Folsom City Council
May 10, 2022

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture was taken January L3th,2022. This is what the maintenance grounds look like currently. The new storage shed is in the background and the existing shed is on the right. The metal security fencing surrounds the grounds and has a locked security gate. Note the Dredger Tailing Pile condition. lt has been disturbed over the years.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture was taken January L31h,2022. This picture illustrates the current look of the maintenance grounds, sheds and security fencing. The metal shed on the right is where the proposed crematory is to be installed.
i1-ffifr++""'

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture shows the propane tank pad right of the building under the large tree. This photograph was taken January I31h,2022. The application site plan confirms the location of the propane pad. ln addition, the site plan calls for 2 x 500 gallon tanks, not the 2x25O gallon tanks in the Negative Declaration text.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This photograph taken January L3lh 2O2L displays another angle of the location of the propane tanks pad. Blocked by a wooden fence, metal security fencing, a large redwood tree and the metalshed.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

This picture was taken on August 41h,2021,. This is Lakeside Memorial Lawn groundskeeper, Valdimir Semenyuk, driving out of the cemetery with a 250 gallon propane tank. This picture is disturbing on many levels. lt is my opinion that the Caring Service is very confident in the outcome of the Conditional Use Permit. lf indeed this tank is for the Crematory it is very arrogant for the Caring Service Group to show no discretion in their activities.

Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Thank You
Dave Higgins

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Deb Ozdinski
Monday, August 16,2021 1:29 PM
Josh Kinkade
Crematorium Project
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSen d erlde ntificatio n.l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Josh,
Thanks for taking my call this morning.

As we discussed the Caring Services Group (Miller Funeral Home) applicant is applying to place a crematorium in a shed on that Lakeside Cemetery site.

What I want to do is remind you of our discussion that this crematorium affects so many people. Not only the city, the environment, homes close by, the river, Lake Natoma State Park and the other historic cemetery.

I am requesting the Applicant must also contact the owners of all the niches and fami[ members that have buried their loved ones and disclose the proposed project to them. These people should be informed just like other projects MUST send out notices. YES, this is a unique situation and YES it should get unique attention. There is no excuse this far in advance that this added Notice can't be done. Again, this is a unique situation.

I own my own niche for my husband and l. Other siblings of mine living today have purchased niches along the same wall that is closest to the metal shed. When I visit my parents, we stand and talk to them, and what we would be having to endure is a crematorium staring us in the face. How unpleasant do you think that will be? lt would affect our use and enjoyment of the cemetery and visiting our loved ones. lt makes me sick to think of visiting them while knowing bodies are being cremated just feet from my parents remains.

I please, please ask that the Applicant and City must take additionaltime and work to notify the people involved that purchasedinthatcemetary. Theremustberecordsof whattheysoldandtowhom. lftheyhavenorecordsorlost records that tells you they have poor business practices.

Again, please make this a condition that those folks are informed and heard. They have the right to know! I am certain the numbers of people opposing this project will be ten times the numbers you would get otherwise. We purchase a spot for our loved ones to rest and now to think we may need to sell niches and move our parents. This is what we are faced with.

Please review with appropriate city folks and let me know what has been decided.

Just remember if you were in our shoes how would you feel? Ask those Planners that question too. lt's the right thing to do.
1 Regards.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Deb and Gree Ozdinski
lwr,", view way
Folsom
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Deborah Grassl
Thursday, January 27,2022 2:51 PM
Josh Kinkade
Re: Crematorium Noticing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Josh,
lnoticedthatthisProject'sCUP'isnotincludedinthepublicreviewdocumentsls/MNDreleased. CEQAreferstothe CUP being an integral part of the public comment review period. The Governor's Office of Research and Planning wrote a guide titled, 'The Conditional Use Permit.' lt states on page 3, paragraph 3, " ...|f the proposal is not exempt from environmental review, the city or county is required to prepare either a negative declaration indicatingthatthe conditional use permit will have no significant effect, or an Environmental lmpact Report (ElR) which describes the potential negative impacts of the proposal and the means to avoid or lessen those impacts.

Please see the CEQA references to the public's right to review below CEQA CALTFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, DIVISION l3.ENVIRONMENTAL QUALlTYChapter 1 : Policy
S 21003. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGEDURES; DOCUMENTS; REPORTS; DATA BASE; ADMINISTRATION OF PROCESS
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that:
(a) Local agencies integrate the requirements of this division with planning and environmental review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice so that all those procedures, to the maximum feasible extent, run concurrently, rather than consecutively ,...

S 21003.1. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECTS; GOMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AND PUBLIG AGENGIES TO LEAD AGENCIES; AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION The Legislature further finds and declares it is the policy of the state that:
(a) Comments from the public and public agencies on the environmental effects of a project shall be made to lead agencies as soon as possible in the review of environmental documents, including, but not limited to, draft environmental impact reports and negative declarations, in order to allow the lead agencies to identify, at the earliest possible time in the environmental review process, potential significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which would substantially reduce the effects.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
(b) lnformation relevant to the significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made available as soon as possible by lead agencies, other public agencies, and interested persons and organizations. (c) Nothing in subdivisions (a) or (b) reduces or othenruise limits public review or comment periods currently prescribed either by statute or in guidelines prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 21083 for environmental documents, including, but not limited to, draft environmental impact reports and negative declarations.
s 21064.5. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
"Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment. but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review rvould avoid the effects or mitigate the effecis to a point rvhere clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantialevidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.

S 21080. DIVISION APPLICATION TO DISGRETIONARY PROJEGTS; NONAPPLICATION; NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps ... (c) lf a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not othenruise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances.
(1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significani effect on the environment. (2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effect on the environment would occur.... s 21092. pUBLtC NOTTCE OF PREPARAT|ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR N EGATIVE DECLARATION ; PUBLIGATION
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
(bX1) The notice shall specify the period during which comments will be received on the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and shall include the date, time, and place of any public meetings or hearings on the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the significant effects on the environment, if any, anticipated as a result of the project, the address where copies of the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, and all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration, are available for review, description of how the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration can be provided in an electronic format.

Josh, I request that you post the Conditional Use Permit in accordance to CEQA, and adjust the period of time for public review for this Project.

Deborah Grassl
On 7/7 /22 10:20 AM, Josh Kin kade wrote
Hello,
lf you are receiving this email, you have previously emailed or sent a letter to City of Folsom staff and/or City Council members and their Historic District Commission representatives regarding the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory project. Because you are an interested party, I am sharing the attached public hearing notice (which is being published in the February 6th Folsom Telegraph and sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site) and informing you that the Historic District Commission is considering the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MND) for the project at the February L6, 2022 Historic District Commission meeting.

The final version of the lS/MND, as well as additional project documentation, is located here:
https://www.folsom.ca. us/govern ment/com mu nitv-development/plann ing-services/current-proiectinformation. Physical copies of the document will also be made available at City Hall, at the Community Development Counter. The public comment period forthe lS/MND begins on January 7,2022 and ends on February 7,2022.

The staff report for the CUP will be available here at least 5 days prior to the February 16 hearing date:
https://www.folsom.ca.us/eovernment/commun itv-development/plan n ins-services/historic-districtcommission. A physical copy of the document will also be made available at City Hall, at the Community Development Counter
Note that if you have emailed or mailed a comment to staff, or if your letter/email to City Council members or Historic District Commissioners was forwarded to staff, that comment will be included in the staff report for the CUP and will be available to the commission and general public prior to the hearing on February 16th. All additional comments received prior to the publication of the staff report will also be published in the staff report. You may also make a verbal comment at the February 16th meeting (up to 3 minutes in length per person).

Thank you,
Josh Kinkade
.,l.s.socinIc' Itlutrtet'
3 Community Development Department

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Historic District Commission
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
cA 95630
Deborah Grassl
IYoung Wo Circle
Folsom, CA 95630
February 7,2022
RE 2022 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Folsom,
Project PN- I 9- I 82 and 2002 Lakeside Cemetery
Crematorium Project PN-02-058
Dear Commissioners:

I would like to make a comment on the above-mentioned2l22 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Project Application. In2002,the Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium made an identical application based on an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Folsom. Those 2002 documents survive any subsequent consideration of an application with an identical project that, has no new substantial information, based on the holding in Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens u San Msteo County Community College (2016) I Cal. 5m 937. :

OPINION J. Kruger "To ensure that governmental agencies and the public are adequately informed about the environmental impact of public decisions, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 2 I 000 et seq.) requires a lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) before approving a new project that"may have a significant effect on the environment" (id. 21151 (a). When changes are proposed to a project for which an EIR has already been prepared, the agency must prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR only if the changes are "[s]ubstantial" and require ohajor revisions" of the previous EIR. (1d. 21166.) Guidelines ... extend this subsequent review framework to projects for which a negative declaration was initially adopted, and no EIR was prepared...(CEQA Guidelines 15162.)" According to the above court's ruling, the existing 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) stands and must be the controlling document for an identical project.

Staff's 2002 Findings on the CUP application were recommended for denial based the MND's lack of substantial environmental information on: whether the operation of the crematorium would or would not affect the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood residents ; that a crematorium was not a compatible use with a historic cemetery because it did not agree with the Historic District Design and Development Guidelines or General Plan goals of history resource preservation of Folsom's three unique historic resources (Chung Wah, Lakeside Cemetery's 8 historic cemeteries, and State Preserve Dredger Tailings) , and, because of the substantial reaction against the crematorium by the residents and history preservation groups.

Because the 2022 Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium Project MND and CUP do not have any standing the 2022 MND and CUP should be denied by the Historic District Commission based on (Friends of the College of San Mqteo Gardens u San Mateo County Community College (2016) I caL5rh 93V.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

Sincerely,
Deborah Grassl
cc : kcolepolic)[email protected] ; iustin @revolutionsdocs.com ; danwestm [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] kmul I ett@fo I som.ca. u s

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

The validity of a chafter city's CUP approval process derives from compliance with this hierarchy of planning laws (Neighborhood Action Group u County of Calaveras (1984) 156 CaL App.3d 1176). A charter city can name any number of documents as standards of guidance as long as they are contained in their Municipal Zoning Code, in compliance with their General Plan; and in compliance with CEQA The reason for this hierarchy of planning laws is to check any unbridled discretionary act or decision by an administrative agency, and to help guide the administrative body's Findings.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

District. The unadopted Historic District Specific Plan and MEIR, were still used as standards of guidance for Folsom's Municipal Code l7 .52 and the Historic District Guidelines.

The historic record for how this standard of guidance came into being can be found in the (c.1995) Historic District Design and Development Guidelines Introduction, Chapter 1.03 CEQA Compliance:
"The City conducted environmental review of a proposed Historic District Specific Plan. Due to the nature and complexity of the Plan and the projects which will follow under it, a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) was prepared. The City ultimately elected to implement zoning changes to Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code and design standards through the adoption of these Design and Development Guidelines. Many of the provisions of the proposed Historic District Specific Plan and the amendments to Chapter 17 .52 are contained within these guidelines. Accordingly, the City Council relied upon the MEIR for evaluation and consideration of environmental impacts.
... The intent is to allow the creation of an environmental impact analysis and mitigation foundation in an MEIR for a broad planning project which will then enable significant reduced CEQA documentation for future projects built according to Chapter 17.52 and the Design and Development Guidelines."
The Historic Specific District Plan and MEIR, the foundational instruments for FMC 17.52 andthe Historic District Design and Development Guidelines, are in direct conflict with Folsom's General Plan because they were/are used as standards of guidance but were not adopted by the City Council into the General Plan. Up until 2 weeks ago, the Historic District Specific Plan was on the City's website as a Resource for the public who need information from the Planning webpage. 3) The Folsom Historic District Commission (HDC) has been given the authority to perfotm discretionary actions, i.e. the granting of a major CUP, without standards of guidance to facilitate mandated deliberation ( CEQA Guidelines Section l5l2l) on whether a project qualifies for a major CUP as expressed in its FINDINGS (Protecting Our Water and Environmental Resources v. County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.Sth 479).

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Deborah Grassl
cc email: Historic District Commissioners
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; m.dascallos@)'ahoo.com; [email protected]

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

From: Deborah Grassl
Friday, )uly 2,2021 4:56 PM
Josh Kinkade
Terry Sorensen; Steve
Re: Zoom meeting with lgor Semenyuk and HFRA/Lake Natoma Shores residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Example: When asked about the Level of Service change at the intersection of Folsom Blvd and Forrest anticipated by the increased level of cars heading into the Cemetery to attend ceremonies and interments generated by the 30 cremations, he didn't know...

Example: When asked about what kind of wildfire design he used for the crematorium, he said that as far as he knew there weren't any wildfire problems. (He was unaware of Folsom's Community Wildfire Protection Plan, And although the lS stated that the Folsom Fire Chief signed off on the project, there was no input from the Fire Chief in the lS.) He then described how the blast zone of one ofthe propane tanks was 600' and he thought the propane tanks would be far enough away from homes to not blow them up. He didn't mention the National Registry of Historic Place Chung Wah Cemetery, the State Park filled with dry grasses and trees - or his own Cemetery filled with trees and dry grasses in the back abutting the State Park lands and on the old abandoned Figueroa Street behind 21 Young Wo Circle homes...

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

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

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

Thanks,
1 Deborah Grassl

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

To:

From:

Subjectr
Date:

Elaine Andersen
losh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium
Friday, August 6, 2021 B:22:31 AM
From: Debra Williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 28,2021- 3:10 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <ea nd ersen @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: Proposed Crematori u m
You don't often get
"tuit
ftotE Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 28,2021
Dear Ms. Anderson,
I am writing to voice my concerns regard-ing the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium project. The crematorium would be built and operate just a few hundred feet from my home. After reading the fnitial Study/Mitigated Negat'ive Declaration posted on the Folsom City website and doing further research of rel'iable sources, I am not conv-inced that the effects would be ,,less than sign'ificant" for those living so near the project. I have serious concerns regarding the impact to air quality, including the retease of toxins such as mercury that an operat'ing crematorium would have on my famity (my 83 year old mother lives on the same street), and other residents of the nei ghborhood .

My mother has lived on this street for 23 years and I have lived four doors up the street from her and been a teacher at the pubtic middle school just one mile from our neighborhood since 2006. I ask that this proposal be denied and that the bus'iness owners find a tocation that is not so near a residential area. Please consider how you would feel if you were in our shoes. I imag'ine that most persons invotved in this decision mak'ing process and those who would make a profit from the business, would not want their own famity living so close to it.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to th'is very sensitive and 'i mportant i ssue .

S'i ncerety,
Debra Willians
Ivorng Wo Circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Diana Matheny <zinladyl @yahoo.com>
Tuesday, August 31,2021 4:'16 PM
Josh Kinkade
Re: Proposed Crematory CUP
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not build crematory in a residential area. lts not fair to the home owners.

Please provide my email to the Historic Commission who will make the decision to deny or grant the decision of the permit.

Thank you
Diana Luzader
1 lwool St, Folsom Ca

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
91 Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3L,2021, at 10:19 AM, Josh Kinkade <[email protected]> wrote:

Diana,
I had your message forwarded to me regarding the proposed crematory facility at the Lakeside Memorial Lawn. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is subject to a vote by the Historic District Commission. We present a staff report to the commission along with any comments that have been received prior to the meeting, so if you wish to present any written comments to the decision-makers, you can email them to me and I can include them in the packet that we sent to the commission. Current information aboutthe project, includingthe draft lnitialStudythat discussesthe project in detail, can be found here: https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/communitv-development/planningservices/cu rrent-proiect-information Thanks,
Josh Kinkade
,.l.ssoci rrte It La nn er
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6209
< imageOO1. png>
< image002. png>
< image003 . png>
< image004. png>
www. folsom, ca . us
<image005.jpg>
2

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, August 27,2021 11:47 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: No Historic Folsom Crematory
From: Diana Matheny
Sent: Friday, August 27,2O2L tL:37:29 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: No Historic Folsom Crematory
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whythis 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.

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

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

Our homes and business in Historic Folsom have been here for many years. We do not want to jeopardize our beautiful community with the consequents of having a crematory installed. 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

Sincerely ,
Diana Luzader
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Wednesday, February 2,2022 2:53 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
I) I anrt irt e |\4 an ut1 r,r'
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 9'16.461.6206
h ]FffiILffi'ruRtr
CiTY CF
nt*TtilcTivf, FY Fl'ATuFn
$g@ Umr-Wlc-l s e r L;-Qa. qq
From: Edwin Grattan
Sent: Wednesday, Februa ry 2,2O22 2:52 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]. us>
Subject: Fw: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
You don't often get email from Learn whv this is important €AUTIONI This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Vote NO on the Folsom Crematory Proposal.
1 Sincerely,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Edwin Grattan
Historic Folsom Resident
)

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Attachments:

Erika Hamer
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 5:12 PM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade Crematorium
Erika bluff photojpg
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whvthis 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.

To whom it may concern,
I live on the bluffs in Orangevale overlooking Lake Natoma. I have learned that a crematorium may be put in the Lakeside Cemetery next to the lake. This is a terrible idea.

I understand this is zoned as open space, and it should be kept natural. I paddle board frequently on the lake, enjoy being outside walking the paths and relishing the beauty I am so lucky to have in my backyard. A crematorium does not belong near residents and visitors to Folsom recreation, shopping and dining. Nor does this crematorium belong in an area that is next to a state park. Nobody wants to see or smell puffs of human remains/smoke while they are trying to enjoy the outdoors and neighboring areas; this should be put within an industrial zone or the like. Please help us keep the view and open space natural and (live) people-centered.

On another note, I would be furious and deeply disappointed if I heard this crematorium would be installed across or down the actual street from my home. Would you like it near yours? Thank you for your time and attention to this important community matter Sincerely,
Erika Hamer
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subjech
Date:

Attachments:

Kellv Mullett
Josh Kinkade
FW: crematorium
Tuesday, November 23,2021 10:21:03 AM
image001.pno
imaoe002.ono
imaoe003.ono
image004.png
FYI
KellyMullett
A clr t r ir ri s Ir a lilc' .:l.s.sisl ri rr 1
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461 .6231
F:916.355.7274
www.folsom.ca. us
From: Evelyn Gates
Sent: Saturday, November 20,202L 4:33 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>;[email protected]; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Josh Kinkade <jki n kade @folsom.ca. us>; Kel ly Mu I lett <km ul [email protected]. us> Subject: crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get email 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.

I am 8 years old, and I really don't want a crematorium in my neighborhood. My family lives in this neighborhood , and I don't want all of us to breathe bad air. I just moved here, and I don't want to move again. My grandparents live derectley across from the cemetery. And my cousin lives 5 houses away from my grandparents, and she's only onel Please don't put a crematorium in my neighborhood there are lots of kids in the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Evelyn Gates
E]
I
Eitrttrl
norf Learnwhythisis

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Kelly Mullett
Wednesday, July 7,2021 3:37 PM
Josh Kinkade
Subject: FW: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
FYI
KellyMullett
Ad ntirti str e tiuc Asstsfn rt f
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
Or 916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
!Ft Y lt r$I"FSrfi
rt Frrtl?!tf f ttr 1r**grE
O g @ www.fotsom.ca.us
From: Genie Moeszinger
Sent: Wednesday, July 7,20213:06 PM
To: Kelly M ullett <kmu [email protected]>
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear K. Mullett,
lamaresidentofthe"HistoricDistrict"justacrossFolsomBlvd.withinwalkingdistancetooldtownSutterSt. lliveon Sutter St. in one of the few historic homes that were spared when the Natoma Crossing Bridge was constructed. I love the neighborhood that I reside in. At first glance you would think it must be a dream come true area to call home. Well, we have had to accept and learn to live with relentless loud Light Rail dinging for L0 consecutive minutes on the half hour of every hour all day long and well into the evening EVERY single day. Roaring motorcycles that feel and sound like a freight train going through our home at all hours of the day, perhaps due to the close proximity of the Harley Davidson retail establishment just down the street, regardless, impossible to EVER enjoy a quiet summer morning or evening in our sweet yard. Add to the mind numbing roar of the motorcycles and we have constant noise pollution from the never ending backup of traffic on Folsom Blvd., not to mention the choking toxic exhaust and unhealthy fumes from this staggering amount of congestion of traffic, that truly does not lighten up until maybe 3:00am in the early morning and the quiet only lasts a couple of hours until it all begins again. This brings me to the proposal of building a crematorium on site of the Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery that is not a very big cemetery to begin with. The Preserves is a lovely neighborhood with a beautiful mix of elderly and young and everything in between. I can tell you though, that not many of us can take much more. I have had to accept an Air B&B next door (currently now a Beauty Salon), the homeless trying to set up residence in city owned triangles of tiny land, arrogant and selfish bicyclists that absolutely refuse to respect the numerous "please walk your bikes" signs and fly at breakneck speed through the pedestrian walkway access to the Light Rail Station and to old town Sutter St. I have heard and witnessed many close calls and am terrified of the day when a young child or an elderly will be hit by one of these self centered and entitled individuals that are very 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
reckless and dangerous, thinking they have found a fabulous shortcut to the bike trail along the river. The crematorium will, needless to say, be the "last straw" for many. l, for one, will not stay. I already ceasely worry about the toxic exhaust and dangerous unhealthy fumes from the close proximity to busy Folsom Blvd. lt will truly be the one last thing that so many will see as one thing just too much to have to accept and make the best of.

