engage the community and ultimately be decided by the City Council.

To avoid ramifications that go beyond a simple yes or no decision on the currently proposed crematorium, I am asking that your Department retract the April 2021 lnitial Study and its incorrect interpretation of General Plan consistency. lf your Department proceeds with a City-wide planning exercise to determine whether and where cemeteries and/or crematoriums should be eligible for siting, please include me in your public notices for that process.

Thank you,
-Bob Delp
BCC: Delp lnterested Parties List
Bob Delp
s16I
From: Bob Delp
Sent: Tuesday, September 21.,20215:05 PM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]. us>; Josh Kinkade <[email protected]> Cc: Sari Dierking <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lakeside Crematorium
Pam and Josh:

I am still interested in receiving your feedback on the questions in my emailto you on Sept 1-4 (below).

Additionally, can you provide the existing CUP (approvals, allowable uses, conditions, etc.)for the cemetery? Also, I have reviewed the General Plan and do not see ony discussion or references in the City General Plan or zoning code that suggests an intent or expectation that a crematorium is an allowable use in conjunction with designated Open Space areas, and nothing in the General Plan to indicate that even cemeteries without crematoriums are an allowable use in the Open Space land use designation (and nothing in the General Plan ElR, from which the crematorium lnitialstudy tiers, to suggest that crematoriums were an assumed use in Open Space or anywhere else in the City in the General Plan EIR analysis). Can you provide an explanation of staff's basis for suggesting crematoriums are an allowable use in Open Space areas and also how you interpret development of a crematorium as being acceptable in Open Space that is within a SACOG transit priority area?
Your feedback on this would be most helpful
Thank you,
-Bob
Bob Del
2 9

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From: Bob Delp
Sent: Tuesday, September t4,2O2L 11:37 AM
To: Pam Joh ns <pjoh [email protected]>; Josh Kinkade <jkin kade@folsom,ca.us> Cc: Sa ri Dierking <[email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Crematorium
Hi, Pam and Josh
I see the April2O2L Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium draft lS/MND on the Pending Development Applications page, but no other information about the project is posted there. I have a few questions I'm hoping you can answer:

L. What date did the City deem the application complete?

2. 3. Are the project application materials available and can they be posted on the Pending Development Applications webpage?
What is the status of the City's review of the project? Are there any permit streamlining act deadlines that apply to this project? . Was the lS/MND filed with the State Clearinghouse and did any agencies comment? (l don't see it on the CEQAnet database.)
Thanks in advance for any feedback you can provide
-Bob
Bob
4 5
4 5
6 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Scott Johnson
Sunday, January 9,2022 '1:52 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
tMG_20211108_154501538jp9; IMG_20210720_1s3825154_BURST0O0_COVER_TOPjpg Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook Android
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Sunday, January 9,2022 1:32:35 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]. us>
Subject: Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello everyone,
l'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neighborhood. We are still very much opposed to this proposal' I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband,oneyearolddaughter,nieceand nephew, livewithinthiscommunity. lnaddition, lamSmonthspregnant. lamwritingthis letter for them.

We moved to folsom last year to be all together. A close family's dream come true. we watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special.
lhaveworkedat MercyHospital of Folsomforthelast!2yearsasanutritionistandmyhusbandisaRNintheEmergencyDepartmentat Mercy Hospital of San Juan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We risk our health and the health of our family for the community. These past two year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot. lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.

Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my babies, my family and friends from this crematorium. put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other.

Thebadairquality,it'sthetopconcern. Contaminatedairwill besurroundingthisneighborhood,causingpotential healthrelatedissues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I worry about any emissions this crematory will expel into the air. Can my children's health really be guaranteed? Can you guarantee that? Should they have to live and play in a area where they watch bodies being burned? 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
"White" smoke in the sky, indicating they are in the process of burning a body. I don't want that for my children or their friends in the neighborhood.

This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games. l'm very proud of that. Kids being kids - it's a beautiful thing. lf this crematorium is put in, I worry aboutthe kids being outside. Running around breathing in the contaminates or not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours. What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing.

As a neighborhood we are rallying together to try and stop this proposal from going any further. We were strong and will continue to fight for our friends and family.

I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.

This crematory should not be in a or near a residential area. lt should be in a industrial zone, not in open space.

We were already lied to once by lgor. They have submitted an addendum to the proposal and have increased the daily rate from 400 lbs to 800 lbs a day of human remains. Will this continue to increase? What else will be adjusted? Ithankyoufortakingthetimetoreadthis. lhaveattachedapictureof mybabyGretawithhercousins.Theyareontheirgrandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery/potential crematory directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.

Show quoted text
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Attachments:

FYI
KellyMullett
-.1 rli n ir r i.s I r'{r f it :c,'1.s.s l.'rl r,i rt / Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, luly 21,2021 8:32 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
IMG -2021 0720-1 53825 1 54-BU RST00O-COVER-TOP j pg
ihi g'ffiff"'ffigils{{ Lrt: *i
6il f,lr Ftf trf f tl!, lt.l+: !!sl
S9@ ulu*,tslss,:r.*,rs
From: breanne higgins
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,20219:16 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjoh nson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello everyone,
I'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neigh borhood.

I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband, one year old daughter, niece and nephew, live within this community. I am writing this letter for them.

We moved to folsom last year to be alltogether. A close family's dream come true. We watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a new mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special' I have worked at Mercy Hospital of Folsom for the last 12 years as a nutritionist and my husband is a RN in the Emergency Department at Mercy Hospital of San Juan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
risk our health and the health of our family for the community. This past year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot.
lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.

Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my baby, my family and friends from this crematorium. Put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other.

The bad air quality, it's the top concern. Contaminated airwill be surrounding this neighborhood, causing potential health related issues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I believe a third party report still needs to be done?
As I consider having a second child, I am fearful of being pregnant and breathing in the contaminated air. What would it do to my unborn baby? I would have to move. How could Itake such a chance? Too risky.

This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games I'm very proud of that. Kids being kids - it's a beautiful thing. lf this crematorium is put in, I worry about the kids being outside. Running around breathing in the contaminates or not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours.

What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing.

I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.

I thank you for taking the time to read this. I have attached a picture of my baby Greta with her cousins. They are on their grandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.

