Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Economic Development Packet 2023 04-05-23 - cancelled
AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 5, 2023 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL This meeting has been cancelled. United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 5, 2023 6:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: March 7, 2023 New Business: 1. EDC 2023-18 Building Permit Report for February 2023 2. EDC 2023-19 Building Inspection Report for February 2023 3. EDC 2023-20 Property Maintenance Report for February 2023 4. EDC 2023-21 Economic Development Report for March 2023 5. EDC 2023-22 Bristol Bay Unit 10 Final Plat Amendment 6. EDC 2023-23 Bristol Ridge Solar 105 – Amendment, Rezone, Special Use and Variance 7. EDC 2023-24 Bristol Ridge Solar 106 – Amendment, Rezone, Special Use and Variance Old Business: Additional Business: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 5, 2023 6:00 PM CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES FOR CORRECTION/APPROVAL: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. March 7, 2023 □ Approved __________ □ As presented □ With corrections --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2023-18 Building Permit Report for February 2023 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. EDC 2023-19 Building Inspection Report for February 2023 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. EDC 2023-20 Property Maintenance Report for February 2023 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. EDC 2023-21 Economic Development Report for March 2023 □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. EDC 2023-22 Bristol Bay Unit 10 Final Plat Amendment □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. EDC 2023-23 Bristol Ridge Solar 105 – Amendment, Rezone, Special Use and Variance □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. EDC 2023-24 Bristol Ridge Solar 106 – Amendment, Rezone, Special Use and Variance □ Moved forward to CC __________ □ Approved by Committee __________ □ Bring back to Committee __________ □ Informational Item □ Notes ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Minutes Tracking Number Minutes of the Economic Development Committee – March 7, 2023 Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Majority Committee Approval Minute Taker Name Department DRAFT Page 1 of 2 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 7, 2023, 6:00pm City Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Rd., Yorkville, IL Note: In accordance with Public Act 101-0640 and Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation issued by Governor Pritzker pursuant to the powers vested in the Governor under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, remote attendance was allowed for this meeting to encourage social distancing due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. All attendees were in person In Attendance: Committee Members Vice-Chairman Ken Koch Alderman Chris Funkhouser Alderman Joe Plocher Other City Officials City Administrator Bart Olson Assistant City Administrator Erin Willrett Community Development Director Krysti Barksdale-Noble Code Official Pete Ratos Other Guests City Consultant Lynn Dubajic Kellogg Mike Krempski Dave Guss The meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Vice-Chairman Ken Koch. Citizen Comments None Minutes for Correction/Approval February 7, 2023 The minutes were approved as presented. New Business 1. EDC 2023-13 Building Permit Report for January 2023 Mr. Ratos reported 57 total permits and of those 22 were single-family detached homes and 5 commercial. One of the commercial permits is a buildout for a meat company in the downtown. 2. EDC 2023-14 Building Inspection Report for January 2023 There were 524 inspections done in January and most were single-family or single-family attached. Mr. Ratos said they are outsourcing when needed, but they try to keep most in- house. Page 2 of 2 3. EDC 2023-15 Property Maintenance Report for January 2023 There were 4 cases heard in January. Mr. Ratos referred to one particular case where work was being done without a permit. The violator was given instructions for the repairs they were doing to a porch. The repairs were made, then the violator undid them. A fine was paid and ultimately the porch passed inspection. 4. EDC 2023-16 Economic Development Report for February 2023 Ms. Dubajic Kellogg referred to the report in the packet, saying there were many updates and many pending items. 5. EDC 2023-17 Ordinance Approving an Economic Incentive Agreement Between the United City of Yorkville and Marker, Inc., McCue Development, Inc., Scott and Lisa Sleezer, and John Rohlfing Ms. Noble said the Heartland Subdivision is about 95% complete and 13 lots remain, 12 of which are owned by those listed above. The 12 owners are looking to extend the fee lock for 5 years to complete the subdivision. The original development was approved in 2002 with a fee lock of 20 years. The other lot is not participating in this request so their fees will remain the same. The bulk of the increases due to the fee lock expiration are for the water connection fees and development fees. Staff is proposing a building permit fee of $13,000+, nearly the same as the original fee in 2002, compared to the actual fees of $18,000+ if unchanged. Ms. Noble said the recommendation is to reduce water connection fees from the current $5,554 to $3,700 per unit. Alderman Plocher said he was OK with this request, but he did not think water connection fees should be lowered unless it's a small amount. He said he would be OK with a year extension with the option to pre-pay at the end of the year. Alderman Koch asked what precedent this might set for other developers since water rates will soon increase and there is no plan in place at this time for the increases. He asked if the city had offered to allow them to pre-pay their fees even though the expiration date has passed, however, the parties had declined. Alderman Funkhouser said there are other larger developments that don't have fee locks. He said he wants to help builders and developers, but others might request larger fee reductions. Aldermen Koch and Plocher were willing to extend the fee lock expiration for one year from December 31st and then pre-pay while Alderman Funkhouser is opposed. Mr. Koch added that the reason he is willing to extend the expiration is because water fees have not been decided. With a negative recommendation, the Committee is moving this forward to the full Council so all Aldermen can consider this request. Ms. Noble will discuss this with the petitioner. Old Business: None Additional Business: None There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 6:25pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Marlys Young, Minute Taker Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #1 Tracking Number EDC 2023-18 Building Permit Reports for February 2023 Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Informational None All permits issued in February. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department L:\Agendas - Packets\Packets\2023 Packets\Economic Development\04-05-23\Permit Reports\Feb 2023.doc Prepared by: D Weinert UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BUILDING PERMIT REPORT February 2023 TYPES OF PERMITS Number of Permits Issued SFD Single Family Detached SFA Single Family Attached Multi- Family Apartments Condominiums Commercial Includes all Permits Issued for Commercial Use Industrial Misc. Construction Cost Permit Fees February 2023 87 12 18 0 4 0 53 5,333,922.00 389,575.50 Calendar Year 2023 144 34 18 0 9 0 83 9,667,985.00 538,323.24 Fiscal Year 2023 1249 144 121 0 86 0 898 57,515,681.00 2,828,415.42 February 2022 54 5 8 0 5 0 36 2,293,576.00 56,496.90 Calendar Year 2022 111 19 8 0 12 0 72 5,884,589.00 151,150.80 Fiscal Year 2022 1,229 169 144 0 87 0 829 57,403,966.00 2,062,133.69 February 2021 60 19 10 0 4 0 27 4,874,589.00 184,226.48 Calendar Year 2021 121 36 14 0 13 0 58 8,965,731.00 314,645.92 Fiscal Year 2021 1,561 210 108 0 64 0 1,179 57,738,415.00 2,606,674.19 February 2020 45 12 0 0 4 0 29 1,788,450.00 121,753.62 Calendar Year 2020 104 14 2 0 18 0 67 3,230,614.00 174,452.75 Fiscal Year 2020 1,965 112 32 0 92 0 1,729 44,895,064.00 1,426,273.74 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #2 Tracking Number EDC 2023-19 Building Inspection Report for February 2023 Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Informational None All inspections scheduled in February 2023. D. Weinert Community Development Name Department DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 1TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ 073-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 10000001 COUNTY INSPECTIONS 0 02/09/2023 Comments1: 607 WACKER DR, YORKVILLEPR _____ 074-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/10/2023 Comments1: 7389 CLUBHOUSE DR -- WHITETAILPR _____ 075-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/15/2023 Comments1: 92 HUNTSMEN DR - GOMAZ/MCCUEBF _____ AM 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210581 3955 HAVENHILL CT 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ AM 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ AM 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ AM 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: FIN-- ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 019-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: FELBF _____ 020-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: FMCBF _____ AM 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20210582 3957 HAVENHILL CT 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ AM 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ AM 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ AM 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/23/2023 Comments1: ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: FIN - ABBY 630-273-2528BF _____ 019-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: REL DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 2TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ 020-REI REINSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: RMCJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211194 2585 ANNA MARIA LN 721 02/02/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211228 2952 GRANDE TR 421 02/02/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211233 2042 SQUIRE CIR 193 02/02/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211241 3175 JUSTICE DR 700 02/02/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211327 3178 JUSTICE DR 602 02/02/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211404 2854 ALDEN AVE 336 02/14/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211500 3165 JUSTICE DR 698 02/14/2023 Comments1: FENCEJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211519 4485 E MILLBROOK CIR 234 02/21/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211523 3064 JUSTICE DR 629 02/14/2023 Comments1: FENCEJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211533 2844 OLD GLORY DR 280 02/13/2023 Comments1: FENCEJP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211534 2651 BURR ST 84 02/27/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211551 2848 ALDEN AVE 335 02/23/2023 Comments1: FENCEJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211571 2061 SQUIRE CIR 212 02/27/2023JP _____ 003-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211575 2079 SQUIRE CIR 215 02/27/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211675 2527 LYMAN LOOP 21 02/27/2023JP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211707 2884 ALDEN AVE 325 02/23/2023 Comments1: FENCEJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20211713 2548 ANNA MARIA LN 593 02/27/2023BC 10:00 021-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220034 362 TIMBER OAK LN 36 02/07/2023 Comments1: 630-632-7433 JASON /RALLY FINAL FOR MOD Comments2: EL USEBC 10:00 022-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/07/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 3TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC 10:00 023-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 02/07/2023PR 10:00 024-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/07/2023 Comments1: 630-632-7433 JASON /RALLY FINAL FOR MOD Comments2: EL USEED _____ 025-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/07/2023 Comments1: 630-632-7433 JASON /RALLY FINAL FOR MOD Comments2: EL USEGH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220178 555 BRAEMORE LN 532 02/23/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/23/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JB _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/22/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220181 605 BRAEMORE LN 531 02/09/2023 Comments1: DARREN 224-470-9922 SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/09/2023GH _____ 018-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/09/2023PBF _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/09/2023 Comments1: DARREN 224-470-9922JB _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/10/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220353 3742 BISSEL DR 131-3 02/23/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/23/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795JB _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 4TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 20220354 3738 BISSEL DR 131-4 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795JB _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220355 3736 BISSEL DR 131-5 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/22/2023GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/22/2023PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795JB _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 013-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220359 3734 BISSEL DR 1324 02/14/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795GH _____ 014-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/14/2023GH _____ 015-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/14/2023PR _____ 016-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/14/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795JB _____ 017-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/14/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220401 608 BRAEMORE LN 537 02/08/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/08/2023GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/08/2023PR _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/08/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JP _____ 015-INS INSULATION 02/13/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220404 668 BRAEMORE LN 539 02/10/2022 Comments1: DARREN 224-470-9922 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 5TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/10/2023GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/10/2023PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/10/2023 Comments1: DARREN 224-470-9922JB _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/10/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220405 622 ASHWORTH LN 525 02/23/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/23/2023GH _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JP _____ 014-INS INSULATION 02/28/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220406 2456 RICHMOND AVE 483 02/13/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082GH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/13/2023GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/13/2023PR _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/13/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JB _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/13/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 018-INS INSULATION 20220408 2294 RICHMOND AVE 476 02/03/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 SEAL GAP @ DUCT PVC-DO Comments2: NE, SEAL ROMEX @SUBFLOOR KITCH ISLAND-DO Comments3: NEJP _____ AM 017-STP STOOP 20220561 2726 ELLORY CT 139 02/08/2023 Comments1: REAR -- MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220648 2411 FAIRFIELD AVE 491 02/22/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 SEE INSPECTION REPORTPBF _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 02/28/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 6TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20220649 2346 RICHMOND AVE 479 02/06/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/22/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20220651 2466 FAIRFIELD AVE 540 02/22/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JP _____ 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: DARREN 224-470-9922PBF _____ PM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20220652 2312 RICHMOND AVE 477 02/06/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PR _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/16/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082JP _____ 011-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220653 2428 RICHMOND AVE 482 02/02/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTJP _____ 007-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20220656 2407 FAIRFIELD AVE 492 02/14/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PBF _____ PM 008-SUM SUMP 02/27/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20220714 2404 RICHMOND AVE 481 02/08/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066-- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/13/2023 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 02/17/2023 Comments1: JUAN CARLOS 847-551-9066PBF _____ AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 02/22/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001PBF _____ 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/22/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PW _____ 021-REI REINSPECTION 20220739 2810 BERRYWOOD LN 826 02/03/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS SITE INSPECTJB _____ 022-REI REINSPECTION 02/07/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONS DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 7TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JB _____ 023-REI REINSPECTION 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220742 3340 SEELEY ST 730 02/06/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/06/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPCTION REPORTGH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/06/2023PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/06/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860PW _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/06/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ PM 022-REI REINSPECTION 02/10/2023 Comments1: REINSPECT FIN----MIKE 224-340-5860GH _____ PM 023-REI REINSPECTION 02/10/2023 Comments1: FELBC _____ 016-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220783 2701 NICKERSON CT 157 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYANBC _____ 017-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYANBC _____ 018-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYANPR _____ 019-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYANJB _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ AM 018-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20220784 2732 ELLORY CT 136 02/13/2023 Comments1: DECK FRAMING -- NICK 630-988-0169BC _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220816 2437 FAIRFIELD AVE 489 02/06/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082BC _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/06/2023BC _____ 020-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/06/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 8TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/06/2023 Comments1: JEFF 847-456-8082PW _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/06/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220878 4646 PLYMOUTH AVE 988 02/01/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- ROBERT 708-548-5799BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/01/2023 Comments1: SOLARGH _____ PM 015-STP STOOP 20220883 2646 KELLOGG CT 50 02/07/2023 Comments1: FRONT -- MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ AM 016-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 017-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/16/2023GH _____ AM 012-INS INSULATION 20220884 2649 KELLOGG CT 51 02/02/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ PM 013-STP STOOP 02/07/2023 Comments1: FRONT -- MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ AM 014-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 015-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/23/2023GH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220909 2802 BERRYWOOD LN 828 02/03/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860 SEAL HOLES GAR DOOR BR Comments2: KTS, SET HINGES SERV DOOR, SEALING AROUN Comments3: D DUCT SHOULD BE FIRE FOAMGH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/03/2023GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/03/2023PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/03/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860PW _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/03/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220911 2794 BERRYWOOD LN 830 02/06/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RT DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 9TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/06/2023GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/06/2023PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/06/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860PW _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/06/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220913 2806 BERRYWOOD LN 827 02/03/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860 ADDRESS #'S NOT INSTAL Comments2: LE/SEAL HOLES @ GAR DOOR BRACKETS ADJUST Comments3: SHINGLE OVERHANG ENTY GABLE RT SIDE, SE Comments4: RV DOOR HINGESGH _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/03/2023GH _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/03/2023 Comments1: CUT IN REGISTERS BDRM 1, CHECK REGISTERS Comments2: BDRM 3PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/03/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860PW _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/03/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ AM 019-REI REINSPECTION 02/10/2023 Comments1: FIN -- MIKE 224-340-5860GH _____ AM 020-REI REINSPECTION 02/10/2023 Comments1: FMCGH _____ 018-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220939 2720 POTTER CT 146 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN -- SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH _____ 019-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN - SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTGH _____ 020-FME FINAL MECHANICAL 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYANPR _____ 021-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 10TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JB _____ 022-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN WINTER CONDTIONJB _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20220944 3743 BAILEY RD 102-4 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ 014-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220945 3745 BAILEY RD 102-3 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795 -- SEE INSPECTION R Comments2: EPORTBC _____ 015-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/22/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTBC _____ 016-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/22/2023PBF _____ 017-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795JB _____ 018-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSJB _____ 014-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20220948 3741 BAILEY RD 102-5 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSBC _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795BC _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/22/2023BC _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/22/2023PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/22/2023 Comments1: DOMINIC 224-567-2795BC _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20220978 304 SANDERS CT 0 02/16/2023 Comments1: WINDOWS -- SAMANTHA 603-521-0444GH _____ 015-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221036 2789 BERRYWOOD LN 794 02/21/2023 Comments1: MIKE - 224-340-5860 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTGH _____ 016-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/21/2023GH _____ 017-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/21/2023PBF _____ 018-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/21/2023 Comments1: MIKE 224-340-5860 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 11TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JB _____ 019-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/21/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20221133 2647 KELLOGG CT 52 02/07/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ AM 008-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BF _____ AM 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/23/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TBF _____ AM 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/23/2023BF _____ AM 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ AM 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169JP _____ AM 013-INS INSULATION 02/27/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 -- WATER METER INSTALL Comments2: EDBC _____ AM 014-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/23/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 015-STP STOOP 02/23/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20221134 2644 KELLOGG CT 49 02/07/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ PM 008-STP STOOP 02/07/2023JP _____ AM 009-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/22/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ AM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/22/2023GH _____ AM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/22/2023PBF _____ AM 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/22/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 12TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ AM 014-INS INSULATION 02/24/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169BC _____ AM 015-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/23/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221136 427 FAIRHAVEN DR 35 02/28/2023 Comments1: WINDOWS -- ENTIRE HOUSE -- SUE 630-885-4 Comments2: 308BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221175 291 BARRETT DR A 13-3 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/23/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/23/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/23/2023PR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221176 291 BARRETT DR B 13 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/23/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/23/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/23/2023PR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221177 291 BARRETT DR C 13 02/24/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- WATER METER INSTALL Comments2: EDBC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/24/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/24/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/24/2023PR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221178 291 BARRETT DR D 13 02/24/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- WATER METER INSTALL Comments2: ED DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 13TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/24/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/24/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/24/2023PR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221179 271 BARRETT DR A 12 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/06/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 015-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: RFR -- NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 017-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: RFR -- NORM 630-818-0404 SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTBC _____ AM 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 019-INS INSULATION 02/15/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 020-DMW DEMISING WALL 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221180 271 BARRETT DR B 12 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/06/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 14TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/06/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 015-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: RFR -- NORM 630-818-0404-- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTBC _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: GPL -- NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 017-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: RFR-NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 019-INS INSULATION 02/15/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 020-DMW DEMISING WALL 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221181 271 BARRETT DR C 12 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBC _____ PM 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 014-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/06/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR _____ PM 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: RFR -- NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTI Comments2: ON REPORTBC _____ PM 017-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: GPL DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 15TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: RFR-NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 019-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 020-INS INSULATION 02/15/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 021-DMW DEMISING WALL 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221182 271 BARRETT DR D 12 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBC _____ PM 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/06/2023BC _____ PM 013-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/06/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/06/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ PM 015-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: RFR -- NORM 630-818-0404 -- SEE INSPECTI Comments2: ON REPORTBC _____ PM 016-REI REINSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 017-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: RFR-NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 018-REI REINSPECTION 02/13/2023 Comments1: GPLBC _____ AM 019-INS INSULATION 02/15/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 020-DMW DEMISING WALL 02/23/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20221199 2634 KELLOGG CT 44 02/17/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORT DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 16TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/24/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ 002-FOU FOUNDATION 20221200 2635 KELLOGG CT 58 02/01/2023 Comments1: DO NOT POUR UNTIL MONDAYPBF _____ PM 003-WAT WATER 02/10/2023 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635BC _____ PM 004-BKF BACKFILL 02/10/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTPBF _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/27/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169JP _____ PM 006-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/21/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169GH _____ PM 005-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20221201 2645 KELLOGG CT 53 02/06/2023 Comments1: 630-988-0169 NICK/RYAN -- SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTPBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/10/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169GH _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 02/10/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169JP _____ AM 008-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP _____ 015-INS INSULATION 20221202 3056 GRANDE TR 541 02/01/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221219 2781 BERRYWOOD LN 792 02/01/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 02/15/2023 Comments1: FRONT JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 015-STP STOOP 02/16/2023 Comments1: REAR STOOP JOSE 630-465-1159 ((((((CANCE Comments2: LLED))))GH _____ 016-STP STOOP 02/21/2023 Comments1: REAR- JOSE 630-495-1159 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 17TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 013-STP STOOP 20221220 2780 BERRYWOOD LN 833 02/15/2023 Comments1: FRONT-- JOSE 630-465-1159BC _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221221 2776 BERRYWOOD LN 834 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/07/2023BC _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/07/2023PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606JP _____ 012-INS INSULATION 02/09/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 013-STP STOOP 02/15/2023 Comments1: FRONT - JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221222 2777 BERRYWOOD LN 791 02/01/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ 014-STP STOOP 02/15/2023 Comments1: FRONT-- JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 015-STP STOOP 02/16/2023 Comments1: REAR STOOP JOSE 630-465-1159 ((((((CANCE Comments2: LLED)))))))GH _____ 016-STP STOOP 02/21/2023 Comments1: REAR -- JOSE 630-465-1159PW _____ 020-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 20221224 3111 GRANDE TR 493 02/07/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSJP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221239 306 E VAN EMMON ST 02/28/2023 Comments1: ROOF & SIDING-JEFF 331-203-3914GH _____ 017-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221249 3078 GRANDE TR 545 02/07/2023 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287GH _____ 018-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/07/2023GH _____ 019-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/07/2023PBF _____ 020-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/07/2023 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 18TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PW _____ 021-EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPE 02/07/2023 Comments1: WINTER CONDITIONSGH _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20221251 2643 KELLOGG CT 54 02/10/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/16/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 02/24/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175PR _____ PM 004-WAT WATER 02/24/2023 Comments1: AL'S 630-492-7635PBF 10:00 AM 004-WAT WATER 20221274 2729 ELLORY CT 128 02/07/2023 Comments1: AFTER 10:00AM PLEASE, AL'S 630-492-7635JP _____ AM 005-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169PBF _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/10/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169GH _____ PM 007-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 02/10/2023 Comments1: NICK 630-988-0169 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221292 1091 AUBURN DR 93 02/24/2023 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RT -- WATER METER INSTALLEDGH _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/24/2023GH _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/24/2023PR _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/24/2023 Comments1: DAVE 630-878-5792GH _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221296 3028 GRANDE TR 537 02/07/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/07/2023GH _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/07/2023PBF _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/07/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 19TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ 016-INS INSULATION 02/09/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221312 2686 SEELEY ST 731 02/03/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 CHK ANCHOR BOLTS, SEA Comments2: L GABLE, ADD HANGER @PORCHGH _____ 009-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/03/2023GH _____ 010-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/03/2023PBF _____ 011-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/03/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606JP _____ 012-INS INSULATION 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 013-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/21/2023 Comments1: CHIS 224-358-1606GH _____ AM 010-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 20221333 2862 MCLELLAN BLVD 457 02/01/2023JP _____ AM 013-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 02/13/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699GH _____ AM 014-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/14/2023 Comments1: PATIO-- REMY 630-973-6699GH _____ AM 015-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/14/2023GH _____ PM 016-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/27/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ PM 017-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/27/2023GH _____ PM 018-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/27/2023PR _____ PM 019-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221343 282A BARRETT DR 114 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221344 282B BARRETT DR 113 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221345 282C BARRETT DR 112 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 20TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221346 282D BARRETT DR 111 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221347 282E BARRETT DR 110 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404BC _____ AM 008-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 20221348 282F BARRETT DR 109 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221349 3762 BISSEL DR 129-5 02/22/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/22/2023GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221350 3764 BISSEL DR 129-4 02/22/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/22/2023GH _____ 006-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221351 3766 BISSEL DR 129-3 02/22/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/22/2023GH _____ PM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221352 3768 BISSEL DR 129-2 02/14/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ PM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/14/2023GH _____ PM 006-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221353 3772 BISSEL DR 129-1 02/14/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ PM 007-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/14/2023JP _____ 011-INS INSULATION 20221354 3748 BISSEL DR 130-1 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 012-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/21/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221355 3752 BISSEL DR 130-2 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606BC _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/07/2023BC _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/07/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 21TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/07/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606JP _____ 011-INS INSULATION 02/10/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 009-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221356 3754 BISSEL DR 130-3 02/15/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 010-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/15/2023GH _____ 011-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/15/2023PR _____ 012-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/15/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606JP _____ 013-INS INSULATION 02/21/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221357 3756 BISSEL DR 130-4 02/16/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/16/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/16/2023PR _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/16/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 011-REI REINSPECTION 02/17/2023 Comments1: ROUGH ELECTRIC - CHRIS 224-358-1606JP _____ 012-INS INSULATION 02/21/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 007-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 20221358 3758 BISSEL DR 130-5 02/22/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606GH _____ 008-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/22/2023 Comments1: SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/22/2023PBF _____ 010-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/22/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 22TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ 011-INS INSULATION 02/28/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 224-358-1606 SEE INSPECTION REPORT Comments2: SBC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221411 2844 ALDEN AVE 334 02/01/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- MARQUELL 708-228-4422BC _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/01/2023BC _____ 012-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20221413 4432 TAMPA DR 1975 02/09/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022BC _____ 013-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/09/2023BC _____ 014-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/09/2023PBF _____ 015-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/09/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022JP _____ 016-INS INSULATION 02/13/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022 SEE INSPECTION REPORTJP _____ AM 017-STP STOOP 02/14/2023 Comments1: REAR -- MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE I Comments2: NSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 005-GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 20221414 4442 TAMPA DR 1972 02/06/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022BC _____ 006-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 02/09/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/09/2023 Comments1: JOE 224-575-0022BC _____ PM 008-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 02/10/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175GH _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/24/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-879-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTGH _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 02/24/2023 Comments1: FR & R --BC _____ PM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221415 4438 TAMPA DR 1973 02/10/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 23TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 02/14/2023 Comments1: FRONT AND REAR -- MIDWESTERN 815-839-817 Comments2: 5BF _____ PM 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/23/2023 Comments1: IAN 630-453-3719 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TBF _____ PM 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/23/2023BF _____ PM 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/23/2023PBF _____ PM 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/23/2023 Comments1: IAN 630-453-3719JP _____ AM 015-INS INSULATION 02/27/2023 Comments1: IAN 630-453-3719 -- SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TJP _____ PM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221416 1448 ASPEN LN 129 02/21/2023 Comments1: FENCE MIKO -- 815-603-5838BC _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221417 3032 GRANDE TR 538 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 009-STP STOOP 02/14/2023 Comments1: FRONTGH _____ 010-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/21/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 - SEE INSPECTION REPORTGH _____ 011-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/21/2023GH _____ 012-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/21/2023PBF _____ 013-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/21/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615JP _____ 014-INS INSULATION 02/23/2023 Comments1: JIM 331-223-6615 -- CHECK HOLES IN SUB-F Comments2: LOOR AT INSULATION -- SEE INSPECTION REP Comments3: ORTBC _____ 015-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 02/14/2023GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20221419 4865 W MILLBROOK CIR 155 02/27/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 24TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221436 221A PORTAGE LN 144 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221437 221B PORTAGE LN 145 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221438 221C PORTAGE LN 146 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221439 221D PORTAGE LN 147 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221440 221E PORTAGE LN 148 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221441 235A PORTAGE LN 149 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221442 235B PORTAGE LN 150 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221443 235C PORTAGE LN 151 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221444 235D PORTAGE LN 152 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159GH _____ AM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221445 269A PORTAGE LN 153 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221446 269B PORTAGE LN 154 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ AM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221447 269C PORTAGE LN 155 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 20221448 269D PORTAGE LN 156 02/27/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159 SEE INSPECTION REPORTPR _____ AM 006-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 20221449 279A PORTAGE LN 157 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 25TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ AM 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/13/2023GH _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221450 279B PORTAGE LN 158 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404PR _____ AM 007-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 02/13/2023GH _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221451 279C PORTAGE LN 159 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404PR _____ AM 007-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 02/13/2023GH _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221452 279D PORTAGE LN 160 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404PR _____ AM 007-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 02/13/2023GH _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ AM 006-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221453 279E PORTAGE LN 161 02/13/2023 Comments1: NORM 630-818-0404PR _____ AM 007-ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 02/13/2023GH _____ 008-PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 02/28/2023 Comments1: JOSE 630-465-1159PR _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221455 805 FREEMONT ST 44 02/08/2023 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868PR _____ AM 006-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/08/2023PR _____ AM 007-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/08/2023PR _____ AM 008-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/08/2023PR _____ AM 009-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/08/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 26TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ AM 010-INS INSULATION 02/13/2023 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868GH _____ AM 011-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 02/27/2023 Comments1: GARY 630-977-1868BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221460 455 SUTTON ST 208 02/23/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- LOGAN 312-824-9031BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023PBF _____ AM 006-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20221466 495 TIMBER OAK LN 28 02/10/2023 Comments1: JENNIFER 630-699-5148PBF _____ 007-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 02/23/2023 Comments1: JASON 630-632-7433BC _____ 008-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 02/24/2023JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221483 406 W RIDGE ST 02/28/2023 Comments1: ROOF -- JEFF 331-203-3914GH _____ AM 002-FTG FOOTING 20221500 837 ALEXANDRA LN 23 02/24/2023 Comments1: CALL WITH TIME -- JOHN 630-546-8057BC _____ AM 009-GAR GARAGE FLOOR 20221503 3093 GRANDE TR 550 02/14/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 010-STP STOOP 02/14/2023 Comments1: FRONT AND BACKGH _____ 011-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/27/2023 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287 - SEE INSPECTION REP Comments2: ORTGH _____ 012-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/27/2023GH _____ 013-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/27/2023PBF _____ 014-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/27/2023 Comments1: AUSTIN 630-720-1287BF _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221507 498 TWINLEAF TR 136 02/23/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE 81-837-4586BF _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/23/2023GH 11:00 001-FTG FOOTING 20221508 2841 ROOD ST 316 02/13/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 815-603-0589 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 27TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/23/2023 Comments1: MONICA 815-254-5748 -- SEE INSPETION REP Comments2: ORTPR _____ AM 007-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221512 2024 DEERPOINT LN 158 02/02/2023 Comments1: SHERRIE 872-203-1486PR _____ AM 008-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/02/2023PR _____ AM 009-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/02/2023PR _____ AM 010-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/02/2023JP _____ PM 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20221518 3128 JUSTICE DR 615 02/10/2023 Comments1: 630-330-8038 CHRIS/UPPER DECKBC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/24/2023 Comments1: DECK -- MIKE 630-210-2780JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221520 626 YELLOWSTONE LN 68 02/10/2023 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400PBF _____ AM 005-PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 20221521 2896 MCLELLAN BLVD 464 02/23/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699BC _____ PM 006-BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 02/23/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699BC _____ 007-ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 02/24/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699JP _____ AM 008-ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & W 02/24/2023 Comments1: REMY 630-973-6699BF _____ AM 003-REI REINSPECTION 20221527 443 NORWAY CIR 85 02/23/2023 Comments1: SOLAR FINAL - EDDIE 801-837-4586BF _____ AM 004-REI REINSPECTION 02/23/2023 Comments1: SOLAR - ELECTRICJP _____ 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221529 323 WINDHAM CIR 33 02/21/2023 Comments1: ROOF -- KYLE 630-335-9183JP 09:00 001-PHD POST HOLE - DECK 20221533 1942 WREN RD 5 02/13/2023 Comments1: SABINA 630-420-1940BC _____ AM 002-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 02/21/2023 Comments1: DECK -- SABINA 630-420-1940 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 28TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221534 535 COACH RD 413 02/17/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- MATT 