Planning and Zoning Commission - Special Meeting

He turned this on over at the control station. Okay. You ready? Well, I don't know. My Maybe I turned mine off now. Where you at? today. I just came back from the city. All right. Okay. I got a meeting tomorrow. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to start the meeting now. So, everybody, please try to grab a seat. Morning for tomorrow.

This is a Will County Board Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 12th. This meeting is a county special PCZ meeting. additional public hearing due to court order under this 26 CH-79 allowing Paniff to cross-examine plaintiff pardon me to cross-examine and present evidence. So we're going to call this meeting to order and ask everybody to rise for a pledge of allegiance. Lead us in the pledge to the flag and stand and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Come tonight. Well, call please. Both ways. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I saw that here. Here. Roger Bettinhousen. Karen Warick here. Lewis Navarat here. And Matt Garland here. Five present. We have a quorum. And there are no minutes to approve tonight. What did she say? Uh, no minutes. Yeah. Okay.

Seeing as we have no minutes, we're going to start right into the zoning cases. So, um, this is Lincoln Solar Energy LLC. Uh, property owner details, owner record, etc. Uh Margie, would you care? Yeah, Margaret Kenny.

I can give a quick summary from the previous two meetings. Um the minutes have been approved last week at our planning and zoning commission meeting. So they are available and have been added to um the public record. Uh this zoning request is that special use permit for a commercial sol energy facility. You have um several variances. So 96 variances for the maximum ground cover plant height from 13 in to 36 in 96 variances for the number of required mowings from five times to one time and then three different variances for lot frontage to correct those three pins so that they are um conforming A1 lots. Um if I can have next slide just a quick vote history. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval um with a vote of 6 to zero for all the variance requests um on March 31st at the previous meeting. Um next slide. And then with the special use permit, the planning and zoning commission uh recommended denial ultimately voted two to four with um the special use for a commercial solar energy facility. uh with a recommendation of the four conditions. The land use and development committee heard um this request and added two additional conditions. Um so tonight what's before you you could agree to add those conditions as part of the record. Um once you hear the cross- examination and um additional evidence, if you wish to reconsider any of the votes you had, um you would make a motion to reconsider. And then um with the consent agenda for the variances, if you wanted to bring any of those separate, we are prepared to show those slides and help you um make those

independent consent or variance requests. Um and then next slide. is just the overall uh conceptual site plan of what they are proposing. Um, anything that's in the light blue, light green, um, indicates flood plane. And then the site specific conceptual site plans that were in the staff report actually go into detail, show the wetlands, the flood planes that they've done so far with the due diligence. Um, but further due diligence would be occurring to as part of their building permit. And then last slide just shows um, all their submittal items for this zoning application. So I think now uh the development team's going to come forward. Um if you wish um I guess we'll start and we'll start by swearing everybody in. All speakers who are who are speaking today, please raise your hand. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God. I do

start speaking. And one more caution everybody, please turn down your cell phone. We'll put it on airplane mode. Thank you. You may start, sir. You miss, can you hear me? Oh, there we go. Keep talking. He'll he'll adjust.

He'll adjust. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, good evening again, board. Uh happy to be back and members of the public. My name is again for the record is Ben Jacobe uh and I'm the attorney for the applicant here tonight. Um as uh as uh staff just noted, we're here following the remand of this matter from the county board which was at the direction of the circuit court. Uh the purpose of this hearing is to allow uh Mr. Becker to conduct cross-examination and present evidence on behalf of his clients with respect to the special use permit um that has been requested by the applicant. I do want to clarify that the the variances are not at issue tonight. The variances were voted on and that vote stands. Um the only issue then on remand to this board is the the special use permit for your consideration. Pursuant to the order of the court, uh Lincoln Solar, the applicant here, also supplemented the record um on May 8th with a memorandum uh that you have before you. That memorandum is uh titled subject uh Wilton Manhattan and Green Garden Townships Will County, Illinois Pride of the Prairie Solar Executive Summary Wetland delineation Supplemental to Updated Site Plans Memorandum. and I'm going to explain what that means, but for the record, that's the memorandum that has been supplemented into the record by the applicant. Uh, that was done on May 8th. Um, I'm going to briefly lay some foundation for this um for this memorandum with Mr. Calbus and enter that document into the record and then I'll tinder Mr. Calbus over to Mr. Becker uh for cross-examination. I think Mr. Calbus as the lead developer will answer most of the questions that Mr. Becker poses, but to the extent we need additional subject matter experts, uh we have those witnesses available

with us here tonight as well. The court order did set some guard rails. Um and some witnesses have been waved by Mr. Becker. Uh but I don't expect we'll run into any issues with that tonight, but just for the board's awareness, there is some streamlining that uh with agreement of council we've tried to um we've tried to make here tonight. Um, so with that, I want to conduct a brief direct examination of Mr. Calbus to lay the foundation for the memorandum that was entered into the record. And then again, I'll turn it over to Mr. Becker. Mr. Calbas, can you do a mic check for me? Check. I think the more you talk, the better it gets.

Okay. So, Mr. Calvis, I'm placing in front of you the document I just described titled Wilton Manhattan Green Garden Townships Will County, Illinois Pride of the Prairie Solar Executive Summary Wetland Delineation Supplemental to Updated Site Plans Memorandum. Uh, do you recognize this document in front of you? Yes, I do. And was this prepared under your supervision as the lead developer of this project? Yes, it was. I want to take one step back. The latest iteration of the site plan for this project is dated March 5, 2026. Is that correct? That's correct. And you filed the site plan uh with the application, the original site plan on November 19, 2025. Correct. Correct.

Can you briefly explain the difference between the March 5, 2026 site plan and the November 19 I'm sorry, strike that. What is Can you briefly explain the difference between the March 5, 2026 site plan and the November 19, 2025 site plan? Yes. At the request of the Will County Land Use Department, we added um three facts to our site plan. Uh one of being the approximate number of modules, the panel height, and panel spacing. Thank you. So did the uh November 19, 2025 site plan, did that delineate the wetlands? Yes, it did.

And how were the wetlands delineated for that site plan? Uh we utilized the national wetland inventory uh data set available from the US Fish and Wildlife Services to satisfy the requirements of the ordinance. The National Wetland Inventory, otherwise known as the NWI Desktop Review, is a data set, you said compiled by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Correct. And that data set is uh strike that is that data set routinely relied on by professionals in your field to to delineate wetlands?

Yes. Is it your understanding that the delineation of all wetlands in the November 19, 2025 site plan as identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in its NWI data set satisfies the county's ordinance requirement to show wetlands in your site plan? Yes. The November 2025 site plan has some field delineation as well. Is that correct? That's correct.

And how are field delineations generated? Uh we send environmental professionals to the site uh to walk the uh premises and uh based on their training uh and observations they determine if uh features uh that they uh measure the perimeter of meet the criteria for classification as a wetlands. Are field delineations seasonal in nature? Yes, they are. Meaning they can only occur in some seasons and not in others. Yeah, they can only occur in certain seasons when uh um certain vegetation is observable and they require landowner permission.

That's correct. Has field delineation been ongoing since the November 2025 site plane was generated? Yes, it has. Was it your understanding that you needed all field delineations to comply with the county ordinance requirement for the site plan? No, those field delineations are not required for the special use permit application. Those uh field delineations are uh being prepared uh in anticipation of the site development permit, the next step in the permitting process.

Okay, thank you. If the NWI data set from the US Fish Fish and Wildlife Service is reliable, then why do you do the field delineations? because they're required for that site development permit. Okay. Since November 2025, has the team continued to conduct field delineations? Yes. Have you completed the field delineations since November 2025? Since I'm sorry, the November 2025 site plan was generated. Yes. With our most recent mobilization in April, we have completed all delineation of wetlands on our site. So, you've now identified all wetlands in the project area.

Yes. the memorandum before you that we just referenced and entered as an exhibit before you that delineates those wetlands from the field delineation. Is that correct? That's correct. And this memorandum supplements the site plan dated November 19, 2025 and as updated on March 5, 2026. Is that correct?

Yes. And the site plan attached to the memorandum is designed to overlay the most recent iteration which is the March 5, 2026 site plan. Correct. Yes, it is. So, now just so we're clear in the record, um there exists a site plan that delineates every single wetland in the project area as delineated by both US Fish and Wildlife Service NWI data set and by your own field delineations. Yes. And just like all wetlands previously identified and testified to um in March, you will avoid the permanent impacts to all wetlands identified in this supplement. Is that correct? Yes, we will.

Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, with that I I believe the uh the foundation has been laid for this exhibit and we'll request that it be entered into evidence and we will tender the witness to Mr. Becker.

Uh, first of all, uh, I am Steven Becker. I am the attorney representing the plaintiffs in this matter. And before I begin my cross-examination of Mr. Calboose. I just want to make an objection on the record to the introduction of this document as well as to all of the testimony that was given. The order from Judge Brandon was simply for the plaintiffs to conduct crossexamination and to present evidence. There is nothing in the judge's order on the temporary restraining order allowing the applicant now to attempt to supplement the record with additional information that they did not present before. So I will be back in court on Thursday uh with Earthrise. Uh I will raise this with the judge because we did discuss this at the court hearing and it's my uh construction of what she said that the applicant is not allowed to put in additional evidence at this point. So that's something I guess we'll have to take up to the court. But I just want the record to reflect that the plaintiffs object uh to this document as well as to any testimony given with respect to it because it is outside the uh court remand. So with that, uh, I will begin cross-examination of, uh, Mr. Calboose. Uh, Mr. Kelbus, is it correct that Lincoln Solar Energy LLC, the Earthrise, filed a single SUP application ZC25129 that includes 96 separate property parcels encompassing approximately 6,99 acres extending a solar facility project footprint across three different townships, Green Garden Township, Wilton Center Township, and Manhattan Township. Yes.

And would it be correct to say that if passed by the Will County Board, your solar project would be the largest solar facility within the entire state of Illinois? If you know, Mr. Kabas, I don't know the answer to that. I don't suspect it. It would be. Right. And why did Lincoln Solar Energy LLC choose this particular site for the solar project? I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question? I had trouble hearing. Oh, sure. Um, why did Lincoln Solar Energy LLC choose this particular site? We chose this particular site because of the ability to interconnect at our uh natural gas peaking plant in Manhattan.

And was it also because Will County's special use ordinance permits non-ontiguous parcels to be included in a single SUP application? That was not one of the factors that was taken into consideration. Was one of the factors that was taken into consideration the fact that you're proposed facility is near the massive Hillwood data center. A a massive excuse me, what gas line? Oh, um I was asking is one of the reasons that you chose this site because it is near the Hillwood data center in Joliet.

The data center. The No, it was not. All right. And were there other available sites for you with less water resources that you could have chosen for this project? Our primary consideration in selecting the site was the proximity to the natural gas peaking facility. And is it correct that the cost for the Lincoln Solar Energy Earths project is estimated at around $1.2 billion? Um, we haven't made a final determination on the cost yet. um uh that's still uh being ne there are still factors being negotiated right now.

Could you give me then an estimate of what the cost is according to your knowledge? I mean it it could vary substantially. So I would really wouldn't feel comfortable giving an estimate at this point. Can you estimate whether it would be over a billion dollars? It

it could be over or or under a billion dollars. And uh would you agree that uh since Lincoln Solar has decided to pursue a single SUP application uh which includes 96 non-ontiguous property parcels that if one or more of those parcels is deemed to be unsuitable, the entire application would fail. that that I'm sorry that calls for Are you asking legally under the ordinance whether that would be a determination or are you asking whether the project is viable with one or fewer with fewer with one parcel fewer?

Yes, they're correct. The latter. The latter. So would the project be viable if one parcel is deemed unsuitable? Deemed unsuitable by whom? Good question. I I'm not sure we understand the scope of your question, Mr. Becker. Could you rephrase it? Yes, I can. So, uh let's say for example that one of the parcels is deemed um to be unacceptable uh by by the board and let's say you have another 10 properties connected to that since this is some somewhat of a serpentine uh structure that you have for the project. Um would that eliminate all of those uh adjoining properties if one is deemed unsuitable?

That sounds like a legal question that I'm really not qualified to answer. Right. And um with respect to your community outreach, uh did Earthrise representatives attend any public meetings in Green Garden Township to answer questions and explain to local residents its proposed plans for the solar facility. We did not attend any public meetings. We met with several representatives from the uh the township. And why did you choose not to uh have any public meetings in Green Garden Township?

Uh one of the decisions uh one of the reasons why was because of uh the hostility that um we observed online from the township. We didn't think that uh a meeting would be a a forum conducive to an open exchange of information. And uh did Earthrise representatives attend any public meetings in Wilton Center um to answer questions or explain to local residents its proposed plan for the solar facility.

We did not attend any meetings in Wilton uh at Wil um Wilton Township. We did hope hold an openhouse meeting uh and invited members of Wilton Township, Green Garden Township, and Manhattan Township uh to ask questions and um shared information with them. And why did you not conduct a public meeting in Wilton Township? The same reasons uh that uh I mentioned for Green Garden. We did not believe that it would be a conducive environment to open exchange of uh ideas. Mr. Bear, when you say host an or when you say attend a meeting, what do you mean by that?

Well, I I was asking if if you conducted a meeting um in that particular township for the public to discuss your project with the residents and the local officials other than the open house that was described. Okay. We did we did host an open house in the in Manhattan Township and members from uh of all townships were invited to attend. Okay. So, it was only in Manhattan Township then that you held a uh a public information meeting. The the public information meeting that we hosted was in Manhattan Township. Correct. Right. And did you not hold the meeting in Wilton Township because of the perceived hostility of the residents as well?

No, that was based on the availability of a suitable facility. Um, next I'm um going to refer to what we have marked as exhibit number one in the packet that we provided to you. And Mr. Calibus, uh, have you seen uh, this document before? Are you referring to the development agreement? Yes, that's correct. Yes. All right. And is this a uh, earthrise development agreement? It appears to be an Earthrise development agreement. All right. And does this appear to be a true and correct copy of the document uh used by Earthrise?

Uh based on just my cursory analysis, yes. And on page one of that particular document, uh does it state up in the right hand corner that the document is confidential? Yes, that's correct. And uh referring now to uh clause number 14 on the second page. Uh does this uh address the subject of confidentiality? Yes. And is this what we would normally refer to as a non-disclosure agreement? That that's I'm sorry that's a legal conclusion. Councilman, I was just asking him generally if he knows what this clause pertains to. Well, I think the clause speaks for itself.

All right. Excuse me, Mr. Becker. Were we given any of these papers that you're referring to? We were up there. Yes. Okay. I haven't found it yet. Neither memorandum. You have? Yeah, I've got it. That's the Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I just Yeah. Would like to follow along. Me. Yeah, most of these documents were going for the witnesses. We just provided several copies in case you had any questions later on. I copy. But

so this particular uh clause um why did you impose uh this particular uh non-disclosure clause on the owners in these agreements? Well, hold on. Hold on, Mr. Kabas. So the document that we're looking at right now marked as exhibit one is an unexecuted document addressed to the Donna J. Robinson trust dated January 8th 2010. So there's no executed document that didn't do us tonight

being inquired on. So I think the question needs to be rephrased. The question is in clause 14 in your development agreement. This is a sample. So I assume that all of the agreements are similar language. Is that correct? They are substantially consistent but some of them do have bespoke terms. Right. Then why why do you basically impose a gag order on the owner when you enter when you enter into these types of agreements? It's I don't know if it's a gag order. I think it's a confidentiality clause that you're referring to, but the witness can ask the question with that with that in mind.

Well, I would like Mr. Calibus to please answer the questions rather than the attorney. Well, council, you council, that's that's fine. Mr. Calbus will answer the questions, but when you phrase it as a non-disclosure agreement or a gag order, you're putting words into his mouth. So, the the provision number 14 is titled confidentiality. There are some terms if you'd like to ask him about the scope of that term, then I'm sure Mr. Calvis would be happy to answer. Yeah. So, so why do you prevent uh the owners from disclosing any information about your agreement? Well, developing power generation infrastructure is a competitive business and and we view the terms of our agreement as a competitive advantage and so we uh intend to protect those terms.

So, why why can't the owner disclose that they have an agreement with you? I I the owner is not agreeing to not disclose that they have an agreement with this. They're agreeing not to disclose the terms of the agreement. So they could they could still tell anyone that they had an agreement with you. Is that correct? I'm going to object. Are you calling for a legal conclusion from this agreement? No, I'm just asking for a basic factual answer, please. It sounds like you're asking him to interpret the document. If he's unable to answer questions, then I'd ask you please provide someone else who can.

If you're asking for a legal conclusion, then you'll have to ask that in a lawyer. But if you're asking for a factual answer on what the document says, then that is something we can answer. Yes. And I just asked him a simple question of whether the owner would be procluded from revealing that they have an agreement with Earthrise. And I think he answered that question. I didn't hear an answer. He could please repeat his answer.

Yeah. The owner is not forbidden from disclosing that they have an agreement with Earthrise. They're forbidden from disclosing the terms of the agreement and uh other uh other proprietary information about how the site is developed, but not that they have an agreement with Earthrise as he stated. And how does this type of uh agreement and this clause square with Earthrise's um ability to be transparent?