With much appreciation,
Breanne Higgins
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

FYI
KellyMullett
,1r i nl t lt t.sI l'rr I it,r' .,1.s.sii;f ti II I
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.46'1 .6231
F:916.355.7274
Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, )uly 21,2021 8:32 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
I M G_202 1 07 20 -1 53 825 1 54-BU RSTO0O-COVE R-TOP j p g i -.,
ihi smsm'qm
0S@ yruru..lsbn,o rd-*
From: breanne higgi
Sent: Tuesday, July 20,2O2L 9:16 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subiect: Crematorium
CAUTION; This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello everyone,
I'm am writing this email to express my concerns over the potential Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium within the preserves neigh borhood.

I love this small community I live in. These people aren't just neighbors, they are friends and family. My sister, brother in law, mom, dad, husband, one year old daughter, niece and nephew, live within this community. I am writing this letter for them.

We moved to folsom last year to be all together. A close family's dream come true. We watch each other's children and do daily life together. As a new mother I have learned, it takes a village and the neighboring village to raise a child. This community is my neighboring village. lt's truly something special.

I have worked at Mercy Hospital of Folsom for the last 12 years as a nutritionist and my husband is a RN in the Emergency Department at Mercy Hospital of San Juan. We work for this community, even through the pandemic. We 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
risk our health and the health of our family for the community. This past year was incredibly difficult and we sacrificed a lot.
lf this crematorium is put in, we would not only be exposing ourselves to health risks at work, but now at home. Where would our sanctuary be?
We are a working class community, with many public servants living here: healthcare workers, law enforcement, retired fireman and military, just to name a few.

Now is the time for the community to pay it forward. Please protect our neighborhood, my baby, my family and friends from this crematorium. Put it outside city limits, away from not only my community, but others as well. Put it in a designated area. Let's protect each other.

The bad air quality, it's the top concern. Contaminated air will be surrounding this neighborhood, causing potential health related issues to our children, elderly and vulnerable population. I believe a third party report still needs to be done?
As lconsider having a second child, lam fearfulof being pregnantand breathing in the contaminated air. What would it do to my unborn baby? lwould have to move. How could I take such a chance? Too risky.

This is a neighborhood that the kids play outside together. "Like the good old days" the kids ride bikes, go to the park, scooter around the block. They aren't inside on the computer, they don't have phones, they aren't playing video games I'm very proud of that. Kids being kids - it's a beautiful thing. lf this crematorium is put in, I worry about the kids being outside. Running around breathing in the contaminates or not being allowed to play outside during certain days/hours.

What will the kids do?? My guess is go to electronics, which is disappointing.

I ask for your help in preventing this crematorium from coming into our neighborhood. I ask you to help protect my family and our health.

I thank you for taking the time to read this. I have attached a picture of my baby Greta with her cousins. They are on their grandmother's front yard (please note the cemetery directly in the background) which is three houses down from mine.

With much appreciation,
Breanne Higgins
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
A d r t t i n i str ati -u e As si s tcut t
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
lfir lr
Kelly Mullett
Tuesday, August 3,2021 8:21 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Folsom Crematorium
r$I,H$nfi
OO@ www.totsom.ca.us
From: Brian Paciotti
Sent: Monday, August 2,2027 6:32 PM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Folsom Crematorium
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Folsom Historic District,
I live with the Preserve neighborhood, and I recently learned from my neighbors that the Lakeside Memorial Lawn (owned by the Caring Service Group) has applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds. t tiu" ,tloung Wo Circle. The region where the crematory will sit (currently a shed) is within about 400-500 feet from our home. My wife Dawn, and our twelve-year-old son Austin, have lived here for 12 years-we enjoy the lake, our wonderful neighbors, and the Folsom historical areas nearby. The Chinese cemetery in our neighborhood is an awesome tribute to the past Chinese immigrants. Unsurprisingly, we prefer our current situation, and we preferto not smell or breath the output from the crematorium. Although our personal situation is obviously import to our family (me), the message of this letter concerns the greater public good of conserving history and ecological landscapes (us).

I understand the societal need for crematoriums-we need them. However, it makes more sense as a community to keep industrialoperations separate from neighborhoods, historical regions, and precious ecological reserves, There are societies that have chosen a hands-off approach to regulation. ln one large US city, I recall seeing a brothel, chemical plant, churches, and residences all in the same neighborhood, Folsom is not like this at all-we have a planned communitythatincludessomeofthebestparks,bikepaths,historical districts,andneighborhoodsinthecountry. Thus, people move to Folsom and will continue to move here in the future due to our desirable planned community. 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Best,
Brian Paciotti
Ph.D. Ecology, UC Davis. M.S. Healthcare lnformatics, UC Davis MedicalCenter lvoung wo circle
Folsom, CA 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

January 30,2022
Dear Folsom Historic District,
I live with the Preserve neighborhood, and I recently learned from my neighbors that the Lakeside Memorial Lawn (owned by the Caring Service Group) has applied for a conditional use permit to install a crematory on the grounds.

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

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

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

Yet what will residents think if they internalize the brand of "distinctive by nature", come to enjoy our 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 lvoungWo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

To:

From
Subject:

Date:

Elaine Andersen
losh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
Tuesday, February 7,20229:45:5I AM
From: carol hart
Sent: Tuesday, February L,2022 9:45 AM
To: [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski<[email protected]> Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email orlginated from outside of the organization. Do not click lin ks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe
Dear Members of the Folsom City Board,
I am a resident of Folsom Preserve. I live close to where the proposed crematorium would be built. I oppose this plan, because of the
the danger to our air quality. I am most concerned for our children, who play outdoors, and could be harmed by increased poor air
quality. This community strongly opposes the crematorium, and agrees that it should be built elsewhere. Certainly there are other
more open areas where this could be built...far away from communities. lf you have not visited our community to see how close our
homes are to the cemetery, I would ask you to do so
Thank you,
Carol Hart
-Young
Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
.r.;
;, sv
JqcEo Bruu!{rrro
SEgAEtaRr FOA
Fa&'rnit[!F4aA! pF3Tf i tr!1!
Grvrr NEy,,ro*
0o!EFrsCA
W'ater Boards
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
7 February 2A22
Josh Kinkade
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
j ki n kade@fo I so m. c a. u s

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, LAKESIDE MEMORIAL LAWN CREMATORIUM PROJECT, scH#20220{ 0039, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse's 5 January 2A22 request, the CentralValley RegionalWater Quality Control Board (CentralValley Water Board) has reviewed the Reguesf for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorlum Project, located in Sacramento County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
l. Regulatory Sefting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality ControlAct. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. ln California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State's water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the NationalToxics Rule,40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule,40 CFR Section 131.38,
The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the CentralValley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Dpntse KaoAna, AcING cHArR I Pnrnrcx Puluen, EXEcurtvE oFFrcER 11020 Sun Center Drive f,200, Rancho Oordova, CA 95670 | www.wat€rboards.ca.gov/c€ntralvalley

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
7 February 2022
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basrns, please visit our website:
http ://www. waterboards. ca. govlcentra lva I ley/water lssues/bAq i n o lansl Antideqradation Gcinsiderations
Allwastewater discharges must comply with the Anlidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation lmplementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation lmplementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www"waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallevlwater issues/basin plans/sacsir 2018

05.pdf
ln part it states:

Any discharge of wasfe to higtt quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occuning, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consisfenf with the maximum benefit to the people of the.Sfafe.