Sincerely,
A quiet lovely senior citizen
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

To:

From:

Subject:

Datel
Elaine Andersen
losh Kinkade
FW: Lakeside crematorium.

Monday, February 7,20227:15:21 AM
From: Heather Hayes
Sent: Saturday, February 5,2022 3:00 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected],us>; Mike Kozlowski<[email protected]>;[email protected] Subject: La keside crematori u m.

You don't often get
"ru'l frorE Learn wh)r 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 City Officials,
I have grown to cherish our city with it's well thought out planning and infrastructure, I guess that's why I'm so confused that the city would even consider building a crematorium literally one block from my house. In fact I'm quite frustrated that on a Saturday instead of enjoying time with my 9 month old and teenage sons I'm having to write an email defending what seems like a common sense decision. Building a crematorium one block from my house will not only do psychological harm to myself and my family but will also worsen the air quality in my neighborhood where I am trying to raise my family. We already have some of the worst air quality in the country. With annual wildfires causing horrible conditions every year that on many days it's not even recommended that we go outside. I cannot believe that you would even consider adding to that horrible pollution with the smoke of dead bodies being billowed into my backyard as we try to enjoy our lives in historic Folsom. As we try to BBQ with family and friends, all the while breathing the smoke of the deceased.

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

Heather Hayes

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

My first concern with having a crematorium in my neighborhood is the release of harmful toxins into the air during the cremation process and the long term effects on me and my family. One such example is the mercury from the dental amalgam fillings being vaporized and released into the atmosphere. The emissions of mercury will not be regulated. There is no national standard for mercury emissions from a crematoriurn.Tlrere is no known lorver level of toxicity of ntercury. As stated in the 201 9 Final Senate Crematoria Conrmittee Report of Georgia:
" while there are emissions of othet chemicals during the cremation ptocess, mercury is of the most concern to communities near crematoriums. lAhen mercary is burned, it becomes a colorless and odorless gas that can travel long distances. lAhile mercury exposure hus the potential to cause s variety of health problems, the brain and kidneys are especially vulnerable." httfs://www.senate.gu.gov/sro tacuments/StudJtCommRfts/l2CremntoriuStudJt.pdf The followin g 2020 study from the Canadian Joumal of Public Health highlights the fact that crematoriums are a source of air pollution and should be monitored due to cumulative effects. 'This study anderlines that the main concem about mercuryfrom crematoriums is not acute exposure to immediately dangerous ground-level concentrations but long-term indirect exposurefrom the contamination of the environment and thefood chain, although more difficult to assess quantitatively.

It is important to inform decision -making around environmental permitting and pollution prevention to motivatefurther regulution. Cremutoriums are a soutce of air pollation us a result of combastion of cuskets and human bodies, as well as companion clothing, and should be subject to the regulatory framework covering all sources of air pollutants, notably including mercury. Environmental monitoring of mercury emissionfrom crematoriums k warrsnted." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7728964

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Another concern is the cremation of bodies that have had radiation treatment therapy or chemotherapy. lf there are no ongoing emissions regulations, how is it determined there is no negative impact to the residents or environment?
A recent study from Journal of American MedicalAssociation (JAMA) reported on an incident of radioactive contamination to the facility equipment and an employee that occurred in Arizona crematorium when a cancer patient was cremated.
"As of 20A6 (the ntost recently reported dato), 18.6 million nucleor medicine procedures were pefiormed in the Llnited States, wilh nearly 40 million perfonned worldwide.l Saferln regulttions ore well eslablishedfor rudiophnrmaceutical administation in living patients. However, rudiophumaceulicnls present a unique and often ot erlooked postmortem safetj: chollenge. Cremating an exposed pilient volutilizes the rndiopharmaceutical, whiclt cun then be inhaled by workers (or released into the udjacent communily) und result in greater exposure than from u living patient.

Regulutions Jbr cremution of exposed putients vary by stute, as well us internationulfi4 and there ure no regulutions at lhe Jbderal level in lhe Uniled Stutes." httn s : //i amfl n etw o r k. c om/i o ur n als/i a ms/fu ll artic le/2 7 2 5 6 7 3 It just seems common seltse to not place a crematorium itt close ploximify to residents. a state park and a lake. Besides the above environnrental corrcetns, there is the concertr of fire or accidents at cretrratoriums.

Here ale a ferv examples. Marry roi'. .un be found with a simple itrternet search:

Human Remains Spewed into Air After Accident at San Diego Crematorium, May 2018 https;//abcTnews.cotrl/crematorium-accident-human-remains-san-dieqo-cotutN-smoke-with/35I9060/ Investigation Underwav After Fire At Sucramento Cremutoriunt, June20l9 htlps://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/06/I I /nor-cql-cremalot?-south-sac-fire/ Erie funeral home avoids serious dumage from roof Jire; cremation suspected ss cause https://www.goerie.com/story/news/local/?021/ I I /24lfuneral-home-fire-erie-firefighters-respond-roof-fire -notenti al lv- linked-cremati on-burton/8'7 47 480002 I Thank you for your consideration, Helen Walsh

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
February 4,2022
PROJECT: l20l Forrest Street, Lakeside Memorial Lawn Cemetery in the State Open Space Area along Lake Natoma (Project File: l9-182)
REQUEST: Design Review including the installation of a crematorium in an existing metal shed and the installation of two freestanding propane tanks adjacent to the shed.

Conditional Use Permit to operate the Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery.

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

A similar application was processed through the City in2002 and 2003. (Project File: 02-258)

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

On November 24, 1998, Folsom's City Council approved the Historic Preseruation Master Plan. As a part of this document, Lakeside Cemetery was placed on the Preliminary Cultural Resources Inventory of properties and structures eligible for local listing. In2006, the Masons and Oddfellows cemeteries were processed for listing and added to the City's official Inventory.

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

The Heritage Preseruation League of Folsom recommends that the Historic District Commission deem the Initial Study regarding the Lakeside Crematorium project incomplete. a
a
Attachments: 1. Findings for Denial PN02-258

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachment 1
Findings for Denial
PN02-258

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
o o

STATT'RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends denial of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a crematorium at an existing cemetery at l20l Forresr Street in the Historic District, based on the following finings.

IIISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION

MOVETODENY THECONDITIONAL USEPERMITTO OPERATE A CREMATORIUM AT AN EXISTING CEMETERY AT I2OI FORREST STREET IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

FINDINGS FORDENIAL

A, NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

B. THE USE APPLIED FOR IS DETRIMEN'I'AL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR

CENERAL WELFAREOF PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE
NEIGHBORTIOOD, AND DETRIMENTAL ORINruRIOUS TO PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS TN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TI.IE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE

CITY BECAUSETHE INTRODUCTION OF THIS USE WILLIMPACTTHE

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING CEMETERY AND HISTORICAL USE OF TT{E AREA.

C. THE CONGLOMERATION OF HISTORIC CEMETERIES, COMBINED WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE DREDGERTAILINCS DATING BACK TO TI'IE I85O'S, CREATE

ARARE COMBINATION OF UNIQUECULTURAL RESOURCES THATWILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

D. THE USE OF TTtr PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITI{ GOAL 2 OF THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CUIDELINES IN TIIAT IT DOES NOT MAINTAIN TI{E HISTORIC USE OF THE SITE. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT DOES NOT FURTHER DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINE POLICIES 2.1,2.2,AND 2.3 IN THAT:

1. COMMTSSIONERS FROM SACRAMENTO COTINTY HISTORIC CEMETERY

COMMISSION HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS SITE AS LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT, AND COMMISSIONERS INTEND TO PRESENT LAKESIDE CEMETERY TO TI{E SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FORDESIGN{TION AS AN HISTORIC CEMETERY.

2. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTEMPORARY USE

THAT WILL IEOPARDIZE THE ELIGIBILITY STATUS OF THE SITE WOULD

WORK TO DISCOURAGE, RATHERTHANTO ENCOURAGE' NATIONAL
REGISTERNOMINATION.

3. BASED ON A LETTER FROM JAMES A. PURCELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY HISTOzuC CEMETERY COMMISSION DATED
JANUARY 2,2003,4 CREMATORIUM IS NOT A CONSISTENT USE WITH A TIISTORIC CEMETERY.
4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Attachment2
Letter from the Chairman of
Sacramento County Cemetery Advisory Commission

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

O^ll,.
,
' Sacramento County CemeteryAdvisory Commission
48oo Broadway, Suite roo
Sacramento CA 958eo
Cityof Folsom Historic Distict Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
Ath: Jane Talbot
DearMs Talbot::

The sacramento county cemetery Advisory commission is in recelpt of your Notice of p;;ilt;*trg regarding PN 02-i58 Conditional Use Permit and Mtigated Negative Declaration 1201 Forrest Steet.

The commission is charged with the dBty to encourage the preservation and iligr;li"r "f
historicaftemeterim. We are currentlyprepttioq
"
list of those cemeteries
in Stramento County, which should be considered historic. It is my opinion that t k;;* Cemetery will be one of the cemeteries in Saffanento County that will be on thc list that is to be presented to ttrc Boand of Supervisors for desipation as an historic cemetcry.
while no official action has yet been taken by either The cemetery Advisory Cornmission or The Board oisupervisors rcgarding Lakevicw Cemcterywe ask that you consider the above mentioned conditional usl permit in the context of lakeview's historic sigrificance and endeavor to preserve ie historic elcments' Sincerely,
James A. Purcell, Chairman
Ccmetery AdvisorY Commission
trtfli l.$ sJ& i.
us 'i;,
If;.t,!tir
ames Vice Chair, Dr. Robert La Perriere

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

From: lsaac Monical
Sent: Thursday, August 26,2021 9:28:54 PM
To: Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Concern for pending Lakeside Memorial Crematorium Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.

Dear Council members, Planning Commision members, and Residence Association members, The Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematorium proposal is deeply troubling to me and my family for a number of reasons The Caring Service Group is not a small business and states outright on their website that they're in the business of buying up and aggregating small funeral home businesses. This model further distances the business from its community's concerns and it shows with the "lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 202L.

The TAC (Toxic Air Contaminants) assessment in Appendix B of the "Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" dated April 2O2Lis flawed and irresponsible. Most specifically in terms of the evaluationoftheimpactto"sensitiveReceptors". ThereportbyHelixEnvironmental Planningnotesthattheadjacent residential houses are as close as 450 feet which is not that far! That's about the width of 5 or 6 lots in our neighborhood, 5 houses down the street. The report makes it sound like the combustion stack is remotely located away from our neighborhood which couldn't be farther from the truth. I walk the neighborhood regularly with my 1 and 3 year old children and it's a short walk from the closest house to the proposed site which is where my son likes to occasionally ride his balance bike. The Historic District Historical Society write-up of the cemetery (https://www.folsomhistoricalsocietv.org/post/lakeside-cemeterv) concludes with "The next time you are in town I highly suggest you take a visit to the cemetery; the older burial sites are beautiful, and its quiet location makes a perfect Fall afternoon walk." This will certainly change when there are constant emissions adjacent to the cemetery and increased vehicular activity carting the deceased to and from the crematorium "shed".

The report also neglects to recognize that the American River Bike Trail is adjacent to the proposed site where numerous people of all ages including sensitive groups, i.e. elderly and families with young children religiously use the trail. The proposed industrial process does not fit within the open space plan of the adjacent area. lt should not be used for a pollution buffer zone, it's a recreation area. While using the trail, the folks that are exercising will be subject to toxic emissions, at times while breathing heavily. The Air Quality Board recommends restricted exertion levels of people when air quality is poor, so to introduce a source of constant emissions renders the trail effectively unusable, especially by sensitive individua ls.

Kelly Mullett
Friday, August 27,20218:13 AM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Concern for pending Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
FYI

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
lsaac Monical
lrone ct
Folsom, CA 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Jackson Gates
Subject:

Sunday, January 16,2022 11:26 AM
[email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino;YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade; kkmul [email protected]. us
crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi my name is jackson I am very very sad. Every day me and my neighbor friends play outside and I am not sure if that will be able to continue in the future . I am 10 years old and had my birthday party here. Will I be able to have another birthday party outside? will animals stay in our neighborhood? Jackson
young wo circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Steven Banks
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematories are located only in industrial and light industrial zoning in other localities . If you feel Folsom should be an exception to this, I suggest you help the Miller group to locate adjacent to Serrano. Jim Tibefti Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:05:54 AM
FYI
----Original
From: James Tiberti
Sent: Monday , January 17 ,2022 I t :55 AM
To: Steven Banks <[email protected]>
Subject: Crematories are located only in industrial and light industrial zoning in other localities . Ifyou feel Folsom should be an exception to this, I suggest you help the Miller group to locate adjacent to Serrano. Jim Tiberti [Youdon'toftengetemaittrorrfLearnwhythisisimportantat
httfr://aka.m s/Learn AboutSenderldenti fi cation.]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPhone

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
Tuesday, February 1,202212:54 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
From: JANICE BR
Sent: Tuesday, February 7,2022 12:15:29 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]>; ankhelyi@comcast,net <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <m.dascallos@ya hoo.com>
Subject: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

The crematorium has proposed two, 250 gallon propane tanks above ground, in a wild fire danger area. There have been fires in the state park over the years. Countless people come to our neighborhood daily to walk, run, ride bikes, trikes, boating and to enjoy Lake Natoma. Please do not put those of us who live here and the people that come here to enjoy the state park and lake, in danger by approving the crematorium.
ln addition, I am extremely concerned about the air quality if the crematorium is approved. Poor air quality, smell, increased fire risk and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical and environmental health of our community. According to the Sacramento Gounty's Air Quality Management District, the crematorium would be self-regulated, with the County having very little I

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
oversight over the mercury-based emissions. The Initial Study by HELIX Environmental Planning lnc., notates levels for harmful toxins including chromium, mercury, and organics. Our local experts have warned that those toxins are most dangerous when vaporized. The smaller the particulate matter, the more dangerous it becomes. The report designates the level as "not significant." That only applies to the average, healthy adults. The study does not report significant and potentially deadly levels for unborn children, developing children, elderly, and those with existing health conditions. I am a senior citizen with health issues and there are many young children that live here and many more that come to play in the nearby Preserve Mini Park on Sutter Street.

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

Sincerely,
Janice Brial
lsutter St.

Folsom, CA 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht < [email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2,2021 1 1:09 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Proposed - Lakeside Cemetery Crematorium
Date:Tue, 23 Feb 2O2L 12:12:21 -0800
From:JANICE BRIAL
To:da ronbr@ pacbell. net
To: Chairman Daron Bracht
Chairman of the Folsom Historic District Commission
Dear Chairman Bracht,
It is my understanding that there is going to be a meeting about a proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery, at the Folsom Historic District Commission soon. ii%lt has been challenging to try to be up to date about what is going on during the last year of COVID. 'il%l am not aware of the developer contacting anyone in my neighborhood about the crematorium. ic%l wonder if they have contacted the state park that is also near by? I live in The Preserve/Lake Natoma Shores which is located next to Lakeside Cemetery.'il%There are over 100 homes. 'il%Also, people using The Murer House, Lakeside Cemetery, the VFW and the Preserve Mini Park only haveic%one wayiL%to drive in or out of this area on Forrest St. ic%Forrest St. is small, curved and has very narrow parts, ia%l have lived here over 25 years and at this point in time, it is frequently challenging to even enter or exit my neighborhood. ic% The state park is also next to this neighborhood.iL%We have.many people coming through riding their bikes, trikes, scooters, walking and running through our neighborhood. 'iL%We also have traffic with people driving to Young Wo Circle and parking next to the state park and accessing the state park for biking, kayaking, running, walking, etc.'ii% One frequent problem in trying to get in and out of Forrest Street, is the frequent train traffic. ie%At this point in time, I believe that a train comes and goes to Old Town Folsom every 30 minutes (to and from Old Town Folsom).'il%l have been told that the train traffic is going to be increased to every L5 minutes. iZ%When that happens, it will be much more difficult to exit and enter Forrest Street, which is the only way all of the above mentioned drivers can get in and out of the neighborhood.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
anywhere in this area. 'il%People could be trapped and unable to safely leave the ONLY EXIT on Forrest St. ia%lt seems only sensible that nothing else should be built in this area when a safe exit does not exist in case of anytype of emergency,
Drivers who are familiar with the complicated intersection at Folsom Blvd, Natoma Street/Forrest St. and are attempting to leave Forrest Street, know that there are two very small slots to exit next to Folsom Blvd. ic%The right slot in the lane, is for right turns only. 'iL%The left slot of the lane, is for turning left on Folsom Blvd. or going straight to Natoma St. ie%Unfortunately, the individuals who are unfamiliar with the intersection frequently sit in the right hand lane slot and block the only exit that does not require a green light to leave. ii%Any increased traffic to the Lakeside Cemetery will cause the intersection to be even more dangerous.illz
Our hard working Folsom Police Department also uses the entrance at Forrest St. and pulls over vehicles that have been speeding on Folsom Blvd., or breaking the law in other ways. ii.%lt is rather routine to see one or more vehicles pulled over on Forrest St., opposite the entrance to Lakeside Cemetery.'il%ltis crowded and a driver must cross, to drive to the other side of the street, to get by.'tL%
I am not aware that the Lakeside Cemetery has notified any of the nearby residents or businesses about the proposed crematorium .'jL%We would all be involved in our attempts to exit and enter our neighborhood with any increased traffic. ic%lt seems like such a facility should only be installed in an industrial or commercial area, not near a neighborhood and state park;il%
My other concern is air quality.'il%l am sure there must be safety precautions regarding fumes and dangerous particles going into the air with crematoriums. iZ%However, things happen, and sometimes even the best made plans do not work. ie%We already have unsafe days and are sometimes told to not even walk outdoors.'ii%We are hundreds of people of all ages from babies to senior citizens. 'ii%Many of us already have existing asthma, allergies and other breathing issues. ie%Please do not allow a crematorium to be put into this lovely area where people are exercising (walking, biking, running, etc.) in our neighborhood and also going to and from the state park. ic%l moved here to have a healthy life style near beautiful Lake Natoma and charming Old Town Folsom.

Please share my letter with the rest of the Historic District Commission. ii%Please let me know that you received this email.

Thank you for your service
Sincerely,
Janice Brial
lsutter St.

Folsom, CNiL%
rtrl
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 2:21 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
ScottA. Johnson, AICP
P I urtttint1 XI t ut rx1 e r
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6206
ih jrr{}lLffi(}&{i ci'IY 6F
il13'fthsT;vs FY ?{lTUnE
$S@ **inusr,ou-ot
From: Jennifer Grattan
Sent: Wednesday, Februa ry 2, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]>; Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Vote NO on Folsom Crematorium Proposal
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: City Council Representatives and Folsom Historic District Commissioners Re:Vote NO on Folsom Crematory Proposal
Public hearing scheduled for February 16,2022
I am writing to you as a concerned resident in the Folsom Hlstoric District. I am strongly opposed to the conditional use permit to install a crematorium on the grounds of a residential open space. I believe allowing a permanent, industrial incinerator in the residential open space does not meetthe criteria of the Folsom Historic District. lfurther believe this contradicts the city of Folsom motto, 'Distinctive by Nature'. I urge you to vote NO on the proposed Folsom Crematorium. Please consider the impacts to the environment, physical health of the residents and the fiscal health of the Folsom Historic District.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Please preserve the environment, the physical health of the residents and the community as a whole.

