Bethelhem Telahun, Environmental Project Manager,
San Jose Planning Department
200 E. Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Bethelhem.Telahun@sanjoseca.gov
March 4, 2026
Re: Comments on Heritage Oaks Memorial Park Draft SEIR (Files PD22-023 and ER22-229, SCH# 2024090194)
Dear Bethelhem,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter are environmental organizations with deep commitment to the natural landscapes, wildlife, and environmental resources of Santa Clara County. We submit the following comments on the Heritage Oaks Memorial Park Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). Our comments are in addition to comments already submitted by our representatives via email and orally.
Section 1. Introduction
Section 1.1 Purpose of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This section describes the changes to the project since the 2014 EIR as a crematory and recycled water lines. Other changes since the 2014 EIR should be added here including: land use changes and context, potable water lines; family mausoleums; shade structures; McKean Road access improvements; revisions to the grading plan; and updated mitigation measures based on a more recent geotechnical report. Please update this section to add these new project elements and any other changes since the 2014 EIR.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 1. Introduction
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Add changes since the 2014 EIR to the introduction, including land use changes and context, potable water lines, family mausoleums, shade structures, McKean Road access improvements, revisions to the grading plan, and update mitigation measures based on a more recent geotechnical report.
Section 2.4 Project Description
The SEIR project description is incomplete because it does not describe nor disclose the potential impacts of the natural gas infrastructure required to operate the proposed crematory. While there is a general discussion of energy suppliers, there is no description of gas line connectivity infrastructure. Accurate mapping of any gas pipelines and connection points are needed. In addition, please disclose and mitigate gas-infrastructure related impacts, including trenching and burial of pipelines, and fugitive emissions from gas pipelines.
The Project Description contains an inadequate and unstable description of crematory operations.
The project proposes a 4,300 sf natural gas fired crematory, but does not specify the number of retorts to be included. The Air Quality Assessment projects, but does not commit to, a maximum firing rate of 2.05 MMBtu/hr and continuous operation at up to 3,000 cremations per year; thus, the SEIR does not provide a sufficiently stable and enforceable project description for the proposed crematory, and therefore fails to analyze the full scope of the project under CEQA.
The SEIR states,
“An approximately 4,300 sf natural gas fired crematory is also proposed within Area A and may be added after initial development.” and “The crematory would operate daily and is estimated to have 500 cremations by first year of operation, 1,000 cremations by second year of operations, 2,000 cremations by fifth year of operations, and 3,000 cremations by tenth year of operations.”
These throughput numbers appear only as modeling assumptions. The Project Description does not state that 3,000 cremations per year is a binding operational cap, nor does it establish an enforceable daily limit of cremations. Instead, the SEIR uses non-binding language such as “is estimated to have,” which describes projections rather than limits.
If the project approval does not expressly limit annual or daily cremation throughput to the levels assumed in the air quality and GHG analyses, the SEIR is analyzing a narrower project than the one being approved. This creates an unstable project description because the intensity of operation could increase beyond the levels modeled without further CEQA review. In addition,
the SEIR does not specify the number of retorts to be installed within the crematory building, and
the SEIR does not prohibit future equipment expansion within the 4,300-square-foot structure.
Operational intensity directly drives criteria pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminant exposure, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic associated with funeral services. Without enforceable throughput limits embedded in the project description and conditions of approval, the environmental analysis lacks a stable baseline for impact evaluation. This is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the EIR evaluate the “whole of the action” and not defer definition of key operational characteristics that affect environmental impacts.
CEQA Guidelines §15124 and further case law require a complete description of the proposed project:
“[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. The SEIR does not provide a complete Project Description for the proposed crematory as required under CEQA Guidelines §15124.
Section 2.4.1 Area 1. Please provide a maximum square footage for a family mausoleum and for a shade structure. Also provide a total maximum square footage for these structures over the entire project, and add these values to Table 3, Area 1 Summary. Throughout the SEIR, any analysis based on total building square footage also needs to be updated.