This information must be presenfed as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background cancentrations and applicable water quality obiectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. ll. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
.)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
7 February 2422
http://www.waterboards.ca.oov/wate-r issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Phase I and ll Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Svstem {MS4) Permitel The Phase I and ll MS4 permits require the Permiftees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low lmpact Development (LlD)/postconstruction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permils also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
http:/Aruww.waterboards.ca.govlcentralvalley/water issues/storm waterlmunicipal p ermitsl
For more information on the Phase ll MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.qov/water issueslproorams/stormwaterlphase ii munici pal.shtml
lndustrial Storm Water General Permit
Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the lndustrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014- 0057-DWQ. For more information on the lndustrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallev/water issueslstorm wateriindustrial oe neral permits/index.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
lf the project will involve the discharge of dredged or flll material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). lf a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the CentralValley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. lf the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. lf you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act 1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase ll MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals. -3-

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
4 7 February 2422
Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit - Water Quality Certification lf an USACE permit (e.9., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, lndividual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.9., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section g from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quali$ Certification, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/water quality certificatio nl
Waste Discharqe Requirements - Discharqes to Waters of the State lf USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., "nonfederal" waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallev/water issues/waste to surface wat erl
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ {General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.oov/board decisiqnsladopted orders/water oualitvl200 4/wq o/wqo2004-0004. pdf
Dewaterins Permit
lf the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

LakesideMemorial Lawn -5- 7February2422
Crematorium Project
Sacramento County
under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of lntent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For rnore information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
http://wrnrw.waterboards.ca.qov/bgard decisions/adoptgd orders/water quality{2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For rnore information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
httos://rrww.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvallev/board decisions/adopted orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
lf the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United $tates, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges fo Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of lntent must be submitted to the CentralValley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the CentralValley Water Board website at:
https://wunru.waterbo?rds.ca.gov/centralvalley/board decisions/adooted ordersloene ral orderslr5-Z0 1 6-00-76-0 1 . p-df
NPDES Permit
lf tfr" proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the CentralValley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Pennit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https:/iwww.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvallevlhelnlpgrmit/ lf you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or Peter.MinkelZ ov.
{.fr/ /
Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
ct{tHEsE

HISTORICAL
SOGIETY ol

AM ER TCA
Chinese Historical Society of America
965 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 391-l 188 xl0l
Fax: (415) 391-l 150
Email: [email protected]
September 1,2021
Historic District Commissioners
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Memorial Lawn Crematorium,
RE,: Lakeside
Project Number: PN l9-182
Dear Historic District Commissioners
Thank you for giving the Chinese Historical Society of America (CHSA) the opportunity to comment on the above-proposed project. CHSA is a non-profit organization the Mission of which isto"collect, preserve, and illuminate the history of Chinese in America by serving as a center for research, scholarship and learning to inspire a greater appreciationfor, and lcnowledge of, their collective experience through exhibitions, public programs, and any other meansfor reaching the widest audience. " CHSA is the oldest Chinese historical society in America and maintains a museum conceming Chinese history and culture in San Francisco. By way of this letter, CHSA wishes to voice its strong opposition to the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project.

Our position on the Helix Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), adopted by the City of Folsom, is that the IS and MND do not adequately consider the planning, implementation and operation of the Crematorium Project. For example, the following cultural resources were not identified or evaluated: that the Chung Wah Cemetery has been placed on the National Register and California State Register of Historic Places; that the Young Wo Chinese Cemetery has been placed on the California Registry of Historic Points of Interest; and that, in addition, both Cemeteries have been being placed on the Sacramento County Cemetery Commission's Registry of Pioneer Cemeteries. The integrity of these culturally unique cemeteries are of historical and archaeological importance to a specific time in history: the building of Folsom, the establishment of the State of California, and the opening up of the West.

Also, the Helix IS/\4ND does not discuss the indirect social changes the crematorium's operation would have on people's perception of spiritualworship in the Chung Wah and Young Wo Cemeteries, resulting in an unfoftunate modern misinterpretation of historic spiritual and religious practices.

But fortunately, Folsom's Chinese community is well aware of this issue. For example,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CHINEgE
}IISTORIGAL
SOGIETY ol

AM ER IGA
on September 27,2002 Ms. June Chan submitted written public comment on an earlier Crematorium Project application made by the Miller Funeral Home, a prior owner of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. (Her letter appears on page 68 of the 01.15.03 Folsom Historic District Commission Staff Report.)
Ms. Chan expressed fears that the crematorium's operational impact could cause a social change in the perception of the Chung Wah and Young Wo Cemeteries. Ms. Chan's letter questioned how the crematorium's operations could be reconciled alongside the Chung Wah Cemetery in order to ensure the Chung Wah's historical and archaeological integrity, "Because of cremated ashes in the air - either from the crematorium chimney; when ashes are put/poured into a container; through clean-up of ash residue waste disposal or cleaning up of interior crematorium - the potential impact over time would be significant to both Chung Wah Memorial Cemetery and Young Wo Memorial Cemetery. Remnant ashes that are atthe crematorium will be in the air and with the winds will have to land someplace such as the Chinese burial mounds."
In her letter Ms. Chan asserts that any disturbance by the proposed Crematorium's operations (ashes, smoke, or the thought of ashes and smoke) on her ancestors graves would affect her, and other Chinese descendants, in a very spiritual way. " These circa Chinese Gold Rush cemeteries for their descendants today, continue to be held in solemn spiritual reverence and profound sacred esteem for those inter(n)red eternally." Local historians estimate that there are between 250-600 Chinese pioneers buried at the Chung Wah Cemetery.