Vote NO on the Folsom Crematory Proposal.

Kindly,
Jennifer Grattan
Historic Folsom Resident
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Steven Banks
Friday, February 4,202210:20 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: NO crematorium
FYI
---Origina I Message-----
From: jeri livesay
Sent: Friday, February 4,202210:00 AM
To: Steven Ba n ks <sban [email protected]>
Subject: NO crematorium
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http : / / aka.ms/Lea r n A bo u tSe n d e rl d e n t if i cat i o n . l CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

NO NO NO
Sent from my iPad
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Friday, February 4,2022 9:58 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: No crematorium
Scott A. Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.467.62O6
https://gcc02.safelin ks.protection.outlook.com/?u rl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca.us%2F&amp;d ata=O4%7COL%7qk inkade%40folsom.ca.us%7Cdbce6f94l65b4t2ec2l408d9e807e 46b%7Ctcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7L335fd6c0%7CO%7CO %7C637795942874787606%TCUnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3dSeyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVCI6Mn 0%3D%7C3O00&amp;sdata=65kuXCKzqzklGDwwL5DX6tmMNN4z|VZS4VrogL6lB2Q%3D&amp;reserved=0 ----OriginalM
From:jeri livesay
Sent: Friday, February 4,2022 9:57 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjoh [email protected]>
Subject: No crematorium
[You don't often get email fro Learn why this is important at http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderl dentification.l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote NO.....our air quality cannot have ashes..,,.NO NO NO Sent from my iPad e-----
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook Android
Scott Johnson
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 1:14 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: The Preserve Crematorium
From: Jessica F
Sent: Wednesday, Februa ry 2,2022 12:35:L3 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] <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <mkozlowski @folsom.ca. us>
Subject: The Preserve Crematorium
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

Thank you,
Jessica Grob
1 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Lakeside Memorial Lawn is currently designated as Open Space which excludes it from operating a crematorium The owners are applying for a Conditional Use Permit to change that. This is very concerning for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

Toxicity levels - harmful toxins such as chromium, mercury and organics become most dangerous when vaporized. While the initial report by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notes the levels as "not significant" this applies to only average healthy adults. The study fails to report the effect on unborn children, developing children, the elderly and those with existing health conditions. a
Air Quality - poor air quality, smell and toxic particulate matter will cause lasting damage on the physical, environmental and fiscal health of our community.

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

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

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

Regards,
a
a
a
Joan

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Thank you for yourtirne,
Kindest
a
Joan

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Joan Boyle
Monday, January 17,2022 3:47 PM
Josh Kinkade
Joan Boyle
Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory lnitial Study questions Shed - Folsom Blvdjpg; Shed - Forrest Stjpg
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Okay so, here we go...
ln Section 11.0 lnitial Study Preparers it states that you are one of the preparers of the document along with HELIX Environmental Planning lnc. and ECORP Consulting, lnc. But lgor said over and over again in the Zoom meeting that he paid 530,000 for the report.
o Who prepares the report?
o Who pays for the report?
o lf Caring Services Group is paying for the report how is impartiality achieved in determining the conclusions presented in the report?
a ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics in the lnitialStudy dated April 202Lil states "The applicant anticipates one or two cremations on most business days (Monday through Friday) and expects that the total will not exceed 500cremationsperyear."whileinthelnitialStudydatedJanuary2022itstates "Theapplicantanticipatesl-4 cremations on business days (Monday through Friday) with the total number of cremations not exceeding 500 per year. "
o Why was this verbiage changed?
o Who requested this verbiage change?
ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it states that "The applicant anticipates 1- 4 cremations on business days (Monday through Friday) with the total number of cremations not exceeding 500 per year. " But in the Zoom meeting lgor commented that it could be up to 5 per day. o ls this lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration study and all its subsequent findings (including Air Quality), based on 1.,2,3 or 4 cremations a day?
a
1 a

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
a
a
a
a
a
o Who monitors the number of cremations performed daily to ensure the total number of annual cremations do not exceed 500?
ln Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it also states that HCT Apex-250 crematory will be installed in a shed, and "The shed would be modified to accommodate this device, but the shed's footprint would not be expanded." o What modification(s) are being made to the shed?
Section 3.3 Project Characteristics it also states that "Two 250-gallon propane tanks would be installed on a proposed concrete pad along the northern side of the shed to provide power for the crematorium, as no gas lines currently exist on the property." ln AppendixA it states "(N) 2 X 500 gallon propane tanks" o What is the size of the propane tanks 250 gallons or 500 gallons? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics it states "A small exhaust stack would be added to the roof of the shed. The stack would be approximately 19.5 feet above grade, and would project approximately L0 feet above the existing roof of the shed." o This statement uses the words small and approximately. Why is this statement so vague? o Shouldn't Caring Services Group be able to provide specific enough information to calculate exactly how tall the smokestack would be, and provide that information to the writer of this report? o Example: lf the smoke stack is installed 19.5 feet above grade and the shed is a single story building of approx. 12 feet, won't the stack be more realistically about 15 feet above the existing roof? Doing the math - an 8 foot crematory (estimate) plus 19.5 foot smoke stack, minus a 12 foot tall shed equals 15.5 feet. I know it doesn't seem like much, but aesthetically when you live in the neighborhood, a 15 foot smokestack towering above a 12 foot shed is much different than a 'small' smokestack.

In Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics it also states "Tailing piles between the site and Folsom Boulevard prevent the site from being visible from that street." Note: Attached are two photos showing that the shed (even without the smokestack) is visible from Folsom Blvd as well as Forrest St. o Was the installation of the smokestack taken into account when this statement was made? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection l. Aesthetics c) concludes "Less Than Significant lmpact". I would argue that the view of a smokestack in a Historic cemetery, adjacent to the American River Bike Trail and a residential neighborhood is significant. o What criteria was used to determine the impact is "Less Than Significant"? ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection lll. Air Quality there is so much information in this section, so my questions on this section are very general. o The initial report by HELIX Environmental Planning, lnc. notes the levels as "not significant". lt is my understanding that this applies to average healthy adults. ls that true? o lf so, does the study have findings that report the effect on unborn children, developing children, the elderly and those with existing health conditions?
ln Section 9.0 Environmental lnitial Study Checklist Subsection XVll. Transportation it states "As the crematorium would not be located in or near a funeral home and would be separate from any funeral services or public gatherings provided by the project applicant, access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members with a business at the site." While in the Lakeside Memorial Lawn, Scope of work - lnstalling a Crematory - Point at lssue it states "There are several large cultural communities residing and moving into Folsom. Regretfully, we do not have the ability nor the capability to serve the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs. Currently there is no crematory in the city of Folsom so they must find the services outside the city."
a
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
o ls the proposed crematorium going to be open the public so "the Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or other cremation-based cultures as they require an on-site crematory so that they are able to exercise their funeral rights and customs", or is it just open to a "small number of staff members"? o lf it is the former, will the lnitial Study be updated to reflect that? Thank you in advance for your time. lf you have any questions please feel free to contact me at Kind regards,
-Joan Boyle
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kelly Mullett
Friday, August 27,2021 8:59 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
FYI
KellyMullett
Adnt i rt i sI r atir,c As.sisto n I
Com munity Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
ffi gr,r ? gr
tr'{sl,ffi{bntr
Og@ www.totsom.ca.us
From: Joanne Dudgeon
Sent: Friday, August 27,20218:53 AM
To: Kelly Mullett <[email protected]>
Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email from jedudE@lsmtest=net. 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.

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

We vote NO for this crematorium
Joanne Dudgeon
! Crestridge Lane
Folsom, Ca. 95630
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
Saturday, January 29,2022 12:14 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Proposed Crematorium, please read
From: Joy Hays
Sent: Saturday, January 29,2022 tt:47:24 AM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Cc: Joy Hays
Subject: Proposed Crematorium, please read
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whvthis 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 Planning Manager Scott Johnson:

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
to happen, but we all know that accidents do happen, and then questions are asked, "Who approved such a thing?!" Should just one of these tanks ignite, the blast range is 1800 feet, and the resulting fires could wipe out most of Historic Folsom. Do you want the loss of life, in addition to property, both residential and commercial, attached lo your approval of such a risky project? Air quality is another concern. Last summer, we all suffered from forest fire smoke, (notably smoke trapped in our Preserve neighborhood) to the point that we were advised we should not leave our houses. Because of what smoke does to our lungs, and to our children's health, we were hesitant to go shop or eat at, the multiple Folsom small businesses that depend on locals' patronage to survive.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
,/4t- 5 ,tu v" i L:.'x ik rr;,7 wi.::-:ri;,, 7'?*{i' :3 1sftv, m <'/ Li-nr** (,/xxrw , /'tr 3 6
'r)
tt Lr;{ rP. r9; /* (,/ttru'a"- cr- C, *./ (.

A"uth {;
o, f e,twQ tt"'ltu*' 1 ;'n*l monilAL tt"Ut-A CREHffi.ry,8# W*ro iu Y" { e *d&s a [.avlflN lj'r;t4 rl
^f 1! Lf,^-,4+'.4-
llt'ltiJ.
deslgnated open u8e permlt ftrthe br a condi$onal Lakeelde Merprlal Lawn hae Thlc hae We, the At€ to aol now to vote 'NO' on the who our leaders concemed clflzans Dab
^-t-/" ,
Q'nl'c
I
t-.' ;,tr'1' Ur,{' ti./
.i/

4./7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Adam and Katie Musfelt
Subject:

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

Commission and Council Members,
Folsom is a second home to me; I spend a lot of time there as I have many life-long friends, including my children's godparents, who live in the housing development next to Lakeside Cemetery, Some of the things I love most about Folsom are the trails along the river and quintessential Sutter Street. When visiting, we are almost always outside enjoying the fresh air, kind people and beautiful scenery that Folsom has to offer. During the pandemic we have celebrated numerous events outdoors including backyard birthday parties, playdates in the little park, baby showers, and family gatherings where we would take walks on the trails and to Sutter Street to pick up food. lt is a unique city rich with history and charm, that would be greatly diminished by the establishment of a crematorium at the cemetery It would be devastating if this crematorium is put in. I can't imagine anyone would want to visit the resting place of their loved ones at the cemetery, while breathing in the smell of the crematorium. None of us would want to gather outside together or let our children play at the playground when it's a burn day. The people who walk and bike on the trails and eat at the restaurants on Sutter Street would disappear on these days as well. People will stop visiting Folsom.

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

Thank you,
Katie Musfelt

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Dave Higgins
Tuesday, July 20, 20217:31 AM
[email protected];[email protected] [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected];[email protected];Mike Kozlowski;Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade
Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
place. Mr. Semenyuk stated all we might see is an "initial puff of white smoke" and heat waves. Mr. Hartwick stated there won't be any smoke or smell. I am concerned that there is still going to be particulate matter in the air. ln the meeting Mr. Semenyuk guesstimated a possibility of 2lo 3 bodies a day. What would the number of cremations be in the future with our current population growth. More cremations, more service trucks, more emissions from more smoke stacks?
I realize Miller Funeral Home is a business. lt makes good business sense to them to put a crematorium there. But a crematorium does not belong in a residential neighborhood. I am sure they can find a great location in a commercial-industrial area where they can operate day and night.

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

It> lvlxrtll lt cQllqcl'llti,
Folsonr "[)istinclivc hy Naturc". Whilc we nrovc dccpcr into thc lwcnty first ccntury w'c have tx:come more aware of the choices we must make to ptotect tlte luture. Smalt cltoices might not lnshe inrmcdirite intpact$ but we utrcierstartd tlrat the sntaii eltoict)$ we tlitkt: todriy ariri up 1o lltc large lltrpacis rve seek.

I arn wrilrng regutling the Proposed cr:ernntoriuut platuted *t iekesidc tttetttt>rtsl l&wrr centctcry, M*ny peopl* lvill have rvlifir.* to you ahout tlre tlieore.tieal risk asso$iatetl with thi: ctrrcinugcnt livirrg ire*i on". Wl-,il* my conccm is ahout protecting the future and we have a small chance tc make a rneaningful change torlay. At fhe same timc eliminating ali risk associated with a crematorjum.

Revcrend Desmond Tutu provided direction on this matier- LJpcn his recent death h€ chcse to use equarnation to promole grecn burial. Reducing greenhouse gases by 907o associated with normal cfgrl1iitiofi. $orne estirtates stfite that each tinre *quarnation is used it is the eqtriv;rlertt rrf tnking 3 $iu off the road for 1000 miles in eoT crcation. As cremation becomcs closer to be ing the standard choicc. in Califi:nria thsse nunrbers start to add up.

Some might be conccrned about water use. Per one manulacturrr websitc each use requircs about i0{i gallons of water, We are in the prucess of addrng 10,00U hornes which per your own literature uses Qn iuetage of 6f)0g*llons 6f watcr a day. So this sxtra antount used would be th* equivalent of one homc if r"rsed to full capacity.

I actually woulcl pret-er that the city ot l eilsom would choose to not allow uny $rematorium proiects moving forwarcl ancl cneonrage the use of this proven technology, In fact we already havc an aquamation facility in Folsom. Sacramcnto Pet Aquamation is located on Bidwell provides this service tbr residents cherished pets.

Now is the ti1:e to make this choice. 11 is much harder to change directions on this path once you allow the crematoriurn to be put in opcration, I he decision to pret'erably not allow a crematorium in the city of Folsom and encouragc the use of grcen burial technology is not something to make a decisiorr on in two decades. It is today.
'l hank you,
Kyal Von Gunten
1335 Fong St

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

It) u,h0il'i lt L..Qllqcnl$,
Folsonr .'Distinclivc hy Nature". whilc we movc dceper into thc twcnly first ccn1ury we havc bcccrme more aware of the choices we must make to protect the futute, Srnall choices might ni)t tngke inrmecliate inrpaets but we uncier.stand tfiat the .snrali chrriees u'e tultke krriny ariil u1r to lltc iarge ittrFucis rrc reek.

I *r' w'lrng regg'iling the proposed crernotoriurri planrted ut lakeside tttetttt}risl lllwtt cenl.^tery' Msny pecple vl.illi*."Ie .,ry'r1tf,n to ;*ou irbnut tlrc tlieorstical tisk associaterl ';itli thc careinogrriii; liviig iieili -
nn*. Wl.,it" my conccm is airout protecling the future and we have a small chance to make a nreaningful chalge today. At the same time oliminating all risk associated with a crematoriurr.

Re'erencl Desmond Tutu provided direction on this matter- tJpon his recent deaft he chose to use aqunrnation to prornote grecn burial. Reducing greenhouse gases by 907o associated with normtil ciemntio*. Sorne estimites $tete thilt each titne equturation is used it is the equiv;tlertt of tirki*g a ciu off the road for 1000 milcs in co2 cre ation" As cremation becomcs closer to be ing thc standard choice in ealifirmia these n$trrbers stert to add up'
Some might be conccmed about water use. Per one manutbcture website each usc rcquircs about 100 gallons oT water. We are in the process of addrng 10,uuu homes which per your own liternture use$ on in*rng* of 600gallons of water i day. so this extra arronnt used would be thc equivalent of one home if used to full capacity.

I actually would pret-er that thr- city ot Folsom would chocise to not allow *ny crematorium projects moving iorwarcl alcl sncourage the use of this proveu technology. In faet we already have an aquamition facility in Folsom. Sacrarncnto Pet Aquamation is localed on Bidwcll providcs this service ior residents cherished Pets.

Now is the tinre to make this choice. 11 is much hardcr to change clirections on this path once you allow the srematorir,un to be put rn operatron" I he decision to prel'erably not aitow a crematorium in the city of Folsom and encourage the use of grcen burial technology is not something to make a decision on in two decades. It is todaY.
'lhank youn
Kyal Von Gunten
lFong St

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Karen Sanabria
Friday, August 6,2021 7:42 AM
Josh Kinkade; Kelly Mullett
FW: CREMATORIUM
FYI
From: KyalVonGunten
Sent: Thursday, August 5,202L7:52 PM
To: Karen Sanabria <[email protected]>
Subject: CREMATORIUM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

August 4,202L
TO: City Council Members
Hlstoric District Commrssion
Planning Department - Scott Johnson
My name is Kyal VonGunten. r live next to Lakeside Memorial Lawn on I tonn JL.

Lakeslde Memoria] Lawn proposed crematorium is 460 feet from the cfosesl residence. The majority of the homes are on Young Wo Circle. f have read the assessmenL report from Helix Environmental Planning, appendix "8" and f have anxiety about what wifl occur in my neighborhood.

In the "Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment", appendix "B" written by Helix Environmentaf Planning, page 5, under \\Sensitive Receptors", they state the closest residences are 450 feet. They are correct, there are nine homes on Young Wo Circfe that fall within the distance of 450 feet. From there it fans out to af] of the Preserves Neighborhood.
r\Sensitive Receptors" Corporate speak for people, people with homes, families and Iives.

According to an arlic1e by,fulliette O'keeffe, dated macc,h 24, 2020, "Crematoria Emissions and Air Quality Impacts". page 4, item 3
I*rat is standard practice for siting of crematorium in proximity to residential. areas?
Table 1 identifies the many factors affecting emissions from crematoria. Ground levef concenlratrons can al-so be affected by focaf prevaillng wind direction and topography. In North America, there are no standard requirements for crematoria setback drstances and no minimum separation distances are set at a federaf levef in either the US or Canada. Crematoria are regulated at the provincial/territorial l-evef and reglonal or municipal authorllies determine whether minimum setbacks are required based on refevant planning and environmental considerations.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

The literature search for
idenLified many different
world fisted in Table 3.

Tab1e 3. Selected examPle
public agency resources and the grey literature
practices, with some sefected examples from around the
setback distances for crematoria from around the worfd
Coun try,/Juri sdi c tion Minimum distance
England and Wales
(UK Crenation Act) 46
200 yards (183 m) between a crematorium and any dwelling house and 50 yards from a public highway to protect
residents from nuisance smoke and fumes and provide
privacy to funeraf proceedings
West Australiaaz 200-300 m between crematoria and sensitive fand uses South Australia and t-he
Austrafian Capital
Territory48,49
150 m minimum separation distance
South Africa, Department of 500 m from any habitable burldrng Healthso
US (Sacramento County,
California) sr
500 feet (152 rn) from any agricultural-residential,
residential, or interim residential zoning district
Back to the Helix Report. On page 2 of the document, under Air Quality' it explains Lhe "Environmentaf Setting" of Folsom. This is lmportant data.

AIR QUALITY AI'IAIYSIS - Environmental- Setting
The City of Fofsom lies within the SacramenLo Valley Air Basin (SVAB) ' near the southeasLern edge. The SVAB consists of all or parl-s of efeven counties spanninq from Sofano and Sacramento counLies to the south, and Shasta County to the north.

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quafity Management District (SI{AQMD) is responsibfe for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and state l-aws for Sacramento County, including the project area. The climate of the SVAB is characterized by hot dry sulnmers and mild rainy winters ' During the year the temperature may range from 20 to 115 degrees Fahrenheit with summer highs usually in the 90s and winter fows occasionally befow freezing.

Average annual rainfal-l rs about 20 inches with snowfaff being very rare. The prevalling wlnds are moderate in strength and vary from moist breezes from the south to dry fand ffows from the north. The mountains surrounding the Sacramento Valley create a barrier to airflow, which can trap air pollutants in the valley when certain meteorological conditions are right and a temperature inversion (areas of warm air overlying areas of cooler air) exists.

Air stagnation rn the autumn and early winter occurs when large high-pressure ceffs fie over the val1ey. The fack of surface wind during these periods and the reduced vertical flow caused by less surface heating reduces the inffux of outside air and allows pollutants to become concentrated in the air. The surface concentrations of pollutants are highest when these conditions are combined with 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
increased l-evels of smoke or when Lemperature inversions trap cool air, fog and pollutants near the ground.

The ozone season (May through October) in the SVAB is characterized by stagnant morning air or light winds with the breeze arriving in the afternoon out of the southwest from the San Francisco Bay. Usually the evening breeze transports the airborne pollutants to the north out of the SVAB. During about haff of the days from July to September, however, a phenomenon cafled the "Schultz Eddy" prevents this from occurring. Instead of allowing for the prevailing wind patterns to move north carrylng the pollutants out of the valley, the Schuftz Eddy causes the wind paltern and pollulants to circl-e back southward. This phenomenon's effect exacerbates the pollution fevefs in the area and increases Lhe llkefihood of violating the federal and state air qualrty standards (SMAQMD 2020a) This data is important to note as polJ-utants, particulate matter, ozone and smoke would most tikely lay within the neighborhood because of the elevation decrease to La.ke Natomas.