We don't think that protecting trade secrets is uh is at odds with that state with those statements at all. Right. Next, I would like to refer uh to what has been marked as exhibit number two. And this is um a solar lease and uh easement agreement. Um and this is in pertinent part. Have you seen this uh document before? Yes, I have. And is this uh Earthrise solar lease and easement agreement? Um is that's what it is in pertinent part. Is that correct? It appears to be. Yes.

All right. And does this appear to be a true and correct copy of the document generally used by Earthrise in pertinent part? Based on my cursory analysis sitting at the table this evening, it does. All right. And turning your attention to pages four and five of exhibit number two. Uh specifically clause 1.1C uh does the lease define the project on the top of phase 5 to include battery technology facilities? Uh yes, that's stated in the agreement.

So is it correct that at any time in the future you could seek to have battery storage units placed on any of the properties that you have secured via such a lease? we would have to return to uh the county and seek permission uh to do so. But based on this agreement, you would have a right to uh pursue battery facilities. Is that correct?

When we uh begin a project and we begin securing uh site control, uh we like to reserve our options. And so, yes, we we do include that and as the project firms up, as uh plans firm up and um we begin to rule things out. And so we do not have any plans to develop uh a battery facility today, but you could in the future. Correct. We could in the future, but we would have to return to the county to permit it. Right. And isn't it correct that battery storage facilities pose a huge public safety risk, especially around residential homes and subdivisions?

I don't believe so. No. And um why didn't you highlight this aspect of your lease and east agreement uh in your application to the county? Can you say I didn't hear the question? Can you repeat the question? Sure. I I sure can. So why did you not highlight this aspect of your lease and easement agreements in your application submitted to the county?

Because we're not permitting a battery energy storage facility. And now I'd like to uh turn your attention to Earthrise's project narrative which is attached as exhibit three um in our exhibit list. And this was also attached as exhibit B to the Will County PZC final staff report. And I would ask if you could uh look at page 20 under the title of project description. And my question is uh is there is it described as the solar project being a design concept? Yes, there is.

Right. And turning your attention to uh the March 23rd, 2026 Willil County final staff report um which is exhibit number four in your packet. Um throughout the report, land use staff referred to Earthrise project as a conceptual site plan. Uh for example, on page five, the final staff report stated, quote, "Based on the concept site plan, an estimated 16,921 panels, that is 1,190, 868 modules will be located on the requested special use area, which is 6,99 acres. The attached site plan shows the proposed panel layout across the project. And again on page five, the staff report notes, quote, "Perard the conceptual site plan and GIS aerials, the entire era area is vastly agricultural farmland, wooded areas, and residential sites. My question is, is the plan Earthrise submitted uh for review to Will County seeking SUP application a conceptual site plan or is it a final site plan?" It's a conceptual site plan.

So, is it correct that when the county board votes on your application, it will actually have no idea what the final site plan will actually look like? I don't agree with that statement. No.

Well, if this is just a conceptual site plan, how can the county board vote on it if it could be changed later? Well, ultimately the land use department will have to determine if our final site plan substantially complies with the special use the site plan contemplated in our special use permit application. Okay. All right. Next, I'd like to refer refer you again to exhibit number four, which the final staff report. And there the staff listed a LISA score. Is it correct that uh the USDA's soil conservation services acronym LISA stands for land evaluation and site assessment?

That's my understanding.

Right. Regarding the LISA score for the Earthrise project, the Will County uh final staff report on page 8 stated, quote, "Er the natural resource information report, a Lisa score was calculated 236, placing the project footprint in the essential farmland category. The will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District recommends preserving essential farmland for parcels with a Lisa score of 185 or above. A copy of the report is attached. Is it correct that the overall LISA score for the farmland encompassed in the footprint of the Earthrise Solar Project is more than 50 points above the Lisa score that the Will South Cook soil and water conservation recommends for preservation of essential farmland?

Based on the report that I'm reading here, yes, it appears to be all right. Would you agree that the Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District made a finding that based on the high LISA score of 236, the farmland being considered for this project is essential farmland that should be pre preserved and should not be converted into another use? Yes. Why then um are you seeking to have your project placed on this prime farmland? Well, as I mentioned, our site um selection was preliminarily informed or essentially informed by proximity to the natural gas peaking plant.

Would you agree that Illinois farmland is some of the best farmland in the world? I'm not a farmer, so I'm really not qualified to make that uh statement.

Right. Um the March 23rd, 2026 Will County final staff report uh stated on page 8 the following quote. While the Illinois Department of Agriculture follows the Federal Farmland Preservation Acts Lisa score greater than 225, it should be preserved as farmland. This project does not appear to be utilizing federal funds and would not be subject to complying with this requirement. Um however during uh earlier presentation at the March 30th 2026 PZC hearing um Mr. Jacobe indicated that the Earthrise project faced a time constraint related to when the building of the project needed to be started. Um if you are aware what specific time constraints for the building of the project uh uh are incumbent upon Earthrise.

We're not the start of the project is not under any time constraint. I'm not a I'm not familiar with the statement Mr. Jacobe made.

In 2025, the Trump administration substantially altered the requirements for federal funds for uh solar rebates and tax credits for solar facilities from former President Joe Biden's inflation reduction act when solar companies build new facilities. Under the Trump administration, in order to be eligible to receive uh federal inflation reduction act funds, a solar project must be started by July 4th, 2026, and the project must be completed by the end of 2027, while solar projects started prior to July 4th, 2026 must be completed within four years. Is it correct that in your project narrative, which is exhibit 3, page 25, Earthrise stated, quote, "Construction of Pride of the Prairie Solar is expected to last for 18 to 20 months, starting in the summer of 2026 with an inservice date projected in the first quarter of 2028."

Uh, that statement is accurate that you quoted. However, uh I think there's a typo in there and we actually meant 18 to 24 months. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Is a Lincoln Solar Earthrise going to apply for federal fund rebates and tax incentives from the inflation reduction act under the new eligibility requirement timelines defined by the Trump administration. We'll make that determination on an appropriate time. So, you may be seeking federal incentives. Is that correct? It's possible. Yes. All right. Um I'm sorry, but those aren't the same as federal funds. I'm okay. Thank you for the question. Can you please clarify, Mr. Kas?

Yes. Yes. We we will will not we're not we will make a determination on seeking tax credits at an appropriate time. um if so and you do seek those funds, how much do you expect to receive um in these uh tax incentives? I'm not a tax expert, so I'm not qualified to answer that question.

All right. Um the Lisa score for these 96 Earthrise solar property partials was 236. Is it correct that since uh Lincoln Energy will be seeking these sack tax incentives that the project will be subject uh to the Illinois Department of Agricultures rules for preserving essential farmland on the project with a lease score of greater than 225? I'm not familiar with that policy and I'm really really not aware

that's calling for a legal conclusion but Mr. Calvis I believe the answer is no. I'm turning your attention now back to Earthrise project narrative which is exhibit number three on page 32. Is it correct that as early as 2022 you conducted an outreach and were in contact with Will County about this particular solar project? Uh that was before my tenure at Earthrise and so I can't confirm or deny that. But uh is it correct that your project narrative in fact indicates that?

I would agree with that statement. Are you aware of uh who Earthrise reached out to in Will County in 2022 regarding your project? I'm not. And are you aware in 2022 whether Lincoln Solar or Earthrise lobbyed Will County officials uh to change its special use application ordinance to allow non-ontinuous properties in a single special use application for solar projects? I'm not aware.

And Mr. Dr. Calbus, are you aware uh whether Lincoln Solar Energy Earthrise is the first solar company coming before the Will County Board under the new 2023 Will County ordinance change allowing non-ontiguous properties in a single special use application submitt? If you know I I don't know the answer to that. Right.

Then next I would like to uh turn your attention to exhibit number five, please. And this was also appendix L uh C-313 at page 31 attached to your application. I would like to focus your attention on two properties just north of the Prairie Schooner subdivision. Um this is my client uh Donna Robinson's property. This is parcel 545 uh which shows a black dot which is her water well and the Earthrise solar property of parcel 546 just north of Miss Robinson's property. Can you explain why Earthrise chose a property that is biseected or cut in half by both Prairie Creek and a huge connected flood plane uh thereby eliminating solar panel installation on half of this property? And just before you answer, I just want to clarify for the record, we are looking at the March 5, 2026 iteration of the site plan. And Mr. Becker, you said parcel 546.

545 and 546. Yes. I'm sorry. 544 and 546. 5 second here. Yeah. Yes. The parcel right above uh 545 there. Okay. Right above 545. I see 542. Is that the parcel you're referring to? Yes, that's correct. And can you repeat your question? I'm not sure I followed.

Yes, sure. My question is, can you explain why Earthrise chose a particular property that is biseected or cut in half by both Prairie Creek and a huge connected flood plane um thereby eliminating solar panel installation on half of the property.

This parcel um is suitable for suitable for development. Um so as you can see that there is a substantial amount of generation cited on this And um after rain events on Miss Robinson's property, this particular line is is often flooded from the Prairie Schooner subdivision yards. Um, since there is both a swale and a listed stream coming south toward Miss Robertson's property and towards Prairie Schooner, why did Earthrise engineers place a series of solar panels between these two bodies of water um where her north property line is regularly flooded? you know, when we develop a uh a site plan for submittal with our permit application, it's usually a max build scenario because we know that we're going to continue to study the site. Uh and in fact, this particular parcel, I can tell you that we have continued to study the site and um we are ultimately in the most recent uh iterations of our site plan, we do not have panels south of that uh flood zone. Okay.

So, is it correct then based on that, Mr. Calibus, that what was originally submitted to the county application is no longer accurate.

It doesn't mean that the what's been submitted is no longer accurate. It simply means that we have refined our understanding of the site since then and ultimately that will be evaluated during the site development permit application review. Now turning your attention now to exhibit number five um uh which is appendex L at C-306 and this is page 24. I would like to focus your attention on three properties. Uh, two of my clients properties, client Jim Miklowwitz, number 193 and client Russell Wilkkey, uh, number 194, as well as the Earthrise parcel number 207, which is just north of my client's properties. Again, since Earthrise is partial 207 is bisected uh by a large FEMA flood plane and has water swailes. Um why would Earthrise choose this particular property to uh put solar panels on?

You know, as I mentioned before, uh we believe that uh this parcel is suitable for development. Um and when we submit a permit application, it's a max build scenario. So, we're reserving the right. Um again uh we've continued to study this and in our most recent iterations uh a significant portion of those panels are not present in the site plan. For example, west of that flood zone there are no panels and a substantial portion east of it have been removed in our most recent uh iteration of our layout. All right. Now I'd like to turn your attention again to exhibit five. Uh this time it was appendix L at C-302 and this is going to be page 20. And I'd like to refer you to parcel number 57 uh which is owned by the Hydricks and these are dog breeders who show at the Westminster Dog Show and have sold to celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and other celebrities. After realizing their 10 acre property and kennels were to be completely surrounded by Earthrise, um they approached Earthrise's director of development, which I believe was you, Mr. Calibus, to see if you would buy their property. And you apparently told her you were not interested. Is that correct?

That's correct. Um, can you explain why Earthrise uh parcel number 58, which is just north of the Hydrick property, was chosen for the project since it has stream or creek running straight through the middle of the property and has a flood plane? Well, significant portion of that parcel is suitable for development.

And uh taking a look now at the Hydrick's property, which is parcel number 57. um their home and dog kennels would be entirely surrounded by the panels to the north, south, east, and west sides of their 10 acre property. Um does Lincoln Solar consider this to be acceptable business practice to completely surround a residential home?

When I met with uh Ms. Hydrickch. I showed her the most recent uh iterations of our application which showed that panels are uh the closest area I think close to 450 ft to the south. Uh and that you know to in the others I think we're looking at uh 750 ft to the northeast and over a,000 to the west. And so, as I mentioned before, when we submit a layout, uh, uh, as part of our permit application, it's a max build scenario, but as we can study the area, um, we make a determination, um, and, uh, you know, our our layouts generally shrink as it has in this case. And I've shared those designs with Miss Hydrickch.

Right. Now, I' uh, again refer you to exhibit five. Again, this will just be one last property which is one of our plaintiffs. And this is at C-308. It is page 26. And I'm referring to parcel number 393 and Earthrise parcels 387 and 389. Again, since Earthrise parcels 387 and 389 are bisected by a stream andor creek and a large flood plane, I ask again why this particular property was chosen for the solar project. A substantial portion of that property is suitable for development.

All right. And my clients Jim and Melanie Burk's horse farm is parcel 393 as you can see from the map. And the Burks 5 acre horse farm is surrounded by solar panels on three sides, the east, west, and the south. Again, does uh Lincoln Solar Energy um consider this to be an acceptable business practice to surround a home and horse farm on all three sides of the farm.

We base our sighting and panels based on requirements and we'll adhere to all requirements set forth um under the Will County solar ordinance. And turning your attention to exhibit five again at C-307. Uh an Earthrise property parcel which includes five different and distinct wetlands on a single Earthrise parcel is present. Can you explain why Lincoln Solar would choose this particular parcel as suitable for its solar facility um when there are at least five different wetlands on the particular property? Sorry, Mr. Becker. Which parcel? Um, this is it's at C-307.

Yep. Which parcel? You have the number?

It is to the middle left on that particular page between Lraange and Bruns Road. At the difficulty of the copy is very dull. I don't the northwest southwest which quadrant. Oh, okay. Here.

This is not it's not the page. Sorry. Sorry. It's just a little bigger. Yeah. Can you read the number at 522 or sorry 229 follow? Okay. Knowing the area. So for the record, you have this map. 229. So we're looking at page C307 and parcel 229. Mr. Becker. Yes, that's correct. So my my question was since this parcel contains at least five different wetlands, why was this chosen for the construction of solar panels?

A substantial portion of that parcel is suitable for development.

And um will these particular solar panel areas be fenced off? Yes. And how will then any wildlife be able to access the particular wetland areas? Uh generally speaking, um our fences will have a gap in the bottom of the fence that will allow wildlife to move in and out of the um project area. And would that allow deer to enter those particular areas? Uh no. Okay. Well, I let me amend that and say it'll substantially deter uh I can't really speak for what the deer will ultimately decide to do. So, the buck stops with them. Is that what you're saying?

Oh, man. Sorry about that. um in the uh October 17th uh 2025 ECOAT IDNR report and this is number 260552 which is attached as exhibit six in our packet. Um, under its natural resource review results, it states, quote, "The following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the project location." And it lists on number four uh that one of those uh particular species is the shorthaired owl. Is that correct?

That's what the report states. And isn't it correct that according to the IDNR, if an applicant becomes aware of the presence of an endangered species which is encountered during the project's implementation, that the applicant must inform the agency and comply with applicable statutes and regulations.

Yes. Um, at the March 30th, 2026 PCC hearing, uh, during the public comment period, several residents noted that an endangered short-haired owl with a broken wing had been found in a Manhattan farm field, then rescued and brought to a rehabilitation facility for eventual release back into the former habitat. Since the habitat of this endangered shorthaired owl includes farm fields, have you contacted the IDNR to make them aware of the existence of the short-haired owl uh and made any further uh plans or submissions to the county with respect to that?

We've consulted with IDNR about our project area. But my question was uh once you learned of the existence of a endangered species within your project area, did you contact IDNR after that? I think I'm sorry I couldn't hear your answer. Yeah, that we we don't have to inform IDNR until construction has actually been begun on the project. And I think we're actually talking about a shorteared owl, not a short-haired owl.

Yes, the short eared owl. Yes, that's what I said. Um, I'm uh now referring you to exhibit number seven, which is a screenshot of a Facebook page of the Flint Creek Rehabilitation Center, which evidences a photograph of an endangered species in Illinois, a female short-haired owl, which was rescued from a farm field in Manhattan with a broken wing. And if such an endangered species is uh living in Manhattan, uh would this preclude you from constructing any solar panels in that area?

Can you can you clarify your question? Are you asking are you implying that this this um owl was discovered on our in our project area or just within the village of Manhattan? Uh it was in with in the Manhattan area is the information um from the Facebook page from the rehabilitation center. So my question was um if there is a short-eared owl in the Manhattan area which is part of your project area, would you be precluded from building your solar panels there?

I do I do want to be clear. Um, if the question is, is the company procluded from building solar panels in a project area if the owl were found in the project area? Is that is that the question? Yes. I don't think that's correct. Okay. Cuz I don't think we've established the fact this owl was in the project area. I think we've established that it's in the Manhattan Township area. That's correct. But it Okay, that that's right. Okay. So, but hypothetically speaking, if an owl were found in the project area, what the protocol would be at that point? Is that the question? Yes. So, would you have to go back for example to IDNR and uh find out what they uh would allow you to do in that particular region?

Our first step would be to consult with IDNR. And isn't the identification of endangered species one of the requirements for compliance under the solar statute? Say that again. Yes. Isn't the identification of endangered species one of the requirements for compliance under the solar statute? I think the solar statute requires uh an ecoat consultation. Is that the question? Yes. I'm asking if the identification of an endangered species is one of the requirements under the solar statute.

I'm not clear what you mean by identification of the species. Can you clarify what you're asking? Yes. If if you have the presence of an endangered species within your project area, uh you have to identify that to IDNR as part of compliance with the solar statute. Hold on. Can you can you identify where in the solar ordinance that provision is? I'm uh I was just asking you if that is in fact a requirement. Can you identify where in the ordinance that requirement is? No, I'm I'm asking you. I'm not I'm not telling you what it is. Well, I think the ordinance isn't it required to have an ecoat um to in order to get your uh solar application deemed complete.