The crematorium applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) , to build
and operate a crematorium in a Conservation/Open Space zone. However, cremation was not consistent with Chinese funerary customs and practice. Also, and as noted in the Findings of the old 0l.15.03 Folsom Historic District Commission Staff Report at page 4, cremation was not an integral part of Gold Rush pioneer cemetery customs, either. Still further, and as also noted in that 01.15.03 Staff Reporl, a crematorium is not aligned with the Folsom Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, or with Folsom's General Plan Conservation/Open Space zoning.

On December 5, 1988 CHSA participated, along with Ms. June Chan, in the City of Folsom's dedication of the Young Wo Cemetery. A bronze marker at the entrance to the Young Wo Cemetery reads in part:
"The Young Wo Cemetery 1883-1925 ...Buried here are Chinese pioneers who struggled -fo,
economic survival and human dignity and in so doing helped build Folsom and the West."
Thank you for considering CHSA's comments. For the reasons stated above, CHSA believes that the 2021Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project should be denied and Museum & Learning Center r 965 Clay Street. San Francisco, CA 94108 r (415) 39'l-1189 r www.chsa.org CHSA is a 5O1(c)(3) non-profit operating under Fec]eral Tax {D *94-6122448

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
@
CHIilEAE lttsToRlcaL
SOGIETY ol

AM EFIGA
request that this letter be entered into the Public Comment record for consideration by the Historic District Commission and any other public bodies which may consider this matter.

Very Truly Yours,
Justin Hoover
Executive Director
Chinese Historical Society of America
Cc: Mr. Josh Kincade, Project Planner [email protected] Mr. Steve Banks, Principal Planner [email protected]
Mr.ScottJohnson,PlanningManager sjohnson(@folsom.ca.us
Museum & Learning Center r 965 Ctay Streel . San Francisco, CA 94JOB r (415) 391-1188. www.chga'org CHSA is a 5O1(c)(3) non-profit operating under FecJeral Tax lD 4+94-6122446

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Monday, February 7,2022 6:50 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposal for crematorium in Folsom
From: Christine Holmes
Sent: Monday, Feb rua 7 2O226:48:29 PM
To: Christine Holmes
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <eandersen @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: Re: Proposal for crematorium in Folsom
You don't often get email Learn whv this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Qo not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Regarding the metals and pollutants I referenced:

In addition to harmless compounds such as water vapor, emissions include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride gas, hydrogen fluoride, mercury vapour . Organic compounds such as benzenes, furans, acetone are also emitted and these react with the hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride under combustion conditions to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDS) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFS) both of which are carcinogens. A study by the Gremation Association of North America has found that filtering crematorium fumes has little effect on the toxins released.

Sent from iCloud
On Feb 7,2022, at 6:40 PM, Christine Holm
Dear City Planning Officials and Council Members:

I am adamantly opposed to the crematorium proposed by Lakeside Memorial. I bike and hike that area frequently, and I also enjoy visiting historic downtown Folsom, sitting outside and having a lovely meal and beverage. A facility such as is proposed would certainly negatively affect my enjoyment of my city and the

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
very thought of traces of metals and chemical pollutants' effects on Lake Natoma and the American River are horrifying and sad. Our watenruays are already so threatened and struggling. But there are so many more reasons not to allow this to go foruvard.

A CREMA TORIUM WOULD BE A NONCONFORMING USE OF ZONED OPEN SPACE. DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITES.

The proposed crematorium would be installed and operated in designated open space that is not zoned for commercial, industrial use, within 600 feet of residential homes. By definition open space zoning districts maintain community open space resources for purposes ranging from conservation, to preserving community land use options. Thousands of families, children, park visitors, trail and lake users will be inequitably impacted by nonconforming use of the zoned land. This proposed industrial function will be conducted on and next to nationally registered historical sites and has disregarded the National Chinese Historical Society's history with the grounds. This effort will harm the living to profit off of the dead.

AIR QUALITY" SMELL. PARTICULATE MATTER. FIRE RISK WILL MAKE HISTORY.

The Folsom Historic District is treasured for its legacy of community, architecture, and natural appeal. Poor air quality, smell, increased fire risk, and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community. According to the Sacramento County's Air Quality Management District, the crematorium would be self-regulated, with the County having very little oversight no oversight of the mercury-based emissions. Visually, the metal shed that will be used for cremation, the resulting smoke and heat waves are incredibly out of character for the Historic District.

Each individual's senses are different and scent may be detected for miles, even if not visible. A permanent pollutant, foul smell and toxins will leave a damaged legacy. The increased fire risk created by the proposed 500 gallon propane tanks puts hundreds of residents who rely on a singular evacuation point in grave danger.

TOXICITY LEVELS WILL BE UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN. ELDERLY AND THE VULNERABLE.

The lnitial Study by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notates levels for harmful toxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Our local experts have warned that such toxins become the most dangerous when vaporized.

The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the levels as "not significant." This applies only to average, healthy adults. The Study fails to report significant and potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing children, elderly, and those with existing health conditions in the neighboring community. Particulate matter (PM) identified in the study was based on measures taken at the Executive Airport in Sacramento--not in Folsom. As machine ry ages, particulate matter released can quickly become "very unhealthy" by air quality standards and pollution at that 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
level calls for limited and short outdoor activities. There has not been a full Environmental lmpact Study (ElR) conducted to date to inform the conditions to be considered. There are serious concerns about the daily impact on air quality in the Historic District posing a serious threat to those with heart and lung conditions, unborn and developing children, teens, and older adults. Shifting wind patterns will impact Sutter Street visitors and business, and recreational areas along Natoma Lake and the surrounding trails. Several hundred permanent residents including young children, veterans, and the elderly will have their health jeopardized.

PLEASE PROTECT HISTORIC FOLSOM. PROTECT OUR BEAUTIFUL
TRAILS. PROTECT THE LAKE AND RIVER. PROTECT THE VULNERABLE.

NO CREMATORIUM.

Sincerely,
Christine Holmes
leonnrll DR.

Folsom CA
Sent from iCloud
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
Steven Banks
Thursday, August 19,20218:18 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Public comment regarding proposed permit for crematorium.