815-531-2540BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/17/2023BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221535 602 SUTTON ST 165 02/02/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- EDDIE - 801-837-4586BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/02/2023JP 09:00 002-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20221540 1954 SUNNY DELL CT 98 02/08/2023 Comments1: CANDACE 630-406-8410. EXT 220BC _____ AM 005-INS INSULATION 20221542 1242 HAWK HOLLOW DR 272 02/01/2023 Comments1: BASEMENT REMODEL VICTOR 773-876-2605(((( Comments2: CANCELLED)))GH _____ 006-INS INSULATION 02/02/2023 Comments1: VICTOR 773-876-2605 -- SEE INSPECTION RE Comments2: PORTBC _____ AM 007-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/27/2023 Comments1: VICTOR 773-876-2605BC _____ AM 008-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/27/2023BC _____ AM 009-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/27/2023PBF _____ AM 010-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/27/2023 Comments1: BASEMENT ---VICTOR 773-876-2605BC _____ PM 003-REI REINSPECTION 20221591 451 KELLY AVE 116 02/02/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- 1ST INSPECT, PLEASE -- CALL 1 H Comments2: OUR BEFORE ARRIVAL, PLEASE. RODNEY 708 Comments3: -269-1690BC _____ 004-REI REINSPECTION 02/02/2023 Comments1: ELECTRIC - SOLARBC _____ PM 003-REI REINSPECTION 20221592 309 E WASHINGTON ST 02/02/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- RODNEY 708-269-1609 -- *****OWE Comments2: S REI FEE BEFORE SCHEDULING*******BC _____ AM 004-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/08/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- RODNEY 708-269-1690BC _____ AM 005-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/08/2023 Comments1: *****CALL AN HOUR BEFORE ARRIVAL, PLEASE Comments2: ******* DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 29TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ AM 005-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221593 881 PARKSIDE LN 194 02/10/2023 Comments1: MATT 630-273-1151PR _____ AM 006-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/10/2023PR _____ AM 007-FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 02/10/2023PR _____ AM 008-PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READ 02/10/2023BC _____ AM 001-OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 20221598 145 E VETERANS PKWY 02/28/2023 Comments1: BEFORE NOON -- LESLIE 630-689-6017BKF _____ AM 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/28/2023BC _____ PM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20221600 1847 COLUMBINE DR 71 02/14/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- PHIL 518-859-6282BC _____ PM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/14/2023BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20230002 611 SUTTON ST 161 02/15/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- LUIS 815-701-4758BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/15/2023 Comments1: *****REI FEE NEEDS TO BE PAID BEFORE REI Comments2: SCHEDULED*****BC _____ AM 003-REI REINSPECTION 02/24/2023 Comments1: SOLARBC _____ AM 004-REI REINSPECTION 02/24/2023GH _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20230003 652 TIMBER OAK LN 47 02/08/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 - SEE INSPECTION Comments2: REPORTBC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/16/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BF _____ PM 003-BKF BACKFILL 02/23/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175JP 11:30 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230006 2863 ROOD ST 318 02/02/2023 Comments1: PERLA 708-316-9740PR _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230007 832 BLUESTEM DR 115 02/14/2023 Comments1: AM KITCHEN & BATH 630-933-9323PR _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/14/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 30TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PR _____ AM 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/14/2023PR _____ AM 004-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/14/2023GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230014 2769 BERRYWOOD LN 789 02/16/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/21/2023 Comments1: JUAN 630-465-2021GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230015 2773 BERRYWOOD LN 790 02/16/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/23/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTBF _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20230016 2602 SEELEY ST 752 02/23/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 -- SEE INSPECTION REPO Comments2: RTGH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230017 2601 SEELEY ST 835 02/21/2023 Comments1: JUAN 630-465-2021GH _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/28/2023 Comments1: 11:30-12:00 -- JUAN 630-465-2021GH _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230018 1097 AUBURN DR 91 02/01/2023 Comments1: LOU 630-779-0420GH _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/01/2023GH _____ AM 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/01/2023GH _____ AM 004-INS INSULATION 02/02/2023 Comments1: BASEMENT -- LOU 630-779-0420 -- SEE INSP Comments2: ECTION REPORTJP _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230019 418 E SOMONAUK ST 02/08/2023 Comments1: LATE AFTERNOON -- CLASSIC 630-551-3400JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/14/2023 Comments1: FENCE -- CLASSIC 630-551-3400BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20230020 625 BRAEMORE LN 530 02/21/2023 Comments1: COMEX DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 31TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/27/2023 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066BC _____ 001-FTG FOOTING 20230023 645 BRAEMORE LN 529 02/21/2023 Comments1: COMEXBC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/27/2023 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230024 522 COACH RD 409 02/10/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066BC _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/15/2023 Comments1: COMEX 847-551-906PBF _____ PM 003-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 02/28/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230025 510 COACH RD 410 02/08/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066 - SEE INSPECTION REPOR Comments2: TGH _____ AM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/13/2023 Comments1: JUAN 847-551-9066GH _____ AM 003-BKF BACKFILL 02/17/2023 Comments1: JUAN CARLOS - 847-551-9066PBF _____ AM 004-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 02/22/2023 Comments1: CATHY 630-387-2001GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230027 3031 GRANDE TR 531 02/22/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175 -- SEE INSPECTIO Comments2: N REPORTBC _____ PM 002-FOU FOUNDATION 02/28/2023 Comments1: MIDWESTERN 815-839-8175BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20230049 310 MILL ST 02/08/2023 Comments1: HVAC -- COLLEEN 336-695-8162GH _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230055 908 STATE ST 3&4 02/15/2023 Comments1: EARLY PM -- CLASSIC 630-551-3400PR 11:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230057 2182 HEARTHSTONE AVE 437 02/06/2023 Comments1: PERLA 708-316-9740JP _____ PM 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230062 2838 CRYDER WAY 449 02/08/2023 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 32TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/14/2023 Comments1: FENCE -- CLASSIC 630-551-3400JP _____ 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230070 3353 SEELEY ST 803 02/06/2023 Comments1: AMERI-DREAM -- 815-726-1127JP 14:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230071 438 E BARBERRY CIR 134 02/06/2023 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/10/2023 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400JP 14:00 001-PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 20230072 3101 REHBEHN CT 637 02/06/2023 Comments1: CLASSIC 630-551-3400JP _____ 002-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 02/14/2023 Comments1: FENCE - 630-551-3400BC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230076 1220 HAWK HOLLOW DR 275 02/27/2023 Comments1: ERIC 312-545-5120 -- NO FIRE BLOCKINGBC _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/27/2023BC _____ AM 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/27/2023PBF _____ 005-PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 02/27/2023 Comments1: ERIC 312-545-5120BC _____ 006-INS INSULATION 02/28/2023 Comments1: ERIC 312-545-5120BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20230080 2943 GRANDE TR 383 02/14/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- ZACH 708-738-4094BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/14/2023BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20230083 4535 GARDINER AVE 1094 02/15/2023 Comments1: DIEGO 773-742-6397BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/15/2023 Comments1: SOLARBC _____ 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230090 3307 CALEDONIA DR 76 02/13/2023 Comments1: CHRIS 630-688-0331BC _____ 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/13/2023BC _____ 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/13/2023 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 33TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GH _____ AM 001-FTG FOOTING 20230095 2666 SEELEY ST 736 02/28/2023 Comments1: 11:30-12:00 -- JUAN 630-465-2021BC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230102 855 CARLY CT 36 02/27/2023 Comments1: LOU 630-779-0420BC _____ AM 002-REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 02/27/2023BC _____ AM 003-RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 02/27/2023BC _____ AM 001-FIN FINAL INSPECTION 20230103 2478 WAVERLY CIR 237 02/17/2023 Comments1: SOLAR -- MATT 815-531-2540 -- *****TOO M Comments2: UCH SNOW TO INSPECT. NO REI FEES*****BC _____ AM 002-FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 02/17/2023PBF _____ PM 001-ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WAT 20230122 806 BRISTOL AVE 4 02/28/2023 Comments1: 815-414-8100 JOHNBC _____ AM 001-RFR ROUGH FRAMING 20230127 481 HAZELTINE WAY 10 02/23/2023 Comments1: ESTHER 773-951-1900 -- AROUND GARAGE DOO Comments2: R DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 34TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PERMIT TYPE SUMMARY: BSM BASEMENT REMODEL 29 CCO COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT 2 DCK DECK 4 FNC FENCE 32 HVC HVAC UNIT/S 1 MSC MISCELLANEOUS 3 REM REMODEL 4 REP REPAIR 1 ROF ROOFING 2 RS ROOFING & SIDING 1 SFA SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED 173 SFD SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 266 SOL SOLAR PANELS 31 WIN WINDOW REPLACEMENT 2INSPECTION SUMMARY: BKF BACKFILL 5 BSM BASEMENT FLOOR 8 DMW DEMISING WALL 4 EFL ENGINEERING - FINAL INSPECTION 22 ELS ELECTRIC SERVICE 8 ELU ELECTRICAL - UNDERSLAB 5 ESW ENGINEERING - SEWER / WATER 7 FEL FINAL ELECTRIC 36 FIN FINAL INSPECTION 66 FMC FINAL MECHANICAL 21 FME FINAL MECHANICAL 3 FOU FOUNDATION 14 FTG FOOTING 17 GAR GARAGE FLOOR 28 GPL GREEN PLATE INSPECTION 16 INS INSULATION 27 OCC OCCUPANCY INSPECTION 1 PHD POST HOLE - DECK 8 PHF POST HOLE - FENCE 9 PLF PLUMBING - FINAL OSR READY 26 PLR PLUMBING - ROUGH 30 PLU PLUMBING - UNDERSLAB 16 PPS PRE-POUR, SLAB ON GRADE 15 REI REINSPECTION 37 REL ROUGH ELECTRICAL 31 RFR ROUGH FRAMING 35 RMC ROUGH MECHANICAL 31 ROF ROOF UNDERLAYMENT ICE & WATER 2 STP STOOP 18 SUM SUMP 2 WAT WATER 3 DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35DATE: 02/28/2023 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE PAGE: 35TIME: 12:06:21 CALLS FOR INSPECTION REPORTID: PT4A0000.WOW INSPECTIONS SCHEDULED FROM 02/01/2023 TO 02/28/2023INSPECTOR SCHED. COMP. TIME TYPE OF INSPECTION PERMIT ADDRESS LOT DATE DATE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INSPECTOR SUMMARY: BC BOB CREADEUR 159 BF B&F INSPECTOR CODE SERVICE 28 BKF BRISTOL KENDALL FIRE DEPT 1 ED ERIC DHUSE 1 GH GINA HASTINGS 168 JB JON BAUER 16 JP JOHN PETRAGALLO 68 PBF BF PLUMBING INSPECTOR 51 PR PETER RATOS 51 PW 8STATUS SUMMARY: A GH 1 A PR 3 C BC 20 C BF 6 C GH 1 C JP 31 C PBF 1 C PR 8 I BC 127 I BF 22 I BKF 1 I ED 1 I GH 120 I JB 2 I JP 37 I PBF 36 I PR 36 T BC 12 T GH 46 T JB 14 T PBF 14 T PR 4 T PW 8REPORT SUMMARY: 551 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #3 Tracking Number EDC 2023-20 Property Maintenance Reports for February 2023 Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Informational None Pete Ratos Community Development Name Department Page | 1 Property Maintenance Report February 2023 There was 1 case heard in February 2023. 2/13/2023 N 3712 906 N Carly Cir Junk, Trash, Refuse Dismissed Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Pete Ratos, Code Official CC: Bart Olson, Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Jori Behland Date February 28, 2023 Subject: February Property Maintenance Case # Case Date TYPE OF VIOLATIONSTATUS VIOLATION LETTER SENTFOLLOW UP STATUSCITATION ISSUEDDATE OF HEARINGPOSTED FINDINGS PUBLIC WORKS TO MOW20230025 2/27/2023 Exterior Structure MaintenanceCLOSED COMPLIANT20230024 2/23/2023 Junk/Debris CLOSED COMPLIANT20230023 2/23/2023 Inoperable/Unlicensed Vehicle Off Street ParkingCLOSED20230022 2/23/2023 Inoperable/Unlicensed Vehicles Off Street ParkingCLOSED COMPLIANT20230021 2/22/2023 Roadway MaintenanceTO BE INSPECTED20230020 2/21/2023 Fence Maintenance/Obstruction of Public WayTO BE INSPECTED20230019 2/15/2023 Sanitation/Home Occupation - KennelCLOSED COMPLIANT20230018 2/13/2023 Garbage/RubbishCLOSED COMPLIANT20230017 2/10/2023 Obstruction of Public WayCLOSED COMPLIANT20230016 2/2/2023 Rubbish In ParkwayCLOSED COMPLIANT20230015 2/2/2023 Fencing StandardsCLOSED COMPLIANT20230014 2/2/2023 Rubbish In ParkwayCLOSED COMPLIANT20230013 2/1/2023 Rubbish/Debris CLOSED20230012 2/1/2023 Occupiable Work Spaces - HeatCLOSED COMPLIANT2/28/2023451 Honeysuckle204 E Somonauk684 W Veterans ParkwayTotal Records: 14409A Elm St1300 Marketplace Rosenwinkel451 Honeysuckle451 Honeysuckle1021 White 998 White Plains995 White Plains1402-1508 N Bridge206 HEUSTISCase Report2/1/2023 - 2/28/2023ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT206 RiverPage: 1 of 1 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #4 Tracking Number EDC 2023-21 Economic Development Report for March 2023 Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Informational None Bart Olson Administration Name Department • • •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ave a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memorandum. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Purchasing Manager Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #5 Tracking Number EDC 2023-22 Bristol Bay – Units 10 (Final Plat Amendment) Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Majority Approval Proposed Bristol Bay P.U.D. Final Plat of Subdivision Amendment of Unit 10. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department 1 Request Summary: The petitioner, Troy Mertz, on behalf of Bristol Bay Yorkville, LLC, is seeking to amend the recently approved Final Plat in Unit 10 of the Bristol Bay residential subdivision to address an approximately twelve (12) foot shift northwest of a townhome building to avoid a storm sewer line. The shift resulted in certain parcel lot lines being adjusted from the previously approved final plat layout. There are no changes proposed to the previously approved number of total lots, areas of building lots, total area of open space or setback distances. Bristol Bay Unit 10 is generally located at the northwest intersection of Galena Road and Rosenwinkel Street and is planned for 119 townhome units. Proposed Unit 10 Final Plat Amendment: As the Economic Development Committee may recall, the Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10 was approved on July, 26, 2022 and recorded with the Kendall County Recorder’s Office as Document No. 202300000253. However, during the process of the petitioner’s engineer preparing plats for building permits, it was realized that the location of the property lines for several lots were platted inconsistently with the approved final engineering plans. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Brad Sanderson, EEI, City Engineer Date: March 7, 2023 Subject: PZC 2023-01 Bristol Bay – Unit 10 (Final Plat Amendment) Proposed Amendment to Final Plat Unit for Multi-Family Townhomes 2 The specific lots affected are Lots 189 through 194, this is due to the adjustment of the 6-unit townhome building being shifted approximately twelve feet (12’) to the northwest to avoid encroaching upon a storm sewer line. As mentioned previously, the proposed final plat amendment will not affect the previously approved number of total lots, areas of building lots, total area of open space or setback distances The changes proposed as part of this amended plat area as follows: LOT(S) PROPOSED CHANGE Lots 189-194 Common Lot Line between Lot 21 and Lot 22 shifted northwest 12 feet. Lot 22 and Lot 23 Common Lot Line between lots is shifted northwest 6 feet. Lots 22, 23 and 25 Common Corner between lots was shifted north to accommodate the shifted common lot line between Lots 22 and 23. Lots 22 and 25, Lots 23 and 25 Common Lot Lines were adjusted to accommodate of common corner Lots 21, 22, 23, and 25 Adjustments in lot areas Lot 21 – 11,288 sq. ft to 10,016 sq. ft. Lot 22 – 11,160 sq. ft. to 11,474 sq. ft. Lot 23 - 17,417 sq. ft. to 18,265 sq. ft. Lot 25 – 13,556 sq. ft. to 13,656 sq. ft. Below is a copy of the previously approved and recorded Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10 Final Plat and the proposed amended Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10 Final Plat, both prepared by HR Green, for comparison. 