Regulatory Setting - Criteria Pollutants
As permitted by the Cfean Air Act, Cafifornia has adopted the more stringent Cafifornia ambient alr quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents. Ground-Iewel ozone is not emitted directJ-y into the environment but is generated from complex chemical and photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, primarily reactive organic aases (ROGs.' also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCsl ) , 1 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) . PM10 and PM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake lrear, construction operations and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can also be formed through chemical and photochemical- reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere.

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

A .'nonattainment,, designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once.

This data is valuabfe because it is an evaluation of today, before the crematorium is operational. This ozone and particulate matter pollution mosL likely comes from the busy traffic on Folsom Bfvd. With a crematorium initlally proposing 2 bodles or 400lbs of matter a day, 100,000 l-bs a yearf one can only imagine the additionaf contaminants flowing into The Preserves Nelghborhood.

In my opinion, once established, Caring Service Group is only golng to increase the number of cremations in the fulure.

Please consider the residents of the Preserves Neighborhood's quality of 1ife.

Thank you,
K VonGunten
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

U Laurent
Thursday, January 6,20221:07 PM
Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns
Lydia Konopka; Steve Krahn; [email protected]; [email protected]; Drew Lessard PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Notice of Public Hearing appears in January 6,2022 Folsom Telegraph as Historic District Commission Legal Notice, PN 19 182. Parcel 07O 0260 001 0000 Owner Lakeside Memorial Law Entity #
c0307506 08/1511955
Site Zoning is "OPEN SPACE/OS Conservation", underlyingZone District OPEN SPACE.

Your PN 2019 182 contains strange reference to California State Laws which you purport have direct Relevance to PN 19-182. With respect to same, you would do well to consult with and obtain Written Opinion of Legal Counsel with respect to state laws cited. If you do not so so, you may place yourselves in untenable positions, or may have already done so. Have our paid city lawyers done complete due diligence, which you apparently rely upon?

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
tr | : Lak'eside-.

G
x lf hot-La!', x l3 (uFf,iFF. x l@f cunorn' " lE oFRZonin x E {.:.i f ire I C:/Users/ljlaurentlDesktop/CREI'+tATORY96J05ti-l.o,s201'+lneE?i20dec/.,. iijl l, $'(}x-Fld)11't
NOTICE OF PT"]BLIC HEARING AND NO'

TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NECATIVE
!,,, CITY OF FOLSOM HISTORTC I}ISTTIICI q.-r.,1d r! !.1-4r h
DATE OF HEARING:

TIhIE OF HE.'\RIN{}:

PLACE OF HEARING:

February 16,203?
5:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers. 50 Natarna Strr:et. Fo
NOTICE IS I{EREBY CMN THAT: A public hearing rvill be held i Commission of the City of Folsarn to consitler the merits of the following:

PR{}JECT NAME Lakeside Memorial Lalvn Crematorium
Property OrvnerlApplicant: Lakeside Memorial Lawnllgor Semenyuk Project Location/AFN: l20l Forrest Street i 070-0260-tl0l-00iltl Planning No.: PN- 19- I tt:

Stal'f fltrntact: Josh Kinkade. Associate Planner,9l6-461-6?{ i k i nkarje (i!:fo lso m. ca,tt s
Entitlements a. Cr-rnditional Use P*rmit
Project Description: The prcrposed project includes operation of a cremflto l.{}71-square tlrot nretal shed located at l30l Forrest Street, within the La cemetery. The site is zoned OSI'P {Open Space/Public Prirnary Area} rvith i OSC {Open Space and Consen'ation} and has a General Plan designation ol Historic District Commission will take final action r-rn this request unless the the City Council.
rlrl Fl q! F c,
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

E ll Lskecide:,- " lI t{o(-Lar.. " l': tupflF'F. X l@ cunonn,, " lE oFRZonir, x @ C i.:.: riie i C:/Users/tilaurenty'Desktop/CREMATORY'*6205{H96J0Mneg?iZ*deq.,. i.l i, L,$trrviLrry. tttv drtL td AurrLs viJir \L.Fvrr uygvvr I uulr! r rri.r$rJr MLtl/r "tlu! a OSC (Open Space and Conserv'ationI and has a General Plan designation ol Historic District Comrnissian w'ill take final irction on this request uuless tht the City Council.

Environmental Review: An Initial Sfudy and Mitigated Negative Declaration accordance with the requirements of the Califbrnia Euvironmental Qualiry'At review period begins January 7, ?0?2 and ends February 7, ?022. Copies of tl Declaration are available f'*rr review at the City of Folsom Pl*nning Deparlme Folsom CA 9563t1, h{onday througtr Friday ltom 8:3f} a.m. tc l:00 p.m. The t dorvnloaded from the City of Folsrrnr website at httus://rvr.wy lsom.ca.u#so' develonment/nlann inr-serv ices/cu rrent-nroi ect-i nt.rrnnation All pcrsons intr'rcstcd in thcst: rnfittcrs arc invitcd to prcsent and sutttnit stat{::mcnts $r3 public hcaring^ The environmentnl doeumcnts are availabl* ttrr rcvicw tt. and tirrthc'r iri from thc Cornnlunity Dcvclcpment Dcpartment. -i0 Nitloilrir Strcct, during rcgulrrr busir p,cy1:hrpment Depurtmcnt ciul bc rcirchcd hy phonc at (9161 461-62t1:. A staff rcpnrt rvill Citv Hall ur at wrvu'.I'olsom,ca.us on thr- Thirrsday prcccding thc ftrtrlie Hcaring.

Pursuanr tu all applisabL- ltrl's nrrd rcgulations. in*lurling without limitation, Califtlrnia 6-500qI nndior flalifi:rnia Public Rcsour*cs Codc Scctiorr 2117?, if you tl'ish trr chiillcng dccisions {re garding plannirrg. zrrnirrg and/trr cnvirannrcntal dccisitinsJ. you msy he limitcr yoil or silmconc clsc raiscd irt thc public hearing{*f dcseribed irr this ntti*ciag*ndfi, ot dclivcred to rhc City ar. or prior to, thc public hcnring. An appeal to th* City Cuuncil l-rur Districr flnmmi*sion rnily bc bruught hy any intercstcd party lvithin thcn ( ltl) tlays of tht:

PAM JOHNS
I]OMMUN ITY DEVE LOPh'IEhfT DIRECTOR
Puhlished in the .futrust:r' 7, 2{l}} .$lrrtunterr lo Bee Address is 2020 Mormon St.; Falsified in PN t9 LB2, and on large number of Perjurysworn Building Permit Applications.

All LNS 1B' wide lanes are subject to Folsom PUD Law enacted for creation of s.f, houses only, not 2,400F furnaces.
3 .rl li rl rft 4 tF !r

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
--- Foruvarded M
From: LJ Laurent
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Folsom city clerk office
to: Comm. Development asso planner Kinkade, manager Johns cc: interested parties
From: Laurette Laurent
Re: PUBLIC COMMENT which includes PRA for MISSING mandatory documents not Filed with Clerk, nor with SCH, nor OPR.

Please accept the below Itemized Lists as Public Comment on the potential Failure of city and applicant to obey all Laws governing such dangers uses as 2,4OOF furnaces, 500 gallon explosive LPG gas storage -- on 12 acres of land with only a three inch diameter water supply pipe. Where is the Fire Marshall True Report with signature & seals? Please be aware your Noticing email was received minutes ago, however it merely proves city staff are NON-Compliant with the Legal Noticing Requirements. Guess you don't listen to Licensed Civil Engineers norto Licensed city lawyers. tsk tsk...

U Laurent
Friday, January 7 ,2022 1 1:20 AM
Josh Kinkade; Pam Johns
Steve Krahn; Steven Wang; [email protected]; Drew Lessard; Ken Cusano; Rick Hillman PUBLIC COMMENT PN19 182 for FILES/ PRA REQUEST City Eng. APROVED RECORDS, Furnace necessity PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment" "fu
To: Asst. Clerk <[email protected]>; City Engineer Steve Krahn <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Drew Lessard [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Ken Cusano <[email protected]>; Rick Hillman Chief FPD <[email protected]>; Fire Marshal Ono <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>, Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; KerriHowEll <[email protected]>, Steven Wang <[email protected]>; The HFRA <[email protected]>; Sararivenruatch I nfo < i nfo@sararivenivatch. org>
Sent: Friday, January 7,2022, A8.34.43 AM PST
Subject: Re: PRA REOUEST City Eng. APROVED RECORDS, Furnace necessity PN 19 182 crematory CUP NegDec Filed for "enactment"
Urgent PRA REQUEST Janu ary 7, 2022, for Folsom City Engineer Documentation, permits, Sealed/Signed Reports, Building Permits, and all public records pertaining to three year old "application" for furnaces on OPEN SPACE Zone District surrounded by Public Open Space and s.f, homes.

To: Folsom City Engineer
Asst City Clerk Konopka
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
cc: interested parties OPEN SPACE Parcel protectors Adjacent to proposed 500 gallons LPG, on site with 3" water supply pipe,
ccr silent city staff; council
From: Laurette Laurent
January 7, 2022
PRA REQUEST: Documents Requested: City Engineer Sealed/Signed Approved drawings for furnaces abutting federal forests/river, including Perjury Sworn Applicant Statement, City Engineer APPROVED Report of Findings of Necessity, Hardship, Unique 'circumstances', WATER SUPPLY lines, required for such furnaces 2,4OO F, Fire Marshall portion of City Engineer's Report;
All Building Permit applications [perjury sworn accurate & Complete] granted to this Parcel with Legal Address 2020 Mormon St, since 1B58 Judah Map of Folsom Streets; All Memos, notes, minutes of meetings, and communications, between "Community Development director, Asso, Planner and others with City Engineer on this "Public Project" as advertised.

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

As always, State Law allows ten days for production of these Ordinary Public Records for this "Public Project." Since this Public Project has been a Matter of Record since 2OL9, three whole years, surely all Required Public Records and City Engineer Approved Reports, with recommendations should be available January 18,2022.

Second Request, Pursuant to Law Mailed Public Notices to Abutting Parcels are mandatory, Please supply Verified & CE Certified Proof of said Mailings to all Public Agencies and s,f. home residents abutting Parcel 070 0260 001 0000, which city identifies with False Address as being located with Ordinance-Created Lake Natoma Shores Planned Unit Development Subdivision.

Repeated, ignored Prior PRA Requests: not once in over ten years has Folsom City Engineer of Record produced even one single PRA RESPONSE for Public Projects -- which include his Seal & Signature proving he did his job of Certifying all Engineer Details of Folsom Public Projects such as this one -- which is the ultimate in License dereliction due to the obvious Hazards he is allowing, abetting, or silently watch being processed as he remains mute, inactive, etc., on his Public Project Duties' Again, city staff have had three long years of prolonging this "application" and "approved" building Permits which are based upon Perjured information, so all Public Project PN 19 182 Records and Permits should be at-hand for immediate PRA RESPONSES.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
also part of this PRA Request for following reasons: danger of LPG and NO Water Lines at all and no Access roads for Water Trucks:

Propane Tank Explosion
x
x
Propane Tank Explosion
Propane Tank Explosion
FYI to City Engineer: all loose objects, metal, rocks, will become projectiles capable of flying further than 1,500 feet.

PRA Request for your APPROVAL of this LPG storage with your Certified Safety Analysis is REQUESTED as mandatory portion of Application. How could residents be paying a CE who ignores our very lives and sole Water Supply and Federal Assets? Kindly Expedite this Portion of PRA Request with immediate PRA RESPONSE as it is your License Obligation,
PRA Request concern: since mayor also holds a state License for an Engineering Field long discontinued in this state, this ought to concern entire city council. How can residents fail to regard her inactions all three years as anything but Negligence or willful disregard of License Duties?
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Notice of Public Hearing appears in January 6,2022 Folsom Telegraph as Historic District Commission Legal Notice, PN 19 182. Parcel 07O 0260 001 0000 Owner Lakeside Memorial Law Entity #
i c0307506 08/15/1955
Site Zoning is "OPEN SPACE/OS Conservation", underlying Zone District OPEN SPACE Your PN 2019 182 contains strange reference to California State Laws which you purport have direct Relevance to PN 19-182, With respect to same, you would do well to consult with and obtain Written Opinion of Legal Counsel with respect to state laws cited. If you do not so so, you may place yourselves in untenable positions, or may have already done so, Have our paid city lawyers done complete due diligence, which you apparently rely upon?
4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

D I ,I Lake;idel
r:J
T./
* lI Not-Lal,, x l'] cupoFF. x lPf curonR, * lEl oPRZonin x E i',r rile i C:,lusersi'ljlaurenty'Desktop/{REMATORY.*.6205CH,"620lvlneg?iZ0dec,,'.,. 'il i, h
NOTICE OF PT.JBLIC HEARING AND NO'

TO ADOPT A MITIGATETT NEGATIVE
CITY OF FOLSOM HISTORTC DISTRIC1 r.-{rtr-fltol}{
DATE OF HEARING:

TIIUE OF HEARIN{}:

PLACE OF HEARINC:

February 16, 20:?
5:0fl P.M.

City Council Chambers, 50 Natorna Street. Fo
NOTICE IS HEREBY CIVEN THAT: A public hearing will be held I Commission of the (:ity of Folsorn lo consider the merits of the follorving:

PROJECT NAME Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematorium
Property OwneriApplicant: Lakeside h,lemorial Lawn/lgor Semenyuk Proj ect Location/AFN : I ?tl I Forrest Street I 0?fi-0260-00 I -000f1 Planning No.: PN- I 9- I 82
Stilff Contacl: Josh Kinkade, Associate Pltrnner, 916-461-6?( i kinkadefrrjtb lsom.ca.us
Entitlements: a. Conditionsl Use Pemrit
Project Description: The praposerJ project includes operation of a r:rernato

1.071-square t"oot rnetal shed lacated at l?01 Forrest Street, within the La r-remeterT. The site is zoned OS/P [Open Space/Public Prirnary Area) *,'ith i OSC (Open Space and Cansen'ation) and has a General Plan designation ol Historic District Commission will take t-rnal action r-rn this rerluest unless the the City Council.
5

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

D |
=
Leka:ideTJ
^
x l= No(-Lar': * lI ruPCIFF. x lE cuFoPR. x l@ oenzonin x E i.,i rir* I C:/Users/tjlaurentlDesktop/CREM,rrTORYFiZ0Stl-l?.i20Mneg?iZ0dec/.,. iii. i, eLtrtvr.\ir j. I ltL orr! td avltLu vu! r tvFLrr uu(rvbr r qurr! l rrrrr(rrJ r u!s/ vl tnl l OSC {Opeil Space and Conservation} antl has a Ceneral Plan designation ol Historic District Commissian will take tinal action on this request unless tht the City Council.

Environmental Review: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration accorrlnnce with the requirements of the Califbrnia Enviranmental Quality Ar revieu'periotl tregins January 7, 2022 and ends February ?. :021. Crrpies of tl Declaration are available lbr review at the City of Folsom Planning Departme Folsom CA 95630, Monday through Friday tirrm l{:30 a.rn. to l:{10 p.m. The r dorvnloaded fiom the City of Folsom website at https:/irvwrv.fblsom.ca.us/go deve men
All pcrsans intcrcsted in thcsr: mirttL'r$ arr-- iuvitcd to prc*cnt and subrrit statcmcnts L'irfl public hcaring. Thc envirnnmentarl documents are auailable l'trr rcvicw nl. ancl titrthc'r in frorn the Llommunity Dcvr:lopmcnt Dcpartmcnt, 50 Nttonu Slrc*t, during rcgulnr busir Dcvcloprncnt Departmcnt ciln bc rctchcd try phcnc at {916} 461-62(ll. A staiTrcport rvill City Hall or at rvrvrv.i-rrlsom.ca,us on thc Thursday prccctling th{r ftrblic Hcaring.

Pursuanl to tll applicabk' larvs unrl rugulati*ns. includirrg without limitation, Clalitbmia 6-\009 andt'or Califomi* Public Rcsources flode Scction lllT?. if yor.r i+ish t* ehallcng dccisions (rcg*rding pl*nnirrg, zrrning and/ur cnvironmcntal dccisions). vou rnay b*: limitcr you or srlrn{:onc ckic raisud at the public hcaring{s} dcsr'ribed in this nr-tticc/agcndn, or deliverud to thc City at. or priar to. thc public hr:arring. An apperrl to thc City Cuunr:il lirl District Commission mily br: bruught by nny intr:rested party n,ithin lhcn { l{}} days nf thc

PAM JOHNS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Puhlished in the Jtnuu4, 7, 2{l}2 "Trrcruntcrrila Bee
Address is 2020 Mormon St.; Falsified in PN 19 LB2, and on large number of Perjurysworn Building Permit Applications.

All LNS 1B' wide lanes are subject to Folsom PUD Law enacted for creation of s.f. houses only, not 2,400F furnaces,
Just rec'd 11am L/7/2022 Noticing email from city asso. planner:
6 .lrl ildtEc,

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

LJ Laurent'.l.i Ilrrrcrr1I(/'l[[. t ]L'l.'
I i' : f dill.dswey@parks. ca. gov
,, , :Rodriguez Bianca@DGS,[email protected],Drew Lessard,Matthew Ceccato,Dr. Ami Beraand 2 more...

Ihrr,'\Lr3 i lrt I(l:iI .\\I
To: Brian Dewey, CA State Parks
cc: Ernest Conant, USBR Mid Pac. Dir.; Wade Crowfoot;
Drew Lessard, Folsom USBR CE; Ami Bera, Matt
cc: Bianca Rodriguez, Counsel, CA DGS [for Ana M. Lasso Director] August 5,202t
Re: CA State-owned Parcel: encroachment, dumping, unpermitted uses & grading, by Miller Lakeside Cemetery, dba Caring Service Group.

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

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

Clearly, my experiences prove California State Parks has major issues and hence it was moved to lesser status in CA Natural Resources Depaftment. My complaints sent via Certified Mail have gained NO Direct Responses to me, whatsoever from either SP or Natural Resources. This is extremely important to me because some of them detailed Violations of Federal Laws, on Federal Property -- which is assigned via Managing Partner Agreement to California State Parks. Research Repofts have been created, submitted, but California State Parks top, Sworn LEOs, Legal Counsel, and management have never once responded during the Period September L,2A2O, and today.

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision homes abut this State Parcel, as well as cemetery parcel zoned "Open Space Conservation". Folsom staff have had a crematory application in Community Development Depaftment for approximately 18 months, without any Public Notice whatsoever. USBR Reclamation is an abutting landowner. Public OPEN Space Zone surrounds about EOo/o of cemetery parcel, and yet USBR, State of California, and Single Family home owners have NOT been mailed Notice of Proposed exceptions, change of land Uses, etc. In the past, when this crematory became an issue, ALL state, federal, county, and local neighbors were Notified by Mail. Sacramento County Medical Examiner excoriated owners for proposing not only a Hazardous Use, but desecrating Historic Features, abutting Chinese Cemetery which is a Registered National Historic Site, and failing to respect History and environment'
This time, construction has been on-going with mis-use of State Parcel in question enabling "access" for earth-moving machines. Will State employees provide a Solution under the Laws?
If we wait for State Park action, the entire federal land/water area, and our homes may vanish in wildfire from 2,2A0 F degree burner, with two huge liquid propane gas tanks, and on a 2 inch water-meter-constricted 3 inch diameter Water Service Pipe onto cemetery parcel.

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

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

Neighbors are justifiably very deeply concerned, as we know Folsom as a city is on the Federal WUI Register: Wildfire Urban Interface Registry' Anyone wishing copy of links, Folsom WUI Plan, , please request them.