F
Sent: Thursday, August L9,2O2t 8:15 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Subject: Public comment regarding proposed permit for crematorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Cindy Baker
1342 Young Wo Circle
Folsom
RE: Opposition to Proposed Crematorium in Lakeside Cemetery July 28,202L
Dear Folsom Historic District Commissioners,
l'm very opposed to the plans for a crematorium being proposed on the Lakeside Cemetery property' I respect the Miller Funeral Home, although I am not familiar with the Caring Services Group chain that bought out the Claneys. Millers has buried four generations of my family and I am entrusting them to bury me as well. They take wonderful care of the cemetery grounds, one of the oldest and most beautiful historic cemeteries in northern California. Their mausoleum additions have been well executed and are a pleasure to visit. I understand the financial motivation to build a crematorium on the cemetery site, land they already own, to create a permanent income stream. However, it creates an undue burden on the people living and recreating nearby. Emissions and odors will impact our fresh air and property values will be negatively impacted.

I live just a few hundred yards from their proposed site and their project description of operations indicate they would be conducting cremations nearly every day of the year with multiple cremations daily. My house is inundated by the odor when the Kikkoman plant (which is much farther away) brews soy beans. The crematorium application exhibit showing the detection of emissions within the neighborhood, the cemetery and across Folsom Boulevard is disturbing. Their permit application was denied in recent years and all the reasoning at that time remains relevant.

Other crematoriums in the region do emit noticeable odors and emissions. I spoke recently with a retired Sacramento City Fire Department employee who told me that when the crematorium on Stockton 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Boulevard incinerates a particularly obese person, they get complaint calls due to odor as a column of dark smoke rises out of the stack. As disgusting as that sounds, this would be the reality we would be forced to live with. ltwouldbeanundueburdenforresidentstohavetobreaththeoutputnearlyeverydayoftheyear. I walk daily in the neighborhood and often entertain outside. I certainly don't want to lose the enjoyment of fresh air I currently enjoy. Additionally, its presence would have to be disclosed on any sales agreement, deterring buyers and reducing property values. Even visitors to the cemetery would be exposed to the output, including myself. I frequently visit five family members buried at Lakeside, visits that would become unpleasant if there are emissions blowing where the applicant's detection maps indicate.

I think it's criticalthat Millers Funeral Home find a more appropriate location in an area zoned for industrial or commercial use. I believe building a crematorium within yards of homes, the historic cemeteries (Lakeside and Chung Wah) and Lake Natoma State Park space is inappropriate and has too negative an impact on local residents. This project benefits only the funeral home, while negatively impacting the community.

Sincerely,
Cindy Baker
Cindy Baker
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Sunday, January 30,2022 1:'19 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd:HDC Public Hearing2/16/22 - Public Comment re:Crematorium Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From:Cindythrt'tI
Sent: Sunday, January 30,2022 7:17:44 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <m,dascallos@ya hoo.com>
Subject: HDC Public Hearing 2/16/22 - Public Comment re: Crematorium You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is imoortant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I oppose the proposed crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. I would appreciate that my comments below be read into the record during public comment:

AsalongtimeresidentoftheFolsomHistoricDistrict, lwouldliketoexpressmyconcerns andoppositionregardingthe proposed crematorium at the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery. The homeowners who live within feet of the Lakeside Memorial Cemetery are actively voicing th'eir concerns and rallying together against this proposal, I am listening to their concerns and so should you! lf a crematorium were proposed in your backyard l'm sure that you would oppose it too. There are too many valid concerns regarding air quality, increased traffic, noise, nonconforming use of land and zoning, and long term affects to residents including children and the elderly.

A crematorium at this location will add more traffic to the only street that provides ingress and egress to the adjoining neighborhood and access to Folsom Blvd. This location is already impacted by the many people who enjoy the trails along Lake Natoma. The future growth of the Corporation Yard's existing property is also a concern that should be considered before adding more growth, noise, and pollution to an already overburdened residential community that lies within feet of this proposed crematorium.

Please consider the residents who are loyal, tax paying citizens who deserve the respect from our City representatives. We rely on you to hear our concerns and to be our voices when making the right decisions that affect our lives, our future and our property here in Folsom. Please vote "No" on the crematorium.

Cindy Pharis
Folsom Historic District Resident
HFRA Board Member
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Friday, January 14,2022 2:45 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory
From: Daniel Winkelman
Sent: Friday, January !4,2022 2:35:05 PM
To: Scott Joh nson <sjoh [email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Folsom Historic District Commissioners
I implore you to deny approval of the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory.

My two concerns:

I live directly adjacent to the cemetery and have grave concerns about what effect fumes from the crematory will have on my health. Burning 800 lbs of human remains each day in a residential neighborhood is deplorable. No matter what claims of air filtration for the crematory, some undetected harmful chemical is bound to be passed into the air and on to my property
Two large capacity propane tanks are proposed for the project. They will be placed in an urban/wilderness interface area vulnerable to high heat fires. The tanks would be in constant threat of a BLEVE fire. (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). These propane tank fires have an explosive force capable of hurling a car into our neighborhood. 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Please vote to stop this project,
Daniel Winkelman
Itoung wo circle
Folsom, CA 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Frrm:

To!
Subject:

Date:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
Monday, February 7 , 2022 7:15:36 AM
----Original
From: Daniel Shively
Sent: Sunday, February 6,2022 5:19 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected];[email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed crematorium at.Lakeside Cemetery
[Youdon'toftenget..uilf.o'f.Leamwhythisisimportantat
http ://aka.m s/LearnAboutSenderl dentifi cation.]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe'
Dear Sirs and Madams,
As a resident ofFolsom and particularly the Preserve development, we strongly urge that you not approve the crematorium permit for the Lakeside Cemetery. We are less than a 1000 feet ffom the proposed crematorium and many neighbors in and out of our development are even closer. We have no problems with the idea of cremation; but this facility does not belong in a residential neighborhood. It should be placed in an industrial area away from houses and families. Many people, for various reasons, are upset at this prospect and I hope you will consider this when voting on the project. We don't want it herel
Sincerely,
Dann and Shari Shively
Young Wo Circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

January LL, 28??
Historic District commissioner
Re: Lalceside Crematorium
As you are aware, The hearing for ttre Proposed Crenratorium is February L6, 2A22. You are also aware that this is a sensitive issue for the Historic District, especially the Preserve/Natoma Shqres Neighborhood.

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

I am available anytime to act as your tour guide if you so choose.