Section 2.4.8 Stormwater. The SEIR states that the total new impervious surface would be 501,032 sf. Does this include the new elements including family mausoleums, shade structures, McKean Road access improvements, septic system elements (septic tanks, supplemental treatment units, and pump tanks), and pump houses and booster pumps for water delivery? If not, total new impervious surface needs to be updated to include these project elements, and any analysis based on total impervious surface needs to be updated throughout the SEIR.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 2. Project Description
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Identify the source of natural gas service to the site,
Describe whether new gas mains and/or service lines will be extended,
Provide the length and location of any off-site infrastructure improvements,
Confirm that construction and operational impacts associated with gas infrastructure are fully analyzed, and
Clarify whether future increases in gas demand would require additional infrastructure expansion.
Provide a maximum square footage for a family mausoleum and shade structure, adding these values to Table 3, Area 1 summary.
Update total new impervious surface to include project elements such as family mausoleums, shade structures, McKean Road access improvements, and septic system improvements.
Clearly state the maximum annual cremations and maximum daily cremations as enforceable project limits,
Specify the number of retorts permitted,
Prohibit future increases in cremation capacity beyond 3,000 per year without additional CEQA review, and
Describe the natural gas infrastructure required and confirm that emissions analyses reflect full buildout capacity.
Absent these clarifications, the SEIR does not provide an adequate project description under CEQA Guidelines §15124 and does not ensure that impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed.
Section 3.3. Biological Resources
The SEIR does not provide a sufficient, project-level analysis of impacts to biological resources as required by CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15126.2. While the document includes a biological resources section, it relies heavily on general statements and conceptual design features rather than enforceable performance standards and binding conditions of approval.
The SEIR suggests the project will include limited fencing and minimal disturbance-generating features. However, the SEIR does not include the following:
Clear, measurable performance standards for fencing design and wildlife permeability,
Long-term monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, and
Adaptive management triggers if wildlife movement or habitat function is impaired.
Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and capable of implementation (CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)). Conceptual design intentions are not enforceable mitigation.
Because the project site is located within an Open Hillside designation and adjacent to large areas of undeveloped habitat and open space, fencing is not a design detail, its is a core determinant of habitat fragmentation, wildlife movement, and ecological function.
Without enforceable commitments, the SEIR does not demonstrate that potential impacts to wildlife and adjacent open space will be avoided or minimized in practice.
Fencing can be one of the most significant contributors to habitat fragmentation in hillside environments. Even limited fencing associated with cemeteries, maintenance yards, or access control can
Impede movement of medium and large mammals,
Block migratory corridors,
Isolate habitat patches,
Increase edge effects, and
Conflict with policies intended to preserve open space character.
Although the SEIR states that no perimeter fencing is currently proposed, irrigated lawn burial areas may attract feral pigs, which are known to root in turf and disturbed soils. Rooting within cemetery grounds could damage graves, destabilize hillside soils, and create pressure to install fencing in the future. Without clear standards now, reactive fencing could be installed in a manner that fragments habitat and blocks wildlife movement.
The SEIR does not specify fencing type, height, permeability, or location. It does not analyze cumulative fragmentation impacts, nor does it commit to wildlife-permeable standards in the event fencing becomes necessary.
Because the project is located in an Open Hillside area intended to maintain habitat connectivity and avoid urban encroachment into open space, fencing must either be expressly prohibited or carefully regulated through enforceable conditions.
Artificial nighttime lighting is a well-documented source of ecological disturbance. In open space and hillside environments, lighting can
Disrupt nocturnal wildlife behavior, including foraging and migration,
Alter predator-prey dynamics,
Displace sensitive species,
Interfere with bat, raptor, and pollinator activity, and
Create cumulative skyglow visible across open habitat areas.
Because the project includes funeral home facilities, circulation roads, parking areas, and a crematory structure, outdoor lighting is reasonably foreseeable and must be regulated.