Managing Partner Agreement attached.
bltps,l/yvww.ys_Lrtu!e.cqn./_USelL{giiwet:d-ags.ivd€s5fuierll'-0&sal-t=-d-d&sLlell -i-d-=Q On Tuesday, July 27,2021, A1',42:53 PM PDT, LJ Laurent <[email protected]> wrote:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

SACRAMEI{TO BEE MAY2s 2018
Crematorium mishap shoots
plume of human ashes into air,
San Diego officials say
vfva
F:
"ll
trialional t ity, California, firefiq[rters at lhe 5cerrt] of a r i'elm;:telriutli ;1i16iqJen1.
-lhttrsd;V ltrat senl lrurnatr aslres ittlo lltc .rir.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

LJ Laurent
i i' : f da11.dsv/[email protected]. gov
,: , :Rodriguez Bianca@DGS,[email protected],Drew Lessard,Matthew Ceccato,Dr. Ami Beraand 2 more...
llrrr,\rr3 5 itt l{l:rl,\,\l
To: Brian Dewey, CA State Parks
cc: Ernest Conant, USBR Mid Pac. Dir.; Wade Crowfoot;
Drew Lessard, Folsom USBR CE; Ami Bera, Matt
cc: Bianca Rodriguez, Counsel, CA DGS [for Ana M. Lasso Director] August 5,2021
Re: CA State-owned Parcel: encroachment, dumping, unpermitted uses & grading, by Miller Lakeside Cemetery, dba Caring Service Group.

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

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

Clearly, my experiences prove California State Parks has major issues and hence it was moved to lesser status in CA Natural Resources Depaftment. My complaints sent via Certified Mail have gained NO Direct Responses to me, whatsoever from either SP or Natural Resources. This is extremely important to me because some of them detailed Violations of Federal Laws, on Federal Propefty -- which is assigned via Managing Partner Agreement to California State Parks. Research Reports have been created, submitted, but California State Parks top, Sworn LEOs, Legal Counsel, and management have never once responded during the Period September L, 202O, and today.

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
please refer SP "issues" directly to California Attorney General as there appears to be no hope Sp will comply or remediate their failures with respect to obeying and enforcing Laws on Federal Land/Watershed Forest/American Riven
Lake Natoma Shores Subdivision homes abut this State Parcel, as well as cemetery parcel zoned "Open Space Conservation". Folsom staff have had a crematory application in Community Development Depaftment for approximately 18 months, without any Public Notice whatsoever. USBR Reclamation is an abutting landowner. Public OPEN Space Zone surrounds about 80o/o of cemetery parcel, and yet USBR, State of California, and Single Family home owners have NOT been mailed Notice of Proposed exceptions, change -of tand Uses, etc. In the past, when this crematory became an issue, ALL state, federal, county, and local neighbors were Notified by Mail. Sacramento County Medical Examiner excoriated owners for proposing not only a Hazardous Use, but desecrating Historic Features, abutting Chinese Cemetery which is a Registered National Historic Site, and failing to respect History and environment.

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Partner Agreement attached.
hJtps-l1q4w_w.f_aut_ubeea1nlu5efi4lgvv-e-r:dogs&:de*a:?vrew=Oeso$= dd&5ll,e.lJ- t-d =Q On Tuesday, July 27,2021, At,42:53 PM PDT, LJ Laurent wrote:

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

SACRAMENTO BEE nr.AY zszotg
Crematorium mishap shoots
plume of human ashes into air,
San Diego officials say
r{ SZ a
p.F
N.rliorral City, Califnrnia, firefighlers at lhe se enr: of a cr"etnalr:riurn aci irJr-:nt -lltttrsd.;y lhat serrt lrunr;ln ashes trtto llte ,rir, .hri
..:, 1 :
-.::.,,
,:,'.fiSi,
,i;q"' . '

NO FURNACE IN
FOREST
City councit: horrific idea, 2 huge liquid Propane Tanks

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

LJ Laurent
Friday, December 18,2020 9:49 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steve Krahn; Aimee Nunez; Pete Piccardo; Daniel Wolfe; Bryan Holm; Scott Zangrando; Scott Johnson; Steven Banks; Desmond Parrington; Stephanie Henry; Allison Konwinski; Kristina Eicher; Lauren Ono; Mark Rackovan; Pam Johns; Elaine Andersen; Jason Browning; Dave Nugen; Ryan Neves; Don Brown; Todd Eising; Marcus Yasutake; Vaughn Fleischbein; Greg Bakken; Steven Wang; Cc: "[email protected]"; Paul Keast; HPLBoard; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected] '; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]"; "[email protected]" [email protected]; Drew Lessard; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; Christa Freemantle; Rick Hillman; Ken Cusano; Sue Frost; Hedges. Matt; [email protected]; Stephen Green; Mary Beth Metcalf; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eileen Sobeck; Patrick Pulupa Cemetery: FED FOREST, homes IMPACTS of wrongs
sAc cTy CEMETERY COMM. CREMATOR|UM,603, HDC Dec 18,2020.odt;CEMET 1991 improper actions CUP Mods, Variance, Conditions do not match Abandonmt.odt;CEMETERY 12 HDC WITHDRAWN, CREMATORI UM.odt
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: city of Folsom officials, employees, Mayor, Vice Mayor City Clerk for CIRCULATION to all City Council elected officials Sacramento County; et al.

From: Laurette Laurent
December 18, 2O2O
Re: Application for Illegal Zoning District Usages, illegal granting of Variance from HDC Commission with NO State Authority to grant such benefits, violation of CA Govt Code Title Zoning; violation of Folsom Zoning Code District restricting NO buildings on any "open space" category -- consistent with VIOLATED State Govt Code; Failure to abide by Sunshine Laws; Failure to conduct Full IS, EIR/EIS; failure to provide PROOF of Publications for all such steps; Failure to OBTAIN State Fire Marshal Approvals due to ABUTMENT to Federal Watershed and Federal Forests; Failure to Notify CA State Parks; Failure to Notify Sacramdnto County Assessor office of "Proposed changes" flikewise to Cemetery Commission]; Failure to provide NOTICE to an ABUTTING RESIDENT who filed Complaints about SECRECY in this Land Usage improper SECRET Process - by FAILING to NOTIFY ME -- despite my historic and RECENT objects & Comments with regard to this SECOND time around crematory Proposal -- and my WRITTEN NOTICE to Folsom City Clerk and Planning to be given ALL HDC & Plan Commission Notices. Other violations exist, but are previously filed and resulted in PENALTIES against Applicant.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Comment: THIS IS NOT Permit Modification: because there is NO MENTION Of ORIGINAL PCrMit. ThCrC iS NO EVIDENCE A
VARIANCE is due to Miller nor Lakeside because there is NO PROOF of "EASEMENT", Nor abandonment of Figueroa St. in the Parcel boundary legal description
as of September 10,2020, city clerk, city lawyeq HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE a Prior legal documents Exist and were approved by city attorney Steve Rudolph. No one proved said cited
documents were created, reviewed by Professional lawyeq engineer - FOR LEGALITY fsuch as unproved Easement Leland Miller granted to 1850s Chinese cemeteries.l
Existence of EASEMENT GRANTED by Millet to Chinese
t2 Cond. 12 "Any proposed construction of Lakeside masoleums would NOT OBSTRUCT HISTORICAL EASEMENT or ACCESS to Chinese Cemetery as was AGREED TO YEARS AGO by Leland Miller former owner of Lakeside Memorial Cemetery."
PC 9I-042 Findings for 1991 Permit Modification
TIM on CUD Variance or MODIFICATIONS - Rudolph
WARNED them as city attorney to put a TIME LIMIT on CUP, and Mods.

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

NO MORE Discussion
Maxfield moved to approve

NEG DEC
APPROVE VARIANCE FROM 50 foot required Open Space Setback

APPROVE CLANEY USE PERMIT
with CON DITIONS :

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

ESPECIALLY OFFEN SIVE CDD will Regulate and ensure *CHINESE COMMUNITY' & George Chan is NOT denied ACCESS to Chinese Cemeteries.

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

PUBLIC WORKS ENFORCEMENT AREAS:

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

CONDITION B "Improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of public works dept. PW' Luchi was sidelined City Engineer's typist, really.

Condition g"EROSION CONTROL.,
Luchi -whatalaugh.
. shall be directed by PW Director -
Cond. 10 Construction shall have 5 - NOT 50 Foot setback --"thereby

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

NOT CROSSING INTO Chinese cemetery ITSELF.
11 Proposed ROAD to Lakeside masoleums would BE NEAR TO ENTRANCE to Chinese cemetery thereby allowing ENTRANCE to Chinese cemetery GROU N DS >
t2 Cond . t2 "Any proposed construction of Lakeside
MASOICUMS WOUId NOT OBSTRUCT HISTORICAL EASEMENT
or ACCESS to Chinese Cemetery
as was AGREED TO YEARS AGO by Leland Miller former
owner of Lakeside Memorial Cemetery."

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

OUT OF ORDER CEMETERY 5b FINDINGS comes after below

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CEMETERY 6 a

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CEMETERY 6 Findings CIIP 1995 similar to neighborhood

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CEMETERY 6c only *PW dept OK needed for this CUP, and NO BLOCKING ChUN WAh NOT OBSTRUCT OR BLOCK thc HISTORICAL
EASEMENT granted by LELAND MILLER Owner before Claney.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

CEMETERY 6 d PLAT OF SURVEY Rio Los Americanos Cemetery LAND GOES RIGHT INTO MORMON St Right of Way Theo. Judah 1850 Map
Recorcl ol Survey,O.S,Bk.4B,Pg.4Or.t,t ltl Map 8. Chung Wah Cemetery lloundaries
CEMETERY 6 d Survey Record O.S. Bk 48, page 4 or.t,tltl POR. SEC, 2, T gN., R.78., M.D,B'AM. ( Pnorl. t{f o navcta nto oE t-os AMcn rcI Nost
This Rancho Rio Americano is so old it proves Chun Wah owners are part rr tA,n a rS nfM rmnn Cf Canrrta (n h a n
r=c rharfiaz{
June 15, 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Loretta McMasteq Senior planner suBJEcr: Lakeside cemetery conditionat Use permit status Agenda ltem No. 6 PC Mtg. 6-21-95 PC9L-O42
cemetery, National Reoister status
The Chung Wah cemetery has been approved by the California State

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Historical Commission and is awaiting national action for listing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although the responsibility would lie primarily with the property owners, the City may be able to assist in some of these actions. The interested parties have been invited to be present at this meeting. Staff can also provide an update at the Planning Commission meeting of July sth if directed by the Planning Commission. PC9t-O42.62t PC Mts. 6-21-95 Page 2 Loretta McMasters
Agenda ltem No. 6 PC Mtg. 6-21-95 PCgl-O42 June 15,1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Loretta McMaster, Senior planner suBJEcr: Lakeside cemetery conditionat Use permit status BACKGROI-IND This report is presented to update the Commission on the status of the conditional use permit issued on October 2,l99I for construction of mausoleums at the Lakeside Cemetery. A site plan, minutes and conditions of approval, and historical map are attached. Concerns regarding the project's effect on the National Register status of the adjacent Chung Wah cemetery were raised by June Chan at the May 77,1995 Planning Commission meeting. As reported by Commissioner O'Brien at the Commission's June 7,1995 meeting, a meeting of concerned citizens, Commissioner O'Brien and staff was held on June 2. Loren Claney of tf," Lakeside Cemetery did not attend the meeting, but staff subsequently met with

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fence boundaries.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Additional drainage and erosion control.

Planning Commission minutes of May t7,
lggs Planning Commission minutes of June7,
1gg5 Planning Commission minutes of June 21 ,
1g9S (draft) Planning Commission minutes of July 19,
I ggs staff report for the June 2L, L995 Planning commission meeting staff report for the July 1 9, 1995 Planning commission meeting Site exhibit
Excerpt from the Folsom Municipal Code cultural Resources lnvestigation of Lakeside Memorial cemetery Mausoiium Complex
Project Staff Recommendation Direct staff to notice both a revocation hearing and a conditional use permit modification, in order to preserve both options for Commission action. :

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MOVE TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE

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

THE REOUIRED FEE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DRAWINGS NECESSARY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICAf,ION ARE

RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT NO LATER THAN THURSDAY AUGUST )AL I,
AND FAILING THAf,, TO SCHEDULE ONLY THE REVOCATION HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. PCgL-042.816 Page 3
August 10, 1995
New document from PRA ResPonse B
Oct. 18 1995 CONTINUANCE of item PC meeting
PRA RESPONSE 9 is May 1995 PC meeting minutes DUPLICATE RESPONSE doc 10 has great deal of controversy including Howell objecting, Requests for STOP WORK order; NOTE The Preserve Subdivision was grading now. CONTINUANCE to consider STOP WORK order. Howell: were bodies found? I saw on TV BODIES WERE FOUND outside the white peoples' burial e.g. Jim the Cook.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

QUOTE: from Minutes July 1995, continued meeting.

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

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

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

REVOCATION OF A PERMITAND THEY FOUND NO GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF A PERMTT, UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS AND THE ISSUE IS RAISED AGAIN.

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

LEHMAN, COMMISSIONER DREW MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOTIND NO GROTINDS FORAREVOCATION OF THE PERMIT CARRTED 4-1-2. Commissioner O'Brien stated her opposition was because the other two members of the Planning Commission were not present. Steve Rudolph stated it appears the Commission is interested in modiffing the conditions

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
which exist on the permit and recommended the next motion be that the Commission has found there are grounds to warrant the modification of the existing use petmit. PC Mtg. 12-6-95 Page l0

COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOLTND

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

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

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

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

LOOK INTO THE ISSUE RAISED BY COMMISSIONE,R HOWELL ON THE

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

MOVE TO CONTINUE LAKESIDE MAUSOLEUM AMENDMENT OR REVOEAIIQN AF CONDITIONAL USE TO JANI]ARY 3. 1996 AND THE MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED BE ALTERNATIVE 2 AND IT'S CONDITIONS RECEIVED BY MR. PHILLPS

THIS EVENING AND STAFF FACTOR IN THE ISSUE RAISED REGARDING THE

ENVIRONMENTALLY AND ARC HAEOLOGI CALLY SEN S ITIVE AREA S AND THEIR

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

ABSTAIN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HOWELL, MILLER, MESSNER, MAXFIELD

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

ON LAKESIDE CEMETERY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STATUS REPORT ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AT LAKESIDE OF MAUSOLEUM.

El A,lEl lrlfil c,iQ olB nrl@ rlQl p,i@ rtl@ ntjQ *iB ni$f e,l@ p'l@ rrl$f o nr x + t) ..:, I'iir C:,/Users/ljlaurerlvAppData/Local/Ienrp/Templ-CE$/ET[RY9620pRA?620... ':.. # : ]i91 + 'A F At R4inslorci $ Drar, . p Hrgh|ght '- 4] tr:se & AS€nO8 rtem tt{o. I
W *+dy1{/A/ uo'"':N':?'11

IIISTORIC DTSTRICT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EX
ftE
wi
PROJPCT'TITLE:

PROPOSAL:

RnCOffMENDATIONT
APPLTCANT AND OWNERt
LOCATION:

AS.SESSOR'S FARCEL N0.:

A'I"TACIIRT} RETE RENCE MATFR|AL:

Lohcsidc Ccmetary Crcnut<trium
Rcqucsl for lpprcvsl of a Cbnditional Use Psrmit
to allorv for thc olxrotion ofc.cmstorium
Dcnirl
Lorin Chncy
l20l Forresr Stcct
070-0082,0 l 4. 070-0 I 30-002, 070-(r r 30-004
l. Vicinity Mrp

2. Sitc Plun. datcd 12/19197
3- ltojeet Dccription ond Crcrrmtoriuin
lllusrnrtions

4. l)ocumcntation fmm lhc Sacramenlo
County llistoric Cemctcry Comnrission

5. Lalcside Cemctcry Rescarch Papr
$ritlcn by Suc Silvcr

6. l-etters from the Public

7. Sitc Photogmphs
Jane 'l olbot, Assisrsnt Plsnncr
19 iiim; -

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

To: city of Fotsom officiats, employees, Mayor, Vice Mayor To: City Cterk for CIRCULATION to atl City Council etected officiats bcc
From: Laurette Laurent
December 18,2020
Re: betow circulated Pubtic Record, fited with Sacramento County Cemetery Commission December 17, 2020.

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

Other violations exist, but are previousty fited and resulted in Penalties.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

1. George Chan had NO opportunity to engage Counsel,

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

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

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

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

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

This was submitted in writing to top officials 2020 in formal Comptaint Notices. 603 Sutter Street is identical set of SECRECY & Viotations.

Why was this submitted to PGE, BUT NOT to Sacramento County Authorities with Oversight & Jurisdiction?
Please, I ask each Licensed Enginee6 do you obey the Dictates of your Law Enforcing License -- with respect to Land usage, Subdivisions, Public lnfrastructure, and a[[ State Mandated Government Codes?

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

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

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

Final Question: this time in 2020, did you ever intend even one licensed city engineer would make an Approval and Plan with his License & seat/signature? Don't you feel Etected Officiats should NOT be party to Folsom employees ctea6 repeated wrongdoing?
Don't you feel "at risk" and responsible under your BPLSG Required Duties? No, MORE/Comment:

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

Applicant for a special use permit does not have to show hardship. lnstead, the focus is on simply showing that the proposed use meets the conditions already contained in the ordinance, whereas a variance is, in essence, permission to "break the law."lvr ar 22,2013 Case Law citation/ Advisory overlay "committee" cannot grant it under California enabling law.
https://www. opr.ca. gov/docs/theconditionalusepermit_07 1997 .pdf Quote sent to Sacramento County, others: entered into "Public Domain" December 17,2020
request for comments and associated drawings and pictures for the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory located at 1201 Forrest St. A

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

Named Recipients.

To: Steve Krahn <[email protected]>, Aimee Nunez
<an u nez@folsom. ca. us>, Pete Piccardo < ppiccardo@folsom. ca. us>, Dan iel Wolfe <dwolfe@folsom. ca. us>, Bryan Hol m <bhol m@folsom. ca. us>, Scott Zangrando <szang rando@folsom. ca. u s>, Scott Johnson
<sjoh nson @folsom. ca. us>, Steven Ban ks <sbanks@folsom. ca' us>, Desmond Parrington <[email protected]>, Stephanie Henry <she n ry@folsom. ca. us>, Allison Konwi nski <akonwi nski @folsom. ca. us>, Kristina Eicher <[email protected]. us>, Lauren Ono <[email protected]. us>, Mark Rackovan <[email protected]>, Pam Johns
<pjoh ns@folsom. ca. us>, Elaine Andersen <eanderse n @folsom. ca. us>, Jason Browning <[email protected]>, Dave Nugen
<[email protected]>, Ryan Neves <[email protected]>, Don Brown <d brown @folsom. ca. us>, Todd Eisi ng <teisi ng @folsom. ca. us>, Marcu s Yasutake < myasutake@folsom. ca. us>, Vau gh n Fleisch bei n <vfleisch bein @folsom. ca. us>, Greg Bakken <gbakken @folsom. ca. us>, Steven Wang <swang@folsom. ca. us>
Cc: "theh mail.com' ' <[email protected]), Paul Keast HPLBoard <[email protected]>,
"pg epl a n revi ew@ pg e. com" < pg epla n review@ pge. com >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
" proj ectreview@a i rq ua I ity. org" < projectrevi ew@a i rq u al ity. org >, "H u n leyC@Saccou nty. net" < H u nleyC@Saccounty. net>, "cemeterycommission @saccou nty. n et"
< cem eterycom m i ss i on @saccou nty. n et>, "e ma i lcfb@dca. ca. g ov" <emailcfb@dca. ca. gov>, "kmtacc@hotmail. com" <kmtacc@hotmail. com> Date: 1211712020 2:39 PM
Subject: Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory Conditional Use Permit AI
Please find the attached request for comments and associated drawings and pictures for the proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn crematory located at 1201 Forrest St. A Conditional Use Permit has been requested by the applicant to operate the crematory facility inside an existing metal shed. That entitlement will go in front of the Folsom Historic District Commission. Please send any comments or questions to me before January t Sth it possible.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Thanks,
Community Development
Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom,
cA 95630
O: 916.461 .6209
Note to Sacramento County authories:

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

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

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

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

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

Of course Folsom never involves Licensed Engineers; anything for a buck is OK in this ptace.
. https: / / www.ncbi. n lm. nih. gov/ pmc / articles/ P MC5721279 I

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This needs to stop.