Thanks for your time
Dave Higgins
IFong St.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Februarylt,2022
City Council Members
City Manager
Historic District Commissioners
I have read Mr. Semenyuk's ' Scope of work - tnstaliing a erematory" document lrom the Historic Folsom Residence Association (HFRA) email I received back in December 2020. This document was not dated however it was signed by Mr. lgor Semenyuk. I also participated in a HFRA Zoom meeting on July L5,aAZL with lgor Semenyuk of Caring Service Group and Peter Hartwick from Hartwick Combustion Technologies. They informed us about "how wonderful it would be for Folsom to have it's own Crematorium"'
Mr. Semenyuk talked about the need and the service he could render. He stated in the 12-2020 document;
" Ihere are several large cultural communities residing and moving into Folsom. Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the Sikh, Hindu, Buddist or other cremation based cultures as they require an onsite crematory so they may be able to exercise their rights and customs. Currently, there is no crematory in the Uity of Foisom, so they must find these services outside their city."
Atter reviewing the revised CEQA application on page El "Parking and Access" third paragraph, it states:
,,As the crematorium would not be located in or near a funeral home and would be separate from anyfuneral services or public gatherings provided by the applicant Access would onty need to accommodate a small number of staff rnembers with business at the site"
ln the CEeA document, section 4.0, Project Objectives, stated again is "Culturaland Religious Communitres as one of tour reasons to have a crematorium. Ot the tour oblectives stated, the only one true and honest is the statement " Upgrade existing facilities to capitalize on a business opportunity that has proven successful for the applicant elsewhere in Gaiifornia'
Mr. Semenyuk and Caring Services Group willsay whatever they think is necessary to get their crematorium approved and built.
tf the above quote was true I would like to have Mr Semenyuk identify these latge cultural groups so I would have a better understanding of their rights and customs. I have contacted the consumer Affairs otnce tn Sacramento and was rntorme€l tn sacramento county there are 16 crematories between downtown Sacramento and Lakeside Memorial Lawn. ln addition thefe is 1 in Rocklin and I in Placerville. There are many crematories close by to serve the community' The cultural and religious requirements that Mr. Semenyuk states can be fulfilled at Mt. Vernon Cemetery in Fair Oaks 5.2 miles away. Mt. Vernon Cemetery advertises a cremation viewing suite.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
l'here seems to be plenry of incinerators to fulfillthis perceived regional need. Currently there flf€, 70.!.2olo white, L7 .tBVa asian, 5.89o/o tlvo or more races ,3.4La/o african american living in Folsom. ln my opinion, the culturaland religious community that would use a ritual cremation is comparably low compared to the combined population of Folsom. This is a marketing tactic and disingenuous on Mr. Semenyuk's and Care Service Group part. tn my notes rrom the Zoom meeting, Mr Semenyuk said "You will see a puft of white smoke in the beginning then heat waves". Peter Hartwick later in the Zoom meeting said "You will not see or smell anything" ln the document Mr. Semenyuk wrote "there is no smoke or residue that leaves the chamber". l'm confused, which is itZ'l What am I going to see'? Smoke, heat waves or what smell? Mr Semenyuk wants to install an incinerator. Mr Hartwick wants to sell an incinerator. lt's all Business, it'S about money. lt'S smoke and mirrOrS Aiso in the Scope of Work document, Mr, Semenyuk states "they are designed to use less fuel, have lower NOx emissions, are NFPA compliant, meet Air Quality standards, and the components are UL listed." So is my toaster and BBQ but it still has puffs of smoke, creates heat waves, and smells. The question is by who and how it is tested. By the manufacturer or an outside entity? How often is the incinerator operationally inspected? Does it have wet scrubbers or just filters? lf it has filters are the filters cleaned or are they thrown away? How are they disposed of?
ln addition, the document states:
,.ln the event of an operationalfailure, the gas isimmediately and automatically shut off. There is a manual switch as well. 'lnere has never been a crematory btowing up in the history of cremation".

That is not true. There have been dozens of reported explosions, mostly from pacemakers, within the incinerator causing damage to the lncinerators bricks, doors, and other components. ls an explosion within the incinerator repofted to the Fire Depaftment or some other governmental agency? will there be an inspection of the facilities after such an event by qualified service personnel or governmental agencies? Will there be a trained operator onsite during the entire cremation process? Someone Io hit the manualswitch when something goes wrong? What happens during a power outage or Flex Alert? Willthey incinerate on "Spare the Air Days", "Red Flag" days, or our smoke filled summer wildfire days? Lots of questions and no answers.

Caring Service Group is profit driven, as most businesses, lheir excitement for * Uity of Folsom will have their first Crematory" is dangerous and disingenuous. They are looking for that competitive advantage over their competition versus the health and well being of the community. Caring Service Group admits its "Primary goal is to purchase funeral home business" on their website. lt's iust Business'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
1ne oflginal application was tor incinerating zuu to 4Uu ibs of human remains per day. Now it's 400 lbs to 800 lbs per day. ls that 7 days a week? When are they going to requ€st a second incinerator to increase their cash tlow This project has already atfected our neighborhood quality of tife. This is no small town operation, This is a tull fledged commercial operation inat needs to be placed in a commercialsetting. Remember, this land is zoned open space. Give us tittle guys a break.

A crematorium proposal was submitted back in 2002 by Lorin Chaney, then owner of Lakeview Memorial Cemetery and was denied by the Historic Commission on l-15'2003, What has changed since then? lt is still proposed in the same old meal shed, Crematoriums still maltunction, still nave operator error, stillsmoke, stili emit nasty odor, 'this project is stililocated in the same Zoned Open Space, We now have more residents including infants, young children and many seniors. Am I missing something? This is obviously wrong. so, does Folsom really need an industrial incinerator in the Historic District, ln a Zoned ..Open Space" designated area, in a historic residential neighborhood, in a documented "Wildland High Fire Risk" area, near a State Recreational Area, near a National Registered Historic Site( (cnina Mission-Chung Wuh Cemetery),'
Caring Service Group and Miller Funeral Home think it would be wonderful. Really???? Thank You for your time"
David Higgins
lFong St,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

December 28,2020
My Name ls Dave Higgins. I am a member of HFRA. I live near Lakeside Memorial Lawn. I have some questions and concerns about the proposed Crematory at the Lakeside Memorial lawn.

I have read the proposal submitted to the City of Folsom by lgor Semenyuk.

My first comment comes from their "Point at lssue".