The SEIR does not include a binding lighting specification or spectral limit. Absent such limits, future site design could introduce higher color temperature lighting that increases blue light emissions and skyglow impacts.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 3.3. Biological Resources
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Clear, measurable performance standards for fencing design and wildlife permeability,
Long-term monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, and
Adaptive management triggers if wildlife movement or habitat function is impaired.
The City must include a Condition of Approval requiring that:
Only wildlife-friendly fencing be permitted.
No solid fencing or impermeable walls be installed within habitat areas,
Maximum fence height be limited and include minimum ground clearance to allow small and medium mammal passage,
Barbed wire and razor wire be prohibited,
No fencing be allowed along habitat corridors without a wildlife permeability analysis, and
Any future fencing installed in response to feral pig impacts will be subject to biological review and designed to avoid habitat fragmentation.
Regarding Lighting, the SEIR must include a mitigation measure and Condition of Approval, including the provisions listed below.
All exterior lighting to be fully shielded and downward-directed,
A maximum correlated color temperature (CCT) of 2400 Kelvin,
A 2400 Kelvin limit is necessary because lower color temperature lighting contains substantially less blue wavelength emission, which is the primary driver of ecological disruption, insect attraction, bat disturbance, and skyglow. Blue-rich light (3000K and above) scatters farther in the atmosphere and is more disruptive to nocturnal wildlife behavior, particularly in open hillside environments adjacent to habitat and movement corridors. A 2400K cap is a feasible, commercially available standard that measurably reduces biological and cumulative nighttime impacts while still providing adequate illumination for safety.
Motion-sensor or timer controls,
Prohibition of uplighting and facade lighting; landscape lighting, and
A curfew for non-essential lighting.
These measures are necessary to ensure consistency with protection of biological resources and the Open Hillside designation, and to prevent incremental urbanization of the nighttime environment.
These requirements are necessary to ensure that the project does not function as a barrier within a larger open space and wildlife movement network, and to prevent incremental urbanization of the Open Hillside environment through reactive fencing measures.
Section 3.6. Geology and Soils
3.6.3.2 Geology and Soils, Project Impacts. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The SEIR says “grading permit review would ensure the Project would not result in new or significant impacts related to soil erosion.” However, onsite excavation for installation of recycled and potable water lines (10 feet apart) and use of an informal dirt road onsite for construction and maintenance of those water lines are not mentioned in this section. The trenching of a gas-line is not mentioned at all. How stable is the soil in the area of the dirt road? If geological investigations have not been conducted along the dirt road, such investigations must be done and the SEIR needs to include analysis of possible erosion due to those activities. These project elements (trenching, excavation, and burial of pipelines) also need to be added to the Grading Plan so they can be mitigated during review of that plan.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 3.6 Geology and Soils
The SEIR should be revised to include the following items.
Geotechnical investigations analyzing the stability of soil in the area of the dirt road.
Analysis of erosion due to onsite activities of construction and maintenance, and
Inclusion of excavation, trenching, and burial of pipelines to the grading plan.
Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.9.2. Hydrology and Water Quality, Regulatory Framework, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. With all the grading and construction of structures, it is not believable that only .22 acres of land will be disturbed by this project. More explanation is needed to clarify what is included in this calculation. Is construction of the crematory, shade structures, septic system elements (septic tanks, supplemental treatment units, and pump tanks), and pump houses and booster pumps for water delivery included? The NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California should apply to this project to minimize the discharge of pollutants from construction-related stormwater discharges.
3.9.3.1 Impacts and Mitigation, Thresholds of Significance. This section of the SEIR says “The funeral home/administrative building parking lots and the network of access roads throughout the cemetery would create impervious surfaces and require appropriate drainage measures.” Drainage and Low Impact Development (LID) measures also apply to the maintenance building, crematory, mausoleums, family mausoleums, shade structures, pump houses, septic tank, supplemental treatment unit and pump tanks, widening of McKean Road, etc. Furthermore, the applicability of such measures to the onsite recycled and potable water pipelines and the use of the dirt access road must be analyzed and should be discussed in the SEIR, explaining why LID measures are not needed, or specifying LID measures to be implemented. If the 2014 hydrology assessment did not adequately analyze all of the elements listed above, it should be updated to fully assess the hydrological impacts of this significantly altered project. In addition, especially due to the long timeframe for buildout of this project, the SEIR Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should explicitly list all the structures and surfaces that will require LID stormwater runoff best management practices and/or mitigation measures.