3 Staff Comments: The proposed Final Plat of Subdivision Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10, Amended has been reviewed by the City’s engineering consultant, Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI), for compliance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance’s Standards for Specification. A plan review conducted by the City Engineer, dated March 9, 2023, has determined the amended Final Plat of Subdivision for Bristol Bay Unit 10 is in compliance with local ordinances, specifically the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Therefore, staff supports approval of the proposed final plat amendment. Per Section 6, paragraph A of the annexation agreement for Bristol Bay (Ord. 2005-34), the City shall act upon any final plat and final engineering or resubmitted final plat and final engineering within sixty (60) days of receipt. Initial receipt of the completed application was on January 30, 2023. Based upon the required City meeting schedule, the final approval of the requested Final Plat Amendment is proposed for April 25, 2023. The petitioner has agreed to this timeline. Should you have any questions regarding this matter; staff will be available at Tuesday night’s meeting. Attachments: 1. Copy of Petitioner’s Application 2. Recorded Final Plat of Subdivision Bristol Bay PUD Unit 10 prepared by HR Green dated 07/19/2022 3. Final Plat of Subdivision Bristol Bay PUD Unit 10, Amended, prepared by HR Green date last revised 1/24/2023 4. EEI Letter to the City dated March 9, 2023 APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us INTENT AND PURPOSE The purpose of this application is to allow land to be divided and distributed in a way that conforms to the City of Yorkville’s VWDQGDUGV7KHSURFHVVIRUDSSO\LQJIRUDÀQDOSODWRUUHSODWDOORZVIRUWKHUHYLHZRIDSURSRVHGOD\RXWRIGLYLGHGORWVDQGHVWDEOLVKHV VWDQGDUGGHVLJQVSHFLÀFDWLRQWRHQVXUHDGHTXDWHURDGZD\VIRUVDIHDQGHFLHQWWUDFFLUFXODWLRQLVSURYLGHG VDIHJXDUGDJDLQVW ÁRRGGDPDJH SURPRWHVDFFHVVDQGDYDLODELOLW\RIXWLOLWLHV DQGUHTXLUHVWKHSURYLVLRQRIRWKHUQHFHVVDU\SXEOLFLPSURYHPHQWV This packet explains the process to successfully submit and complete an Application for Final Plat/Replat. It includes a detailed GHVFULSWLRQRIWKHSURFHVVRXWOLQHVUHTXLUHGVXEPLWWDOPDWHULDOVDQGFRQWDLQVWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ )RUDFRPSOHWHH[SODQDWLRQRIZKDWLVOHJDOO\UHTXLUHGWKURXJKRXWWKHSURFHVVSOHDVHUHIHUWR´7LWOH6XEGLYLVLRQ&RQWUROµRIWKH Yorkville, Illinois City Code. APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SUBMIT APPLICATION, FEES, AND PLANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. The following must be submitted: 2QH RULJLQDOVLJQHGDQGQRWDUL]HGDSSOLFDWLRQ Legal description of the property in Microsoft Word. 7KUHH FRSLHVHDFKRIWKHH[KLELWVDQGSURSRVHGGUDZLQJV$OOH[KLELWVDQGSODQVPXVWEHDQ DSSURSULDWHVL]HIRUDOOGHWDLOVDQGGHVFULSWLRQVWREHOHJLEOH $SSURSULDWHDSSOLFDWLRQDQGÀOLQJIHH&KHFNVPD\EHZULWWHQWRWKH8QLWHG&LW\RI<RUNYLOOH 6LJQHG$SSOLFDQW'HSRVLW$FFRXQW$FNQRZOHGJPHQWRI)LQDQFLDO5HVSRQVLELOLW\IRUP 2QH HOHFWURQLFFRS\ 3') RIDOOPDWHULDOVVXEPLWWHGLQFOXGLQJDSSOLFDWLRQDQGH[KLELWV :LWKLQ RQH ZHHN RI VXEPLWWDO WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW 'HSDUWPHQW ZLOO GHWHUPLQH LI WKH application is complete or if additional information is needed. An incomplete submittal could delay the scheduling of the project. The petitioner is responsible for payment of recording fees and outside consultant costs (i.e. legal review, HQJLQHHULQJUHYLHZHWF 7KHSHWLWLRQHUZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRHVWDEOLVKDGHSRVLWDFFRXQWZLWKWKH&LW\WR cover these fees. 2QFH VXEPLWWHG DQG FRPSOHWH &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW VWD ZLOO SURYLGH D WHQWDWLYH VFKHGXOH RI meetings as well as all the needed documents for the process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ଉ APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us 7KHSHWLWLRQHUPXVWSUHVHQWWKHSURSRVHGSODWWRWKH(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW&RPPLWWHH7KHFRPPLWWHH FRQVLVWVRIIRXUDOGHUPDQZKRZLOOSURYLGHIHHGEDFNWRWKHSHWLWLRQHUUHJDUGLQJWKHLUUHTXHVW7KLV feedback allows the petitioner to gather comments and concerns prior to full City Council considerations. ,WDOVRDOORZVWKH&LW\&RXQFLOPHPEHUVWRUHYLHZWKHUHTXHVWSULRUWRLWVDUULYDODW&LW\&RXQFLO STEP3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETS ON THE 1ST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend and present their plat to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning DQG=RQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQZLOOGLVFXVVWKHUHTXHVWDQGPDNHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWR&LW\&RXQFLO STEP4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETS ON THE 2ND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH The petitioner will attend the City Council meeting where the recommendation of the plat will be FRQVLGHUHG&LW\&RXQFLOZLOOPDNHWKHÀQDODSSURYDORIWKHSODW,IDSSURYHG&LW\VWDZLOOKDYHDGUDIWHG ordinance to be signed by the Council and must be recorded with the County Clerk before any further steps may be taken by the petitioner. STEP5 CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 2ND & 4TH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH SAMPLE MEETING SCHEDULE MONTH 1 MONTH 2 MONTH 3 MONTH 4 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 12 3456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1234567 8 9 1011121314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1234567 8 9 1011121314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Su M Tu W Th F Sa 12345 6789101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 City CouncilPlanning & Zoning CommissionEconomic Development CommitteePlan Council Meeting 7KLVLVDVDPSOHRIZKDWDVFKHGXOHPD\ORRNOLNHDIWHUVXEPLVVLRQ7KH6WHS6XEPLVVLRQPXVWEHFRPSOHWHGEHIRUHWKH3ODQ Council Meeting can be scheduled. This timeline represents an ideal schedule. Throughout the review process, there may be UHTXHVWVRUFKDQJHVWRWKHVXEPLVVLRQUHTXHVWHGE\WKHFRPPLWWHHVZKLFKPD\GHOD\WKHPHHWLQJVFKHGXOH$VLOOXVWUDWHGWKHUH LVDVPDOODPRXQWRIWLPHEHWZHHQPHHWLQJGDWHVDQGWKHGHDGOLQHIRUXSGDWHGPDWHULDOVWREHVXEPLWWHGIRUUHYLHZ'HSHQGLQJ RQWKHFRPSOH[LW\DQGQDWXUHRIWKHUHTXHVWWKLVWLPHOLQHPD\EHH[WHQGHGWRJLYHWKHSHWLWLRQHUDQGVWDHQRXJKWLPHWRUHYLHZ UHTXHVWHGXSGDWHVWRWKHVXEPLVVLRQ Meeting Date Updated Materials Submitted for Meeting APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DORMANT APPLICATIONS 7KH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUVKDOOGHWHUPLQHLIDQDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWVRUIDLOVWRPHHWWKHVXEPLVVLRQUHTXLUHPHQWV,IWKH 'LUHFWRUGHWHUPLQHVWKDWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQLVLQFRPSOHWHLWZLOOEHFRPHGRUPDQWXQGHUWKHVHFLUFXPVWDQFHV •7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVEHHQQRWLÀHGRIVXFKGHÀFLHQFLHVDQGKDVQRWUHVSRQGHGRUSURYLGHGDWLPHOLQHIRUFRPSOHWLQJWKH DSSOLFDWLRQZLWKLQQLQHW\ GD\VIURPWKHWLPHRIQRWLÀFDWLRQ •7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVQRWUHVSRQGHGLQZULWLQJWRDUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQRUGRFXPHQWDWLRQIURPWKHLQLWLDOSODQQLQJDQG ]RQLQJFRPPLVVLRQUHYLHZZLWKLQVL[ PRQWKVIURPWKHGDWHRIWKDWUHTXHVW •7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVQRWUHVSRQGHGWRDUHTXHVWIRUOHJDORUHQJLQHHULQJGHSRVLWUHSOHQLVKPHQWIRUFLW\LQFXUUHGFRVWVDQGIHHV ZLWKLQQLQHW\ GD\VIURPWKHGDWHRIWKHUHTXHVW ,IWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUKDVVHQWWKHUHTXLUHGQRWLFHDQGWKHDSSOLFDQWKDVQRWZLWKGUDZQWKHLUDSSOLFDWLRQ or brought it into compliance, then the director shall terminate the application. After termination, the application shall not be UHFRQVLGHUHGH[FHSWDIWHUWKHÀOLQJRIDFRPSOHWHO\QHZDSSOLFDWLRQ :LWKGUDZDORUWHUPLQDWLRQRIDQDSSOLFDWLRQVKDOOQRWDHFWWKHDSSOLFDQW·VUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUSD\PHQWRIDQ\FRVWVDQGIHHVRUDQ\ other outstanding debt owed to the city. The balance of any funds deposited with the city that is not needed to pay for costs and IHHVVKDOOEHUHWXUQHGWRWKHDSSOLFDQW 2UG APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR FINAL PLAT OR SUBDIVISION PLAT 7KHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQPXVWEHVKRZQRQDOOÀQDOSODWVDQGÀQDOSODWVRIUHVXEGLYLVLRQ /HJDO'HVFULSWLRQ Monuments ([WHULRU%RXQGDU\/LQHV Widths Lot Lines 6HWEDFN/LQHV Consecutive Numbering & Lettering Lot Angles Circular Curves 6WUHHW1DPHV Abutment 'HGLFDWHG/DQGV LOT AREAS LOT # 1 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 SQ.FT. 164,918± 899,104± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± ACRES 3.786± 20.641± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± LOT AREAS LOT # 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 SQ.FT. 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± 1,800± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,500± 1,800± ACRES 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041± 0.041± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.034± 0.041±Illinois Professional Design Firm # 184-0013222363 Sequoia Drive, Suite 101,Aurora, Illinois 60506t. 630.553.7560 f. 630.553.7646www.hrgreen.com2) PINs: 02-19-481-001 02-20-353-010 02-20-353-011 LOT 1(SEE SHEET 2 FO R L O T 1 & L O T 1 0 1 - 1 4 8 D E T A I L S ) LOT 51 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007BLACKBERRY S H O R E L A N E (66' R.O.W. HERET O F O R E D E D I C A T E D P E R D O C . 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 4 7 7 9 )GILLESPIE LANE(80' R.O.W. HERET OF ORE DEDICATED PER D OC. 200700014779) LOT 50 LOT 49 LOT 48 LOT 47 LOT 46 LOT 45 LOT 44 LOT 43 LOT 42 LOT 41 LOT 40 LOT 39 LOT 38 LOT 37 LOT 36 LOT 35 LOT 34 LOT 33 LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27 LOT 26 LOT 25 LOT 24 LOT 23 FUTURE BEECHER ROAD KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 19 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 L O T 5 5 KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 57HIGH RIDGELANEU N S U B D I V I D E D L A N D S LOT 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 148 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 135 134 133 132 131 120 119 121 122 123 124 130 129 128 127 126 125LOT 32 TOTAL LAND AREA: 1,141,501± SQ.FT. OR 26.205± ACRES KENDALL MARKETPLACE DOC. 200700014779 REC. 05/07/2007 LOT 52 :DWHUFRXUVHVDQG'UDLQDJH $FFHVVWR/DNHRU6WUHDPV QRWVKRZQ 6XUYH\ &HUWLÀFDWHVRI$SSURYDO QRWVKRZQ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION EXAMPLE A B B C C D D E F F G G H I J JK L M O APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Engineering Plan Review deposit $500.00 Total: $ AMENDMENT Annexation Plan Plat P.U.D. $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Total: $ ANNEXATION $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount REZONING $200.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ If annexing and rezoning, charge only 1 per acre fee; if rezoning to a PUD, charge PUD Development Fee - not Rezoning Fee ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $200 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount SPECIAL USE $250.00 + $10 per acre for each acre over 5 acres Total: $ ____________ - 5 = ____________ x $10 = ____________ + $250 = $ ____________ # of Acres Acres over 5 Amount for Extra Acres Total Amount ZONING VARIANCE $85.00 + $500.00 outside consultants deposit Total: $ PRELIMINARY PLAN FEE $500.00 Total: $ PUD FEE $500.00 Total: $ FINAL PLAT FEE $500.00 Total: $ ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT Less than 1 acre Over 1 acre, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres, less than 40 acres Over 40 acres, less than 100 acres Over 100 acres $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 Total: $ OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DEPOSIT Legal, land planner, zoning coordinator, environmental services Total: $ For Annexation, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Special Use: Less than 2 acres Over 2 acres, less than 10 acres Over 10 acres $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us DATE: PZC NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: HOME BUSINESS EMAIL: FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: TOTAL LOT ACREAGE: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS TO BE CREATED: PROPOSED LOT AREAS AND DIMENSIONS LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSIONS (W x L, IN FEET) LOT AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) Troy Mertz Yorkville Moda I 1834 Walden Square, Unit 300 Schaumburg, IL 60173 (630) 834-0722 troymertz@gmail.com ● Yorkville Moda I Bristol Bay Subdivision - Unit 10 North of Galena Rd. and west of Rosenwinkel Street and south of Unit 11 and Unit 9. Town-home lots in Unit 10 in Bristol Bay Subdivision have been previously platted and at this time this application will revise/adjust four (4) lots that were incorrect. Bristol Bay PUD 1.446+/- acres (amened lots)No New Lots - REPLAT See attached Plat(s) for Unit 10 - Amended Lot 21 Irregular - Approx 160' x 106' 10,016+/- sq.ft Lot 22 (Lots 189-194) Irregular - Approx 185' x 106' 21,022+/- sq.ft. Lot 23 Irregular - Approx 215' x 150' 18,265+/- sq.ft. Lot 25 Irregular - Approx 170' x 130' 13,665+/- sq.ft. APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT/REPLAT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. AGREEMENT I VERIFY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ALL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES AS OUTLINED AS WELL AS ANY INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING CONSULTANT FEES WHICH MUST BE CURRENT BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN PROCEED TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DOCUMENT AND UNDERSTAND THAT IF AN APPLICATION BECOMES DORMANT IT IS THROUGH MY OWN FAULT AND I MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED ABOVE. OWNER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE APPROPRIATE ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. PETITIONER SIGNATURE OWNER SIGNATURE TITIONER SIGIGIGIGIGGIGIGGIGIGIGGGGGGGGIGGGGGGGGIGGIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGIGGIGIGGIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGIGIGGIGGGGGGGIGGGIGGGIIGGIGGNANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNANANANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTURE EREBY AUTHORIZES THTHTHTHTHTHTTE PETITIONER TO PUR GNAT URE Thomas R. Burney Law Office of Thomas R. Burney, LLC 40 Brink Street Crystal Lake, IL 60014 (815) 459-8800 tburney@zcwlaw.com (815) 459-8429 David Schultz HR GREEN INC. 2363 Sequoia Drive | Suite 101 Aurora, IL 60506 (630) 708-5002 dschultz@hrgreen.com Bernie Bauer HR GREEN iINC. 2363 Sequoia Drive | Suite 101 Aurora, IL 60506 (630) 708-5033 bbauer@hrgreen.com 01/25/2023 01/25/2023 APPLICANT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us PRINT NAME SIGNATURE* TITLE DATE PROJECT NAME: FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Typical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financially Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to maintain the required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. *The name of the individual and the person who signs this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 LEGAL DEPOSITS: Less than two (2) acres Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres Over ten (10) acres $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 AT URE* Bristol Bay Subdivision - Unit 10 Troy Mertz Yorkville Moda I 1834 Walden Square, Unit 300 Schaumburg, IL 60173 (630) 834-0722 troymertz@gmail.com Troy Mertz President 01/25/2023 X 2363 Sequoia Drive | Suite 101 Aurora, IL 60506 Main 630.553.7560 + Fax 713.965.0044 X HRGREEN.COM The Final Plat of Bristol Bay P.U.D. Unit 10 was approved by the United City of Yorkville as part of the Bristol Bay P.U.D. approval process and subsequently recorded with the Kendall County Recorder of Deeds on January 6th, 2023 as document 202300000253. During the process of preparing Building Permit Plats, it has come to the attention of the Design Engineer and Subdividing Surveyor that the location of the lot lines for several lots were platted incorrectly. The proposed townhome building located upon Lots 189 through 194, inclusive was shifted 12 feet to the northwest to resolve the conflict, due to a conflict of a building with as storm line. This change was made within the approved engineering plans, but was not reflected upon the Final Subdivision Plat. As such, the Final Plat requires an amendment to correct the erroneous lot lines. The changes contained within the amended plat are as follows: x Lots 189 through 194, inclusive, and the common line between Lot 21 and Lot 22 were shifted northwest 12 feet. x Common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 was shifted northwest 6 feet. x Common Corner between Lot 22, 23 and 25 was shifted north to accommodate the shifted common lot line between Lots 22 and 23. x Common Lot lines between Lot 22 and 25 & Lots 23 and 25 were adjusted to accommodate no location of common corner. x Updates to the land areas of Lots 21, 22, 23, and 25 It should be noted that there were no changes to the previously approved number of total lots, areas of building lots, total area of open space or setback distances. \\hrgreen.com\HRG\Data\2022\220051\Survey\Dwg\PDF\2023-01-25-Submittal#1(Unit10_Amended)\narr-012523- Bristol_Bay_Unit_10_Amended.docx X 2363 Sequoia Drive | Suite 101 Aurora, IL 60506 Main 630.553.7560 + Fax 713.965.0044 X HRGREEN.COM BRISTOL BAY UNIT 10 – LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 4 AND PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 9, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 7 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 - UNIT 11, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 16, 2018 AS DOCUMENT 201800003507, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROSENWINKLE STREET, PER BRISTOL BAY UNIT 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED DECEMBER 21, 2005 AS DOCUMENT 200500039532; THENCE SOUTH 21 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF WAY LINE, 428.