The proposal states Folsom has an estimated 450 deaths per year and an estimated 300 cremations need to be performed. That would be .82 cremations a day, present time. As the document states, "including Folsom Ranch, we need to have an on-site crematory in order to facilitate it's increase. This does not take into consideration neighboring cities and their demand for cremation services.

The 300 number is not real. I foresee the facility, in time, being a very busy place processing several remains a day, increasing traffic demands ie. funeral vehicles, propane delivery trucks, service trucks, funeral patrons.

Second comment comes from their "Our Proposition"
Lakeside Memorial Lawn is near residences, 1 17 homes in the "Preserves Neighborhood. Some in direct view of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn. This place is not that removed from residences, as stated. ln addition, there are two parks, FLSRA and the playground on Sutter St.

Also, within the section, it states Lakeside Lawn does not have a gas or sewer line. The proposal states they will be installing two propane tanks. Where, how big, how often serviced by delivery trucks? I question the no need for a sewer connection or some other sort of liquid disposal.

Third comment comes from their" Cremation Process"
I am concerned the "Shed" might not be large enough to facilitate the process. I believe the shed currently houses equipment like the backhoe, garden tractor, mowers, trailers, hand tools, and chemicals used in the care of the grounds. ls there room for all? ls another building planned?

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Will the remains be transferred outside the shed from the vehicle to the crematory oven in public view or within the shed, protected from public view? Fourth comment comes from their "Scope of Work"
There is no mention of the height of the "stack"
Living in the "Preserves" neighborhood is special. Great neighbors and community. Proximity to the treasures of Folsom. Lake Natomas, The Hike and BikeTrails, Historic Downtown Folsom, Muir House, Chinese Memorial Cemetery, Veterans Hall, and Sutter St. Play Park. They are wonderful places.

However, with all these wonderful things comes a down side. We have a lot of traffic. Muir house on weekends, FLSRA access point everyday, Veterans and delivery trucks to the Veterans Hall, Occasional City of Folsom vehicles accessing the back gate to the Crop Yard. Not to mention the ever present UPS, FedEx, and Amazon Delivery Vans.

So, lt is my opinion, a Crematory at Lakeside Lawn would provide a service for the community. However, it needs to address and satisfy the concerns of the Preserves Community. lf the proposal is approved, limit the number of daily cremations, limit the cremation to weekdays only. Have the proposed activity and operations away from public view. Evaluate the location and size of the shed and propane tanks. The Preserve neighborhood is basically a court, one way in one way out.

On a selfish note, I believe this could hurt our home values.

Please consider and weigh all aspects of this project. Once it's approved there is no return.

Thank You for your time.

Dave Higgins

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

To
July 6,2021
Historic District Commission
Folsom Planning Commission
My name is David Higgins. I live at !fong St, directly across the street from Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery. I am opposed to having a crematory placed in my neighborhood. A crematorium should be zoned for commercial- industrialareas NOT residentialareas.

I have seen the proposal submitted by lgor Semenyuk and participated in the Zoom meeting hosted by HFRA for a crematorium at Lakeside Memorial Lawn. I have several concerns about the Crematorium.
lgor Semenyuk stated the crematory would probably operate 5 to 7 times a week. I assume this would be the initial start up number. I am concerned what the actual cremation number would be for the future. 2,3,4,5 a day? 5-7 days a week?
ln the initial proposal submitted and in the Zoom meeting there was no mention of any noise. I would like to know if I am going to be subjected to a constant hum or roar from the machine.

How much propane is used during a cremation process and how often will I see propane trucks servicing the tanks and smelling the propane gas when refilling.

I won't be looking forward to the increase in traffic from the vehicles delivering the bodies, service trucks, etc. Since we have only one access point in and out of this residential area, we already live with a large amount of traffic and congestion from light rail. lgor Semenyuk stated the only smoke emitted is at the beginning of the process when a "puff of white vapor is released." After researching crematoriums online I saw some disturbing videos of "white vapor" being exhausted out of crematorium stacks. Please see the links enclosed. https://www. palmbeachpost. com/article/20 1 507 1 6/N EWS/81 2066867 https://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/opinion/letters to the editor/the-crematorium-next-to-mv -home/article-7 1 e6f1 3d-ddaf-5f,/c-a7fc-e057b98a1 efc. html https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1 279940/ https://mountainx.com/news/community-news/crematorium-smoke-triggers-complaints/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

E OKC Crematorium Operating at Night "Dusting" Residential Neighborhoods E Crematorium fires up in NE Portland
o Scottsdale neighborhood concerned about increased cremation smoke httos://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-dec-26-na-cremate26-storv.html Will there always be an operator on site during the process to shutdown the machine if a malfunction arises?
ln researching who regulates and inspects crematoriums the information is rather vague. The FederalTrade Commission regulates the funeral industry, however, it does not oversee crematoriums. Nobody seems to. lt appears they are under the radar. So, is the fox guarding the hen house? Do we just trust they are going to do the right thing? I don't think so. The moment it is installed, it's there forever.

Speculation arises from the air quality. Can't find a definitive answer here either. Mercury from teething fillings, chemicals from embalmed bodies, medical prosthesis (pace makers), chemotherapy and radiation by-products from cancer patients. Are any of these materials released into the air or are they consumed 100% by the fire.

My home is approximately 575 feet from the proposed crematorium. Other homes are as close as 450 feet. Not very far. I suspect the smoke stack will be visible from my porch. I believe some of my neighbors will also have a view of the smoke stack.

Lakeside Memorial Lawn also shares this small neighborhood with the Chinese Cemetery, Veterans Hall, Muir House, access to the State Rec area and a quaint park and playground. lt is my opinion allthese facilities will be impacted. I also believe the crematorium will affect our property values.

Please don't allow the crematorium in our residential area. lt belongs in a commercial-lndustrial area. Would you like it in your neighborhood?
Thank You for your time,
David Higgins

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Sunday, August 8,2021 11:36 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: No to the Crematorium
From: david higgins
Sent: Sunday, August 8,2O2t 8:55 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: No to the Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dh441 [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

August 8,2021
Folsom Historic Commission
Folsom Planning Department
My name is Dave Higgins, I am a retired Fire Captain from the City of Fremont, Ca. with over 30 years of experience, 10 of which I was a member of the HazMat Response Team. I live next to Lakeside Memorial Lawn where the proposed crematorium is planned. I am writing to express my concerns.

My concern centers around the two 250 gallon propane tanks proposed. This proposed facility is 30 feet from the Open SpaceAffildland Zoned part of Folsom. 600 feet from my house. Should these tanks be exposed to fire, physical damage, or vandalism this neighborhood would be in serious trouble. Protection of the tanks, in my opinion, would be difficult.