3.9.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation, Project Impacts. Regarding impact c) “Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ...”, the discussion of the Pipeline Infrastructure Component is incomplete. Please discuss potential impacts from the portion of the pipelines that start at the end of Laguna Ave and end at the Memorial Park Site and update findings of significant impacts as appropriate.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 3.9. Hydrology and Water Quality
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Clarify how the estimate of .22 acres of land disturbance was reached. Is construction of the crematory, shade structures, septic system elements (septic tanks, supplemental treatment units, and pump tanks), and pump houses and booster pumps for water delivery included?
Analyze the applicability of drainage and Low Impact Development (LID) measures to the onsite recycled and potable water pipelines and the use of dirt roads, explaining why LID measures are not needed, or specifying LID measures to be implemented.
The 2014 hydrology assessment should be updated to fully assess the hydrological impacts of this significantly altered project.
The SEIR Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should explicitly list all the structures and surfaces that will require LID stormwater runoff best management practices and/or mitigation measures.
Discuss potential impacts from the portion of the pipelines that start at the end of Laguna Ave and end at the Memorial Park Site and update findings of significant impacts as appropriate.
Section 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts
3.15.3.2 Utilities and Service Systems, Project Impacts. Estimated potable water demand at buildout and estimated single day peak wastewater flows at buildout are based on 15 employees working at the site, the same number of employees used for the 2014 EIR. Additional employees will be needed to operate the crematorium, which was not part of the 2014 EIR. There may also be increased delivery of bodies to the site. In general, it should be assumed there will be some usage of water and production of wastewater by drivers of delivery vehicles. Water usage and sewer capacity should be re-evaluated based on additional employees and deliveries and findings of less than significant impact updated to discuss the changes. Additional employees will also change the analysis for other impact categories (such as transportation) and analysis must be updated throughout the SEIR to address any additional impact.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 3.15 Utilities and Service System Impacts
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Estimate potable water demand from additional employees and delivery of bodies to the crematoriums not calculated in the 2014 EIR.
Water usage and sewer capacity should be re-evaluated based on additional employees and deliveries and findings of less than significant impact updated to discuss the changes.
Additional employees will also change the analysis for other impact categories (such as transportation) and analysis must be updated throughout the SEIR to address any additional impact.
Section 7. Alternatives
The SEIR does not evaluate a feasible electric crematory alternative, nor does it analyze whether elimination of on-site fossil fuel combustion could further reduce criteria pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Electric crematory technology is feasible. Electric retort systems are commercially available123 and operate without on-site natural gas combustion. While body combustion emissions would still occur, the elimination of natural gas burners would
Remove on-site combustion-related NOx and CO emissions,
Reduce localized criteria pollutant concentrations,
Eliminate direct fossil fuel GHG emissions associated with natural gas combustion, and
Avoid installation of new natural gas infrastructure.
Because the Project is located in an area designated Open Hillside and proximate to wildlife corridors, minimizing stationary combustion sources is environmentally preferable.
Electric crematory technology is consistent with Climate and GHG policies.
The SEIR includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (GHGRS) checklist (Appendix E), but it does not evaluate whether electrification of the crematory would better align the Project with local and statewide decarbonization policies.
California law and City climate policies prioritize the electrification of new development, avoidance of new fossil fuel infrastructure, and reduction of direct combustion sources where feasible. Furthermore, California Executive Order BB-55-18 establishes a statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. San Jose City Council has established a community carbon neutrality date of 2030.
An electric crematory alternative would be consistent with these policy objectives and could reduce lifetime GHG emissions compared to a natural gas–fired system.
CEQA Requires Consideration of Feasible Alternatives and mitigation measures. Under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, an EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening significant environmental effects.