So, what the what the solar ordinance says, and this, by the way, is section 155-9.245 245 Q one. I is that applications must include the results and recommendations from consultation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources obtained through the ecological compliance assessment tool ecoat or comparable successor tool. Is that what you're asking? Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Okay, then that's the answer. Um, and with respect to the ECOAT, um, uh, under the disclaimer on page two, it states the Illinois Natural Heritage, uh, database cannot provide a conclusive statement, uh, on the presence or absence or condition of natural resources if additional protected resources are encountered during the project's implementation. compliance with applicable statutes and regulation is is required. So, isn't it correct that if you become aware of the presence of an endangered species in your project area that you were required to make another submitt to IDNR?

Another submitt. Yes. I think we can explain what the protocol would be if an endangered species were discovered in the project area. Is that the is that the correct? Yes. If you could please explain what the protocol is. Okay. Mr. Kabas, if an endangered species is discovered in the project area, what is the protocol to contact IDNR? And uh did you uh contact IDNR after you learned from the last PCC meeting that there was the presence of an endangered species in the Manhattan area?

And again, the the fact that is not in evidence is that that endangered species was discovered in the project area. I think we've agreed that there is no fact and evidence that the species was was discovered in the project area, but that it was discovered in the Manhattan Township area. Is that okay? That is correct. Your project is included in the Manhattan Township area. Correct.

Well, the project is in the Manhattan Township area, correct? But the project area is not entirely the Manhattan Township area. So, there's not a 100% overlap. So I think if the question is if an owl hypothetically if an endangered species owl is found in the project area what is the protocol the answer has been we contact ID&R if an endangered species is found outside the project area but within Manhattan Township then that protocol is not the same. All right I'll ask a simpler question. Do birds fly? Yes some birds do. Thank you. Are we still talking about the owl? Yes.

Okay.

Um, now I'm going to move on to another area. Um, ask did you ever reach out uh to any of the local adjoining land owners who surround the 96 Earthrise property partial footprint to discuss individual pre-existing flooding issues that they were having uh prior to uh submitting your application? uh our outreach to some of the uh adjoining or neighboring land owners um was to discuss drain tile in particular. That's one of the reasons that we reached out to uh the adjoining neighbors. And uh did you ever um go speak with Green Garden or or Wilton Township or Manhattan Township officials to discuss existing stream flood plane or flooding or wetland issues prior to submitting your application?

I mean those subjects have come up in conversations that we had with officials from those townships. And did those discussions come prior to you filing your application or afterwards? Some of them did. Uh some of them did which way? Some of them did uh occur prior to submitting the application. All right. And would you agree that the 6,099 uh acre 96 parcel solar project is filled with extensive water resources including perennial intermittent ephemeral streams, large flood planes and delineated and far from wetlands. I would agree. I would say that some of those features are present in the pro project area.

Okay. And would you agree uh that the Earthrise Pride of the Prairie project is located in or near headwaters of Fork Creek, Prairie Creek, and Hickory Creek? Yes, I would agree. And uh are you aware that Fork Creek, Prairie Creek, and Hickory Creek and portions of those creeks are considered waters of the US under the Clean Water Act? Uh I'm not aware of that. No. All right. And how many different uh creeks or streams are located within the footprint of uh the 6,99 acre solar project?

I can't uh answer that question without uh referring to our application package. I'd have to count them up. All right. And what is the definition of a perennial stream? A perennial stream? Yes. Uh I don't I don't have the a good definition to give you tonight. Okay. Um, how many of the 96 Earthrise parcels contain perennial streams? Uh, I can't answer that question right now off the top of my head. Right. And what is the definition of an intermittent stream? Are you are you referring to a statutory definition or what what is the definition that you're calling for?

Yeah. Well, it's it's listed on all of your maps. So, I'm asking what the definition is of an intermittent stream. Oh, from the site plan, correct? Okay. Intermittent stream I would um I think describe although uh as a stream that um sometimes has uh discernable water flow in it and sometimes doesn't. Okay. And how many of the Earthrise 96 parcels contain intermittent streams? I can't answer that question off the top of my head. And what is the definition of an ephemeral stream? I would I'm sorry, council. Where's this on the site plan? Um, it's it's in the little uh code that's on the side of the maps in the legend area.

So, there's a legend that has various colors uh indicating what they are on the maps. I do see that. I see streams. Yeah, I'm looking for perennial streams and intermittent streams. I'm not seeing that, but I could be missing it. All right. It's listed in appendix L um to your application. Okay. Can you give me a page reference? I I can't right off hand. It's it's all throughout the appendix. I

mean, I'm for example, I'm looking at page Rob, am I missing this? I'm looking at page C302. and streams.

Oh, I I do not see those terms identified on, for example, page C302, which I've Well, we'll just move on then if if you don't know what the definition is. Um, what is the definition of a flood plane? Of a Excuse me. Pardon? Can you repeat the definition of what? Oh. Oh, yes. A flood plane.

A flood plane is an um basic understand is a a floodway. Uh flood plane is an area where flooding uh that a area that is prone to flooding. And how many of the 96 earthrise parcels contain flood planes? I can't give you a count of that. I'd refer you to the site plan. All right. Um, is it correct that according to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that 90% of Illinois wetlands have been destroyed and lost uh due to development, leaving only 10% of wetlands remaining in Illinois? I'm not aware of any of that statistic. No.

Right. Uh, why are wetlands uh so important to the environment and to surrounding land owners? Um, I'm I'm going to object on the foundation. If you if you know, Rob, go ahead and answer. I mean, you're asking me to speculate about something that's really not, in my understanding, pertinent to the application. Do do you do you list wetlands on your application, M? We do. And that's not important, you think? Not what you said, council. That's not what I said. Yeah. And what did you say again? What was the question? My question was why are wetlands important to the environment?

When you say important, can you explain what you mean by important? I mean that that's a pretty broad statement. Sure, I'll be happy to clarify that. Are you aware of how many gallons of water a 1 acre wetland holds? I'm not. It would really depend on the depth of the uh of the wetland to Would you be surprised to learn that they hold up to one to one and a half million gallons of flood water? Which wetland are we referring to? All wetland. I'm together summed up. Yeah. A oneacre wetland. Okay. Oneacre wetland. I'm I'm I'm just having a hard time following the foundation for the question. I'm not sure what you're asking. I'll move on.

Okay. What criteria need to be present to indicate the presence of a wetland? Uh there are three factors and so that depends on uh soil characteristics, vegetation and hydraology. All right. And of the 6,900 uh 6,99 acre earth parcels, how many acres contain hydric soil? Um, I don't have that exact number off the top of my head, but I believe that number based on the EcoAT is over 2,000 acres.

All right, I can clarify that for you further. Um, turning your attention to the Will South Cook soil and water report, which is NRI 5824, uh, which is exhibit 8 in the packet on page 166. Yes, the last page of the exhibit. Um, on page 166, it states under the heading hydric soils, quote, "Hydric soils present on site, approximately 2,152.3 acres of the 6,000 um 46.4 acres of soils on the site are hydric. Is that correct?" the statement is accurate or this this is you are accurately stating the statement in this report.

All right. So if if uh is it correct then based on that report that over onethird of all of the acreage being proposed for your solar facility contains hydric soils. That's what the report says. All right. And um how many inventoried wetlands did you identify uh in the 96 earthrise parcels? in the 96 earthrise parcels I uh based on the I cannot give you an exact number of that this evening. Um do you think it's over 100? Yes.

Okay. And um how did you identify the delineated wetlands located on the parcel maps? Uh, as are we are we referring to the um the delineated wetlands on the site plan attached to the exhibit or attached to the application uh because as you know as you know we supplemented the the site plan with the um wetland delineation report. So and there is a distinction between how the wetlands were delineated between those two. So I just want to make sure we're talking about the same document. Yes, we we are talking about appendix L uh the uh original report that we had. Okay. So, exhibit L as of March 5, 2026.

Correct. Okay. So, the site so based on that there were 99 delineated wetlands in it. All right. Based on that version of it

and my question was how did you identify those delineated wetlands uh wetlands uh as of the uh March 5th? We sent environmental professionals out to the site who are qualified in identifying wetlands. Um they walked the site. They um delineated the perimeter of features that have that appear to be wetlands and then they measured uh um made made measurements of the uh and observations of um to determine if they met the three criteria. Right. And did this list of delineated wetlands did you? Well, let me clarify that statement. Can you repeat that question one more time? I apologize. Having trouble hearing.

Sure. How did you identify the delineated wetlands located on the parcels and based on the March 5th, 2026? So, correct. The the national wetland inventory provided the delineation of wetlands for that version of the site plan with some supplementary field delineated wetlands as well. And is it correct that many of the 96 parcels contain between three to five uh wetlands on a single property? I don't have any reason to doubt that some of them have between three and five wetlands on the property.

All right. And next I'm going to move on uh ask you if you would agree that the majority of farm parcels purchased or leased by Earthrise for the project um have likely been in production uh of agricultural farming for decades if you know Rob. I don't I don't have any knowledge.

Okay. And is it correct that if agricultural land uh contained a wetland, but that wetland was being farmed prior to December 23rd of 1985, that a farmer can still continue to raise crops on a farm wetland? Uh I'm not aware of uh any regulation to that effect. Right. Is it also correct that once a farm parcel is sold or leased and converted to a non-aggricultural use that previously farmed wetland now has to be protected under various state and federal wetland regulations?

Sounds like it's calling for a legal conclusion. Council, I don't think it is. Can you try to answer the question? You know the answer to that question? I don't know the answer to that question. All right. According to the land lease and purchase records, Earthrise Solar was buying or obtaining leases for solar projects uh from 2023 through 2025. Is that accurate? Yes.

And in 2023, were any of the farm parcels purchased or leased by Earthrise for this particular solar project left and not farmed in 2023 growing season? Uh that was before my tenure at Earthrise and so I can't confirm or deny that. Right. Uh and then you also can't confirm or deny if so how many parcels were left? Is that correct? Correct.

In 2024 were any of the farm parcels uh being purchased or leased by Earthrise for the solar project left and not farmed in the 2024 growing season? Again, most of that um well, yeah, I'd say most of that year I was not an employee of Earthrise and so I can't confirm or deny that. All right, let's try 2025. Were any of the farm parcels being purchased or leased by Earthrise for the solar project left and not farmed um during the 2024 growing season? I'm sorry, 2025 growing season. Based on my understanding, uh, no.

All right. Uh, so then they were being farmed, correct? Yes. All right. Uh, your special use application for the solar facility was filed with Will County on November 19th of 2025. Does that sound accurate?

Yes. in your preliminary site plan and this is appendix I'm sorry exhibit number five of our packet which was appendix L under your sections for proposed conditions and this is uh C-300 it's the main chart I was unable to find a graph legend or a key to the right side of your chart identifying uh categories or a color code for farmed wetlands um I was just wondering why that You're asking why farm wetlands were not identified on the site plan. Correct.

Because we're not required to distinguish between the two. Right. We because we don't make a distinction between farmed and non-farmed wetlands. We we indicate wetlands, but we're not required to make the distinction between the types. Well, I'm a bit confused because in the codes uh you mentioned about delineated or inventory wetlands. Are you aware those are different from farm wetlands? Yeah, I'm going to have to defer some of these questions to Mr. McFall. I think he'd be you'd be able to speak to these matters of uh policy a little bit. That's fine. I'd be happy to ask Mr. McFall.

Yeah, let's see. list.

Yeah. So for the national wetland inventory, they do show both farmed and non-farmed wetlands. So they are identified in the map. They just don't make the distinction either. My question I guess then um uh sir is if as testified to none of these farm fields were leftow uh how is it possible that earthrise could have identified any farmed wetlands during this time period

in Repeat the question. Sorry. Yes, certainly. So, uh, Mr. Calbuz testified that at least to his knowledge, at least in 2025, none of these parcels, uh, were left and that they had been farmed during the entire time. My question is, how during the time period in which, uh, you were preparing your application could you have determined where the farm wetlands were if the land was not leftow?

Yeah. So, Army Corps of Engineer is is pretty clear on them. uh the procedure for identifying both farmed and non-farmed wetlands. And so for field delineation, even if there are crops in a in a field, you can still identify what is a farmed wetland and what is not. If it's left, you can also make that same distinction. Well, h if if it is farmed though, how don't you have to wait a substantial time for hydrophic vegetation? Isn't that one of the requirements for um a wetland? That's exactly why it's called a farm wetland is because it meets two of the three categories. But it's being tilled. Uh how are you going to see the hydrophobic vegetation and the hydraology?

That's that's the point I'm making. So it doesn't the vegetation is the one uh category that is not uh that doesn't meet the three criter criteria of plant hydraology and soil conditions. But you can still look at the soil conditions um and the hydraology.

But how can you determine that if the farmer is farming the land? Because you you can only you can only look at the land at a certain time frame. Is that correct? Exactly. Here in Will County, it's it's it begins usually at between April 15th, right?

And then when it gets too cold where you can't uh see the vegetation, you can't see the vegetation. that would make that third category. And so that's the timing which includes during the farming season. So you can distinguish a wetland even if you have corn 8 ft high. And and just to be clear, the testimony has been that the site plan was delineated using the NWI report initially and that was the that was the site plan submitted in November 2025 and March 2026. So the delineations are primarily NWI report data set from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Secondarily, there are some field delineations in that site plan, but those are not required. The delineation that was required was the NWI data set. So, the delineations that you find in the supplemental packet that we've provided have all of the wetlands delineated through both field delineations and the data set from the US Fish and Wildlife. Is that right, Graham? Correct. But isn't it correct sir that that once the farming uh is done that then there are certain regulations that have to be followed with respect to farm wetlands.

Correct. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. And again h how can this be determined while the land is being farmed? How can what be determined council? Pardon. How can what be determined? Yes. How can the hydrophic vegetation be determined when the farm uh the farmer is farming it with agricultural tilling? For what purpose? For agricultural purposes. No. For what purpose are we determining hydrophilic planting to delineate the wetlands? To delineate the wetlands that are present because they will not show up while you're farming.

Right? So, I don't want to go around in the circle too many times, but the site plan was delineated first and foremost using the NWI US Fish and Wildlife data set. The delineations that you're referencing, I believe, are field delineations where you have to go out and look to see if the farmed wetland if the if the farmed land is a farmed wetland that was conducted um as demonstrated through the supplemental report over a series of um field delineations over the last couple of years. So for those field delineations, I just want to be clear what we're answering for those field delineations. Graham, um, and I believe testimony was also that this is seasonal, so it does require a seasonal operation, but Graham, for the field delineations, can you explain how um, how you would delineate a farmed wetland?

Yeah, I I think I I think I answered this already, but there are three categories that tend to make up a wetland. However, if it's a farmed wetland, that's a different that misses that one category of the hydrophic vegetation, but it and it's that's why it's called a farmed wetland. And so, as long as it meets the other two criteria and you look at all the historical um land use and you look at where the water is lowest and you do your soil sampling and you can figure out if it meets the two of the three criteria or not and then it's called a farmed wetland. If it meets all three of the criteria, it is a wetland. Yes, but but there you seem to be missing the distinction entirely here. We're talking about land that was not leftow and it was farmed. Once that farming stops, um then the land reverts back to a wetland. It's no longer considered a farm wetland. Isn't it correct that you then have to wait before making a determination of how extensive the wetland is once the farming has stopped? We are still assuming that it is a wetland even after it is farmed.

But how can you tell the extent of the wetland while it's being farmed? As I said, you see where it meets the other two criteria and then it is converted to a non-farmed wetland after it is not farmed anymore. I think we're going to move on because I'm not getting any answers uh that are legitimate here. Um next we're going to go on uh I'd like to ask some questions regarding uh the capacity of the Earthrise project. Mr. Calibus, do you think you can answer those or is there someone else? Yes, sir. All right, back to Mr. Cobs.

Got it. Okay, Mr. Cal um the uh how would you define name plate capacity? We define name plate capacity as the point of interconnection uh at the capacity at the point of interconnection. So would this be considered the optimal capacity that your solar project uh could attain? I'm not sure what you mean by the word optimal. Well, is this the maximum capacity that your solar project could maintain at the point of interconnection? Yes. And could you could you describe what you're talking about with the point of interconnection?

The point of interconnection is where the power generation moves from the uh solar array or or technically speaking the uh from the uh stepup substation to the power grid. All right. And uh you asserted I believe in your application that basically your name plate capacity was 600 megawatts. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. And could you explain uh to the commission what a capacity factor is? A capacity factor is effectively the amount of hours of the year that the facility is producing at that maximum capacity at that maximum um output.

So so we could say that that capacity factor is actual output as opposed to name capacity. Would that be correct? No. And then can you please describe again what a capacity factor is? Capacity capacity factor is a dimensionless it's it's essentially a percentage. It's a portion of the hours of the year that the facility is effectively generating at the name plate capacity at the point of interconnection.

All right. And is it correct that Illinois is the 49th worst state in the United States uh as far as uh solar productivity? I can't answer that question. I'm not sure what you're referring to. What you didn't look to see what Illinois's capacity was before you decided to put a project here.