Thanks in advance, Laurie
Laws cited:

CA Govt Codes, B&P Codes, Subdivision Map Act.
t le>SnrftSsq q Inuwsri\,$rfut Cffi*.irrusr$lerkih{ rn[$Ai$ q erekiq ir>sr&rndgxs rS jS ff s erhft SsVwSr.& $<s zir.nq ir>ft k irg ) S 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

E bs q q rnuvn's rir,fl- ew$<l i ft. s { ir,ft rh$i-wt s rwrtrrpci $ $s ShS rrrn aciift { w$ rf 4,.piwftl or$zitrexi $s ft $rt i E njrE$vy f nL gpft e>xi\zs s zir{ }rEf $- i Sv$vl i$- ewbfxl svx} 4
All these years City Attorney has failed to inform rrHDrr group they do NOT have legal authority to grant Variances, Conditional Use Permits, DE FACTO REZONING, or any "exceptions to Zone District laws, Standards,
or Duties of City Engineer to seal/sign and certify all actions are correct under state laws..... and upon ceftification also by a licensed lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Did you know crematory will go into the 1930's metal shed, and that's why a huge 18 foot tall new shed was built. They don't need more maintenance equipment: they butchered more than 7 trees, including the living protected Historic Oaks. They cut "grass" cutting down last winter -- less to save money paid for water through that tiny connection we enabled. They committed criminal acts which still have not been cited [to our knowledgel.

Sorry, I just cannot understand how it "slipped the minds" of our city attorney and city engineer to do their advisory jobs, to supply signed opinions of legal compliance.

Mr. Duewel wanted to KNOW, prior to voting. Then he said "but it's only a design review". But that is not what it was. It included an illegal Variance or Condition Use Permit, or "grandfathering in" an old public cemetery -- according to webcast. He actually believed that junior staffer saying that "yes" it's all grandfathered in.

Poor Oak Chan, he's probably suffering in his unreachable Grave with large monument - --- back there in the inaccessible National Historic Site. Why did planner fail to ask a Licensed city professional to review his Recommendation? Why were the Minutes approved by a person who was not even present to know there were questions?
"HD" is NO zone; their powers are not those of 'commission'.

It's a pathetic violation of higher Authorities in Law, and people believe what they are told at cityhall [apparently.]
---- Fonivarded Message ---
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To,
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021, 03:21:03 PM PDT
Subject: Failure Notice
Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <@>:
550: 5.4.'1 Recipient address rejected: Access denied. AS(201806281) [DM3GCC02FT008.eopgcc02. prod. protection. outlook.coml Forwarded message
Kindly supply email address, as your .com page rejected my contact. 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

LJ Laurent
Sunday, October 3,20219:31 AM
Pam Johns; iosh Kinkade
[email protected]; Drew Lessard; [email protected]; Eileen Sobeck; Patrick Pulupa; Dale Kasler; The HFRA; [email protected]; Rick Hillman; Ken Cusano; Lydia Konopka body burner FURNACE is "HEATING UP." Folsom what R U thinking? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Folsom Comm. Dev. director P. Johns; planner Josh Kinkade Asst. City Clerk: Please share with 5 council members
From: LJ Laurent, LNS Sub. Abutting Neighbor
October 2,2O2L
Re: Telegraph published article VS Reality of city staff contin ues-to- heat-u p/
Furnace Application is the third in few years. NOT ONCE were Abutting forest/river protection US Agencies given Notice, according to city records/minutes, This application was filed over ONE YEAR ago, and yet Sacramento County Recorder was Never Notified of Project in Public Domain. In fact city reports this parcel 070 0260 001 as "Open Space/OS Conservation Zone District." Tax bill LO/2O20 was REDUCED by $1.2 Million, to help "open space".

New co-owners Caring Service Group, has no city Business License. They filed all their Building Permits using FALSE ADDRESSes, and in some cases, a totally non-existent Parcel Number. The Zone District is clearly parcel is NOT OPEN SPACE Conservation - - which means ZERO BUILDINGS. They built and plan more huge Commercial buildings on Parcel, a FURNACE, and huge LPG Gas Tanks.

Clearly Applicants are not concerned with "legal niceties." Since city made residents pay for a "study" which recommended "Approval" of this Zone District Exception", it is clear the city is at the foundation of this chicanery.

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

Proposed Folsom crematorv opposition continues to heat up 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Proposed Folsom crematory opposition continues
to heat up
As residerits eagerly waii for a ttteetitrg date lo i:e alrnoLtttcetl, the opposition against the proposal i'ot a trew Fols...
tirne. "
httos : //www. voutu be. com/watch ?v= Lr1 5 rP H E m eQ "heating up is right" fire & debris would spread for miles.

Folsom does NOT publish "city planner JOB description".

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

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

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

As a Federal Tax Payer, I firmly believe our USBR, DOI, and BLM federal employees DESERVE a NOTICE of a body-burning FURNACE be delivered to their Offices via Certified Mail.

Folsom acts like an insulated power-structure with very little respect for Laws, Rights, and Protection of Water Supply and our Environment.
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Folsom staff have OK'd the 'study' for Approval. No Fire Dept objections were in that study. No ONE cited Zoning Code, Fire Code, Street ACCESS Code, etc. Development staff give an impression to us, that they think our Fire and Police people are as disposable as those bodies who represent Revenue from OPEN SPACE Zone.

You get the message? This is a highly paid group who have incentives to deliver the "Folsom Version" of laws.

Residents? We get the "wrong end of the match-book."
If you knew the Extent of the Expertise behind LNS Objections, you might be ashamed of yourselves. But, at those reimbursement rates and rewards, guess it is unlikely.

LNS residents exist between the unbelievably dry Federal Forest & Watershed of American River, and the incredibly DANGEROUS gas tanks and furnace on Parcel Zoned OPEN SPACE/OS Conservation. If even one of those huge LPG tanks explodes, Folsom Blvd., Light rail, and lots of drivers and businesses in old sutter, will all take the "hit" with uS. VIEW VIDEO!
Folsom, It this hell, or what?
Below is only city Job Description online, for a "planner"' 3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

EXAMPLES OF ESSENTIAL DUTIES:

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Subject:

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
Scott Johnson
Friday, January 28,2022 5:23 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
From: Liz Byer
Sent: Friday, January 28,2022 5:10:40 PM
To: Scott Johnson <sjoh [email protected]>
Subject: Crematorium
[You don't often get emailfro Learn why this is important at nde
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe'
Please stop this crematorium now! Summers are barely tolerable due to the fires nowl This will destroy our property value just like the meat rendering plant south of Rancho Cordova ! Liz and Andrew Byer
!Persifer street
Sent from my iPhone

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Elaine Andersen
Friday, January 28,2022 5:09 PM
Josh Kinkade
Fwd: Crematorium
Begin forwa rded message
From: Liz Bye
Date: January 28,2O22 al5:O7:49 PM PST
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected],us>
Subject: Crematorium
[You don't often get email from lizbyerTTT @icloud.com. Learn why this is important at http ://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSe nde rldentification. l
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Marie Rice
lvoung wo circle
Folsom, California 95630
luly 27,202t
Dear Mr. Kinkaid:

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

This will requirethe use of two-250-pound propanetanks. He assures his process is safe and compliantwith fire and environmental safety standards.

While this may be true, accidents can and do happen. From2Ot2 until May 2021, there have been some seventeen {17) crematory accidental fires in this country, that I am aware of. The most recent took place on 05-11-2021 in Corona, California. The actual cause of this fire was not made clear' The one before that was in May 2018, in San Diego County. Firefighters were able to put out the fire, but the fire spoke's person confirmed the continued presence of "sand clouds of human remains in the sky". This is what nearby residents were breath.ing in,
There were several others before these I could detail, but in the interest of space, will refrain' Especially in this time of clirnate change and easily ignited fires, a crematorium in a residential neighborhood, in the middle of a small city, is dn unnecessary public safety risk.,As it is, our landscape is so dry that we must be vigilant throughout the summer months to prevent fires.

Should a fire break out in this prospective crematorium, the people in this entire neighborhood would be at risk. There is only one exit, exactly where this cemetery is located. Residents could be trapped' I have additional concern about air quality. The Amigone cemetery cremation center in upstate New York was shut down in 2010 by the State's Department of Environmental Conservation because of "heavy black smoke spewing from the crematorium", Equipment repairs were made, and the crematorium was re-opened in 201g. Even still, nearby residents continued to experience distinctive odors and dust particles on windowsills, they said were "human remains". This has been disturbing enough that these residents report reluctance still to leave their windows open or spend time outside, We ask you to please not permit this crematory project of the Lakeside Cemetery to occur. lt simply is NOT SAFE in this tocation that is near people and their homes that have only one exit, near the fire source itself' Sincerelv.
hrtaor ( hz(-*
Marie Rice

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
ilR MARIKO h4[:GAFEFqY
1204 Forrest Srreer, ffolsom, CA 95(130 . 530-545-9055 o [email protected] February 1,20,22
Dear Historic District Commissioners, City Manager, and City Flanners, Thank you'for the time and attentbn you are dedicating to the voters' serious concems abottt the ppoposed Miller's Funeral F{ome,crematorium at Lakeslde Mernorial C.xrmetery. I am wriling to you as a permanent resident of Fonest Street, living direcily across fiom the Gemetery. I am greatlywonied about the ir,npact d yurr decisions to cor're on my family, one yeil old daqhter, and hig,llrisk neigrhbors. I have revievyed Lakesi<le's projecf proposal and Envionmental knpact Report conducted by Hetix Ente,rprises an<il sought profeesional env{ronmentd scienoe and medica'l consdtation to idonn my pos1ion on this mafter- The concerns I am requesting infornr your dec'sion to vote'NO! include:
{. ,lonconforming gse of cornrnercial, industrial irrcinerator in open spaae and in contradiction to 'the C[ty's rnasfier Plan;

2. lnequitable consider,.a$onof crer,natoriur,n proposal in the Historic Districtwhen other open space in Folsorn Lr not being conslderedbr approrralidriven by pttofit motives; g. proximlty of ,the proposed crematoriurl,tt€Xt to residential zone to several historic sites in the 6isto6c Disttict, with,,poter*ial to negativdy irnpact cultr.rral,practices and signlficance;

4. Negative impact ttre propooed creflrdorium hG already had on home values in the historic district, With several realtors/brokers docunentirg decrease in buyers and offers due to proposal;
S. Assu,nption Oret there is a sale lerruS bxicity expo$lrc to developing cftildren, pregnant women, etderly, nuedically wlneraHe, and veterans in the irnmediate sunounding area of the Cemetery from vaPorized toxins;

6. The abeence of hlstorlcal,relerrance-if extemal French doors are not permltted in the Hisf,ry,ic Disfiict because they would not be fornd h lhe early t9(X)'s, how can a commercial, indus{rial inciinerator be accep{able?
7 . lmpact of lmrneasurabh sight, smell and ingeslion of particulate matter on use of trail, river, Historie District, and Sutter Street;
B. Use and eppearanoe of shed for cremato,rium that is pennitted for commercial storage only; g. .lncrease to existing etrreme ffre risk wlth one evacuatlon route for resHents;

10. No emergency services plan or allocation of resources to support potential increase in demand forfire andpolice as required by CEQA guidelirres;

11. lnsufficient tencing and secrrity on site as required by CEQA guidelines; 1 2. False ;identtficdtbn of ,proposed location as not next'to State {and or incteased fire dsk in lnitial Study and absence of ddltional destgn moasures to create defensible space as required by CEAA guidelines.

13. Stark difierences between crematorjum application to City in2O2O and lhe work that Miller's Funeral llome has done at'l-akeside ftirsmorilal C;ernetery without approval;

14. Presence of pernanent, lndustrlal pollutant in Historic District;

15. Absence d ongoing monilorirtg;of air quali$ testlng;of particulbte rnatler, emptoyee safety, and testing by air quality chemist, pediabic toxicologist, and geriatric toxicologist; 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

DR" MARIKO h4CGARRY
1204 Fonest Street, fiolsom, CA 95630 o 530-545-9055 o mariko'[email protected]

16. No monltodng of mercury which is odorless and colorless-{et poses biggest risk to children and ,unbom ba'bie6 nho.canex.perience.dborders sudl €s autism, Aspergefs, devebprnentd delays and othsr neurologic€ll issues.

12. $lgnlffcant ddays bf the Gity i,n pubtis*ling ap$lcation, conditior,rall use per,mit, and: reports to the public;
$*a*r
tl *.wam
td-..lt*thHh*l
i-t*i.
tYil'1rhk.

6.'rdaE
The Initial Study/Mitigatad Negntive Dectanation ,conduc{od Sy the City of Folsom Cornmunity .Development Oepartment and Helix Environmental Planning related for .January 2O20, identifi@ the .Maximum exposed indivirtual residsnt," in the photo above. That purple dot sits directly m our one-year old's bgtlroom wlndorv. t am hard pressed'to find an elected official in this Clt! wl.lo has attested to being m-rnfortabb with €wn ths srnallest risk pos€d to their children. I arn even harder pressed to find an dected official who tras attested to $e,belief that this proposal {r,ould be accepted in any ofher residentid or open space zone in Folsom, From an equlty p€rsp€ctive, the voters and children'of Ernpire Ranch woult never have to self-organize, self.ftmd; and'self-advocate as the voters and,chidren of the tlistoric Disfict have been foroed to do for the tast trc years.

The Historb District andtha Glty of.Folsorneither believes and.witl testiff to their cornrnitrnenttomalntrain community open'space resorrroes for fi|e ptnposes rarBir4rfron consewatiorl, to preservlng ootrrnunity land use options, or it js,tirne to cfrange the definition d open space zoneri and the public marketing of the City.

As a Historic Disirict Rsident, voler, protessbnal, and parent I cannotexpress the n'eedto vote "No? on the Lakeside Mernorial tarmr Crernatorium enoqgh. ,Protect history. Protect the City's legacy. Protect our children.

Sincerely,
2 l{anth l{o(a^y, fl,0.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

L}[:q. MARIKO fuIilGATqrcY
It,.ro.ot Street, [folsom, CA 95630 {
-
'
February 1,2o,22
Dear Historic District Commissioners, City Manager, and City Flanners, Thank you'for the time and attention you are dedicating to the voters' serious concems abottt the prroposed Mil6/s Funeral F{ome,crematofium at Lakeslde Mernorial C.rrmetery. I am writing to you as a permanent resident of Fonest Street, living direcdy acrocs from the Cemetery- I am greaflywonied about the impact of llgur decisions to corne oft my hntity, (xle yeEr otd dat4ghter, and hig$lrisk neighbors. I have r€vieyred Lakesirle's projecr proposal and Envionrnental knpact Report conducted by Helix'Enterpnises and sougfrt professional environmentdl science and medicdl consrdtation to infonn my position on this matter- The concerns t am requesting infornr your dec'sion to vote "NOr include:
l. Nonconforming use of cornrneroial, iMustrial incineralor in open space and in contradiction to 'the C,itt's master Plan;

2. lnequitable conBidcr,aSorl of crer,natorium proposal in ttre Historic District when other open space in Folsorn ks not being corslderedfur approval'diiven by profit rnotlves; g. proxlrnity of ,the proposed crematorium.next to resldential zone to several historic sites in the ttisior,ic fXstricf, withlpoterfrial to negativdy irnpact cultural,practices arrd significanoe;

4. Negative impac{ t?re propmed crenrdorium hm already had on home values in the historic districl, with several realtors/brokers docunenlirg decrease in buyers arrd offers due to proposal;
S. Assgmption tlret there is a safe levd bxicity exposune to developing children, pregnant women, etderly, medicallywlneraHe, and veterans in theirnmediatesunounding area of the Cemetery from vaPorized toxins:

6. The absence of hlstor.hal,rsbrrancFif extemal French doors are not permftted'in the Hisior,ic Disfiict because tfrey would not be fornd in lhe early l9(X)'s, how can a commercial, industrial inoinerator be acceptable?
T. lmpact of imrneasurabF sight, smell and ingeslion of particulate matter on use of kail' river, Historic District, and Sutter Street;
g. Use and appearanoe of shed for crematorium that is pennitted for cpmmercial storage only; g. ,lncreaseito existing effremeflre dsftwlth one evacultlon routefior resHents;

10. No emetgency services plan or allocation of resources to suPport potential increase in demand for fire and police as required'by CEQA guidelircs;

11. tnsgfficient fencing and secrrity on site as required by CEaAguidelines; 1 2. False,idengfication ot,proposed location as :not next'to State land or inoreased fire fisk in lnitial Study and absence of addltional design measures to create defensible space as required by CEQA guidelines.

13. Stark differences between crematorium application to City in 2020 and lhe work that Miller's Funerat Home has done at,Lakeside lr/lemorial Cernetery without approval;

14. Presence of permanent, lndustrlal pollutant in Historic District; 1S. Absence d ongoing rnonitoring, of air guallty testing of particulbte rnatter, empfoyee safety, and testing by air ouality chemist, pediafic toxicologist, and geriatric toxicologist; 1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

DR. MARIKO I\IICGARRY
lFnr.ot Street, Folsom, CA 95630 t I '

16. No monltorlng of mercury wtrich is odorless and colortess-yet poses blggest risk to children and unbom babies nho,canexpafience.d'porders suclr as arttism. Asperggfs, deve$prnental delays and other neurological issues.

17. Slgntflcant delays by fife Gity in publir*ring apdleatisr, conditionall use per,mit, and) reports to the public;
O***'
* rcwug
e*,-lrdd$3
J4!*b
! {t;*Hi
gr' ltttd
The lnitial S,tudy/Mitigrated Negative ,Declaration ,conduc{ed 'by tfre Ci$ of Fdmm Cornrnunity .Development tlepartment and Helix Environmental Planning related for .lanuary 2020, identifies the ,,Maximum exposed indivkJual resident," in the photo above. That purple dot sit$ directly or|our one-)Eer old's tprtroom wlndonr. I am hard preseed'to fu an e]ect6d officiat in this C!t] wfto has attested to beirq mrmfortable with ewn the srnallest risk pos€d to their childrell. I arn even harder pressed'to find an dmted official wlro {ras atbsted to $e,beti€tf that this poposal rrould be acoePted in any otfier residentid or open $pace zone in Folsom, From an equrty pespective, the voters and children'of Ernpire Ranch would never have to sgil{rgzmize, self-ftrndi aM'seFf-advocate as the voters and,children of the tiistoric Oisbict have been foroed to do for the tast ttrc l,sars.

The Historb District and.the Clty of.Fotsorneittrer belicv€s and.wlll testify to their conrnitrnent tomaintain community open: spage resor.#ces fDr fr|e pufpos6 rangirp frorn consenratioD, to preserving corrnunity land use options, or it is,tirne to cfrange the definition d open space zon6s ar.rd thp public marketing of rhe CityAs a Historic District Resident, voler, professbnal, and parent, I cannotexpress tha n'eedto vote "No? on the Lakeside Mernorial Lawn Crernatorium enottgh. ,P.rotect history. Frotect the City's legacy. Protect our children.

Sincerely,
2 rffinth l/o(or,y, Pl0.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

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

I have read the letter from Igor Semenyuk titled "Scope of Work- Installing a Crematory"and take issue with many of . First and foremost, the crematory is not "removed from any residences and Parks ", my home is literally feet from the proposed crematory site and the property borders State Park land with historical and major natural resources and wildlife, including endangered Bald Eagles. In his "Cremation Process" section he states "there is no smoke or residue that Ieaves the chamber" This is a completely false statement contradicted by the study he paid for and was completed by Helix Environmental Planning. There will be toxic emissions, particulates and a significant amount of C02 released into the environment from the cremation process.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Another area that wasn't covered in the Helix report was the the amount of greenhouse gasses thatwill be produced, specifically C02 . There are multiple Initiatives from the state, federal and international agencies that are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas production and the Crematorium will be a significant producer of COZ. The crematory proposes to burn propane for the cremation process, per their report, each cycle burns 19.672 gallons with a proposed 4 cycles a day and 500 cycles per year. From the U.S Energy Information Administration, each gallon of propane burned produces 12.61 lbs of CO2. Multiply that by 1,9.67 gallons per cycle times 4 cycles per day. It comes to 992 lbs of C02 produced per day, 500 cycles per year produces 124,032Ibs of CO2. This is a large amount of CO2 production in our neighborhood which adds to our existing elevated levels of C02. Why was this not fully evaluated? Have alternatives been fully considered?Maybe lgor Semenyuk could be a leader in the industry by investing in Aquamation for human remains, which is a significantly less polluting and has a lower carbon footprint.