Although the SEIR characterizes operational air quality impacts as less than significant, the Project introduces
A new stationary combustion source in a largely undeveloped hillside area,
Long-term fossil fuel infrastructure, and
Cumulative GHG emissions over a multi-decade operational life.
An electric crematory alternative could substantially reduce these impacts and should be evaluated to inform decision-makers.
Summary of Requested Revisions to Section 7. Alternatives
The SEIR should be revised to include the following:
Evaluate an Electric Crematory Alternative that eliminates on-site natural gas combustion,
Quantify the reduction in criteria pollutants and GHG emissions compared to the proposed gas-fired system,
Analyze electrical infrastructure requirements and feasibility, and
Identify whether electrification would eliminate or materially reduce operational air quality impacts and cumulative GHG emissions.
If electrification is found feasible, it should be adopted as a mitigation measure or incorporated into the Project design to reduce long-term environmental impacts.
Need for a Subsequent EIR
Under CEQA Guidelines, a Subsequent EIR is required when substantial changes to a project or new information show that the project may result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously analyzed.
Substantial Change: Land Use Context
The prior EIR was prepared when North Coyote Valley was expected to urbanize with large-scale employment and industrial development, and the environmental analysis assumed a landscape transitioning toward urban uses. Since then, the San José General Plan was amended in 2021 to designate North Coyote Valley for open space and agriculture, permanently protecting the valley from industrial development and prioritizing conservation and habitat connectivity. In recent years, significant areas of land in the valley and surrounding foothills have been acquired and protected by public agencies and land conservation organizations, reinforcing the area’s role as a regional wildlife corridor connecting the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range. In addition, AB 948 (Kalra) recognizes the statewide importance of protecting Coyote Valley as a critical wildlife corridor and directs state agencies to support conservation and habitat connectivity in the area, further reinforcing the shift toward permanent open-space protection since the prior EIR was prepared.
These changes represent substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken and constitute new information of substantial importance regarding the environmental setting. Under CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(2) and (a)(3), when changed circumstances or new information indicate that a project may result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously analyzed, the lead agency must prepare a Subsequent EIR. Because the earlier EIR assumed an urbanizing landscape rather than protected open space and wildlife connectivity, the environmental baseline used in that analysis is no longer accurate. The City should therefore prepare a Subsequent EIR to evaluate the project under the current land-use and environmental conditions in Coyote Valley.
Substantial Change: Added Gas Fired Crematorium
The SEIR relies heavily on the 2014 EIR, but the proposed 4,300-sf natural gas–fired crematory introduces a new long-term stationary combustion source and associated gas infrastructure that were not fully analyzed previously. The SEIR also does not provide a stable project description: the assumed 3,000 cremations per year and 2.05 MMBtu/hr firing rate appear only as modeling assumptions and are not binding operational limits. The number of retorts and potential expansion of equipment within the building are not specified, and the required natural gas infrastructure is not described.
Because emissions, energy demand, and traffic are directly tied to crematory throughput and infrastructure, the SEIR may underestimate the scope of environmental impacts under the Appendix G air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy criteria. These uncertainties constitute new information and potential changes in project intensity that were not evaluated in the prior EIR.
Requested action: The City should prepare the following items in a Subsequent EIR:
Evaluate the full scope of the project and its infrastructure and operations as the “whole of the action” using the current environmental baseline and land use context rather than assumptions from earlier planning scenarios.
Include a stable and enforceable project description, including clear limits on crematory capacity, operational intensity, and associated infrastructure, so that the environmental analysis accurately reflects the project being approved; and
Expand the alternatives analysis to include an electric crematory alternative that eliminate on-site natural gas combustion and associated gas infrastructure.
We thank you for consideration of our comments,
Shani Kleinhaus
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Dashiell Leeds
Conservation Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1 https://www.crematech.nl/electric-cremation/?lang=en
2 https://beleiv.com/how-does-electric-cremation-work/
3 https://www.cremation.green/how-electric-cremation-compares-to-other-cremation-services/