We evaluate the solar resource and make a determination and if the solar resource is sufficient to develop a facility, then we make a determination to move forward with a project. Um we spoke with some uh Kameed engineers that informed us uh that the capacity for your facility was about uh 10 to 12%. Um is that accurate? The capacity factor of our we don't our facility hasn't been constructed. So I don't understand how they could um evaluate what the capacity factor of our facility is. Our proposed facility. What what will be the actual capacity factor once your solar facility uh is up and running?

I can't give you an exact number at this point, but my understanding is the capacity factor will be north of 20%. Okay. So basically you are only able to give 20% of the 600 megawatts. Is that correct? Over the course of a year, the facility will develop will produce over 20% of the hours of those years at maximum capacity. So your capacity factor is not actually 600 megawws, but it's only 20% of that. Is that correct? Capacity factor.

Capacity factor is a percentage. It's a portion. It's not it. That's what a capacity factor is. You're implying that the capacity factor is has uh is is a power is a is a is a is an amount of power is a rate basically of of power production. It's that's inaccurate. It's a percentage and I've accurate I've stated that my understanding is that our capacity factor will be north of 20%. Yeah. So you're saying it's uh 10% higher than KMED uh has indicated. Is that correct? We don't know what comed indicated.

And are you stating that um COMED made this this representation or an individual who works for KMED? An individual engineer from KMED. Correct. On behalf of KMed. I don't know if it was done on behalf of Kameed. Okay. So I think the really the question is what is the capacity factor and I think that question has been answered. It was sorry I can clarify. Yeah, it was on behalf of the data center. uh they said they could not use solar because uh it was so inefficient. So that was what he told us. And um with respect to uh solar energy, so isn't it correct that uh your energy output basically is a bell curve? Would that be accurate? I think that's one way to describe it. Yes.

Wait, I'm sorry. The source that you were citing earlier was an engineer for the data center. No, engineer from Kameed regarding the data center. Regarding the data center. Okay. Correct. Correct. Just want to make sure. Um so if you have the bell curve uh which we talked about is it correct that you only the solar project only provides uh peak energy during two or three hours of the day approximately. Yes. All right. And it does not provide power at night or on cloudy days. Is that accurate? That's not accurate. No.

Uh what kind of power is generated at night? uh dimminimous power at night but on the the facility is definitely capable of generating electricity on cloudy days and yeah and what percentage on cloudy days do you get from the sun I can't answer that it's really going to depend on um on the on a number of factors right and I think an a um representation was made at the last meeting that uh earthrise would power 110,000 homes is that correct approximately. Uh actually it's I think we stated 120,000 uh approximately homes.

Okay. So isn't it correct though that because it operates on a bell curve, you're only would be powering these homes for 2 to three hours a day at a maximum capacity? Well, we were using that as an equivalent factor. So we were saying the equivalent factor consumed by 120,000 Illinois homes over the course of a year. Um it's essentially equivalency. We're not saying that it is powering those homes. We're saying that the power output is equivalent to that which is consumed by 120,000 average Illinois homes in a year. Okay.

So then basically are you just producing 120 megawws? Would that be accurate? No, that's not accurate. Well, if it's 20%, then isn't that 120 megawws? Mr. Becker, I think you're confusing uh a a a rate which is megawws with a uh quantity which is energy um which would be uh kind of um stated in megawatt hours. So, I think you're confusing a few things here and it's it's difficult to answer question those kind of questions when you you're really not stating them accurately. Well, that's why I'm asking you because you're supposed to be an expert.

So, what's the question? So, what yeah, can you please So, can you restate your question then? How many megawws are you actually producing through this facility when it becomes operational? The facility at peak production will be producing 600 megawws at the point of interconnection. that power um is a maximum and and as you stated over the course of the day that power output will be variable. So is it only at two or three hours a day then that you were putting out the 600 megawws approximately? Yes.

Okay. Now I'd like to move on um in the final staff report. This is exhibit number four at page five. Uh it states that based on the concept site plan an estimated 16,921 panels 1,190,868 modules will be located on the requested special use area of 6,99 acres. And my question is uh does your use of the term panel equate with an array? A a panel is a component of an array.

So in this statement, did you indicate how many arrays are on your project site? I'm I'm not sure what you're what you're asking there. Well, it it lists that based on the concept site plan, an estimated 16,929 panels and 1,190,868 modules would be located on the special use area. Does that statement indicate how many arrays you are going to have on the site?

The 16,000 number, that figure is unfortunately a typo that was carried through. We use the terms panels and modules interchangeably and the one the approximately 1.2 million that are shown that is shown on there is the accurate number um to the right of the typo. Okay. And what is what is incorrect in the typo? The the figure the 16,000 approximately 16,000 figure. Okay. Are the modules the panels themselves? Then we refer to we use the terms module and panels interchangeably. Okay. So, so there's nothing indicating here how many actual arrays you have on the project site. Is that correct? Can you define array? I

I'm asking you to define an array, please. Well, you know, that's not what you're asking. You're asking how many arrays are there? And I'm first asking you to define what you're asking me to quantify. Well, I I asked you whether the term you used here panel you were referring to an array. A panel is a component of an array. Yes. So my question was based on this statement is there any indication in here how many arrays you have on your project site? We define the entire project entire infrastructure as an array. But aren't there structures on which the panels are kept? Uh we refer to that as racking and uh so yes talk about racking.

All right. Is there any indication in this statement of how many racks there are on the project site? No, it's implyi it can be implied by the uh panel count. Think we could back out to one, but it's not stated explicitly. Uh how many panels are there per rack? Can you repeat the question, Mr. Becker? Yeah, sure. How many panels are there per rack?

I don't have an exact count. I think that's something that we're still finalizing depending upon the the models that we're evaluating. And how many steel posts are contained in each rack? Uh, it really depends on the model of the rack. The the racking. Do you know yet what model you're going to be using? We haven't made a final selection. Now,

so is it correct that at this time you cannot tell us how many steel posts will be put into the ground in the project? I could give you an estimate. Yes, please do. Uh, I'm going to refer to my colleague, Mr. horn for that estimate. Sure, that'd be fine. Yeah, that's approximately 300,000.

And uh this is an estimated number. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. Uh now I'd like to turn your attention to exhibit number eight uh in our packet. Is it correct that the Will South Cook soil and water conservation district prepared a natural resource information report assessing the soils on various project sites for suitability? Yes. And what are the three categories they use to assess suitability? Can you refer to us?

Yes, sure. I can refer to you uh to page 32. And I don't see criteria referring to suitability. Perhaps you could define what you mean by suitability. Yeah. Well, there are there are three uh soil categorizations on that page and I was wondering if you could uh please identify those for me. I'm not sure where you're asking. There's a great Are you asking for the not limited, somewhat limited, and limited categories? Correct.

Okay. So, for the record, we're looking at this page 32 and the document has a not limited, somewhat limited, and very limited category. That's what you're asking about. Yes, that's correct. Okay, that's correct. Um on the on the same page toward the bottom, isn't it uh accurate that very limited is defined as quote indicates that the soil has one or more features unfavorable for the specified use? Did he read that accurately? He read that accurately. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. And on the same page, uh, soil and water determined that every one of the parcels in this project rates as high for steel corrosion. Is that correct? That's what the report says. Correct. And um is it correct that um under the heading explanation of limitation ratings under the subtitle solar arrays uh that it states soil penetrating anchoring systems can be used where the soil conditions are not limited and that's following page 33. on page 33.

Yes, that's it. That is accurately stated. Good. And uh turning now back to page 32. Is it correct that every one of the soils uh listed here are either um somewhat limited or very limited in this project? Yes, that that is correct. Right. Um, and if that is the case, um, why have you chosen this particular location where all of the s uh, soils are unsuitable for your project?

When we make a determination about sighting, we rely on a range of experts to advise us on suitability. And uh, you know, although this is considered, this recommendation is considered, we rely on a range of recommendations. and the experts that we're working with believe that that the site is suitable for solar development. So is it correct that you do not consider that will uh South Cook soil and water conservation district is uh competent to make this determination? I don't agree with that statement what you just said. Now

turning your attention now to page 35. Um, isn't it correct that the properties on this particular map, uh, which includes the parcel, uh, next to Dinos Robeson's property are covered with unsuitable soil types for steel pilings for solar arrays? I I there's no legend on this map, so I can't really make that determination. Yeah, the legend is on page 32. And so those colors are then indicated on the maps.

Again, I don't have that the that color coding is not on the map. So I don't I can't make that determination. You can't see the color on the map that we I can see the color on the map, but I'm not I have no reason to believe that that color coding on that map is consistent with the color coding on page 32. These are I see yellow, red, and green color coding on page 32. And on the map, I see uh yellow and orange. Um I don't necessarily have any reason to believe that they're that this is referring back to uh color coding in this chart. Even though the map says solar panels on the top, solar arrays,

I mean, the word solar is used quite extensively in our application. Great. Well, let me then uh turn your attention to pages 99 and 103 and the same exhibit and these concern corrosion of steel and represent project parcels next to two of our clients uh Donna Robinson and Jim Miklowwitz um and Russell Wilkkey. Isn't it correct that these maps indicate that none of the soils are suitable for steel corrosion?

Based on the information on the map, I I can't really make that assessment. There's I'm not really familiar with this map's um color coding on here, so I can't, you know, I can't agree or you know, I can't deny or confirm that. I think the characterization as unsuitable is I'm not sure that accurately reflects what these maps are demonstrating even if uh your representations on the key are correct. Well well isn't it correct that this map is entirely red

page 99? Yes. That the that the partial location everything is red on that map. Yes. And all the the color coding on the on the parcels is red. Yes. And doesn't that correspond with the legend that we read you earlier on page 32 that this is very limited? There's there's red text on page 32. And doesn't it say steel corrosion is high? And that is all in red as well.

That I think it might actually be might actually be referring to this. might actually be referring to this. Anyway, I mean, red text is used in a number of the columns on that chart on page 32. So, I don't know which column that red is referencing back to. I It's very difficult to read this. It's very blurry text, very small.

Yes. The bottom of page 32 reads um that there are colors and these define the risk of the impacts um to soil moisture and soil structure. So there it's either green or there's yellow or there's red. And my question is is it correct that the soils indicated on those two pages I just read you are completely red? I think council we can stipulate that on page 99 the properties Oh, no. We've Well, you can read. Yeah, I can. You said it was blurry. I was trying to find it out. We got it. Okay. Thanks. Um, we can stipulate that the project parcels identified on page 99 are red.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And how can you uh proceed with a 45 square mile project for solar panels when the soil and water department has indicated that none of these soils are suitable for your purposes? I think that is assuming a fact, not an evidence. Well, isn't it correct that Soil and Water found that every one of the parcels on this 96 parcel property were of at high risk for corrosion

that I so yes it it indicates steel that there is high risk for steel corrosion on in the chart yes on the parcels identified. Okay. And then I'd like to now turn to those particular uh steel posts. Um in your project narrative uh this is going to be exhibit number three at page 25. Uh Earthrise indicated quote steel posts are installed approximately 6 to 10 ft into the ground. Is that accurate? Yes. All right. And these are um there's zinc coating on these galvanized steel posts. Is that accurate? A zinc alloy?

Yes. And you are not encasing any of these posts in concrete for the project. Is that accurate? No. They're driven uh and held in place by friction. Okay. So, you're you're not encasing them in in concrete fill. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Sorry. And during your presentation at the PCC hearing, uh, one of your witnesses stated that the steel post would cause quote minimal leeching into the soil. Is that accurate? That's accurate, T. All right. Um, isn't it correct that placing galvanized steel post into hydric soil dramatically increases the leeching of zinc into the soil and groundwater?

I'd have to defer to uh our expert testimony and uh our expert, Dr. Chris Olsen testified that leeching would be minimal. Yeah. The the question was though um if that's not the question. The question was when you place galvanized steel post into hydric soil does it dramatically increase the leeching of zinc into the soil and the groundwater?

Council the this subject matter was um was testified on from Dr. Chris Olsen back on March 30th a witness you have waved for the presentation here tonight. So Mr. Kalbus can you know respond to the extent of his knowledge but you know Mr. Olsen testified uh for example just a couple pages well I I didn't wave testimony because we we asked about the structures that you were going to build and obviously the the steel posts are an integral part of that structure.

I didn't say that you waved testimony. And I said, "You waved the witness," which was Dr. Chris Olsen. So, like I said, you can ask Mr. Calbas these questions. I just don't know if he knows the answers to them. We had an expert here to testify on these exact topics. Um, you know, Mr. Olsson testified that that the galvanized steel results in a very minor amount of leeching from the zinc directly right beside the pile itself. It doesn't impact crops. Uh, it won't uh uh it doesn't impact the farmfield and it doesn't impact agricultural productivity. So, that's the testimony that we've heard already on this topic. Um, if you have questions for Mr. Calbus, then he can do his best to answer them.

Yes, and I will. And I ask Mr. Calib, isn't it correct that placing galvanized steel post into hydric soil dramatically increases the leeching of zinc into the soil and the groundwater? I'll have to defer to uh the experts testimony. And is it correct that over onethird of the soils in this project are on hydric soil based on the findings of uh correct? Yes, that's accurate based on the report. And you would have I think you testified you would have over 300,000 posts in this project. Is that right? Approximately.

All right. Um and how many of these properties in your uh project are connected to waters of the United States? When you say connected, can you explain what you mean by that? Yes. Do you know what waters of the United States are? I have a working understanding of of waters of the United States. All right. And are are you aware uh what waters of the United States are? Could you tell me what they are? My understanding waters of the United States are uh uh navigable waters. Do they include tributaries and exact and tributaries to navigable waters? Yes. And do they include uh wetlands that are adjacent to waters of the US?

My understanding is it's based on hydraulic connectivity to a navigable waterway. Are you aware of the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sacket versus EPA? I'm not. All right. And uh are you aware of what happens when zinc uh leeches into the soil as far as agricultural purposes? You're asking me to speculate about a something that really depends on a range of variables. And so I I can't really provide a response to that. Um

I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm just asking if if you know what kind of impact that leeching zinc has on agricultural soil. You're asking me to speculate about an impact and so I would have to understand the circumstances to speculate on that impact. I'd have to they'd have to provide more information. Do you know what impact that uh zinc has on aquatic life? It would really depend on the concentration of zinc. And do you know what kind of impact that a leeching zinc would have uh to humans if it is consumed? It would really depend on concentration.

Right. There are numerous adjoining land owners with wells uh next to the earthrise properties. Um is it correct that if zinc leeches uh into those aquifers it would invade their drinking wells? I'm sorry. Can you restate that? Sure. Uh is it correct? I was saying that numerous adjoining land owners, as indicated on your maps, have wells. Um, are you aware of the impact that that could have to their wells if zinc leeched into the water supply? You're assuming that zinc is going to leech into the water supply and Dr. Olsson testified that it would not.

I I believe he said it was minimal leeching. He didn't say there would be no leeching. Correct. I believe he testified that the leeching to the extent it occurs happens right at the base of the pile that it's constrained there and that it doesn't affect the wildlife, the agriculture or the vegetation. Yeah. So to to assume that it has gotten into the groundwater is a is a pretty far leap. Council, um your project uh expands 45 square acres. Um, isn't it correct that if there's even minimal leeching of zinc, this poses an incredibly dangerous public safety and environmental risk? I don't agree with that statement. All right.

All right. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Kbus. Uh, we are done with our cross-examination. Um, we have three short witnesses to call, uh, on behalf of the plaintiffs. So, uh, first I would like to call, uh, Melissa Agger. my question. Make sure your mic works. Make sure your mic works. Okay. All right. Uh, would you please state and spell your name for the record?

It's Melissa Tab Eager. Melissa M- LSA. Tab T- A BB-ER. E A G- er. Thank you. And um where uh what township do you live in? I live in Will County um on Stallel Road in Green Garden Township. Right. Uh based on your experience um do you have an expertise on a case on pilings and soils? I do. I have uh over 30 years in the quesan drilling implementation and engineering field.

And can you explain um to the uh commission uh exactly what quesan pilings are? Uh basically we go in with machines and make unbuildable land buildable um structurally sound um most of the time in areas where water is present. And what kind of projects specifically did you work on uh through your career?

Oh um residential projects. We've done several highrises downtown, the foundations that go into those. um a lot of residential projects in the southside in the marine valley area in the wetlands created by the glaciers 10 15,000 years ago uh will county um wherever there's water present or soil conditions don't uh allow to foundations to be stable and h how do you correct that

uh we correct it by taking an augur which is basically a big drill drilling into the ground removing the soil and then casing it to keep the material the water back and then as you go down you have different levels and types of soil that will cave in or then run into the um the shaft. So, what you do is you take it out and you put a steel sleeve in. And then you pour concrete into it. And as you're pouring concrete, the concrete holds the walls back and you pull the casing out at the same time. And then you put in steel rods similar to um just rebar rebar cages. Um depending on the specifications of the engineering, the structural engineering, some of them are coated with epoxy. Sometimes they are straight into the concrete. But then you put them into the concrete and then later on uh usually after a couple months they'll come in, dig it out and then that's what the foundations of the homes or the structures will go on. So it's almost like creating a floating um land under underneath the ground in order to make it strong enough to hold the structures above.