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

My personal concerns are that the smell from burning bodies will be a daily occurrence and will interfere with the enjoyment and value of my property, I love to spend time gardening generally enjoying my backyard, which backs up to the cemetery and is very close to the proposed crematory. This will be impacted by the presence and smell of crematorium operations. I am also concerned about the health impact of breathing the emissions from cremations. Breathing residue from human bodies being burned, including substances which are toxic to humans and wildlife and particulates have been shown to have major health adverse impacts and are known to shorten lives. There are personal financial consequences too. Having a Crematorium behind my home will decrease my resale value as most future purchasers will find it upsetting and distasteful to have a crematorium out back,
I do hope this letter helps you to realize that the crematorium project will have negative health and pollution consequences and that it does not belong in our neighborhood and historic Folsom. Please demand a greater articulation ofthe consequences ofthis proposal. Better yet please deny the project.

Sincerely,
Mary f ohnson

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

ScottA. Johnson, AICP
Plarnhgl X4anager
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O: 916.461.6206
Scott Johnson
Monday, February 7,2022 4:17 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Please Vote NO on Proposed Crematorium
W

C ITY O F
r.(}LS(}nt
DIgYIXCTIYE BY I{ATURE
oc@ www. folsom. ca. us
From: John (Dave) & Ma
Sent: Monday, February 7 ,2022 4:16 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Steven Banks <[email protected]> Subject: Please Vote NO on Proposed Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Thank you for your consideration,
Marv Matthews
Iyoune wo circle
Folsom, CA 95630
HFRA Mission Statement
The Historic Folsom Residents Associotion is q group of neighbors working together to protect, preserve, qdvocqte for ond enhonce the Folsom Historic Residentiql District. Through community involvement qnd oworeness, HFRA shall strive to collqborote qnd build stront portnerships with City Government snd Iocol entities to identify ond resolve current ond future neighborhood concerns offecting the Folsom Historic District. We ore united by our love for the community qnd desire to msintqin qnd improve the quolity of life for residents and defend the historic integrity of this neighborhood for future generqtions. 2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

FYI
KellyMullett
A cl n t inist r atirrc,4ss is tcn I
Comm unity Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:916.461.6231
F:916.355.7274
EF! I tr F"$I..g{Sft'f,
f I F{istlrvr fiv tt/ttutr
Kelly Mullett
Thursday, September 30, 2021 9:00 AM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
0 0 @ www.fotso-nr.ca.us
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Proposed Crematorium at Lakeside Cemetery
Date:Thu, 30 Sep 2O2t0O:26:29 +0000 (UTC)
From:Mary Rigney
To:Daron Bracht <[email protected]>
September 30,2021
Dear Historic District Commissioner:

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

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

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

And yes, I'm over 75 and live in a receptor area.
1

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Thank you for listening to our concerns and wonies,
Mary Rigney
Iyoong wo cir
Folsom, CA 95630
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht < [email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:10 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Crematorium
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Crematoriu m
Date:Mon, 22 F eb 2O2I \9:33 t9 -0800
From:Mary Rigney
To:daronbr@ pacbell. net
Dear Daron,
Irm hoping Itm not too late in voicing my concern about having a crematorium in our Preserve neighborhood, this being the second attempt by Miller's Funeral Home. Pfease pass my concerns onto those making Lhe decisions in this serious matter.

We've already voiced our strong feelings against having dead bodies burned in our own backyards, yet we are being faced with this same issue one more time! I'm sure that it is sanitary & safe/ but that is not the point, I don't see why this can't be done efsewhere in an industriaf area that would be far more fitting than to disrupt an entire neighborhood who have afready voted against this project.

It seems we're being hit hard right now with other propositions which woufd drastically alter our quiet safe haven, our main reason for choosing this area to flve 1n the first place. Between the constant battfe with the future of the Corp yard (most recently affordable housingl ), the l1ght rail adding more tracks doubling the stops at our ONE outfet for our community, and now the crematorium issue on top of it alf ! Therefore, I would like to joln my other neighbors ln requesting reconsideration of t-he projects Itve mentloned above.

Thank you for your time & listening to my concerns, and for sharing with the those making the decisions, it's so appreciated.

MarV I
Ragney
Young Wo Cir

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Scott Johnson
Tuesday, October 5,2021 1:54 PM
Josh Kinkade
FW: Crematorium
FYI
Scott A. Johnson, AICP
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
O:91.6.461.62O6
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.folsom.ca. us%2F&amp;d ata=04%7COt%7Cik inkade%40folsom.ca.us%7C5Obl4ca4ea2e4bcl577fD9d988424d8c%7Clcfb4b4a254c47b48448af7L335fdGcO%7CO%7C0 %7C637690640630553939%TClJnknown%TCTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwi LCJXVCISMnO%3D%7C7000&amp;sdata=AiANp%2BBBMLYcwxlm2TSDcRoOeVvsajtejOHlqoOV3Y4%3D&amp;reserved=0 ----Original
From: Megan
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,2027 1:37 PM
To: Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: Crematorium
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important <http://a ka. ms/Lea rnAboutSenderlde nt 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.

Please do not allow a crematorium to be built behind my house. I have lived here for 22years Megan McClure
lvorng wo circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly Friday, February 4, 2022 1:03:18 PM
Front Porch.ioo
Front Porch3joo
Sittina.ioo
Folsom-Vol-Dav jpo
From: Missy <mrdsoccerl @aol.com>
Sent: Friday, February 4,20221:01 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly You don't often get email from $Idsaccerl@aol,s,@. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Elaine Andersen
Josh Kinkade
FW: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly Friday, February 4, 2022 1:03:18 PM
Front Porchjpg
Front Porch3jpo
Sittino.ioo
Folsom-Vol-Day.ipg
-
Sent: Friday, February 4,20221:01 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO -My only sitting porch faces proposed Crematorium location directly You don't often get email Leam why this is important
CAUTION: Thls 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. Anderson
I am a direct sight line neighbor of where the proposed crematorium is to sit. We already contend with the very unfavorable smell of the Kikkoman plant any day the wind is our direction from it, which is frequent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

February 3,2022
Josh Kinkade, Associate Planner
Comrnunity Devel opment Department
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom CA 95630
RE: COMMf,NTS ON THE PROPOSED LAKESTDE M,EMORIAL LAWN
CREMATORUIM DRAFT INITITAL STUDY/]UITIGATED NEGATIVE

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

I have reviewed the above-mentioned documents and I recommend disapproval of the draft Initial Studylvlitigated Negative Declaration based on comments below. I also recommend disnpproval of the draft Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Draft Initiel Stildv/Mitiqnted Nesntive Declarntion (IS/MND) #1. Project Description, Parking and Circulntion (pnge 2), last paragraph, it states that access would only need to accommodate a small number of staff members as there is limited parking onsite. However, this appears to be in con{lict with statements made in the applicant's Scope of Work. It states that ..."cremation-based cultures require on-site crematory so they may be able to exercise their funeral rights and oustoms," As any cremation may athact large number of attendees, the cremations should clearly be limited to small number of staff as stated in the ISA{ND.

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

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Comments on Lakeside Crematorium: Oldham, Nancy
conducted one time, on November 11. 2020. Air pollution patterns will vary dependtng on tlme of year and wind diiections, etc. Additional air modeling should be conducted at the project site at different times of the year.

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

Draft Conditional Use Permit {CUP)
#1. T[c publiu rrutioing for this pt'oposed CUP docs not mcct Statc Plonning Law f,or CUP's as per (iovernment CodeSection 65905 and needs to be re-noticed. I have attached a copy of the 'State Training guide for CUP's. The public notice for this project is titled '"Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration," No mention of a draft CUP for review. The notice only refers to the CUP once, and aS an entitlement. #2. Further, no draft CIIP was included in the public review documents listed online by the City for public commenrs. City staffs notification stated that the CUP will be included in a StalT Report and be available ai least 5 days prior to the February 16th HDC meeting. Section 65905 states that noticing of the CUP needs to be made available at least 10 days prior to the publio hearing. No Staff Report online as of February 3th.
#3. A condition of the permit should include limiting attendance of cremations to cemetery employees only as assured in the ISTMND.

It appears that there may be significant impacts from this project. While the IS/IVIND did not iOeniify potentially significant impacts, the Lead Agency (City of Folsom), makes the final detennination. The Lead Agency should complete a project-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR) While the Lead Agency is retying on an existing program ElR, a project-speciftc EIR should instead be completed due to the uniqueness of this proposed project and its location, located in Open Space zoning in the Historic District'
Sincerely,
Nancy F'allan
Cc: Kathleen Cole, Chair, HDC
Cc: John Lane, HDC
Cc: Justin Raithel, HDC
Cc: Daniel West, HDC
Cc: Mickey Ankhelyi, HDC
Cc: John Felts, HDC
Attachment
eHa
2

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Gov.ernor PeteW[eon
The Plannefs l?ainlng Serlesl

THE CONDITTONAL

USE PERMIT
Gorcrnol'c Office ol Ptrannlng and Reemrroh
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 i '
(916) 445{613
Lee Grlssom, Dlrd-ctcti Govemole Of,ice of Plannlngand Besaatch Anterc Flvasp lar.;Daputy Dlraator, &ar; ilbadnghousr ' :

Flobeil Ceruantsi,"A{iltot.: ' ,:.'r
Kenneth L,ea, Plannlng lrtam; Aulhor .

I
t
I
t
I
I
I
July 1097

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

The Planner's Tralning Scllec
This publication is one in a sories prepand by the Office of Planning and Rosearch (OPR) on topice of general into&st to planuen. As with ths rest of this ssribs, its pimary purpose is to pmvidc both a reference for exporienced plannore and training materl4l8 .fpt npw pla$ers, plnnqlng conryigsloler*', and qonlng bpprd menhan" Citatione am made to pertinent sections of the Crlifornia statfios and to oourt decirione hr ordsrto providc thc roader'tbc oppcrtunity to do adtlltiooat rosoarch on thcir owh, Unlsss othorwise uoted, all statutory rtferencss ars to ths Califomia Govemmant Codc.

This documeut and other OPR publications, along with additional information about local govomrndntplarning and zoning, is availablc ftom ttrc LtlP.lN (Land Use Planning Information Notwork) wob sito mainlainod by lho California Rsgoutces Agency at hgp ://ceres. ca" gov/planning/

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

The CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHAT rS A CONplTlOllAL USE PERMIT?
A coNDmoNAL usn $RMn (cup) allows a city orcounty to oonsidor spocial uses which nay be ossential or A dssirablo to a particular comnnrnity, but whish aro not ellowcd as a mattcr of rigbt within a zoning I I disricq iluough a public hoarlng process. A conditional ruc pormit can provide flexibility within a zoning ordinance. Anotbeitraditionalpurposdofthsconditional usepermit ir to enable amunicipalitytocontrol certain uses whish could hnve detrimental effects ou the community Q{eighborhood. Action Group v, County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176).

Considoration of a CUP is a discretionary act. A
CUP application tendered by a project proponont is
considered at a public hearing and, if approved is
gcucrally subjcct to anunber of pertincnt conditions of approval. Depending onlocal ordinancerequkemenls,
hearings arc rypicalty beld by a board of zoning, the
planning cornmission, or a zoning a&ninisfator. Ths
owners ofproperlry ncarlhe $itc arc sent advancenotice
of the datc, timo, and plaoo of tho hearing.

Examplos of cosunol usds allowed witt a conditional use parmit can be found ia any city or county zoning ordinance. For example, Santa Rosa'6 zoning
ordiiance lists uses which may be pcrmitted within
singlc-farnily rcsidential distriots with a conditional use permit. These uses include churches, public or
privatc schools, public building or utility stmchrres,
parking lots, temporary subdivision sales ofnces, and
community care and health care facilities, Chiso's
zoning ordinance lists various usor permitted with a
use permit issued by either a planning director or
planning commission^ Thesc uses include temponry
amuBement attractions, the placernent of a building or
sfructure on a lof or parcel which has beon moved from
anothor lot or parcel, public buildir:gs and facilities, parking or access locatd off-site from the site boing
served, private recreation ccuters, and planned developments. Bach city or coun$ may include in their zoning ordinaoee a wide varioty ofuses whichthey will
permit with a conditional use pernit.

ENABLINC LECISLATION
Ttrc rules under which counties and general law
cities may issue a conditional usc permit aro providd
by state andcase law. Chrrter sities are not rubjectto
state zoning law, except in special oircumstances, but
may stiil uee its provisione (Section 65803). The following is abrief examhation of the authority and rules under whicb lgcal goveraments act in issuing use
pormits.

Gonstltutlonal Authorlty3
Local governments havo the authority to enast
local planning ond land use regulations to protaot the
public hcalth, safefy, and wolfaru of their reeidents
tluough their polico power. The "police power" provides the right to adoptand enforco zoning regulations, as long as they do not contlict with statc 1aws. The
policepoweris tho barisforcharter city zoning powsrs,
(California Conetitution, Article }(I, Sccdon 7)
Statutory Authorlty:

California code reileratesthe Constitutionalpolice
po$'us of citios and counties to onact zoning regulations, but hau little to say about CUPs in particular. ''The legislative bolly of any counry or city may,
pursuant to t\is chapter, adopt ordinances that do any
of the following:
"Rogulatetlreuse ofbuildings, structures, andland
asbetwson indusuy, business, rosidcnces, opdn spacer
including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic
beaup, use ofnaturalresources, andothorpu4lose8. ..,"
(Section 65850(a)
'The board of zoningadjusunentor zoning adrnini^etrator shall hear and decide applications for conditioual uses or othorpermits whon tho zoning ordinance provides therefor and establishe s critpria for dotsrmhing those mattets .. ," ' "Iheboard of zoningadjustmentorzoning administrator may also exercise any otherpowers granled by localordilarce andmay adopt allnrles and procedures
I

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

IIII} CONIIITIONAL USE PERMIT
necessflry or convenient for the conduct of the board' s or administrator' s bu si[es6,"
(Section 65901(a))
Gase Lawr
California case law has established a number of
fundarnental principles relating to conditional use permits. In addition ts ths basic uses permitted withia a zoning district, a city or county zouiag ordinance can
provide other specified usos whish may be permined
afterconsideration and resolution by an administrative
ageflcy thnt ths proposed rme is in the be,st intemst of public convenienco and nacessity anil will not be
coutrsry to the public'health, morals ; or welfarc (U pton v. Gray (1969) 269 CaJ.App,2d 352).

Local govomments must hrve a eomplete and
valid genoral plan beforc they can issua conditional use pormits (Resaurce Defense Fund v, Countl of Sann
Cna (1982) 133 Cal,App,3d 800 and Neighborhood
Actiott Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156
Cal.App.3d 1176),
The authority to consider conditional use pernits,
dologatcd to planning commissions or othet administrativo bodies by elected officials, must include standards of guidance- Thesa standards of guidance are provided to insure that the delegation of discrstion to an adminishatiye agency is not qnlridle { qnd, thqs, qo! :-.,-t:l trr.- l^^..1-^ ^J.L- *--,{ ^6 -- --^-*.i--Ll- lllgguu. Illv gvvlrlrtv vl slw ttwu vr ilr 4lwvllg{lgulv standardto guide au administrativebody appliss whsre
the legislative body of a ciry attempts to delegate its law-making firnctions (Stoddardv, Edelman (1970) 4
Cal.App.3d 54a).

PROCEDURE
The approval of a conditional use permit is an
administrative, quasijudicial act. It is not a change of zone, but rather a project-specific change in the usss
allowod on a specific property. Conditional use permitg do not involve the establishment of new codes, regulations, or policies. lnstcad, a conditional use
permit applies the provisions of ihe zoning ordinanoe
and its standards to the specific set of circumstances
wbich characteriee the proposed land use. Cities and
countiss have the-authority to establish either a board of zoning adjusEnent or a zoning administratorto hear
aud decide applications for conditioual uees. Local
ordinance can establish specificprocedures under which
a delegated board of appeals will hear and determine
appeals fiorn tho decisions of the board of zoning
adjustment orthe zoningadministrator(Section 65903),
In most jurisdictions, appeals are heard by the next
higbest body, eventually reoching the crty counoil or
county board of supervisors for a final decision.

Public Hearingr
Section 65905 requires a public hoaring to be held
on an application for a conditioual use perrnit. At a
minimum, advancepublic notice, an opportunity tobe
heard, and a fair hoaring are consrirutional duo procsss rights as explain ed in H om u. C o unty of V ent ura (L97 9) 24 C,3d 605.

Thc Govornment Codo establishes minimum requi:rcmentr for publio nqtice for counties and general lawcities. Ctarter cities may adopt similar provisions.

The notice of a public hearing must include: the date,
time, ond placo of the hesrin$ thc identity of fie
hearing body orofficer (commonly the delegatedboard
of zoning adjustment or the zoning administrator); a
dascription of the proposal and the conditional use
pennit process; and the locatiol of the property involved {Section 65094), Notice mustbe mailed to all propcrty owtrers within 300fect of tho proposal's site
boundary at lea$t 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Thcnames and addresses of ownets a$those Iisted on
the most current county equalized assessment roll
This requirementincludps the oyners of property which
Iicoutsidc the city limi'e orcouaty line(,3coitv, h"iiaio Wells (1972) 6 C.3d 541). Notice muet also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation at least 1,0 days before the hearing,
Section 65030 recognizes the importance of public
participation in public hcatiags and exprcsses a clear
lcgislative intent thu local agencics insurc priblic participation at overy level of the conditional use permit proce$s, The purposes ofthe public hearing is for the
zoning board or zoning administrator to hear and
consider the opinions of the proponent and nearby
prioperty ownefs priorm makingtheirdecisionto cith€r
approve or deny the conditionalusepermit, As aquacijudieial act, th6 approval of a conditional use permit rcquires the board or administrator to adopt wri$cn
findings to support their action. Whether theproposal
has been approved or denied, the decision can be
appealed to ahigherbody, usuallytheboard of appeals,
the planning cornmission, or city council, in acaordance with the city or county zoning ordinance. Ihe appeak body may reverse or af,firm, wholly or par0y,
or may modify the decision, and may make such
decision as should be mrde, and its action is final
(Seqtion 65903).

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Tf,E CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT
Section 65903 delegalen to local legislative bodies
the fluthority to eeteblish procedures for an appeal but not the power to rcetrict tho right of appoal. Thus, a
oounty zoning ordinance cannot attcmpt to restdct the
right of appeal to solcly tlre applicant and excludo the general public, especially adjacent property owners
(Concerh.ed Citizens of Murphys v, Jacl<son Qn1)72
Cal.App.3d 1021).

In ordcr to etrcourage consurrtnt ptocesdng for
the purpose of expaditing zone changos and genoral
plan amendments, Section 65862 providos tlat planning ageniies may'iimultaneously process a consolidated application which may inolude a uso porrnil, rczouing, and generrl plan amcndrnent if all three
applications encompa,ss the same property,
Gallfomla Envlronmrntal Quellty Ao$
. Conditional use permits aro subject to the Califon
nia Environmontal Quality Act {CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq,). Prior to the public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit,
the city or county must evaluatEtho proposal to detcrmine whethor or not it may have any significant adverse effects on ths envimnmont, If the proposal io not exempt from environmentalreview, tho city or county
is required to prepare either a negativa doclaration
indioating that the conditionoi uoe permi- t will havg no signifioant effect, or an Environmental Impact Roport
6ElR) which describes the potential negalivc impacts
of the proporal and the means to avoid or lessen thoae
impacts. See the bibliogaphy for a reference which
can provide more infon:ration about the California
Environmental Quality Act"
Pemlt Strcamllnlng Act:

The Pemit Streamliring Act (Section 65920, et
seq.) establishes tine limits within which the review
and approval or denial of a conditional use permit
proposal must occur. For instance, if an BIR was
certified for a conditional use permit, the application mnst be actod upon within one hundrEd eighty days
'from the date of cortification (Section 65950(aX1)). A proposal for which anegative doclaration was adopted
or a CEQA cxemption used must be acted upon within
sixty days of that action (Section 65950(aX2)(3)). A
conditional usepermit cannot be disapproved solely to
comply with tlrese deadlines.

Ttre Permit Strearrdiuing Act provides ttrat failutc
to me€t it8 dendlines will result in automatic approval of the conditional usepermit (Section 65956O)). Howover, the permit can only bc deemod approved ifpublio notice and an oppornrnity to be heard had been provided eitherby the agency or by the applicant.