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 381.81 FEET, BEING A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS SOUTH 03 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 375.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND TANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED CURVE, 23.35 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED, RECORDED AS DOCUMENT 201000008480; THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES BEING ALONG THE NORTHERLY, AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID LANDS; (1) NORTH 75 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST, PERPENDICULAR TO THE SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 10.00 FEET; (2) SOUTH 28 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST, 83.00 FEET; (3) SOUTH 55 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST, 25.88 FEET; (4) NORTH 75 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GALENA ROAD, PER DOCUMENT 145193 IN BOOK 163, PAGE 160, 198.37 FEET; (5) NORTH 18 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, 18.03 FEET; (6) NORTH 75 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL TO SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 30.00 FEET; (7) SOUTH 14 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 80.00 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE NORTH 75 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 302.71 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 9, BEING A WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED APRIL 21, 2021 AS DOCUMENT 202100010276; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 330.99 FEET TO A CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST, ALONG A SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS, 295.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST, PERPENDICULAR TO LAST DESCRIBED LINE, 12.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 51 SECONDS EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO LAST DESCRIBED LINE, 26.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 46.90 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 45 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 42.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST, TANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED CURVE, 20.43 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, 42.63 FEET, ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 188.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 07 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 42.54 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, 7.69 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 30 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST AND A CHORD OF 6.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 01 SECONDS WEST, TANGENT TO LAST DESCRIBED CURVE, 15.10 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, 51.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 208.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 22 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 51.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 35 Addressee Name Page 2 of 2 Date SECONDS EAST, 14.42 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY, 8.93 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 67 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 7.79 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, 34.55 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET AND A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 16 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST AND A CHORD OF 32.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, 26.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 16.69 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A CHORD THAT BEARS SOUTH 65 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST AND A CHORD OF 16.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST, 166.22 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RESUBDIVISION OF BRISTOL BAY LOT 2048 - UNIT 9 AND LOT 2049 - UNIT 11; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 659.06 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, IN KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. NOTE: THE LANDS DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE A PORTION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1-I IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED APRIL 21, 2021 AS DOCUMENT 202100010276. PREPARED BY: ________________________________ BERNARD J. BAUER, P.L.S. ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #3799 J:\2022\220051\Survey\Legal\220051-BRISTOL BAY UNIT 10_LEGAL_REV3.docx Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memorandum. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #6 Tracking Number EDC 2023-23 PZC 2023-02 Bristol Ridge Solar Farm 105 – Rezone, Special Use, Variance, Annexation Amendment Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Majority Approval Proposed Bristol Ridge Solar Farm on southern property for rezone, special use, Variance, and annexation amendment requests Jason Engberg, AICP Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: The applicant, Turning Point Energy, LLC, is requesting rezoning approval, special use authorization, variance approval and an amendment to an annexation agreement to construct a solar farm on the 54-acre parcel generally located east of Cannonball Trail and south of Galena Road within the Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the parcel from the R-2 Single-Family and R-2 Duplex PUD (Bristol Ridge) to the A-1 Agricultural District zoning, special use permit approval for a solar farm land use, and variance approval to decrease the minimum distance between the ground and the solar panels from ten (10) feet to a minimum height of two (2) feet. Finally, the petitioner is seeking to amend the existing annexation agreement for the Bristol Ridge Development to replace the current adopted land use plan with their solar farm. This amendment will also be required to rezone the property to the A-1 Agricultural District. LOCATION & BACKGROUND: The 54-acre property is located in the northeastern part of Yorkville just north of unincorporated Bristol along Cannonball Trail. The property is the southern portion of the existing Bristol Ridge Development which was established in 2006 for residential detached and attached housing units. The current land use of the property is agricultural farmland. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: March 29, 2023 Subject: PZC 2023-02 Bristol Ridge Solar Farm 105 (Rezone, Special Use, Variance, Annexation Agreement Amendment) ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned for R-2 Single-Family dwellings and R-2 Duplex dwellings as part of a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2006-126. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to the A-1 Agricultural District. The following are the current immediate surrounding zoning and land uses: Zoning Land Use North A-1 Agricultural District (Kendall County) A-1 Agricultural District SU (Kendall County) R-2 Single-Family (Bristol Ridge PUD) Farmland Residence/Landscaper Farmland South A-1 Agricultural District (Kendall County) M-1 Limited Manufacturing District (Kendall County) A-1 Agricultural District PUD (Kendall County) Com Ed Property Assorted Industrial Buildings Blackberry Oaks Golf Couse East A-1 Agricultural District (Kendall County) Farmland West B-3 Highway Business District (Kendall County) R-3 One Family Residential District (Kendall County) Commercial Businesses Detached Dwelling Units The proposed use is defined in the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance as a Solar Farm which is a special use within the A-1 Agricultural District. This requires the use to abide by the A-1 Agricultural District regulations as well as the Alternative Energy System regulations in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS REGULATIONS: Section 10-19: Alternative Energy Systems establishes regulations which were used in the review of this request. The proposed solar farm will be required to meet the setback standards for the A-1 Agricultural District as well as the provisions under the Freestanding Solar Energy Systems regulations. Setbacks Table 10.07.01 of Chapter 7 in the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides dimensions and bulk regulations for the A-1 Agricultural District. Section 10-19-7-C of the Zoning Ordinance states that freestanding solar energy systems shall not be located within the required front yard or corner side yard. Additionally, Section 10-19-7-B of the Zoning Ordinance states that all parts of any freestanding solar energy system shall be set back 8 feet from interior side and rear property lines. The following table illustrates the minimum required yard setbacks for solar systems based upon the A-1 Agricultural District regulations and the Freestanding Solar Energy System requirements and the proposed setbacks per the submitted site plan (attached): Minimum Requirement Proposed Setback Front 100 feet 624 feet Side (North) 8 feet 28 feet Side (South) 8 feet 28 feet Rear None 41 feet The location of the solar panels meets the front and rear yard setbacks for the A-1 District and the location of the solar panels meets the required setbacks in the side yards per the Freestanding Solar Energy System requirements. Height The petitioner has submitted a narrative stating that the height of the entire panel on the stand will not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Section 10-19-7-F states the maximum height will be stipulated as a special use condition. Staff is not opposed to this overall height as the location of the panels and their distance from all existing land uses should not cause a nuisance to any neighboring property. The viewsheds provided by the petitioner illustrate this point. The overall height will be set as a condition of the special use as stated in the zoning ordinance. Clearance Section 10-19-7-D states the minimum clearance between the lowest point of the system and the surface on which the system is mounted is ten feet (10'). The petitioner is requesting a variance to this regulation to reduce the clearance to two (2) feet. The petitioner has provided the reasoning behind this request as the maintenance on the panels at the 10-foot height would be cumbersome, the visibility of the panels would increase as they would be significantly taller, and the wind loads generated at a greater height could damage the cells. Staff supports the variance request as the regulation has been an issue with previous requests for ground mounted solar panels and is not an industry standard. This regulation is being removed in the Unified Development Ordinance which is currently being drafted by the City. Fencing The petitioner is proposing to construct an eight (8) foot “agricultural style” fence around the entire solar field which will be accessible through gates with Knox Boxes for emergency access. Section 10-7-2 does not state any regulations regarding fencing within the A-1 Agricultural District. Therefore, the proposed fencing does meet the minimum requirements. Staff has requested that the petitioner provide an exhibit illustrating the fence alone including a description of the materials prior to any public hearing. Staff also suggested either making the fence chain link or adding a beam to the top of the proposed fence to increase its sturdiness and overall security. Staff is also recommending that the petitioner provide a fully opaque privacy fence along the northern boundary adjacent to the residential property in Kendall County. This will assist in mitigating any negative aesthetic effects on the neighboring property. All fencing materials, locations, and styles will be included as a condition of special use approval. Glare Section 10-19-7-E states solar panels shall be placed such that concentrated solar radiation or glare shall not be directed onto nearby properties or roadways. The petitioner has submitted a glare study and analysis which concludes that there was no potential for glint or glare identified by the analysis. Additionally, the panels will be buffered by landscaping in areas that could be seen by adjacent property owners or roadways. The petitioner has also provided a viewshed from angles around the solar farm which illustrate how far away the panels will be from the public right-of-way. Signage Section 19-4-F states that “No commercial signage or attention getting device is permitted on any alternative energy system. One (1) sign shall be permitted to indicate the emergency contact information of the property owner or operator. Said sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in size.” The submitted narrative states a warning sign shall be provided at the facility entrance and along the perimeter fence including the facilities 911 address and a 24-hour emergency contact number. The petitioner is aware of the size requirement and will comply with the regulation. Utility Service Provider Section 10-19-4-G states that evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been notified of the owner’s intent to install an interconnected customer owned electricity generator. ComEd has been notified of this project and an interconnection plan has been submitted to them and has been provided by the petitioner. Decommission Section 10-19-9-A-3 states prior to permit issuance, the owner shall sign an acknowledgement that said owner will be responsible for any and all enforcement costs and remediation costs resulting from any violations of that chapter. The costs include, but are not limited to, removal of system, property restoration upon removal of the system, city legal expenses and hearing costs associated with violations of that chapter. The petitioner has verified they are aware of these standards and have included decommissioning plan with their submittal. Additionally, the petitioner has been made aware that they will have to establish an access easement over the entire property in case City staff must remove the solar farm. Landscape Plan Section 8-12-1-C of the Municipal Code states that all other developments other than single-family detached and duplex residential development must meet the parkway, perimeter, parking lot, lot, stormwater storage basin, and median landscaping requirements. For this development, the following are relevant as certain portions of the development are adjacent to residential uses: B. Perimeter landscaping: 1. Nonresidential adjacent to residential: Where a nonresidential property is adjacent to residential property, a thirty foot (30') wide buffer yard shall be provided. The buffer yard shall consist of a berm or architectural masonry wall, at least three feet (3') in height as measured from the property line. The buffer yard shall also consist of two (2) shade trees, five (5) evergreen trees and three (3) ornamental trees per one hundred (100) linear feet of buffer yard. D. Lot landscaping: Lot landscaping shall be required for all developments in accordance with the following: 2. Nonresidential: Two (2) shade trees and fifteen (15) shrubs shall be provided for every twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of lot area. The petitioner has identified areas that face or are adjacent to the commercial and residential uses, to the east and northeast respectively, that they are providing a vegetative buffer and enhance vegetative buffer. The vegetative buffer along the western and sections of the northern boundary of the parcel are providing eight (8) evergreen trees/shrubs and seven (7) large deciduous shrubs every one hundred (100) linear feet. These buffers are not required as they are not adjacent to a residential use but do add to the required amount of lot landscaping. These buffers have been provided for potential views from the nearby businesses and Cannonball Trail. The enhanced vegetative buffer is directly adjacent to the residential land us to the north and is providing ten (10) evergreen trees/shrubs, six (6) large deciduous shrubs, and three (3) ornamental trees every one hundred (100) linear feet. Finally, the landscape plan shows a total of 127 evergreen trees/shrubs, 92 large deciduous shrubs, and 11 ornamental trees. This mix of landscaping and the types of plantings is being reviewed by the City’s landscaping consultant and will need to be approved prior to any public hearing. The final landscape plan will be made a condition of the special use approval. Special Use Standards Section 10-19-4-C and 10-4-9-F state specific standards for special use which all recommendation bodies will review. The petitioner has provided answers to each of the criteria in the application as well as providing an additional attachment to these standards which are included in the packet for your review and will be entered into the public record as part of the public hearing process. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Please refer to the attached comments prepared by Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI) dated March 13, 2023. The work items listed in the review letter will need to be addressed and will become conditions for special use approval. The petitioner’s engineer, Kimley-Horn, has provided a response letter to these requests and is attached. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: The petitioner is requesting to amend the existing Annexation Agreement for Bristol Ridge (Ordinance 2006-126) to permit this land use instead of the planned residential development. The petitioner is also proposing to add language which states the rezoning, special use, and variance authorization along with the land use change will only take effect once a building permit is issued for the solar farm and not at recordation of the ordinance. Additionally, the petitioner has received permission from all property owners within the Bristol Ridge Development to amend the annexation agreement for the solar farm use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property’s future land use is classified as “Estate Conservation/Residential” which is intended to provide flexibility for residential design in areas of Yorkville that can accommodate low-density detached single-family housing but also include sensitive environmental and scenic features that should be retained and enhanced. The most typical form of development within this land use will be detached single family homes on large lots. In 2016 this future land use designation was also use as a “holding” designation for future development. The 10-year horizon of the plan saw these areas outside of the core not developing within that timeframe. Any development in these areas should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis since it was not anticipated to develop within the plan’s lifespan. The utilization of this property for a solar farm is a suitable land use at this time. The current annexation amendment for a residential neighborhood will expire in 2026 and the lack of development and utilities in this area means it is unlikely to be developed into a more intense use. Additionally, the solar farm is temporary in nature as it currently is being proposed for a 20-year lease. STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is generally supportive of the rezoning, special use request, variance, and annexation agreement amendment. Should the City Council vote to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions to the special use: 1. The maximum height of the solar panels for this land use will be fifteen (15) feet. 2. A landscape plan which meets the standards set forth in Section 8-12 of the Yorkville Municipal Code and is approved by the City’s landscape consultant. 3. The petitioner provides a security guarantee in a form acceptable to the City to cover such costs including, but not limited to the removal, property restoration, and city legal expenses and a blanket easement be provided over the property to allow the City or its contractor to enter and remove the abandoned system in compliance with the City Code. 4. Adherence to all comments prepared by EEI, city engineering consultant, in a letter dated March 13, 2023. This request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing for the rezoning, special use, and variance at the May 10, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the public hearing for the annexation agreement amendment at the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff and the petitioner are seeking comments from the Economic Development Committee about the proposed solar farm prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project Narrative, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 2) Zoning Site Plan, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 3) Development Applications 4) Decommissioning Plan, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 5) Wetland Delineation, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 6) Environmental Constraints Memorandum, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 7) Title Insurance, as prepared by Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. 8) Decommissioning Estimate, as prepared by Turning Point Energy 9) Illinois Department of Natural Resources EcoCAT Termination Report, as prepared by IDNR 10) Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Report, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 11) NRI Application & Report, as prepared by Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District 12) Manufacturer’s Specifications 13) Operations and Maintenance Plan, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 14) Transportation and Access Plan, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, LLC 15) Interconnection Agreement 16) Glare Study and FAA Notice Criteria Filing, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 17) Containment and Water Studies 18) Viewshed, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 19) FEMA Firm Map 20) Property Impact Study, as prepared by Cohn Reznick 21) Plan Council Memorandum – March 17, 2023 22) EEI Comments – March 13, 2023 Application for Special Use Permit Proposed 5-Megawatt AC Ground-Mount Community Solar Facility The United City of Yorkville Kendall County, IL TPE IL KE105, LLC c/o TurningPoint Energy, LLC 3720 South Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 February 9, 2023 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 About TurningPoint Energy ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 SITE LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................5 2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Natural Resources and Consultations with State and Federal Authorities ................................. 5 2.2.1 Natural Resource Inventory (“NRI”) ........................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplain ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2.3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) ................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Ecological Review ............................. 6 2.2.5 Illinois State Historic Preservation Office ................................................................................ 6 2.2.6 Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) ............................................................................... 6 2.3 Community Outreach & Benefits ................................................................................................ 7 3.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SOLAR PROJECT DESIGN ......................................................7 3.1 Project Description & Design Standards ...................................................................................... 7 3.2 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Air pollution ................................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Toxic substances .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.6 Fire and explosive hazards........................................................................................................... 9 3.7 Glare and heat ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.8 Setback Compliance, Landscape & Buffering Plan .................................................................... 11 3.9 Viewshed ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.10 FAA Filing ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.11 Safety and Security .................................................................................................................... 11 3.12 Interconnection ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.13 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 12 3.14 Decommissioning Plan ............................................................................................................... 12 3.15 Itemized Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................. 13 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Special Use Required Findings of Facts (Section 10-4-9, Zoning Code) ..................................... 13 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 3 List of Appendices: x A – Application Forms o Application to Amend Agreement o Application for Rezoning o Application for Variance o Application for Special Use x B – Zoning Site Plan x C – Decommissioning Plan x D – Wetland Delineation (Level 1) x E – Environmental Constraints Memorandum x F – IDNR EcoCAT x G – SHPO Concurrence x H – NRI Application & Report x I – Manufacturer’s Specifications x J – Operations and Maintenance Plan x K – Transportation and Access Plan x L – Interconnection Agreement x M – Glare Study and F.A.A. Notice Criteria Filing x N – Contaminant and Water Studies x O – Viewshed x P – FEMA FIRM Map x Q – Property Impact Study Application for Special Use Permit | Page 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview TurningPoint Energy, LLC d/b/a TPE Development through its affiliated entity TPE IL KE105, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located east of Cannonball Trail and south of Galena Road, Yorkville, IL 60512 (the “Project”). The Project will consist of a single axis tracking ground-mounted solar array, associated electrical equipment, an access driveway and fence covering approximately 26 acres of the 54-acre parcel (ID 02-15-126-004). The Project intends to participate in the Illinois Adjustable Block Community Solar Program and will power the equivalent of approximately 1,0301 homes. Community Solar allows residents of Illinois to purchase locally generated clean electricity at a discount to current electric rates without having to install panels on their roof. The Project’s host parcel is in the R-2 (Single family traditional) and R-3 (Multi-family attached residence) zoning district and is included in the “Bristol Ridge” Planned Unit Development. To comply with the landowner’s requirements, Applicant has submitted separate applications requesting (1) to Amend the Annexation Agreement (Yorkville Ordinance 2006-126) to allow for the withdrawal of the parcel from the Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development, and (2) Rezone the parcel from R-2 and R-3 to A-1 zoning in which solar is allowable under Special Use. The Applicant has included requests in the Agreement Amendment and Rezoning applications to make the rezoning contingent upon the issuance of a building permit for construction for the Project. The City of Yorkville’s Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) allows for the construction and operation of Solar Farms by Special Use Permit in A-1 Zoning Districts (consideration of the SUP application requires the re-zoning request to be approved first). All setbacks prescribed in the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance will be complied with to ensure a sufficient buffer is maintained between the panels and neighboring property lines and rights-of-way. Additional plantings have been proposed in areas near residential parcels to screen the array from neighboring residences. The City’s solar ordinance (10-19-7-D) requires a minimum height of 10 feet above the surface. This height will make the panels highly visible from the neighboring roads and parcels. Applicant further requests a Variance lowering this minimum height to two feet above the surface. The decreased height will reduce both visibility and construction impact by reducing anchoring and foundation requirements. If approved, the Project will bring significant and consistent benefits to the City of Yorkville and the community surrounding the Project. The Project will create approximately 50-75 jobs during the approximately 4 to 6-month construction period, generating property tax revenue of approximately $840,000 over 30 years. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community will benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, extremely limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. 1Calculation based on data provided by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/IL.pdf and https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pd Application for Special Use Permit | Page 5 1.2 About TurningPoint Energy Formed in 2014, TPE is a privately held, independent company transforming our energy future by creating freedom to choose a smarter, cleaner, more flexible way forward through community solar. As a privately held and independent company, TPE customizes projects to the unique needs of each client. Our team has financed and/or built over 2 Gigawatts (GW) of the solar projects operating in the U.S. today. Since 2017, TPE has focused these services on the expanding community solar market in states including Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Rhode Island. TPE’s development and investment portfolio now includes over 169MW of community solar projects in construction or operation, with an additional 840MW in solar projects under development . TPE is a “triple bottom line” company; we believe that our business should create financial, environmental, and community value in every project we create. Our intent is to be long term community members. Upon successful permitting and utility interconnection, TPE typically makes donations to local charities and non-profits doing good work in the communities in which we work. 2.0 SITE LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS TPE, in coordination with its engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn, has prepared and compiled information from many sources to form the basis of design for the proposed Project. A summary of existing conditions and the design elements that avoid and or minimize impact to the environment and surrounding community is presented below. 2.1 Existing Conditions The proposed Project is located on approximately 54 acres of land in northern Kendall County in the City of Yorkville. The site generally flows south and southeast and any water eventually discharges to Blackberry Creek. It is presently an empty field having been harvested of soybeans in the Fall. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Services, the onsite soils consist of type B/D, C/D, and B silt loam. 2.2 Natural Resources and Consultations with State and Federal Authorities 2.2.1 Natural Resource Inventory (“NRI”) Kimley-Horn submitted the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) packet on July 29, 2022, to the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District (“SWCD”). The NRI report was finalized on August 9, 2022. A copy of the report is included as Appendix H. The report notes a Land Evaluation (LE) score of 84 out of 100, giving it a high rating for agricultural use. However, the SWCD acknowledges that the report in no way indicates that a certain land use is not possible. See Appendix N for the beneficial effects of a solar farm. 2.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplain The Project will be designed to avoid impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters. A Level 1 Wetland Delineation has been completed and two potential wetlands were identified within the Project Area. Please see Appendix D for additional information. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 6 Per FEMA FIRM Map Panel 17093C0035H, the development is in Zone X, which is considered an area of minimal flood hazard. Refer to Appendix P for a copy of the FEMA FIRM Map. 2.2.3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) The Project will be designed such that no federally listed species will be significantly impacted. Solar projects typically impose only minimal impacts on wildlife species. The Project’s potential to impact federally protected species was evaluated as part of an Environmental Constraint Memorandum, which is included as Appendix E. The assessment indicated that five federally listed species should be considered in an effects analysis for the Project, including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the federally endangered rusty patched bumble bee (Bombas affinis), the federally threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), and the federal candidate monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Prior to construction, consultation with the USFWS will occur to confirm a “No Effect” determination. 2.2.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Ecological Review The Applicant consulted with IDNR for potential impacts to state threatened or endangered species. This consultation is conducted pursuant to IDNR’s Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (“EcoCAT”). The Applicant submitted an EcoCAT review request to IDNR in July 2022. The review found that the Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) may be in the vicinity of the Project. After further consultation, the review concluded that adverse effects are unlikely and, therefore, the consultation was terminated by IDNR. This termination aligns with 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 Refer to Appendix F for a copy of the IDNR EcoCAT. 