Thank you. Uh can there be a negative impact to soils and groundwater where galvanized steel posts are pounded into the ground?

Well, definitely. you don't have any protective layer from the galvanized posts. Anything anything put into ground that is wet is going to eventually leech out. That's why um when we for instance do the quesons, we have inspectors there. Um as the as this temporary casing is pulled out, the concrete has to push back and hold and those holes have to be completely dry or else they get refused. So when you're putting steel into a ground without any protectiveness around it, whether it be epoxy or concrete casing, you're creating a environment where something's going to corrode. It's going to fail. And that's why quesons exist.

And uh what happens when the uh zinc leeches from the steel?

Well, it depends on the type of soil it's in. Um it's usually going to be leeching if it's in a hydric soil. Uh and it also depends greatly on where the water table is in the areas. Water tables vary. You can go into a 10 acre parcel and and soil borings will show the water table can vary uh within 10 ft of where you're drilling. That's why multiple so soil samples are so important. Um, you know, we've worked in some areas where you drill a hole and you know, 15 foot here and you've got a dry hole. You go 15 foot over, drill the exact same size hole and you hit a a seam of water or the water table and it floods out and you have to stop what you're doing and have engineering come and change it. So, what's going to happen is you've got these layers of different soil. You've got sand, you've got dirt, you've got rock, you've got seams of gravel, um, you've got what may have been there prior to us being here. um previous buildings from a hundred years ago. But if you have water tables, everything just comes flooding into it. So everything gets mixed up. So what's going to happen is anything that is uh corroding on something put into that soil is going to get into that water table and it's just it goes everywhere. It's going to have the ability to travel because it's water. It get it gets carried and the water table in Will County is very high. I think anybody that has uh septic fields, anybody that has wells understand this from living there. So,

and is the leeching of zinc exacerbated in hydric soil?

Oh, yes. Because it's wet. Simple. It's wet and it corrods. And depending on how the galvanized poles are galvanized, if they're hot dipped, it's a little bit better. Or if they're done electrostatically. Um just to point out um something that is just to note um if something is funded by Illinois um by the state of Illinois their building codes mandate any steel even if it's incased in concrete be epoxy coated. You can't even touch it unless it's epoxy coated and into steel. And that's I'm talking for small signposts that may be up and down the tollway or 294 which you know the company that I worked for did thousands of over the years. So yeah.

And uh how quickly uh would zinc leech into the soils uh in hydric soil?

Well, as soon as it corrods, it's going to leech into it. The a pinhole into that galvanization will will will corrode. Um I mean there's studies that show uh you know standard galvanized pole will last in studies you know upwards of 10 years but when put in a hydric soil or wet locations it's usually anywhere from 3 to 5 years it begins and that also depends on the quality of the galvanization and also how the galvanized steel poles have been stored um from the manufacturing facility. You can't store them in heat. It it degrades the galvanization. you have to handle them properly on on site. If construction workers are banging them around or if they're if they're, you know, unloaded properly and there's any type of dings that that causes instant ability um a failure of the galvanization. So when it touches the hydric soil and the water table, it's it's going to erode.

And is the only way then to mitigate this type of corrosion is to enase those posts in concrete? Yes, it it it's going to it's going to drastically reduce it and give you the life, give you, you know, 15, 20, 30 years before it's going to corrode cuz concrete um corrods at a much less rate than galvanized. I think the studies even show it that we were referring to earlier. Um there's minimal corrosion with concrete, but highly high corrosion in in steel in this hydra soil. So um epoxy coating of the poles and encased in concrete would substantially lower the risk for the residents and the wildlife in the area.

So if you if they if Earthrise for example did encase all these post um it could eliminate mitigate the damage but it also would not you would never be able to return the land for everyone.

That's what I was going to say. So the the only issue that I would see with that just from my experience is when you're now encasing in concrete, you're taking that soil out in order to put the concrete in its place. So you're talking displacing a lot of the wetland area or the the farmed wetlands or whatever we're going to call it. But basically, you're taking soil out. That soil is then going to be displaced. The biggest issue with this is this area is what's called silty lom soil. It's combined of silt and lom. Silt is about 60 to 80% in silty lom. Silt is like a um very fine sand and it's very round and when sand is round it it leads to compaction and the loom is 40 or 20 to 40% in a silty loom and loom is angular. The loom is what will hold the water. That's what makes it um moist. That's what makes these areas where people are farming so healthy to be farmland. The soil retains moisture when the silt is not compacted. That's why it's good for farming because they plow every year. But when you're going in there, for instance, if they were to encase um each each of these galvanized poles into concrete, um it requires heavy machinery, large machinery. So that's going to compact the silty loom. Uh the silt in that loom is then going to compact and become hard pan, you know, very close to the surface. And what that's going to create is um well, a lot of things. It's going to cause surface erosion. So when water comes through, it's not going to be seeping into the ground because you're going to get a compacted silt layer and um it's just going to stay on the surface and then it's going to create um it's going to create a lot of soil erosion. When silty loom is compacted, it creates erosion at the surface and then you're going to have a lot more water runoff because this soil is now compacted underground. So it's no longer has has the absorption rate. And you compound

that by by these tens of thousands of poles. Even if they were to solve the problem of the leeching of the zinc from the galvanized poles, then you're going to have the issue of replacing all this soil with concrete and displacing it and using heavy equipment to do it. These conditions, it makes it just you're just going to create a bunch of hard soil and that's going to cause a lot of water problems. So, and uh lastly um once the zinc uh would permeate into the soil uh is it correct that it could uh go through the groundwater and enter into other water bodies?

Well, definitely because of this hard pan being created, the water that's going to come into the soil, you're going to hit that silt layer that's been compacted and that's going to hold the water there. So, the water is going to displace underground and it's going to be closer to the water table. So you're you don't need to be that far down to cause contamination of the water source when you've got almost like it's almost uh very similar to putting uh when you create a hard pan of silt underneath something. It's very similar to um putting a layer of weed barrier um in your garden. You're basically putting a barrier where the water is not going to get through. So that water is going to find its way and usually it finds its way into streams into wetlands or it's going to create its own eros you know it's going to erode the land and it's going to find its way to the lowest spot which is usually the wetlands or the streams that nearby. So yes

good thank you very much for your testimony. I have a few questions if that's okay. Thank you. Is it uh Miss Eager? Sure. Um were you here for Dr. Dr. Olsson's testimony on March 30th. Um I I do not believe I was. No. Okay. Um do you have any reason to doubt Dr. Olsen's credentials? I don't know what his credentials are to say either way. Okay. Um I understood that your testimony is based on your experience in the drilling and imple implementation field. Correct.

Yes. Case on industry for over 30 years. I've actually seen the different soils, interpreted the soil borings, worked with engineers. Um, I've used the equipment to drill the holes. I have place the concrete into the holes. I've done all aspects of Quesan Foundation. What? Thank you, Miss Eager. What's your highest level of education? Um, I have quite a bit of college and I'm a 150 local um operating engineer. So, I'm a trades tradesman also. Gotcha. Thank you. Do you have a college degree? Uh, no. I'm a little short of it. Okay.

But I have extensive experience that um there is not degrees in quesanon drilling. It's actually not even taught at the uh the union site. It's on the job and you have to learn in the field because uh as I was saying earlier, every every few feet is different in soil underground. So, but you don't have a college degree in chemistry or soil chemistry or agriculture.

I am not a geotechnical engineer. No, not of course. And I've had plenty of soil engineers that come out that don't understand how to um stop water from filling up a hole. To understand what a piece of dirt is and how to make it a safe hole are two very different things. That's why there's operating engineers and quesan specialists and then geotechnical engineers. It's two different um I understand that I understand that your testimony is based on your experience in the correct extensive experience but not on a formal college education. There isn't one for this. I understand that. Um, what what was the name of your company?

It was Foundation Drilling Co. Inc. It was about 72 years. It was a family-owned business. I have extensive family members that have always been in the business. I We're pretty widespread actually throughout the country, many of us. And what was your position at that company? Your title? I I started as a labor in the field to learn properly and then I moved up to operating engineer operating the equipment. I am the first um first woman in the country to or to ever run a drill rig actually and then from there I became a superintendent in the field for several years and then I transition transitioned into the office and I was uh president of the company for 12 years prior to it closing. It is closed now. So

Okay. When did it close? Uh it closed when I decided to retire and take care of my mother. Um six years ago. Okay. 2020. Um about 2022 I finally closed it. So four four to six years. Do you have a license as a structural engineer? No. No. No. No certifications for for engineering. Uh I am a quesan operating engineer. That's I'm a certified. Well operating engineers are qualified individuals. Okay. So we have a we have a very large training site and and um there's ways to Yeah. So, I mean, I take a slight offense to that. Okay. I'm sorry.

There's no co Well, I'm just saying there's no college that teaches you how to drill and install quesons. There are structural engineers that we work with that many times when we're in the field doing the holes and then we have soil inspectors that also take soil samples. Um they they test the concrete on site, they test the soil um depending on how far we are, if we have to go deeper. And then there's many times that we then have to go back and discuss our findings in the field and work with the engineers. um the structural engineers to determine if they want to stay with what they had designed or many times because of what we find in the field and what we advise them to do they have to go back and change the structural um integrity of the quesons. So we work together and we both have specialized um education for that.

I appreciate that but we're talking today about soil chemistry and about hydrarology and I'm sorry you have to let me answer my you have to let me ask my question and then you can pro provide your answer. So, you know, on those topics, there are degrees and certifications. And I do understand that you have experience. And I'm not trying to suggest that your experience is anything less or that you're not experienced in the case uh case on industry as you've adequately demonstrated. I'm just trying to figure out because this is the first time we've met. I've never asked you any questions before in my entire life. I don't have your resume in front of me. I don't have your LinkedIn profile in front of me. I'm just trying to figure out what your basic education and training is. So that's all I'm trying to do. Not a problem. Okay.

So, do you want me to tell you my history of my educational training and my previous jobs? I mean, how in-depth do you want? What I'm saying is that I think what what I think you've answered the questions that I've asked and I and I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Um, your company, Foundation Drilling Co., you said did mainly residential highrise? No, not at all. We did we did

no I said in in the areas of Will County and the areas of like the Palis Hickory uh where the marines came in and the glaciers from where the land permitted we did a lot of residential. We've worked um well I would say probably 80% of the the sign poles you see on the side of the expressway was done by by foundation drilling over the decades. Um we've done we would tap out at um we would go down maximum um 80 to 100 feet before we would usually um our equipment it depended on the type of equipment you had how how large of holes you could do but we also did uh many buildings downtown you know 8 to 10 uh story buildings we've done residential we've done um we've done holes anywhere from 24 in to 10 to 12t in diameter going down upwards of 100 ft. Have you ever done a solar farm?

Well, no, because I've not known a solar farm to use quesons. Okay. I have worked extensively with Kameed though inside the Kameed substations. So, understanding some of the things we need to do within the substations. So, I have worked um putting in the platforms to hold the transformers. Okay. Um, do you know how many solar farms or solar energy facilities Will County has approved to date? I do not.

Do you know if Will County has required any other solar farm to um coat its galvanized steel piles in epoxy or other material or concrete? Do you know the answer to that question?

Will County? No, I do not. Okay. One moment, please. brings their own I guess people over there.

Maybe she was watching. He was here. You think this is the biggest thing going on in your language department?

I guess this way if you're not here, you don't have to answer any questions anytime we leave. I'm not qualified to answer question. you though run in circles for 10 minutes. I don't know. I'm sorry.

CR set.

Sorry, I am not a galvanized steel expert, so I had to consult with my um construction people. I'm not a galvanized steel expert either, but I I do feel I have expertise in soil conditions underground. That's what I'm here to testify about. Can I just answer a question that you asked earlier about Will County um providing or requesting epoxy? Um in addition to the answer I given, I I'd like to say that I don't think Will County has seen adequate soilings to tell them what the soil is. We're doing all these opinions based on walking the earth. You don't know. And just as I had mentioned, structural engineers change things many times once they see what's happening in the soil. And I think that soil borings in these installations would be very important to do.

So, are you aware of how long solar has been installed around the country? No, I have no reason to. I'm here to testify regarding soil conditions. I know. I'm just And the follow-up question is, are you aware of any solar facilities around the country being required to coat uh galvanized steel piles in epoxy? I would assume no. I think um I'm not aware of specific ones, but I think that there are plenty of companies that epoxy uh steel that would answer to that and say be strongly suggested in hydrate soils.

Okay. Yep. Um do you have um I mean I I take it you're you're testifying here today. You you don't view the project favorably. Is that a is that a fair characterization? Um, I'm not against solar. I I I wouldn't say that. I would say that I'm concerned for two reasons. Um, I'm concerned knowing what hydric soil does to steel. Are you opposed to this project specifically?

Um, at this point, until more information is properly given to make educated decisions based on the health and welfare of Will County residents and their water supply and the livestock, uh, I'm concerned. Yes. as not only someone that lives there, but someone that does not see any adequate um studies done to tell us what's underneath the ground that they're putting these poles into. So, I'm opposed to that. Yes. Okay, I understand. Unless unless the soil conditions aren't hydric, but everything indicates it is that they're telling. I think soil borings would be um a really good thing to do. Uh did you collect signatures in opposition to this project? Um I collected signatures for awareness of this project. Did you collect signatures in opposition to the project?

I collected signatures surrounding Aaronwood. Not to this project? No, I did not. Not to Earthrise. No, I did not. Okay. Um, did you create no solar signs for use in these hearings? I did. I said no solar farms. I did. That was me. Correct. Okay. Um, thank you. I think everybody's I think they turned out nice. So, thank you. There's no I have no I have no further questions. Thanks. Thank you very much. Um, then we'd like to call our second witness, uh, Jim Mikawitz, please.

Good evening. Could you please uh state and spell your name for the record? Okay. My name is Jim Michaelitz. M I C H A L E W I C Z. And Mr. Michael is uh in what township do you reside? We're in Green Garden Township. And uh where are you located as far as the crossroads? We are uh just next to the last farm uh from Offner and Shear Road. All right. And are you an adjoining property owner to one of the parcels on the proposed Earth rides project? Yes, sir. They are just Well, they're all to the north of us.

Okay. From Shear Road over through about uh halfway east on Offner Road. All right. And did anyone from Earthrise come to consult you about uh water problems you were having on your property prior to filing its application? No, sir. All right. I'm now going to show you um what we have marked as two photos and this is exhibit nine uh for the applicant in our packet. Okay. All right. The top picture here uh I was probably zoomed in went to the uh back deck of the house and shot Mr. Michael Woods. Could you describe uh which one of the two photographs that is please?

I say again please. Yes. Could you describe um what's depicted in the photograph? Oh, flooding. Okay, there's two different pictures. Could you describe what the first picture indicates?

Okay, the first one here indicates all flooding to the north and back on our property here. I believe that's Fork Creek right here that you can barely make out. Uh the top picture here shot a picture to the west and you can see shear road bridge and the water is up to the base of the concrete and I I don't recall if it was quite over the road but it was just about to the top of the of sheer road. Okay. And Mr. Michaelitz, um uh did you take both of these photographs? Yes, sir. And uh what when did you take these photographs?

That was uh probably the first weekend in April the 3rd and the 4th. Okay. And uh would you say these are appear to be true and correct copies of the photographs that you took on that occasion? Definitely. All right. And um are you concerned about the flooding aspects if the project goes through for Earthrise uh impacting your property? Absolutely. I'm not only concerned about myself, but my neighbors and everybody. Right. Very good. Thank you so much for your testimony. No problem.

Yeah. Great. Great. Mr. Jacobe, did you have any follow-up questions or No, sir. Thank you. Okay. And then the last witness uh that the plaintiffs would like to call is Donna Robinson, please. While he's uh checking on the video, uh could you please state and spell your name for the record? Donna Robinson. R O B I N S O N. And Miss Robinson, um what township do you live in?

I'm in Green Garden. All right. And what are the adjoining roads that are near your property? I'm on 104th about half a mile from Manhattan Mooney Road and trolley. And is your property adjoining one or more of the parcels in the proposed Earthrise project? Yes. Right. Now, uh we're going to show a video. Go ahead. Great. You should be able to see this on the screen and then I'll ask you about it.

This is along the south side of my house. Then this goes to the back. And this water right here also comes from Prairie Spooner. And my neighbor's yard never flooded like this before. And this runs along the back of my house. which shouldn't be this wide. And we've come to call this area back here Cheeky Lake because how the water sits there. Then it goes into a tunnel that I have.

Great. Thank you so much for your technical expertise. Um, Miss Robinson, could you please describe uh what was in the video?

Um, I I flood um all three sides of my house. Um about four years ago I contacted um the um what was they called? Excuse me a minute. I contacted uh um land use department and um I told them that I have water on three sides of my house. Um the land owner north of me never maintained the culvert that goes through their property and then the farmers would drive over it. So they stopped the water right there. So all the water that's supposed to go through their culvert to the culver on the street to the um creek, it it doesn't go because they stopped it. So everything stops by me.

And Miss Robinson, um did you take that video? Yes, I did. And when did you take that video? Oh, a couple few years ago. Okay. And then and then I called the Army Corps of Engineers and I sent her all the information I had and all the videos and we had a few calls back and forth and then she never contacted me any anymore after that. And Miss Robinson, was that a true and accurate copy of the video that you took?

