Public Comments

A CPRA records request seeking the administrative record for the current Gardens of Noor proposal and earlier related versions, including applications and plans, correspondence, environmental and technical review, public-notice records, meeting materials, recordings, consultant records, and project-tracking documents.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A resident submission opposing the approximately 1,800 burial plots described at the time. It raises concerns about traffic, noise, effects on nearby homes, road conditions, parking and enforcement, environmental regulation, and property values, and asks the County to deny the application.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A joint opposition letter focused on land use and infrastructure. It raises concerns about regional traffic, emergency-response demands, groundwater and environmental impacts, rural compatibility, and long-term effects on nearby properties. The writers state that their objections concern the project’s size, scope, location, and impacts rather than religion. Some project-size figures in the letter reflect an earlier version.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A forwarded copy of Alicia F.’s opposition letter raising concerns about project scale, roads and traffic, public services, groundwater, and community character. The letter references a 20,000-square-foot worship center and 50,000 burial plots, figures associated with an earlier project version rather than the current 2026 referral.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A standalone copy of Alicia F.’s opposition letter addressing project scale, roads and traffic, public services, groundwater, and community character. It references a 20,000-square-foot worship center and 50,000 burial plots, figures associated with an earlier project version rather than the current 2026 referral.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A letter opposing the cemetery proposal and questioning whether the use fits the surrounding rural area. It raises concerns about road condition and traffic, water resources, runoff and groundwater, and effects on nearby residents. Personal contact information in the publication copy is redacted.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A follow-up submission asking about groundwater and well protections, geotechnical and soil studies, traffic impacts, wildfire evacuation, perpetual maintenance, long-term buildout, and possible future expansion. It also raises concerns about public costs for roads, law enforcement, fire protection, environmental review, and drainage.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A submission urging a careful land-use and environmental review. It identifies traffic, emergency access, fire protection, water supply, groundwater, flooding, soil conditions, protected plants, rural compatibility, and effects on nearby properties as issues the County should evaluate before approval.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A joint opposition email raising concerns about traffic and whether local infrastructure can support the proposed use. The writers also question whether the project is appropriately located for the population they understand it would serve and ask that it be rejected or placed elsewhere. These are preserved as public-comment viewpoints, not verified findings.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An email thread in which the commenter continues to oppose the project after the Planning Department clarifies that the current proposal is approximately 1,800 gravesites and does not include a mosque. The commenter raises concerns about traffic, noise, rural and agricultural character, road conditions, drainage or sinkhole issues, and tax effects.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An email thread containing an initial objection based on older 50,000-plot information and a follow-up after the Planning Department clarifies that the current proposal is approximately 1,800 burial plots. The follow-up continues to raise concerns about traffic, emergency access, wildfire evacuation, rural character, and nearby properties.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An opposition email raising concerns about project size, fire protection, law-enforcement capacity, traffic, and property values. The County reply notes that the current proposal is approximately 1,800 plots; the commenter’s references to a mosque and 50,000 graves reflect an earlier project description.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A forwarded resident comment opposing the project and raising concerns about traffic, road capacity, water and sewage infrastructure, rural character, and groundwater. The submission references a 50,000-plot cemetery, an older project figure that does not match the current 2026 referral.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A series of emails transmitting video files of flooding and water movement near the proposed cemetery property, with dates in March and April 2023. The commenter asks that the material be shared for County review and raises concerns about recurring flooding, runoff, and site suitability.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A multi-page letter from local airport and property-owner associations reviewing the permit materials and urging rejection or stricter conditions. It raises issues involving application answers, oak and vegetation removal, land-use compatibility, traffic, drainage and flooding, municipal services, water availability, project scope, and airport-related limitations.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

Supporting California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau material concerning requirements for a cemetery Certificate of Authority. This is background regulatory material included with earlier submissions rather than a resident opinion letter.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A Green Burial Council reference titled “Grave Science Soil and Water,” discussing soil conditions, decomposition, drainage, and water considerations associated with green burial. It was included as supporting material in the earlier project record.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A second archived presentation of Green Burial Council material on soil and water in green burial, including soil permeability, decomposition, and drainage. It is supporting reference material rather than a project-specific County finding.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An email exchange in which an engineer states that he no longer works for the applicant or the project and asks that the record reflect that change. County staff responds that his name will be removed from the project list.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An opposition email thread concerning the earlier project version. The commenter raises concerns about growth, traffic, rural character, ranching, and the proposed religious building and cemetery. Planning staff replies that the cemetery use-permit project was then withdrawn and being resubmitted, and that the comments would be added to the record.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An email thread preserving a brief objection to a mosque or cemetery in the community, focused mainly on additional traffic and road capacity. Planning staff replies that the comments are part of the public record.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A longer comment submitted by Stacy R. as a private citizen. It opposes the earlier 20,000-square-foot religious-center and 50,000-burial-site proposal and raises zoning, road and traffic, agricultural and mining land-use, and Eagle’s Nest Airport compatibility concerns.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A short resident comment opposing the earlier mosque/cemetery proposal and stating that additional traffic would exceed what local roads could comfortably handle.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An opposition email concerning the earlier 20,000-square-foot religious-center and 50,000-burial-site proposal. It raises concerns about water, secondary roads, traffic, land-use conversion, effects on Eagle’s Nest Airport, and the airport land-use ordinance.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A brief opposition email supporting Eagle’s Nest Airport land-use restrictions and objecting to the earlier 20,000-square-foot religious-center and 50,000-burial-site proposal near Lambert and Carbondale Roads.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A duplicate or second archived copy of the March 28, 2023 opposition email supporting the airport land-use restrictions and objecting to the earlier 20,000-square-foot religious-center and 50,000-burial-site proposal.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An applicant/County email thread about bathroom and septic-system planning, how those improvements relate to the use permit, and the status of the incomplete application. County staff states in the thread that the application had not completed environmental review or received Planning Commission approval at that stage.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An applicant-side engineering email asking Environmental Health about bathroom capacity, septic or percolation work, and scheduling a soil profile for the cemetery proposal. It is project-development correspondence included with the earlier submission record.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A resident opposition email concerning an earlier version of the project. It raises questions about the proposed building, traffic, noise, lighting, water and sewage, drainage, cemetery operations, and effects on the surrounding rural community. Personal location and contact details in the publication copy are redacted.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

An unsigned or anonymous submission criticizing the project’s biological information. It raises concerns about oak woodland, Ione manzanita, Ione buckwheat, threatened or endangered plants, and the adequacy of environmental review, and calls for wildlife-agency consultation or permitting.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.

A forwarded applicant/County discussion about resubmittal requirements, septic-system design, project scope, and incomplete application items. It documents coordination among the applicant team, Planning, and Environmental Health during an earlier phase of the proposal.

This synopsis describes the submission; it does not verify the commenter’s factual assertions. Use Open to view the privacy-redacted source PDF.