There is a flre hydrant on the street at the entrance to Lakeside Memorial Lawn. The distance from the hydrant to the old shed is approximately 650 feet. The driveway, one way in and out is narrow, however, it could support two pieces of apparatus if not blocked by fire hose or parked vehicles. Clear access to the tanks would be difficult because of the tanks location. The tanks will be blocked by a fence, shrubbery, and trees.

Placement of hoselines to reach the tanks could prove hazardous for firefighters.

Propane being a compressed gas expan ds 270:1 when released. This vapor is heavier than air and will creep along the ground and settle in low pockets. Should a leak occur at night a large section of the Preserve Neighborhood could be impacted. The Preserves Neighborhood has one access / exit corridor that passes directly in front of Lakeside Memorial Lawn. Should an event occur not all of the residents are getting out. 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

According to the "City of Folsom Gommunity Wildfire Protection Plan" dated April 2013, The Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies Folsom as having the greatest density of housing subject to wildfire in Sacramento County. (page 5) Folsom is a registered community at risk. The Folsom Fire Department has identified the greatest threat to the community from fire would be a fast moving wildfire in the brush and oak woodland fuel bed that line the American River where it flows through Folsom. (page 6)
The City of Folsom also has the responsibility to insure future planning and zoning decisions for development adjacent to open space areas including sufficient provisions for the clearance required to protect new and future structures. These provisions may include adequate setbacks, buffer areas, or other measures to reduce the wildfire risks. (page 7) ln my opinion, the authors of this document overlooked the "City of Folsom Community Wildfire Plan". The Negative Declaration states, page 61, "The project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Calfire2020;cs92020)". On page 92, "Environmental Setting", "The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone". lt seems the Negative Declaration overlooked or failed to seek out all relative information as to the fire hazards in the area.
ln the past couple of months there have been several grass/wildland fire incidents in Folsom and within the Lake Natoma Recreation area.
. On June 2,2021 storage shed at Negro Bar and the exterior of the Cliff House Restaurant was set on fire.
. On June 5,2021, 3.5 acres was burned off Prairie City Road near the transient encampment. . On July 7,2021encampment fire near Blue Ravine and Sibley' . On July 16,2021 several acres of vegetation burned in the Humbug-Willow Creek with reported difficulty accessing.
' on Jurv 23' Forsom,55ff["ruruXH$t;:"'1"'""1Y'L?i",*T:",t'""T' Fire Emersencv" ' Several times I have witnessed transient activity at the lake and in the nearby woodlands. I believe a fire from a transient camp or vandalism could impact the propane tanks. 500 gallons of propane is a lot of propane for a residential neighborhood with limited access.

I am not opposed to crematoriums. I am opposed to crematoriums in residential neighborhoods. "Folsom Distinctive by Nature ". This project belongs in a commercial industrialzoned area.

Thank You for your time,
Dave H ins
Propane Tank Hazards
Miscellaneous Fireline Hazards
Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG) tanks are commonly found in the wildland-urban interface and present hazards to firefighters in that environment. LPG tanks may be found in a number of other environments such as motor homes, 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
travel trailers, grills, camp stoves, lanterns, etc. Directly attacking LPG tank fires is a structural fire task involving hazardous materials and should only be attempted by trained personnel using fullstructural equipment and equipped with a volume of water adequate to safely attack the fire lBoiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions (BLEVE)
.The most recognized hazard with LPG tanks is BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions) or sudden complete failure of the tank. Some training courses have directed responders to approach the tank from the sides, believing that the force of the explosion will occur on the ends of the tank. However, this is not a guarantee that you will be safe from projectiles or missiles from the explosion, as they may travel in ALL directions up to 2,500 feet away. Leave the area imrnediately if you srnell propane; hear a rising sound from venting safety devices or see discoloration or deformation of the tank. lf you leave the area, get at least 2,500 feet away and do not go down wind or down slope of the leaking propane. BLEVES are a major hazard to emergency responders!
QFuel Reduction Around Tanks
. Wildland firefighters may take action to prevent direct flame impingement on LPG tanks by removing wildland fuels in the area. However, be aware that lines from the tank to structures may be above or below ground, and may be cut by tools or equipment. Propane gas is heavier than air, and may move along the ground at some distance, and may ignited when in reaches open flame or another ignition source. Use extreme caution when doing fuels reduction around tanks, and flag any lines you encounter.

QOther Wildland Fire Considerations
' Do not position engines or other apparatus near LPG tanks or downwind / down slope from tanks. . Do not deploy fire shelters near LPG tanks or downwind / down slope from tanks. [Qooling Tanks . ln light fuels such as grasses, where any heat exposure to the tank will be very limited, rapid application of cooling water on the outside of the tank above the liquid level can reduce the likelihood of container failure by lowering the external temperature of the shell of the exposed tank. Water should not be directed at the valve safety devices, due to the potential of "icing" the valve closed. . ln heavy fuels where long duration heat exposure to the LPG tank is likely, evacuate all personnel and equipment 2,500 feet away and not down slope or down wind. NFPA says that direct flame impingement protection requires water flow of at least 500 gpm from an unmanned monitor nozzle. This is a situation for properly trained, equipped and supported structural firefighters.

Referenees: Propane Safety Web Site, NIOSH Web Site, National Propane Gas Association's Web Site, NFPA Web Site EMA'L I Facebook I MA'L: 6 Minutes,J3ff:Ji"".1i:l;J:.t'::::;"",:lilinJ:. Boise, rD 83705 | FAX: 208-38Z-5250 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 4,2022
Historic District Commissioners
City Council Members
City Manager
Kelly Mullett
My name is Dave Higgins, I live across the street from Lakeside Memorial Lawn where the proposed crematorium is to be built. Over the course of summer to the present time I have taken pictures of activity at the cemetery. I wish to share.

This picture was submitted by the Caring Service Group and Miller Funeral Home's 2-27-2020 application for the Conditional Use Permit to install a crematory. Two years ago. This is what the metalstorage shed and surrounding grounds looked like in 2-27-2O2O.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture was also submitted 2-27-2020 to illustrate the look and size of the smokestack on the roof. The amateurish hand drawn chimney does not truly illustrate the true look or height of the proposed stack. According to the Negative Declaration the stack is to be 19 % feet total height from grade.