Yes. And on the video, it showed uh a large area uh to one side of your property. Is was that the area where the proposed solar parcel is? Um um no that's the dry pond that never dries and and we kept going straight and then it it should turn but where it turns then it would be the the parcel next to me to the north of me. And are you concerned um if the solar panels put in that you will get even additional water on your property?

Of course. Of course I do. Okay, got no further questions. Thank you so much. Right, that would conclude the cross-examination of the plaintiffs and our presentation of evidence. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Are you calls open, please? I only had one final closing remark and that is um that the as the special use Oh, actually um I'm sorry, Mr. Becker, I did have a question. Um did we get Miss Eager's home address?

Oh. Oh. Oh. Did Did we give it? Yeah. What is Miss Eager's home address, please? if you don't mind. I don't know why they need it. Sure. It's 9319 West Stunkle. S T U E N K E L Road and that's in Frankfurt. Green Garden 60423 60423 correct. Anything else? Thank you, Miss.

Okay. Thanks. Uh if you were looking, you may see me still in a different location. I have been here and have residency here. um since 2020. I own and I live on property. So that may be what you're wondering because I did originally move from Hickory Hills. So a lot of things if you're looking online will show that. So I had no idea. I was just wondering if you Okay. Well, just to confirm, I've been in the community of Green Gardens for six years. Okay. So, thank you. Thanks.

Um Okay. I'm sorry. So, um I I wanted to close by asking this commission um you're you're now being asked to vote again. Um you know, having already voted once and we know that the first vote was a recommendation for denying the project. Um I I hope that this um exercise has changed your minds and that you'll vote in favor of the project. And we of course ask for you to do so. Um however, uh I I would also ask that you consider amending the proposed conditions um consistent with the conditions that were adopted by the county board for the uh Plum Valley solar project. Um so the the county board um uh has executed an ordinance that reflects uh conditions to that project that mirror in large part the conditions that are proposed here. However, there were some amendments made by the county board at the county board meeting. Um, and I just felt it in efficient use of time to suggest that this county or that this uh planning commission, planning and zoning commission um adopt those amendments into the conditions and then vote on the amended uh special use permit. Uh, so for the record, the um the amendments that were proposed and accepted for the Plum Valley Solar Project, um, I want to make sure I'm matching this. So for this project, the um condition number three currently reads on-site power lines and utility connections will be allowed above ground

if required to avoid existing obstacles such as pipelines or wetland areas. And we propose keeping that language. We'd ask that the following sentence be added provided, however, that the project is approved to utilize the cab above ground cabling system between panels as described by the applicant at the hearing. And if you if you recall the presentation back uh now over a month ago demonstrated the um the underhang wiring system between the panels that is easier to access for both safety and maintenance reasons. Um and we showed some pictures of that. And so um to the extent the ordinance requires an express approval of that system, we'd ask that express approval be provided in condition three and it was approved by the county board again for the other project. Um condition uh seven which is actually not uh which was added by the land use committee um had originally said that uh the fire lanes shall be gravel and we have no objection to that either. the uh amendment that we had requested and approved by the county board uh revised that condition to state the following. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Will County code, including chapter 164 of the Will County Code, the fire lanes, including access roads, shall be gravel per the request of the fire departments. Any such gravel lanes shall be considered pvious under the Will County code. And this was discussed at the county at the land use committee in some detail. Um the fire departments had requested that these fire lanes be gravel and the pvious nature of gravel roads is just being explicitly provided here so that there's no confusion at the site development uh permit because your ordinance is otherwise a little vague on that topic. And then finally um condition 8 which was proposed by the land use committee states the following and again this is the original language.

Prior to the commencement of construction or issuance of a site development permit on any parcel affected by the special use permit, the applicant will negotiate and have executed a road use agreement with each of the township road districts and post road district shy bonds as required by such agreements. We don't object to that language. We'd ask that the following be added consistent with the will county ordinance and that was also accepted by the the land use committee and the county board ultimately. Um, so those were the three revisions that we had proposed at the county board level. They were approved for the other project and I wanted to bring them to your attention uh to make for a clean record on this project. Um, with that uh thank you very much. We we would uh ask that the commission close the public hearing and um we hope that we've earned your vote. We don't have any because she's here in front of us. We don't have any questions about that.

Mr. Chairman, would we be allowed to ask questions of Mr. Becker and Rob and uh speaking? I got it written down. Mr. Jacobe and Mr. Kovas. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes. Anybody want to go first? Okay. So, I guess I would uh a a lot of legal posturing was done about wetland delineation. Um would you be putting is it at any point in this project your plan to put any panels in anything that's determined to be a wetland?

No. So, it's my understanding that you will be seeking the county approval of the SQ and let's just say that were happen tomorrow. Then you have to come back before the county staff to submit the uh site review permit. How long does that process expect to take or usually take on these propert? the site development permit um could take anywhere between three and six months a part of that is because a more extensive uh wetland delineation is a much more extensive and that's where uh actual wetland delineations uh field delineated uh delineations are required and if some are found that aren't on this uh preliminary work and all this that we've seen how will those be addressed we would avoid those wetlands

you would avoid them so then all the ones that are delineated I think we covered this for what is the actual plan for those areas? So, we've del we've delineated all the wetlands on the site uh uh throughout the site and we are avoiding those with our panels.

Okay. So with a little bit of knowledge about uh United States Department of Agriculture, when farmers like myself come in, we have to go through the wetland reviews and uh I kept hearing the farm wetlands, but a a acronym that we always had was prior converted farm wetlands, which meant we were continue to keep farming them because they were prior converted what I a lot of people like to use the term grandfathered. So if there's prior converted farm wetlands that become wetlands, you have to eliminate What is your protocol? Because then I would believe they're going to revert back to meet all three criteria since they're not being farmed every year. The vegetation is going to reappear. I'm getting a nod from your expert in the back. So that's one thing farmers like me who absolutely fear the US or not the core of engineers coming in with some kind of wetland determination saying that we've altered or affected it that we don't want to ever see happen. What What is your management plan for that? Is that or is that going to be allowed to happen? That that's a great that's a great question and I I was hoping we would get to that earlier but I'm glad you're bringing it up. So for we're going to avoid all of those wetland features and what through the site development permit part of that uh procedure is having a conservation plan through the soil through the soil and water conservation district and they're going to specify what kind of wetland seed mix they want to see put there um so that you meet the vegetation requirement of then that being a true wetland or they can say just protect it while you're under construction and let that vegetation naturally come up and so we'll address I can't answer it fully right now because that's more of a decision for uh land use soil and water conservation district through the conservation plan.

So it's possible that you would man manage these wetlands perhaps improve them or they're going to let them revert back to wetlands or what the the Exactly. Exactly. But none of them will ever become part of the project site. Correct. With solar panels or inverters or Correct. It's going to be a net plus of wetlands, more high quality wetlands added to the project.

Okay. So, you if I remember correctly, this is the fifth or sixth solar facility that you're doing connected to a peaker plant or fourth or fifth. This will be the the pride of the prairie project and u I'm sorry the pride of the prairie and the plum valley projects are our third and fourth projects uh interconnecting we also have another project under development um as well connecting at a at a fifth peaker plant plant that earth right now I can't remember the name of the one south is there hydric soils pres prevalent on any of those other projects I didn't u manage those projects so I can't speak but I would assume assume that there are hydra soils in limited areas.

Uh at one of those projects, yes, there are. You said every one of them or No, at one of the projects that we're currently um working on, there are hydra soils. That's under development now. It's uh construction has started. Have you done any special uh structural engineering with the steel with the with the pylons that are zinc coated? Um, as far as the the corrosion aspect of it, no. Um, wasn't deemed necessary there. The settlement portion of it, um, which is another aspect of the hydra soils that was brought up, it has necessitated some specific approaches there,

which I guess would would lead to a question I have for Mr. Becker then because this appears to be one of their main concerns is possible groundwater contamination. Um, has have you been able to uncover any evidence? I'm assuming in the last 10 20 years this uh seems from what I've learned to be a standard practice of driving pylons and I believe one of the reasons they say is it's way less obtrusive than putting quesons in. It's easier to decommission in the event it wants to be reverted back to farmland. Have you found any evidence or have any documentation that groundwater contamination has been occurring? Yes, there's numerous articles uh on this particular topic. Um the reason that uh there would be mitigation if you saw from soil and water studies uh we demonstrated the the maps that showed red where soil and water said these were unacceptable u soil types because of the high corrosion rate. And yet if you looked uh at the rest of the application there were also maps that were all green. So they if they had in in fact encased those in concrete it would be safe to do but soil and water says is not safe to do. So yes there are numerous studies regarding galvanic corrosion and as Miss Eager testified when especially when you put these steel posts into hydric soil and that's why this is so critical. Our area here is so unique because of the glaciers. We are in the headarters of three different creeks. They all go down to the Kaki and the Displayplain River. If you look at the maps that we provided, there are water resources coming everywhere. Main stems, waters of the US, flood plains, wetlands, everything. This is a environmental disaster to put these pylons in here because they are going to leech zinc and they are going to leech them much quicker. As Miss Edgar testified, this is just as Soil and water said, these every one of the properties is unsuitable for this particular project. Take this someplace else. You can't put it here because of

the soils. And I'm sorry, just if I could I I don't I don't think that the uh type of steel that the pylons are made or whether they're encased in quesons is really under my review. But what I'm specifically looking for is do we have documentation, say university articles, lawsuits or something where I I get that there's going to be corrosion. I put in fence posts in 1999 that to my shock 20 years later I leaned against them and they fell over because they rotted at the ground level which that's the whole point. Exactly. So

have we documented though that there's been contamination in groundwater. Do you have any of those sources? That's and and that's not even probably up to my that's something I would expect that you'll be bringing up if you take this into a legal challenge.

Yeah. Well, we have a several article here, laboratory and field corrosion investigation of galvanized utility poles. Um, so there's multiple articles, but we're talking about the corrosion, but so it's my understanding they've changed um zinc coating or the galvanized steel greatly in my lifetime. I can find galvanized steel from the 1930s that has no rust in it because it's got a high concentration of lead. And the EPA and other sources said that was highly terrible and was leeching into the ground and we've removed the lead, which has technically made the zinc chromated galvanizing a lot less effective. I bought zinc chromated nails that were rusting in the box brand new.

Well, that shows what I'm looking for. Is there documentation that this is contaminating soil in some others solar facilities? Do you have that to present to me or I I am not aware that there's a solar facility like this that is in this type of hydrate soil.

So you're taking a massive risk if you vote in favor of this. This could poison the soil. It could destroy it for agricultural purposes in the future and it gets in the groundwater. It's going to leech into the wells and it's going to poison people. And because of these um Fork Creek and Hickory Creek and Prairie Creek, these are waters of the US. And if this link if this leeches into the groundwater, it gets in to these waters of the US and that is in violation of federal law. This is extremely serious. We should not risk our health with this project.

You you might be right on that, but once again, I got to go back to my review of what I'm allowed to make my determination on. And the last couple days, I've been thinking about this and uh in all the trainings I've done on these programs, it's about findings of fact. So I thought I could come back to um one of the findings a factor was supposed to look at is endanger the health of the public and other things and I was completely weightlaid because when I go to the staff report special use permit the staff findings it says even here due to the recent solar case special use are not at the special use permit criteria are not applicable to commercial solar facilities. So, our land use staff, and I don't think they did this on their own. They're probably directed to, did not even break down the findings of fact and criteria for the special use permit. They did do all that for the variances,

whether or not it would endanger the public health, change the locality, and such as that. So, I understand that. I I can respond to your question that the problem with the advice you got is it's simply wrong. The Equity Solar decision versus Grundy is a very limited decision. It doesn't force the board to go ahead and vote just because they file an application. Grundy was very limited to the narrow facts of the case. Judge Anderson wrote in there that that was a case that dealt specifically where both parties agreed that the applications were fully complete. We completely oppose that position here. there. We put uh testimony on and we we obtained testimony from the other side that they didn't do any farmed wetlands during this time period. They left they didn't leave any of the land fellowow and they said they were all being uh farmed during that time period. So their application is completely uh incomplete. If you read the uh county solar statute, there is a direct requirement that they must delineate all wetlands. That is a requirement for their application to be complete. They admitted here they haven't looked at any farm wetlands because these were all being farmed. Like you said, you were a farmer, you knew about it. What happens is when you stop the farming, then you have to look for the hydrophobic vegetation. They have not done this. This application is woefully incomplete. And you always have a right as a board irrespective of the court decision in Equity Solar. If the application is incomplete, you have every right as a board to deny it and you certainly have a right and a responsibility when this is going to put the public safety at risk. That is a due process violation.

So once again, you may be right. So, what I keep looking for is what in the county findings of fact I can turn because as one of my fellow commissioners mentioned before, my scope of what I'm supposed to review and I I'm assuming as a lawyer you know this on this commission is much narrower than a county board member. I have to go with the county land resource management plan or the zoning code which I tried to come back to. Are there number of residences too close to any solar panels? Some of the other things that even might pertain to our old zoning code before the state law kind of usurped local zoning codes.

So one obviously we know how my vote was before. I'm looking for the evidence the evidence that I can use to flip that from before. And I've been advised we are not the final say. were just a recommendation. Just give the people what they want and vote no. So, I've had to put a lot of egg on my face to try to stay with what I've been trained to do and do here and not go the easy route. So, I'm still trying to Oh, and here's one of the areas I want to attack then. In these proceedings before, we've come up with a Lisa score over 220 of 225 and above. And I've been told that there's an obscure state law that prohibits development of land with a leisa score over 225. Are you aware or can expand on that? Because I I don't have the legal basis to do that.

I believe we cited it in the questions. Yes. Okay. You did, but then you sort of tied in there, if I understood it correctly, federal dollars. Does that mean it can happen if there's no federal state dollars applied? I

I think you'd still be prohibited based on the on the state law. So, that is that is a law that I'm kind of surprised has not ever come up to any of our cases because we've had more than a few cases in the eight years I've been on this commission that had a Lisa score over 225. And once again though, I think that may be out of my review here. I I can't make these legal determinations. I am specifically looking. But if somebody was to come up here and say, "We have legal precedent that this case or this case, you know, people versus whatever was overturned because of a Lisa score over 225." You can't provide that to me right now, though, can you?

Well, we did provide the information to you. The The reason you haven't heard this before is for some reason in this county there's not been any cross-examination for years during a special use application. That's what we won in front of Judge Brlin is the fact that apparently Will County had an illegal policy in practice at least going back seven years not allowing any crossexamination in these special use applications. We are apparently the first one who has done this in all these years. That's why you haven't heard this before because this is a new procedure that was apparently being bypassed by Will County unbeknownst to me. I don't know how this has happened and how it was approved, but Judge Breastman clearly ruled in our favor that this was an illegal violation of due process. So, this is why we put on testimony for you tonight, especially for Miss Edgars talking about the public health risk that happens from this type of uh putting of these steel galvanized uh posts into the soil and how it can leech into the water. And we did csite the information about the Lisa score to you. That's why you haven't heard this before because no one apparently has done cross-examination until we decided to sue and win a temporary restraining order.

That's the reason why you should do this. Do I take her legal testimony to be impertinent to the land use special use permit when I know that the county has staff and I assume engineers that reviews all this? Because once again, our scope here is the zoning and therefore there's many things before they do the uh site development permit more check boxes they have to check. I am correct here. There would be a lot more you have to do and there's a lot of those things that you probably don't do until you get the special use permit because they're expensive. That's part of the reason. Yes.

And and we've heard numbers of 1 billion or whatever. I'm assuming throughout this process, three special meetings, multiple officers, multiple staff times, multiple reports, you're into this for millions of dollars already. I don't know the answer to that. You won't you won't tell.