Ihe Pormit Streamlining Act does not apply to
administrative appeals within a stiate or local agcncy
(Section 65922). Thereforo, if apermit is appoaledto a
higher body there is no strict tirnc frame within which the appeal must be heard.

LIMITATION8 ON
CONDITIOIIIAI USE PERiIIITS
As r rule, oonditional use permits do not outhorize
uses that &e zoning ordinance does not authodze, nor
uses not exptsssly authorized by the porrnir.Iho conditionaluso permit ircludes conditione which linittho applicant's authority touse the property, Undcr ccrtail conditionr, howeveq local governments may incorpotato provisions from federal laws and bmadon the range of uses permitled (Sporrs Aretu Properties, Inc.
v. City of SanDieso (1985) 40 C.3d 808),
It is oftEn the case that local agencies follow a
general set ofrtandards in conaidoring a conditional
uee pormit. Theso standards arn generally accsptable
since it is a near impossibility to devise rtandarils to cover all possible situations in vhich a use pennit can be iseued (?ltstin Heights Atsociili.on v. Board of
Supewkors (1959) 170 Cal.App.zd 619), thorc arc
scveral casss in whioh thene standards have been up
helil.

Gencral Wrlfare Standardr
"The estsblishment, rnaintenance or conducting of
theusefoi whioh a usepcrmitis sought will not, undsr
thepanicular case, be detrimental tothe public welfare
oriqjurious to property orimprovements in the neighborhood' (Howkins v. County of Marin $97q 54 Ca1,App,3d 586).
l{ulsance $tendardl
"Any use found to be objectionable or incompatible with thc character of the city and its euvirons due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable clurachristioe rnaybeprohibited" (Snow v. City of Gard,cnGrove (1961 ) Cal..App.2d 496).

Oenelal Plan Gonrletency Standardr
"Although use pe:mits are not explicitly made
subjeot to a'ganeral plan moeting tho requiroment of
state law, that condition is necessarily to be implied
from the hierarchicai relationship of.land use laws.
3

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

TAE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Thus, use pcrmits are stmck from the mold of the
zoning law, the zonirig law must cornply wih the
adopted genoral plan, and tho adopted geuoral plan
must conforin with Btat6 lav/; thc validily of the ponnit process derivos from compliance with thishierarchy of
planning laws (Neighborhood Action Group v. Coung
af Calaveras (1984) 156Cal.App.3d 1176).

Zonlng Conalrtcncy Standard;
'"fo obtain a use permit, the aFplicant must genorally show that the cantomplated use is compatible with ihe policies in terms of the zoningordimncns, and fhat
suoh use would be essential or desirable to the public
-conwnienpc or wclfare;and will notimpair thc intcgrity and charachr of the zoneddistrict orbe defrimental to thepublichealth, safety, rnorals orwelfsrc" (O' H agen v. Board af hning Adjustmenr (1971) 19 Cal,App.3d
151),
In addition to the general standards discussed,
there also exist other limitations on conditional use
peunits. Conditional use permits run withths landnot
the applicant (Cohn v. County Board. of &tpentisors
(1955) 135 Cal.App,Zd 180). That is, where condidonal ure pqrnite are concerned, all related prcpffty ard personal rights are fteely transferabig unless ex'
presqfy prohibrted by law (kaa Pa*tng Corpomtion
.. t-,i{. ^A D.'-l:..---^ /lOgO\ 1O< fr^l A-^ aJ O<S\
v. vo.t wJ pq, tbtL5qtte \Lluol t21 w.nytr'rJg urJirr
Inversoly, a conditional usc psrfift may not lawfully
lirnit fte pernittee ftom ttansferring it with the land since such a condition is beyond the power of the
zoning authority (Anra, supra),
Theconditions which are imposed on a conditionfll
use permit rnustbeexpresrly attachcd ts thcpermitnnd
cannot be implicd. For cxarnple, if a conditional use
pennit contains language that restricts a building's
lrbight to five. stories and requires the developor to
submit and obtain planning-commission approval of a
jandscapingplan, among other things, tho permiti$elf
does not imply a height iimitation sn tr€6s within the
development (Pacifica Homeowners' Associdtion v,
Wlsley Palms Retirement Communlry (1986) 1?8
Cal,App.3d 1147).

OTHEF TYFES OF
CONDITIONAL UsE PERIIIIII$
State law also allows conditional use permits for
"granny" units, second dwelling unitn, and mobilehome parks, If a local zoning ordinance does not provide for these cases, ths ablliry m apply for conditional use perrnits allowirg these uses is provided for by stdb law. In all oaees, public notice and hoaring
must be provided as discussed earlicr.
ftGrenny' Unlls (Scotion 65852.1) -
"... any city, including a charfiu city, county, or
city and counfy may issue a zoning'variance, special
uso permit, orconditionaluse prmitfor adwellingunit
to be consftuctE4 or which is anached.to or detached
fro-n, a pdmary residence on a parcel 7or1ed- fgr a
single-family residence, ifthe dweJling uuit is intended forthe sole occupancy ofoncadult ortwo adultporsons
'who are 62-years of ago'or ovcr; and the uca of'floor
spaco ofthe attached dwelling unit does not exceed 30
percentof the existing living area orthe area of the floor space of the detached dwelling unit door not exceed
1,200 square feet,",
Priorto approyal ofa conditional use permitunder
Seetion 65E52.1, the ciry or county mustfind that the
resident orrpsidents meet the age criteria, and thatthe floor area of tho proponed unit does not exceed tbat
allowed by ttre stailte, In apcordance with the spccial oirsumstances provided in Section 65803, Seotion
65852. i applies to charter citi6s, as well as general law cities.

G-rr-i h...rlll-r ll-tr- /(t-^!-- 4<O{4 n\ u-eu.rI xrtyrrrr.lt vaaara \sve*grt vJQJkt-J - "Notrvithstanding Section 65907, every local
egency sball grant aspecial use or a conditional use
peunit for the creation of a second unit if the second
unit complies with all of the followiugr
"(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be
rented.
"(B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. "(C) fhe lot contains an existing single-family
dwelling.
'(D) The second unit is either attached to the
existing dwelling and lccated within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing
dwelling and located on the came lot as the. existing
dwelling.
"(E) The increased floor area of an attachedsecond
unit shall not exceed 30 percent ofthe eristing tiving
afea,
"(D The total area of floor space for a detached
second unit shall not Exceedl,2ll squaro fect,
. "(O) Requiroments relating to height, setback, lot
coverage, architeclural review, site plan revbw, fee.r, charges, and other zoning teguiremelts generally ap4

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

TUE CONDITIONAL USE PDRMIT
plicableto residentialconsbuction in the zone in which
the property is located,
"(H) Local building codc requircmcnts which apply 0o detached dwellings, as appropriate, "(I) Approval by thc local hoalth officer wlere a
private sewage disposal system is being used, if required." Section 65S52,2alsoprovidesthatany local agenoy
may, by ordinance, allow second units in single-farnily rnd multifamily residential zones. Thus, a Section
65852,2 conditional use pennit iq only reguired for
second units when a local agency has not adoptcd an
ordiaancs governing second units,
Mobllehomg Parks (Section 65852.7) -
"Amobilehome padg as defined in Sectiou 18214
of the Health and Safcty Code, shall be deemsd a
permitted land use on all land planned and zoned for
residential land use as designated by the applicable
generalplan;provided, however, that acity, county, or
a city and couirty may require a use pormit."
ff a local govemluent denies the renewal of a
conditional use permit allowing a mobilehome park,
the government must take specified required stepg to
mitigate the adverse impacts of the mobilehome part
closure, purs[ant to Section 65863.7,

FTNDTNOS
Written "findinge of kcf' are rcquired in orilor to
supportthe decision ofthehcaring body to approyeor
deny a conditional use pennit (Topanga Association
for a Scenic Comwuity v. Coung of Los Angelet
(1974) LL C,3d 506). Findingr are the lsgal footprint$
left by looal decieion-makerg to show how the deci
sion-makiug process pmgressed from thc initial factn
to the decision.

Findings are important. They "bridge the analytical gap betweeu the 'raw evidence and ultimate decision" (Topanga, supra). Ifthe decision is challenged, a courl will examine tbe evidence supporting the findings to determine whefrer the hearing body abused its discretion when acting on a conditional use perrnit.

Such an abuse of discretion is to be found when: (l) the agency did not proceed in a manner prescribed by law;
(2) the agency's decision is not suppodeil byfrndlngsl
aud (3) the agency's findings are not suppofled by
evidence in the adrninishative record,
Topm,ga cites several pulposes for making findings, among which includq (1) providing rftamewor* for making principled decisionsn thus enhancing the
i*egnty of ths administrstive process; (2) helpine
makc analysis orderly andreducing rhe likelihoodthat
the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusioa; and (3) seiving apublicrelations function by helping to persuade the parties that administrative
decision-rnaking is careful, reasoned, and equitabJe.

Findings should also justify any conditions which
irnpose fees or other exactions.

For adetailed discussion of findings roquirements, see
OPR' e publication entitleil Bri d,giltg lhe Gap.

CONDITIOI{8 OF APPROVAL
Section 65901 empowcrs local decision-making
bodies to take action on uss permit proposals when
zoning ordinances make provisions and set criteria for
them. The hearing body may also modify a conditionat
use permit's terms by irnposingnew or revised conditions, if the ordinance, interim ordinance, or original c onditional use pemrit so pro ttidcs (G ar av an t v, F ai rfax Plsnniw Commission (L97 t) LTCat,App,3d 145).

Just as tlere are lirnitarions in approving a conditional use permit, there are alcolirnitations in esablishing conditions of approval. Four gonoral rules ofthumb in applyine conditi-ons o.f appmrral includer (1) the
jurisdiction mustbe actingwithinits police powsrs; (Z)
the condition must substantially further a legitimate
public purpose; (3) the condition must further the same public puqpose for whioh it was imposed; and (4) the
property owner may not be required to carrJi a disproportionato loadin furthering the public purp ose (Califomla Lancl-Use and Planning Law, gth editiou).

Secticin 65909 provides that dedications of land, as
conditions of approval, must be "redsonably related' to the use of the pmporty for which the conditional use
'permit is requested. ThEre must also be a 'tough
proportionality" belweon the extent of the condition
and the particular demand or impact of Ore project
(Dolanv. City of Ttgard (1994) t29L.862nd304). kr
rddition, a porformance bond cannot be required for
fte installation of public improvenents that are not
reasonably related to the property use. Limitations on
impact fees are described in the Mitigation Fee Acr
(Section 66000, et soq.).

If a condition appliedto a conditional use permitis
notlinked to some legitimate pubiic need orburden the
pmject cJeates, the conditionimiroeed could be deemed
a taking of property in violation of the U,S.

Constitution's Fifth and Fourtecnth Amendments
5

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

TEE CONI}IIIONAL USE PEIIMIT
COIIIDITIOilAL USE

PERMIT OHECKLIST
It a conilltlonal use perolt is to be sPproved,
sll of the fonowlng questlono must be ln'
slered affirmatively.

L. Is the public hoaring notice complete in its
description of the project?
lYes DNo

2. Han thn prrhlic henring notice been issued
in accordance with all procedures?
nYes nNo
3, Is the proposed use, with proposed conditions of approval, suitableforthe site? 'fl Yes DNo

4. ffany condition$ of approval call for
dodications of land, are thoy reasonably
rolated to the use and its imPacts?
I Yos nNo

5. If significant environmeutal effects have
bpen identified as a rssult of fte proposed
conditional use permit, havo conditions
boen required, or has the project been
redesigned, to mitigate thoss effocts?
I Yes ENo

6. Have findings been adoptod to support the
agoncy's decision, based upon substantial
evidence in the record?
I Yes DNo
7, fue the requircd environmental findings
being adopted?
flYes lNo
(Nollanv. Califurnia Coa$al Commission (1987) 9'l
L.Ed2nd 6??). S/hcre a regulatory taking has been
found to oceur, the courts will overturnthe agoncy's
action and may require the agency to pay the qpplicant
compensation for the taking (Dolan, supra)'
EXAMPLE$
The following oourt cases illustrato when it may bc
Bfoper to $ant a conditional uso permit and when it
mey not be. These cases are illusbations only and
should not be used as the sole basis for granting or
denyiag o cotditional ure pennit.

Gasea Upholdlng Gondltlonel Usc ' Pamrlt Approvalr
Genernl Wnlfarn Sfanrlard
The gcneml welfare standard is sufficientin granting a
condltional use perrrtit. Thc issuartuc oI a curtditional use permit for a 1ow-cost re ntal housirg for the eldedy in a residential area was upheld on grounds ftat the
proposcd uso would not bc "debimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or irnprovoments in the neighborhood" (Flawkins v- Co.unty of Marin(L97fl 5a
CaI.App.3d 586).

General PIan Consisteruy
The absence ofa valid general plan docs notpreclude
alldevelopment activicy. Section 65361 e'stablishes the general plan extension procedure whereby local governments oan proceod with developmont pending completion of av.alid gonaralplan. Thisprocodure also
r! rr- rL-
---- --.L--^ -
rJ aPPlIng ru uttr ualg wll9r9 nuuuulJ aPPru YEU -:-^-l^-i rrurvr rqu subdirdsions without arequired general plan (l? esottrce I Defense Fwtd t. Caunty o! Santa Cruz (L982) 133
Cal.App.3d 800).

ProcedurelPublic Notiee
A conditibnal uso permit cannot be rsvoked without sufficientcause.Rrrther, priorto rcvoc&tion, notice and hanring must be provided for. Thus, in the caso
.. where an applicant was given uotice that the hbaring would concern the cxpiration of thE conditional use
permitratherthan the rcv@ation of the permit, attemPt
to revoke tho pormit was nullified (Communlty DeveL
opmeftt Commlssion of'Merdocino County v' City of
Fort Brasg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124).

Gases OvertutnlnE Gonditional Use
Pomit AFProYalr
General Welfare Standard
A county zoning ordinance requiring a church in a
residential zoneto obtainaconditionalusepennitprior
to allowiug it to use the land was found not to abridge the constitutional dght of freedom of roligious wor6

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

TEE CONDITTONAIJ USP PTNMTT
rhip, The courtheld that a coung zoning oldinanco
whichprovides ause pumittobe granted iftheuse will
not be detrimontal to the health, Bafety, Ir€f,co, morels, cornfod, and genoral wclfare of pertons or proporly in
the neighborhood, or to the genoral welfare of the
county, is notunconetitutional by r.eason ofvaguonoss
or uncertaingr (Mattlwwt v. Eoard of SWewfuors of
Sunislaus Cotnrty (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 800).

Nnfuanco Stqnilsrd
The approval of a conditional uso pormir for trhp
sroragb of housss was ovcrtumsd on gmunds that any
use may be prchibited iffound to be objocrionahla or
incompatible with the character of the city and its
envircne due tonoiee, dust, odors or otherundesirablo
characteristics (,fnow v, City of Garden Grove (1961)
188 Cal.App.2d496).

General Plan Conrlstency
The issuance of a conditional use permit to a
consftustion Qomynny forproduction of sand and gravel
wan overfirrnod on grounds thst that the generd plan
elsments which bearon the pennit aro inadoquate and
thp pgrnit is inconsiotpnt with pcrtinont provisions of an adequate general plan (Ifctg& b o rhood Actton G roup v. Caunty of Calavara.r (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 11?6),
7

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

TIIE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

BIBLIOGRAPHY
For morp i:rformation about conditional uso permits, we !€commend thc following rcforences.

Ettdgfng the Gap : Using Ftniling's h Locdl In'nd. Usc
Decisions, by Robert Cervantes, second edition
(Govornor's Office of Plannirg and Reooarchi l9S9.

Ttris booklct explains thc pr.inciples of findiner in
dotail,
Caltfornh Pcrmlt Eandbook, (Califomia Office of
Pormit Assistance), 1 996-9? . Tbis handbook is n guide to tha Statp envimnmcntal pumit process and providcs
guidance for complying with the Statc's environmcntal quality and pormit streanlining statutes, regula' tions, and policies.

Caffirnia Zoning Prasti&e, by Donald Hagman, et
a1., AFril 1995 Supplerngntby John K, Chapin (Continuing Education of the Bar, Bet&eley, CA), 1969.

This toxt roviows $tate zonirg hw iu detail,
CEQA Deskhook: A Step-fry-Step Guidc on How to
Comply with lha Californta Environmentul Qaaltrt
Act,by Rinald E, Bass, ct al., 1996 edition (Solano
Pnoss, PointArcna, CA). A guidc toundcrstanding thc
onvironmentakoviow procoss and idondfyiagkey sEps,
ruguaeurunts, ard du:iriul puint$ U$$s$$tty ta coJuply
witlr CBQA.

Curth's Callfamia Lanil As e and Planning Inw,by
Danicl J. Curtin Jr., 1997 edition (Solano Press, Point Ar€na, CA), revised annually. A look at the pluning,
zoning, subdivision, and environmental quality laws,
including conditional use pernitn, as intsrproted by
numerous court cases,
Longtht's Caffirnia Innd Asq 2ndedition, by James
Longtin, 1996 Supplemeat (Local Govsmrnant Publi'
cations, Malibu, CA), 1988, This refersnce text on
planning and landuse law contains an exccllent discunsion of the ionditionat use perurit process and legal ,considerations,
8

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Daron Bracht <[email protected]>
Tuesday, March 2,2021 1 1:12 AM
Josh Kinkade; Steven Banks
Fwd: Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the oiganization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory
Date:Tue, 22 Dec 2O2O L4:34:O2 -0800
From:N Oldha
To:Daron Bracht <[email protected]>
Hi Daron, ldo notthinkthatthe proposed Lakeside Memorial Lawn Crematory project and a conditional use permit should be approved. The proposed crematory I believe is considered an ind,ustrial use and should be located only in an industrialzoned area.

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

Folsom's General lndustrialDistrict (Chapter 17.30 M-2)states that specific uses shallonly be permitted in M-2 districts. While it doesn't reference crematories it does list pottery kilns and ceramicworks.

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

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

Thank You.

Nancy Fallan Oldham s16r

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

Josh Kinkade
From:

Sent:
lo:

Nicole Gates
Tuesday, January 11,202210:53 AM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino;YK Chalamcherla; [email protected]; Rosario Rodriguez; Elaine Andersen; Josh Kinkade Subject: Proposed Lakeside Crematorium
Some people who received this message don't often get emailfrom [email protected]. 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,
My husband, two young kids, and I bought a home in the Lake Natoma Shores neighborhood a year ago. We moved here to be closer to family, and have a better quality of life.

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

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

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

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

Please protect Open Space. Please save our magical neighborhood. The crematorium should be put in an industrial area It does not belong where kids play. lf the crematorium gets put in it will destroy an entire neighborhoods' quality of life just so The Caring Services Group/Miller Funeral Home can make a profit. I don't want this to happen to my family and my neighbors (please note the smoke and odor quotes):
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.orsl2021l03/25lneiehbors-hope-for-relief-from-crematoriu m-smoke-as-covid-19-deathsdecrease/ Thank you,
Nicole Gates
lVoung Wo Circle

05/10/2022 Item No.18.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

I
Josh Kinkade
Lakeside Memorial Crematorium
Saturday, July 31,2021 4:11:40 PM
You don't often get email from niki.gates'[email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello,
I am opposed to having a crematorium in'my neighborhood. I have read the "Initial Study/lf4itigated Negative Declaration." I am voicing my concerns about:
"The Project Objectives"
On page 7 it states; The project objectives as expressed by the applicant, are to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Mr. Semenyuk states he wants to "upgrade existing facilities". Mr. Semenyuk stated he was

05/10/2022 Item No.18.
going to "use an existing metal shed" to install the HCT-250 industrial incinerator and lOXl5 foot walk-in chiller. This is an old shed. It is my estimation that the shed in question is at least 25 years old. It doesn't make sense to me to place machinery, maybe worth 100K, in an old metal shed. They recently built a25x25 foot metal shed next to the old shed. It is a matter of time before Mr. Semenyuk requests to remove the old shed, build another bigger and better structure, and move the equipment to the new metal shed with possibly another incinerator.

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

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

Zero regardto the Historic Value of the area.

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

It's just about business, money, and expansion. It's not about local cremations, there are 18 crematories within l8 miles. It's not about providing a service for religious or cultural customs, there is a facility 5.2 miles away. It's not about growing populations.

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

No to the industrial incinerator.

Thank you for your time,
Nicole Gates