I Well, I'm just a lawyer. They pay me by the hour, but I I do want to I do want to address a couple of your questions. I think they were good ones. And the the article quoted by or cited by Mr. Becker just now I just for the record, Judge Brereslin um ordered that to the extent any evidence were to be in aired today, documentary evidence, that it would be exchanged between the parties by Friday at noon. That was her order. That was fair. That was something we actually agreed on. That's why I sent our uh wetlands supplemental delineation report to council on Friday morning and that's why he sent documents to us on Friday. So, they're barred by the court to enter any documentary evidence today. But nevertheless, that that article that he cited is from the American Galvanizers Association. We're familiar with it. It it says nothing about leeching into groundwater. It just doesn't hold that whatsoever. Um there is no evidence of uh or documented evidence of steel um uh piles from solar facilities leeching into the groundwater. It doesn't exist. If it did, you would have heard you would have heard about it and it doesn't. Um you know, Miss Eager M. Eager um testified as to as to her specialty and and she certainly has a lot of experience, but she also said words from her mouth, she's not a galvanized steel expert. We brought an environmental scientist with a PhD to you and testified on this very issue because we wanted to make sure that it was addressed. We had heard that it was, you know, a concern. We wanted to make sure we got the best expert on it that could come to you and explain to you exactly what it meant and why it wasn't a concern. And that was Dr. Olsen. that's who he brought um to testify and he provided that that background based on his um based on his expertise. the the question that what they're asking you to do. They're asking you to vote to recommend denying a permit for reasons that are completely outside the

scope of your review either under your solar ordinance under 55 ILCS 55-1220 which is the sighting law and under Equity Solar which is the case that keeps being cited. And just so we're clear, Equity Solar was not a limited decision. Equity Solar was the decision that the state has been looking for every until Equity Solar came out in March of 2026. There was a question as to whether the counties, any county in the state had discretion to review factors outside those that are set forth in the sighting law 5-120. Equity Solar uh answered that definitively. Counties do not have that discretion. Now, that does not mean that we have not tried to honor the county's ordinance here. The county's ordinance has all sorts of stuff in it that are outside the standards allowed by the siding law. This application was developed pre-equity solar. It was developed um in conformance with the existing county solar ordinance which hasn't changed and it was designed to honor the county's way of business and we we believe that we have done that. That includes delineating all wetlands that are required at the time of the application which we testified were all those wetlands from the very credible federal government US Fish and Wildlife Service data set. That's that's what we had. That's what everybody in in the industry uses and it was testified that you know professionals in the industry use that exactly. Then because there was time uh because Mr. Becker sued the the project and we were remanded back the field delineations were completed within that time. So, as a cherry on top, we brought you the supplemental report that that now shows all wetlands, including farmed wetlands delineated um in the supplemental report, which serves as effectively an overlay on the site plan. So, we now have all wetlands delineated, and you heard it from the horse's mouth. They're going to avoid them all. They're going to assume the jurisdiction of the wetland, and they're going to avoid them all. And so, that's really important that that eliminates the wetland as an

issue entirely. That's by design because we didn't want to have this argument. we wanted to just avoid the wetlands and and avoid the argument altogether. Plus, you know, it turns out to be a net positive on wetlands for the for the county and and the company felt that was positive. Um, so the galvanized steel issue doesn't exist. Um, there's been decades and decades and decades of galvanized steel um in the soil and there are no studies that show that it causes any any serious public health risk as suggested by Mr. Becker or any public health risk as suggested by Dr. Olsen, PhD environmental scientist. So, we had hoped that that had put that to bed. We knew that these questions would be asked. We prepared for them. Um, and we believe that now we've addressed those concerns uh that Mr. Breer brought up and hopefully we've answered your questions, too. But we're happy to continue the discussion if you have additional questions.

I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Um first of all with the how many what's your oldest solar facility you have operating right now? How old is it? The solar facility that's operating was commissioned this year. Pardon? The solar facility that we have commiti that's operating was commissioned this year. That's the first one you've got operating this year. That's correct. Earthrise as a company. Yes. Oh. So you don't have any So you wouldn't be able to go and test soil that you've had these on like or do you plan on testing soil around these at any future time? We don't have any reason to um to think that's necessary even with all these questions about the um

we've we've reviewed this the issue very thoroughly and we don't believe there's any evidence to suggest that uh the our construction methods pose a risk to public health or agriculture. Yeah, the issue is not new and solar, you know, having been developed for decades is is not new. But the issue of galvanized steel has been studied, you know, effect, you know, since the 50s. I mean, there's an article that that balances, you know, the the risk of galvanized steel in the soil and finds and finds no risk. So, um, you know, we didn't we didn't feel the need to bring that literature because we brought the live testimony, but it just um it hasn't been an issue. This is not a new this is not new engineering science. Okay. You don't know that you don't know that it would be an issue or not. But my other question is why so many acres?

Well, that I'll turn to Mr. Well, the the acreage is to support a facility of a specific of a of a target capacity. Our target capacity for this facility was 600 megawatts um which is in line with the um um peaking facility. I think I mentioned in previous testimony that we util utilize surplus capacity. We basically use the uh available transmission capacity on the power lines to interconnect. And so when we develop a facility, we develop it based on that target capacity and requires a certain amount of acreage to support enough solar panels to uh produce power at that desired output.

So you have to have that all checkerboarded over the area. You know, it's not con concentrated. We need a we need a sufficient project footprint to develop to that target capacity. Well, let let me expand on our question then. So, I I know where the uh Lincoln uh Peter plant is. Yes. So, I guess to make it simple, if the mile and a half radius of that plant, you had all willing land owners to rent to you, you would have preferred to put it all within that mile and a half. An ideal um an ideal footprint would be a circle uh with an area equivalent to and so why didn't you do that?

Because when we evaluate a site, we're evaluating a number of factors. We're looking at um environmental constraints. We're looking at title constraints. We're looking for willing land owners who are willing to transact. But there are a range of factors. And so we our our footprint represents an optimal an optimization of all those variables that we take into consideration. So it's safe to say there's a number of people you approached with this project and they said no. Yes. Thank you. I I took over on you. So

the chairman wants me to Yeah. But I I have a couple more. So the leases. Yeah. Can you tell me how many of the leases control cl or have a clause in them that would allow the possibility of a battery energy storage system? Our form lease are I, you know, our leases vary a little bit. There's specific bespoke terms and each, but our form lease does include that. So pretty much every lease you present to a landowner probably has it unless they ask you to remove it with their lawyer when they review it. Yes, that's correct.

And then um it's also come to my attention that you own some of this land of the 699. We own a subsidiary of Earthrise owns some of it. We own a small percentage of the land. Uh most of the land is being leased back from other from leased from other from the actual owners of the property. Small percentage single digits less than 10%. By the time that the project is developed, Earthrise will lease I'd say over 90% of the acreage. Lease. Lease. Yeah. How much do you own?

I'm sorry. Well, I'm sorry. By the time the project is constructed, Earthrise will lease over 90% of of the land. So I'll go back to her capacity question. Your capacity of 600 megawatts is capped by the interconnection agreement. That's correct.

And I've spoke several times at these cases that in the we've had several speakers and it's been confirmed that over the course of six years this person said in their business they had seen this photovotayaic panels increase in efficiency. I believe his number was about 40%. So if you're needing 6,99 acres right now to make 600 megawws and new technology comes online and say five years from now you all of a sudden have the capacity or are producing 800 megawws. What happens to the 200 that you produce, can you not sell it? Is it just lost?

We would in order to inject more power into the bulk transmission system we would need to go back and seek another uh interconnection agreement. Is that something you would do or would you consider removing some of the land from the project and decommissioning some within five or 10 years? I I think that determination will have to be made at a later date. It's also a constraint at the peaker plant. So, right. So, ultimately, you know, our business model is to use available surplus transmission capacity at these peaking facilities. That's our business model. That's our strategy. That's how we go out into the market. It's our competitive advantage. Um and so to do anything different from that would really to be deviate from our core strategy.

Right. And if what I understand all these proposals the interconnection agreement is a sign significant portion of the infrastructure investment and you already have that. So you basically are sidest stepping that additional expense of the interconnection with KMED. You would just have to be interconnecting to the peaker plant and you'd be doing that with your own contractors and out. That's the way I understand this project. Correct. I don't think I'm following the line your line your your questions. So all the solar cases that I've heard yes require an interconnection agreement with KMED

and Kameed to usually do the upgrades. In a recent case they were coming almost two miles with a infrastructure improvement. And I know we had a large one in southern Willil County that the project was pulled before it was heard by the county board after this commission had heard it because as the newspaper article said their interconnection agreement estimate from comment had gone from 30 million to 50 million. Right. I mean and so obviously the applicant or what the way they portrayed it the applicant decided that your $20 million cost was a deal breaker and you don't have that cost per se with Kamet.

That's correct. We do not have that pro and that cost that's a yeah we don't have that cost because we're connecting through a different pathway. They're connecting interconnecting through what's called the queue. And so basically that's the typical way of doing it if you don't have a natural gas peaking plant available to interconnect at. And so by utilizing that infrastructure we do not have to interconnect through the queue. It's a it's a separate process. It's a different process of interconnecting. And so we do that available transmission capacity is already allocated to the peaker plant whereas our a competitor interconnecting through the queue has to analyze the the the impact to the to the bigger system and has to determine if there is available trans transmission capacity. If there's not, then they have to pay to upgrade the system to accommodate that additional um generation.

And if I remember your testimony before, there is a time limit on that peaker plant. It will sunset and have to cease operation at a certain time. That's correct. What date does that for the Manhattan facility? My I believe that that is over 10 years out. So the peaker plant would be shutting down long before the life expectancy of the solar facility under the current law. I believe that is correct. Okay. So it's not your decision to shut down the peaker plant. It's because of the siege rules of the siejo. It's it's not our decision. No, we're we're bound by law. So that could actually change.

That could actually change. That's correct. That would have to be determined in Springfield, but not by Earthrise. At that point, would you have to connect with KMED? I'm sorry. At that point, would you have to connect with Kameed if once the peaker plant shuts down?

To be clear, the the governing body who determines our interconnection is not KMED. I think you're probably familiar with the distributed generation, the community solar projects, the the smaller, you know, 40 acre typical projects. Those are connecting to the um distribution layer of the grid, the poles and wires that deliver power to homes and businesses. We're connecting at the transmission layer of the grid. And so at the transmission of the layer of the grid, the governing body is uh PJM. And so that's that's who we're working with. So I just wanted to clarify that

their Manhattan PER plant is directly across the street from the Manhattan uh substation for Commonwealth Edison. And I saw them build the new line in there. It's it's a lot different than what you would see going down the road. It's a high voltage transmission. It's a high volt. That's that's right. And for your benefit and the benefit of the people here, I pulled into the peaker plant the other day. There's a gate there like you said and I hit the button was going to ask them if I needed to get a hold to somebody would they be able to do that. They opened the gate. So your facility is told you there's a door to knock on. I I could I confirmed what you said. Yeah.

They opened the gate and then uh she was confused as to what I was wanting to ask her, but she said yes, you could come up to the office. I'm glad to hear that. All the people here, if you want to go talk to somebody at at the peaker plant in the future, that opportunity is there. But um I just Yeah, I I know you're going to be asking for best probably later in the future because our thirst for electricity is not ending. or at least I should say I very fully suspect you'll be asking for battery energy storage systems in the future.

Somebody probably will. Whether it's Earthrise or not, we don't know. But if Earthrise did for certain, they would have to come back to this board with another special use permit application at least as your ordinance is currently written and ask for that permission in a hearing just like this all over again.

And if I could, I just like to make uh one final point since uh Mr. Jacobi had quite some time to talk. Um, you had asked about if there is a reason that you can deny the application. We asked numerous questions tonight about the solar arrays. One of the requirements in the county solar statute is that the applicant is required to list the exact number of solar arrays. They testified tonight here. They don't even know what arrays they're going to use and that they didn't have any numbers in their application. So that gives you a perfect reason to deny this application. Vote no because the application is incomplete. The number I'm sorry that that is a false statement.

Once again, that's something I couldn't determine. I guess I would have to defer to the land use staff and the the land use employee that actually filled out this application is no longer with the county. But I'll make it real easy for you. Those numbers are on the site plan on every page of the proposed condition use in its in a site data table. So those numbers are right there. Um that was requested by the land use department to make our application complete and that was complied with on March 5, 2026. So that is not a valid reason to to deny the application.

I I directly uh dispute that they I asked them specifically about the number racks and they said they don't know and they don't even know what they're going to use. If that is what is required by the statute and they don't have the numbers in, then you have to deny this application because the application is incomplete. It's not it doesn't matter what land use says that they advance it. It's your job as the commission to do the right thing and if the application is incomplete, you need to deny it. There's nothing in this ordinance that requires a number of racks. Yes, there is. N I'm going to have to shut up now because I believe we're under court order to finish this meeting in three hours and it's my fault that we've gone over. So

you can blame it on me too. Um, so what percentage of this project is going to be on hydric soil? Is it what percentage of this project is going to be on hydric soil based on the report? About a third about a third of it. So 100,000 posts. So and I'm I'm just trying to understand it because there is no cases so or literature that are directly cited. But is there no literature cases uh pointing to contamination of soil or groundwater due to the lack of similar projects with the density of posts in the hydric soils?

What I want to clarify my previous response to your question that those that measurement of approximately 2,000 I think it was 2135 was the number I saw in the report that refers to the entire parcel. That does not necessarily mean the area under the panels. Oh, that's right. So, 6,99 acres is a parcel. How many acres do you know? Understood. You need to make 600 megawws. How many How many You're asking the number of acres under panels?

I I don't have I can't give you a final, you know, an exact number on that, but it's it's obviously going to be less than six. This time it's not your intention to avoid hydric soils where you put the panels. You'll be avoiding wetlands probably, but not it's not your intention to avoid hydric soils. That's accurate. That's accurate. So is there just there's not been any studies on a density of galvanized post and hydric soils similar to this project? As as I testified, we don't believe that galvanized steel is a is a threat to public safety or agriculture. Understood. I'm just more of a

He's making a point because you're probably using the same exact steel pylons as the highway department uses at every guard rail. I don't know what the highway department uses, but I will note that, you know, there is abundant galvanized steel farm infrastructure throughout Will County. There's some very large grain elevators all over Will County that are made out of galvanized steel. They're exposed to rain water with a lower pH off the rails. One speaker at a time and the speakers are at the podiums. Thank you.

I'm good. Okay. May I ask you a question? Sure. In the information we have here to vote tonight, we don't have the four original uh conditions. Conditions. We need them up on the board. Conditions. Did we get the conditions put up on the on the board or someplace where we could see them? Yes. um with the original presentation or the first presentation slide deck um slides five or four and five I believe have the conditions I think slide five

what you bring our old paperwork I don't think any of us understood you I'm sorry

the other um slide deck if you Good. Just a disaster.

This is this is our new information here. some of the they wanted to change some

Yeah, they had some logic just through for the CAD wiring system that the fire routes be gravel and the road use agreement and he wanted to add consistent with the Will County ordinance, but there's there's no way one of us can uh recite what these conditions are for the record without a uh something written in front of us to look at. I've just used paraphrasing here that we're going to need a great amount of help. And I believe the chairman's wanting his commissions to be added before we can have a vote.

We'll get the presentation pulled up shortly. Okay. on the show. Oh my goodness. I did at least find my notes. It's not complete. Why Why were both of his handed all in the head? We are. We're going to get paid. They want to change. Well, I I address the agreements and they said they won't give them out

until they won't give out the permit until the road use agreements are in place but now they want as a condition if you remember I wanted to add as a condition they said it would be redundant

so the conditions on the screen are um what was recommended and read by the land use and development committee. You heard tonight uh the developer requesting condition number three, five and six be also amended further. Um so I think the way to go about would be amend condition three and then adopt five and six as the developer um has stipulated. And number three was the wording similar to the project is approved using the CAD wiring system that's in the application provided. Is that sufficient enough?

Pro provided however that the project's approved to utilize CAB above ground cabling system between panels as described by the applicant at hearing. Are we okay to use that wording legally? That's what the county board approved for Plum Valley. And then condition five to add the wording that

condition five was a little more um involved. The proposal was notwithstanding any other provision in the Will County code including chapter 164 of the Will County code which is the site development permit chapter. The fire lanes, including access roads, shall be gravel per the request of the fire departments. Any such gravel fire lane shall be considered pvious under the Will County code. Okay. And that is consistent with what was approved at Plum Valley. That's exactly what was approved. That's the way. Okay. Y and then number six was the road use agreement. You wanted to add the sentence consistent with the Will County ordinance at the end of what this says.

That's right. because it's duplicative of the ordinance and so um we just added consistent with the Will County ordinance at the end comma comma consistent with the Will County ordinance.

Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion as soon as I concerning ZC25-129 special use permit 25-056 that the staff conditions be modified as stated for number three, five, and six. And I will forego trying to read them, the ones that were stated here and understood. That's my motion. So, we have a motion by John Kefner. Second. Have a motion. Second. May I have a roll call, please?

And these are to um amend number three, five, and six. Correct. John Kefner. Yes. Matt Garland. I'm sorry. And this is just for the amendment to the conditions. Just for the amendment. Yes. Lewis Navarat. Yes. Karen Warick. Yes. And chairman Hugh Stippen. Yes. That passes for the amended conditions 3, five, and six will be amended. Yep.

Mr. Chairman ZC25-129 special use permit 25-056 approval of a special use permit for a commercial solar energy facility with the six conditions as amended. Am I saying that right? Yes. Okay. Second. Second. Lewis Navaret. Second motion. John Kefner. No. Matt Garland, no. Lewis Navarat, yes. Karen Warick, no. And Hugh Stippen,

no. One to four. Link. We have a motion for

Thank you. Public hearing. Yes.

And commissioner, you have the board right now. Do you have the mic for public comment? There's the mic for public comments. Yeah. Have we anyone who cares to make public comment now? You can't affect the vote because the vote's over, but you're welcome to. Yes, sir. Come forward. I was hoping many people would leave before he said that. Why are they going to comment? I told my wife I'd be home by then. Last time. You will be. You will be. If I may not be. Okay, I believe our public comments limited, Mr. Chairman. Yes,

this won't take long 15 seconds.

Okay. My name is Jim Baltus. I live in Manhattan Township. I want to say that I have confidence in this board and any other boards that you consider future solar projects. I know you will follow Illinois law and the proper process for projects like this. That means a few basic things. A complete application, proper public notice and a fair hearing, review of local plans and ordinances, consideration of the roads, drainage and nearby properties, and then also I want written findings of fact explaining the decision based on the evidence. These help these steps will help everyone understand how and why a decision is made and how they protect the county and the public. I request that this be made part of the record. And one little side note, I'm the road commissioner. I built the bridge on Bake Road. I did this with federal funding. It was stated here tonight that they can start the project and if they find an owl, then they have to stop. Well, with this project that I had, I had the shortear bat in my area and I had to go through so many steps to make sure that this short air bat was not affected in this project. All right. So, my question is how come there's two sets of rules?

That's state legislator voted amend. We know that, don't we? All right. I know that. But you know what? I'm doing a job to protect the public. Yeah. Okay. So, here's the deal. If if you're going to have rules, we got to have rules for everybody. Not get started and stop. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Do you want a copy of this? Yeah, please. And for our records, I thank you very much. Thank you for your text. Thank you. Thanks for coming out. Yeah. There you are. Yeah, we appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Laura Hydrickch. I've been here before. Um, my problem with the whole special use permit process here has been we had to do a special use permit to have more than five adult dogs on our property. Okay? We had to notify all the adjacent property owners before we made the application. This application was made in November last year. We didn't get notified by mail or anything else until what was it? March. March. Long time. So, how can that application possibly be complete? Because it wasn't they didn't notify any adjacent property owners in time. And the other thing that I would say is that um they're trying to say that these panels aren't going to be by our house, but they are. And they can change their mind about what they want to do, where they want to put the panels after they get this special use permit. Once they get the permit, they can do whatever they want. They have they come back to you. But it doesn't stop. They can say anything they want here. And that's what I have a problem with. I mean, when I made my special use permit, I had to say how many dogs I wanted that special use permit for. And it wasn't open-ended. They didn't say, "Oh, let us know someday." And I just think that if you're going to treat normal people that come before you one way, multi-billion dollar corporations should not be treated any differently.

That's why they got voted, Tom, tonight. I appreciate your vote. Thank you so much. I would only have to is a very beautiful, very benign term, but in reality, it amounts to a solar desert, I believe. And I think a lot of people think the same thing. So, um, uh, I think it's just important to think about what the impact of this is going to be on a lot of people. And we would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Oh, and all all of our farmland all around us. They are going to own all of that all around us. So, any of those pilings are going to be putting stuff into our well, our well all the way around thousand acres around us. So, and all you got to do is Google it. I mean, we saw three different studies just in five minutes. So, I I don't know how they can say that it's not going to affect anybody and it's going to affect us a lot. Thank you. Hi again. Hello there, Melissa Eager. You finally got to get your say in, man.

I know. Thank you. So, listen. I have a, you know, comments prepared, but all I want to say is this instead. I'm going to acknowledge that their experts said there's minimal leeching from zinc, minimal over thousands of acres and tens of thousands of poles become substantial. And I want to put this aside and just say to all of you today, thank you for hearing all of our concerns, hearing what we have to say, and protecting our portable water where we're all on wells. And I I commend you all for making the right decision today. And thank you. That's it. Hello, my name is Larry Kash. I'm a Will County resident of 30 years, veteran, search and rescue volunteer. And I'd like to say uh thank you for giving uh your considerations for these. And I hope you keep an open mind. In the future, there's going to be other opportunities that that are proposed. And I uh with regard to solar energy and as you can see around you that uh we've shut down our coal uh power plants. The Will County generation plant in Romeoville used to generate 590 megawws. It's gone now. It was closed down in 2022. It used to be a landmark. You could see the plume for miles around. That was injecting sulfur dioxide at a rate of 10,000 tons per year. So, let's not forget the results. This is why we're transitioning. We're moving off of that. It used to generate uh the resulting in acid rain, severe respiratory issues, asthma, lung disease, as well as the carbon dioxide 12 and a half million tons per year. Here's another plant in Joliet uh or south of Joliet. It's uh pretty much the

same thing. That one shut down, too. In in its wake, there are three million tons of poisonous ash left behind, leeching arsenic into the groundwater. The Lincoln Stone Quarry Cleanup cannot fix it according to the EPA. They just determined that. So, my advice is don't drink the well water in Juliet uh until the 2030 when the Lake Michigan water project is complete and you actually get clean water off of Lake Michigan. It may be too late for Juliet, but maybe not for the rest of us. I think it's important to evaluate the the impact on the land, but also by comparison, you've got a disaster cleanup here with the the coal plants, and we'll never be able it will be really hard to get rid of those. People are asking for affordable clean energy. Now, where is it going to come from? We've got to decide where that land is and put it in. I don't think there's any holding back. State of Illinois wants it. We've got 27 million land of acres of farmland and less than 1% of it is used for for solar. So I mean 1,000th of it is used for solar. So you have a thousand times more for farm farming. And so I I commend you. I think it's important you protect us. It's also important that you help us find that future of transition. Thank you.

Thank you. Great testimony.

Good evening. My name is Kelly Valtus. I am the clerk with Manhattan Township. I'd like to share a letter that we have shared with the county board members several weeks ago. Dear county board members, we respectfully request that you postpone your decision on zoning case ZC25129, the pride of the prairie project until a trailer bill can be drafted and considered by state legislators to restore local control, consistent with the resolution recently approved by the county board. A brief delay, especially in light of Judge Bronland's temporary restraining order due to Earthrise's incomplete special use application, would allow for a more balanced and collective approach to an issue with long-term consequences for our county. We are not opposed to solar energy. We are opposed to large-scale industrial projects of this magnitude and are simply asking for reasonable local control. Senate Bill 25 has limited the ability of counties and townships to uphold comprehensive plans, community standards, and longstanding land use protections. As a result, local governments have been unable to ensure that developers like Earthrise work in true partnership with our communities. The accelerated special use process has further reduced opportunities for meaningful dialogue. SB25 was not crafted with local communities in mind, but with the interest of large profit-driven entities. This makes it all the more important that we work together quickly and constructively to pursue a trailer bill that restores local authority and better protection of our residents. We understand that postponing the vote may affect incentives available to Earthrise. However, those incentives are funded by Illinois's taxpayers and could contribute to a broader state budget challenge. Those dollars should support our local communities to attract and retain

residents, not allow negatively not allow negative physical and visual impacts that will remain for decades. As County Executive Jennifer Bertino Tarant was quoted saying, it is a flawed process. We share her concern and we hope you do as well. A short delay is not a rejection of process. It is a commitment to getting things right. It allows for better alignment, stronger collaboration, and more responsible outcome for our county. And I do want to point out since we've sent this letter, State Representative Duca has already introduced several House bills to restore control of local government. This this is happening quickly. We need to take our time and be thoughtful about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello again. My name is Alexa Snow. Uh, I want to thank each and every one of the board members for being professional, not making silly faces, not chuckling, and other things cuz I've noticed that today in the room outside of just the general public, other professionals so to speak. Um not necessarily naming Earthrise either. Um just a couple things. Um they've only had one solar facility uh be around a year operating for a year. So we don't really know what these posts do in the ground. They need to be there for a while um for that. Uh their experts are ones that they chose, not impartial experts. And why aren't these all being considered individually? Every other one is individual. Why is this one being considered as a lump sum? Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.

Uh Tim Shanahan from Manhattan Township and like to thank you for listening to four hours of testimony and making the right decision. You know, when the meeting first started, I had heard Earthrise say that the reason that they're choosing the Pride of the Prairie uh location, it be is because of the the uh the cogen plant. So, I have a business plan for Earthwise. Why don't you go ahead and find suitable solar land and build a peaker station at that point and save yourself a lot of trouble. But thanks again for the uh for the vote. Thank you.

I also want to thank you for the vote, Jeff Becker, from the the watershed committee. Um the watershed shed committee is a volunteer organization. You don't know how many experts and paid consultants have told residential residents, um there is not a wetland here. There is not a farmed wetland here. And we then come and we go to the army corps or the IDNR and then all of a sudden it changes and it is there. The paid consultants are here to sell you a project. We are just a volunteer organization that fights to protect the environment and the far you have to have hydrophidic vegetation. When you farm and till a field you cannot determine the plants that are coming up. That's why it's between April and October that they that you have to allow those plants to then show themselves. It makes perfect sense in how everything works for planting. If a field is being tilled, you cannot determine hydrophic vegetation. You have to wait until it is fallow. And I think that is something that they're missing in the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They do they have a wonderful map. that's in inventory, but it's delineated mainly wetlands. It's not all the farmed wetlands. And we've had project after project that we have been brought on to where there was either a flood plane or a wetland that was not identified and then it required protection. So that is a situation that has to be protected because there's only 10% of the wetlands left in Illinois. So we thank you for your vote. We really do appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Hello, my name is Gary Schwarz. I live on Schoolhouse Road. Uh I am affected. I'm going to be surrounded on three sides by the uh project. Um uh my property also butts up against the wetlands. Um we have a lot of migratory birds. We have deer that run through there. And I'm just concerned how all that's going to be affecting, you know, um the wildlife and and our lifestyle. We've been there 38 years. So, this has come as a complete shock to us. This is my first meeting that I've attended. Uh I too am a um a uh operating engineer. I've worked on many a super fun site over my years. I know what Lee is. I know what it does to the soils. I know how it travels. Uh my concern is everybody's talking about surface. I'm curious to know, does Earthrise know that in Will County, um, again, I've turned a lot of dirt in Will County and there are many, many field tiles that run throughout all this farmland to the point where nobody knows where they go. Okay? So, it's not just surface, it's the aquifer, it's also these field tiles. Earthrise is in its infancy, if you will. You said you've been operating for a year. I mean, I I just don't see where that gives me any any comfort level with respect to leeching from these posts. Um, you can Google galvanized posts. Um, I'm sure your experts, um, you know, again, they're your experts. They're not ours. Okay. So, I I just want to thank the board for your decision this evening. I know you I have

good faith in what your decisions will be in the uh in the future. And the only thing I can say is if this does pass, you can bet that battery storage is not too far down the road. And I would ask anybody that's in favor of this, would you have different feelings if it affected you or if it was surrounding you on three sides of your property? Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

My name is Randy Jurus. Uh, currently living in Lockport, used to live at Homer Glenn. And uh for better than a quarter of a century now, I've watched Will County develop. And what's going to happen is this land that we're talking about here would like to be kept open spaces, would like to be kept, if not farmland, open spaces. But that's going to take legislation to do. What you guys are supposed to do is to figure out what development you want to see. Now, I've watched the people get stonewalled down at North Point. Nobody really was excited about Center Point. When John Grueling was in power, he turned around and said, "This part of the country is going to be transportation, period." So if you don't have solar, what are you going to get? What else are you going to like? You guys cannot legislate that that land's going to stay open land. It's going to stay farmland or open spaces. So what are you going to allow? Turbines, diesels, what other infrastructure to support the data center that's coming and other data centers that are going to come. I agree that you can try to keep this what you like it to be, but you need to be thinking about what it's going to be. And if you don't like solar, what do you like? I wish you guys would think a lot about it. I know they brought up a lot of things. And I wish that a lot of these things would have been brought up when we'll say the data centers came up. You can go to the people in Aurora that are

now up in arms about what happened when they did not ask those questions. They're now stuck with a data center. Right now you've got open land. What can you guys do or more importantly the whole board to keep it that way? Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Gary Lincoln. I reside in Green Garden Township. I've been up here before, as many of you know. I think I'm I'm trying to figure out what went wrong in this whole system. And I'm I know that the county board has a lobbyist or at least I understand they do in Springfield that kind of keeps them up to date on stuff. I don't understand if the and it's not really directed at the board, but it's directed at the state's attorney. If we have a states attorney in Will County that actually works for us, the people, maybe that states attorney could go to Springfield or not. They could go to federal court and sue the governor in the state of Illinois for taking our rights away. Somebody has to do that. And I'm thinking if we have a states attorney already on the payroll, maybe that would be something to do instead of sitting there and mumbling every so often when there's a question, well, you know, you should probably let that go because, you know, they can sue us. No, actually do something. Be proactive for us. That's what I want. I want to thank the board for what they did tonight. I know it was a difficult decision, but I think all of you understand you understand your jobs. You also understand that you work for the people. You might get a check from the county, but the thing is you're supposed to be working for the people. And I think you did that

tonight. And I want to thank you. Thank you for your very much.

Good evening. My name's Tim Callas. I am the absolute dumbest guy in this room. Heard a lot of people talk tonight about uh quesons and uh galvanized posts. Uh I'm so dumb. I worked on a quesan project in the city of Chicago. We went down hundreds of feet and we used rebar and concrete. She's absolutely right. That's what she used. Second of all, that went on top of 68 story high-rise. Multiple times I did that working for Mchugh Construction. Second of all, I worked for contractors installing guard rail which is made out of galvanized steel and anywhere you go in Will County who has installed Department of Transportation Will County has installed more galvanized than a solar farm ever would if you go way back. So, I understand what you're saying about the leeching and those are if you drive around, they're probably right along your uh your wetlands. And what are they doing? Leeching in if that's that's the case. But like I said, I'm the dumbest guy in the room. I'm so dumb. 30 years ago, I joined a union to work on these projects. And 30 years ago, I'd never pictured myself where I would be today. And work at this project or any other project that comes around, good, hardworking people work on it. And I commend you for hearing everybody tonight, but think about what people say about a certain specific thing to to sway your vote when your own county installs these things along there. And the Illinois Department of Transportation that just move forward, open your eyes and think. Like I said, I'm the absolute dumbest guy in this room. I'm so dumb I made myself into a field rep organizer for this local and that. So just think about that. I'm pretty dumb. But open your eyes to the big picture, all that stuff. And that that's all. Thank you.

Dumbest guy in the room over and over again doesn't prove it. Made me laugh. Well, hopefully I don't approve it. Um, my name is Patrick Costy and I'm director of Chicago area. We represent over,400 contractors and 20,000 laborers in northeastern Illinois, including Will County. Um despite the uh decision made today, we don't agree with it, but we do respect it and um despite your vote today, which is only a recommendation, we support this application and we will proudly continue to support the application. Thank you.

Thank you. I guess I'll be the last one. Pat Young with the operating agenda 150. Um Local 150 supports this project. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you to staff. Good night. Good night. Thank you, sir, Mr. Chairman. Oh, yeah.

Good evening. And uh thanks again. And uh I'm going to argue for the guy back here. I am the dumbest guy in the world. I'm a farmer. Uh and uh so y'all understand, we do have a horse in the race. We have 100 acres uh that's optioned uh on the property. I heard a lot of things. One of the things I heard in the original testimony from uh Mr. Becker back uh a month ago was uh he threw a lot of things against the wall. Uh some of it isn't true. For instance, he said the United States Department of A and I got to look at my notes here. Um it's in the uh 229th minute of the recorded testimony um that the United States Department of A Secretary Rollins has uh and let me get this. He said that it appears that the great majority of this land is prime farmland. So we believe that the federal government has preempted this and therefore cannot be therefore the application is incomplete. And what he went on to say was uh they uh put a moratorium on uh building solar panels on farm ground. That's just not true. Again, he was he was sworn in and that's not the case. We kind of went down a rabbit hole tonight talking about zinc uh candidly. We flat on with drones. It's in our fertilizer. Uh whenever you think about the big picture, we talked about the big picture with the last couple speakers. There's so much stuff we dump on this ground. You ought to be happy that it's not going to be it's not going to happen once it's converted to a solar field. If you really knew what's in that stuff, our our chemical guys handle it with mask with gloves. Uh and some of that stuff we can agree causes cancer. That stuff all trickles in the water. It's not going to be put on the solar ground. Um and then um finally we talked about um property rights. We own the ground. These people we ought to be able to do with it what we want. I understand y'all will county got a bit of a demotion. Nobody likes a demotion with the state law that was passed. But truth of the matter is it helps us do what we want with the ground we bought and paid for.

Things are tough on the front right now. Hope hopefully the county board will keep that in consideration. And um I guess finally the analogy I kind of draw is hey you some of you guys are old enough to remember whenever the speed limit went from 65 to 55 during the um oil embargo crisis. It's the law. We had to follow it. Uh there's a bunch of laws I know I don't like out there. I understand there's laws out there that you don't you don't like. I just would hope that the uh Will County government would agree would understand. We got to follow the law. We spent a lot of money on court cases, private. They hired additional attorneys and stuff. I think we'd all shake head shake our heads um about how much money was spent. The courts ruled. Um it kind of is what it is, at least for now. Um again, I appreciate your time. You guys go through a lot. Um the final point I would make is this is you you've heard from this sector uh the people it affects directly. This is an area that's not dense uh population dense as Will County goes. Um and so it is a better place than some of the areas to the north. You've heard from the the other municipalities uh and the problems they have with uh community solar next next to there. Again, I appreciate your time. Thank you for your uh uh attention.

Thank you. Ray Nan, Wilton Township Highway Commissioner. I'm glad that John is back to hear this, but SH bonds, and this isn't a slap at Earth Rice, shity bonds are useless. If anybody's worked on a project that involves shity bonds, you've you've just made the job that much harder. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um, thanks everybody for the comments. We're going to now call for adjournment. Our next meeting is scheduled for the May 19th. May I have a motion to adjourn?

Make a motion. Second. Motion. A second. Youard both. Okay. Are you going to vote to close the meeting? I didn't catch it. Are you voting or are you all in agreement to close? Yeah. We get the motion, the second. I have it. Okay. But we'll just wave our hands by saying I oppose same side. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We stay here long enough.