2.2.5 Illinois State Historic Preservation Office Under the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Protection Act, the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) division at IDNR is responsible for studying possible Project effects on archaeological and/or architectural (cultural) resources. Agencies requiring SHPO evaluation concurrent with their review include the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”), IDNR, and the USACE. According to the Illinois SHPO database, no surveys, archeological sites, or historic buildings are listed on or within 0.5 mile of the site. The Applicant submitted a SHPO Project Review Form on July 22, 2022, for agency review. A response letter has not yet been received. Once the SHPO’s findings become available, they will be provided to the County, and it will be included as Appendix G. The SHPO Project Review form has been included as part of this package. 2.2.6 Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) The Illinois Renewable Energy Facilities Agricultural Impact Mitigation Act (505 ILCS 147/1 et seq.)) requires the owner of a commercial solar energy facility to have an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) in place within 45 days prior to the commencement of Project construction. The intent of the AIMA is to preserve and/or restore the integrity of affected agricultural land during construction and decommissioning activities. The Project will enter into an AIMA with the Illinois Department of Agriculture in advance of 45 days before construction commencing. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 7 2.3 Community Outreach & Benefits TPE likes to proactively engage the communities in which we work early in the process to determine what questions and concerns potential neighbors might have and give us adequate time to educate and address them prior to the public process. We typically place calls, send letters and door knock on adjacent properties to our planned solar site as well as meet with local officials. Community Solar projects such as KE105 enable residents to receive power savings from signing up to participate in a community scale solar project without installing solar on their rooftops. In 2018, the State of Illinois enacted a statute that imposes a standardized, state assessment of a fair cash value for solar energy projects covering both the improvements and the land. As a result, once constructed this Project will pay property taxes of approximately $840,000 over 30 years split between Kendall County, Bristol Township, the United City of Yorkville, and applicable school, fire, and other taxing authorities. The Project will create approximately 50-75 jobs during the 4 to 6-month construction process. A regional operations and maintenance firm will service the facility over its working life cycle. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community will benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. 3.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SOLAR PROJECT DESIGN 3.1 Project Description & Design Standards The Project will consist of a ground-mounted solar array constructed in the central area of the Project site. The solar array will consist of solar panels attached to single axis trackers structures attached to driven steel pier foundations or ground screw foundations, depending on the subsurface composition. An Illinois licensed engineer will certify the foundation and design of the solar racking system is suitable to meet local soil and climate conditions. The Project will be constructed by a licensed Engineering Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) Contractor. The design and construction process will comply with all national, state, and local applicable building, electrical and fire codes, as well as the National Electrical Code (“NEC”). The EPC Contractor shall also possess all professional and trade licenses required by the state and local authorities. The EPC Contractor will create and maintain a health and safety manual in accordance with OSHA requirements which establishes appropriate rules and procedures concerning workplace safety. Noise from construction activities will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The inverters and transformers will be located on one or more concrete pads or piles. All power and communication lines within the solar array and to the point of interconnection will be buried Application for Special Use Permit | Page 8 underground. Utility poles at the point of interconnection will be above ground. The Project footprint area covers approximately 26 acres. Specifications for solar panels, inverters, and racking system proposed for the Project are included as Appendix I. The panels will have a maximum height of 15 feet and the array will be surrounded by an 8-foot-high fence for safety and security purposes. Entry into the fenced areas will be through gates with Knox Boxes for emergency access. The Project design and planning process focused on minimizing any potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will produce electricity without requiring any combustion of materials; as a result, the community solar array will not cause or emit odors, dust, gas, smoke, or fumes. In addition, the Project will have very few moving parts and will generate electricity primarily in a passive manner – collecting the sun’s rays and converting energy associated with the rays into electricity – so the Project will not produce vibrations, none of which would impact surrounding properties. The array is designed to meet all required setbacks from neighboring residential and religious properties in compliance with the Ordinance and incorporates vegetative screening that will grow over time for the benefit of nearby parcels, as outlined in Section 3.8. A warning sign shall be provided at the facility entrance and along the perimeter fence including the facilities 911 address and a 24-hour emergency contact number. No outdoor storage is planned for the Project at this time. In the event outdoor storage is needed, the Project will apply for the necessary approvals for the contemplated storage. The scope of work includes but is not limited to: x Construction of 20-ft wide gravel access roads x Construction of project equipment pads x Construction of a temporary staging areas x Installation of solar panels and associated support equipment and structures x Installation of buried and overhead collector lines 3.2 Noise The Project will operate in accordance with City Ordinance Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 5 (4.4.5). Solar panels themselves do not produce any noise. The only components in the array that generate noise are the inverters and transformers. The inverters have been purposely located away from the nearest residential abutters. The final inverter pad design will ensure that any noise emitting components will be oriented towards the interior of the Project and directed away from neighboring parcels. The inverters are rated at 65 dBA at 1 meter as indicated in the manufacturer’s specification sheet in Appendix I. Sound waves diminish with distance in accordance with mathematical principles of sound level drop. Extrapolating the manufacturer’s sound data at one meter and projecting to neighboring property lines shows that a sound level of less than 50dBA is anticipated at the property line located approximately 100 feet away. The Project will comply with any sound limitations imposed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board during operations. 3.3 Vibration There will be no vibrations generated by the solar panels or racking during the operating period of the Project. There may be de minimis vibrations produced by the inverter, but any such vibrations will not Application for Special Use Permit | Page 9 extend to the surrounding properties. The Project’s comprehensive maintenance plan includes routine inspections to assess and correct any malfunctioning equipment. 3.4 Air pollution including (a) Visual emissions, (b) Particulate matter emissions; (c) Fugitive particulate matter emissions; (d) Odorous matter; (e) Airborne toxic matter The Project will not emit air pollution of any kind. It will in fact provide a net environmental carbon benefit. According to the EPA Clean Energy Equivalencies Calculator the Project will avoid the environmental equivalent of 8,072 metric tons of carbon annually, which is comparable to: x Carbon sequestered by 9,553 acres of forest x 908,281 gallons of gasoline consumed each year x 1,739 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles removed from our streets A commitment to wildlife-sensitive building and management practices during and after construction will allow for increased local biodiversity. TPE proposes to use pollinator friendly ground cover underneath the Project and native plantings around the perimeter. Clover and grass species that promote the establishment and long-term health of bee populations will give bee and small mammal populations a new pollinator friendly habitat. The Project will not use any pesticides for vegetation management. 3.5 Toxic substances There are no toxic substances in the panels. The Project will incorporate Tier 1 silicon-based PV panels, which have been analyzed as follows by North Carolina State University: Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tempered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them together, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth's crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of boron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. Please see Appendix N for the full report. 3.6 Fire and explosive hazards The solar panels and racking, which comprise the majority of the Project’s equipment, are not flammable. Tempered glass offers protection from heat and the elements, and the panels are designed to absorb heat as solar energy. From a study by North Carolina State University: Application for Special Use Permit | Page 10 …Concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer back sheets (framed panels only), plastic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. Please see Appendix N for the full report. 3.7 Glare and heat As explained in the fire and explosive hazards Section 3.6, there is no heat generated by the Project. A glare study was performed by TPE using ForgeSolar software to assess the possible effects of reflectivity created by the Project. ForgeSolar software incorporates GlareGauge, the leading solar glare analysis tool which meets Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) standards and is used globally for glare analysis. It is based on the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool licensed from Sandia National Laboratories. A model of the Project was input into the software along with (4) Route Receptors along roadways in vicinity of the site with another Route Receptor for the railroad south of the project area. Height was assessed at 5 feet above ground to emulate passengers in cars and up to 15 feet for the cab of the locomotive (Route 1). Further, (24) Observation Receptors were modeled at specific dwellings located around the perimeter of the solar array. Heights were modeled at 15 feet above ground to emulate residents on the second floor of dwellings and evaluate the worst-case glare impact (single story dwellings will have lower glare). A direct line of sight between the Project and the designated Route Receptors and Observation Receptors is required to produce any discernible glint/glare. The presence of existing or proposed vegetation between the receptor and the Project will eliminate any glint/glare. The model assumes the sun is shining 100% of the time it is above the horizon (during laylight hours). That is, it does not account for cloudy or overcast conditions when the sun is not shining. The results, therefore, are the maximum (theoretical) expected glint and glare during any single year. Existing topography is taken into account in the simulation based on LIDAR (“Light Detection and Ranging”) data. Existing and planned vegetation are not considered in the simulation. The model assumes zero vegetation screening the Project; this must be considered when interpreting the study results. To reduce glare in the east and west directions during low sun periods, a 5-degree tracker resting angle was implemented during these times; this eliminates the main source of glare for solar projects. This lower angle will position the panels in a near flat position; they will face upwards and not reflect light from the rising or setting sun towards nearby buildings, cars, or trains. Based on the above inputs/assumptions, no potential for glint or glare was identified in the analysis at any of the Route Receptors or neighboring Observation Receptors. While excluded from the analysis, existing and planned vegetation will further shield the view of the project from nearby properties, roadways, and railroad. No additional mitigation measures are recommended since no glint or glare is anticipated based on the ForgeSolar GlareGauge results. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 11 Please see Appendix M for a more detailed analysis of the Forge Solar results and a copy of the ForgeSolar Assessment. 3.8 Setback Compliance, Landscape & Buffering Plan The Project proposes to conform with all applicable City setbacks from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. The western side of the array where the closest residential neighbors are located will incorporate a vegetated buffer. This buffer will consist of two staggered rows of naturalized or native evergreen shrub spaced 28 feet apart on center (from the center of one plant to the center of the next plant). In front of these rows will be a third row consisting of native deciduous shrubs that obscure any gaps, replaced by an understory tree every 100 ft. The buffer area in between these plantings and the road will be seeded with a native pollinator friendly seed mix and areas underneath the solar arrays will be stabilized with a low-height, pollinator-friendly mix. Both pollinator seed mixes are intended to provide food and shelter for wildlife and will attract a variety of pollinators and songbirds. The seed mix will provide an attractive display of color from spring to fall and will provide nectar and food for pollinators and their larva. A final landscape plan will be designed by a landscape architect in accordance with the Ordinance prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3.9 Viewshed TPE conducted a viewshed analysis and prepared photo simulations of the proposed site from nearby public roads and residential property owners. The model is used to provide a mock-up of what portion of the solar array may or may not be visible. The viewshed analysis was conducted from residential neighbors and from Cannonball Trail depicting the viewshed at the time of landscape planting as outlined in Section 3.8. The viewshed analysis combines a digital model of the terrain, derived from online Google earth terrain data, and incorporates the height and position of Project components, existing vegetation and proposed new plantings and the eye-level of a theoretical observer into input data for a computer model. The model provides a view between the Project and the modeled observer. These viewsheds have been included in Appendix O. 3.10 FAA Filing TPE used an online “Notice Criteria Tool” provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the additional filings were needed. The tool determined that the Notice Criteria were exceeded. A “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration – Off Airport” was submitted to the FAA on July 15, 2022. A “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” was issued by the FAA on August 22, 2022. Submittal of FAA from 7460-2 “Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration” is required at the time of Project construction. Please See Appendix M for a copy of the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. 3.11 Safety and Security The solar arrays will be enclosed by an 8-foot-high security fence and locked gates, as required by the Ordinance and the National Electrical Code (NEC). Emergency access to the fenced areas will be through Knox-Boxes to provide the required 24-hour access. The gravel drives have been designed to allow emergency vehicle access, including fire trucks. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 12 Emergency responders will be provided with the key/code for the Knox-Boxes. 3.12 Interconnection The proposed Project will interconnect to an existing 12.5 kV ComEd feeder on the distribution system, which connects to the substation that is directly adjacent to the Project. The utility will install approximately 250 feet of underground powerline extension and approximately 150 feet of overhead powerline on 5 poles with metering, disconnect, and recloser equipment. The applicant is currently in the Facilities Study phase of the electrical interconnection process. A copy of the redacted Interconnection Agreement for the Project is included as Appendix L. 3.13 Operation and Maintenance The Operation and Maintenance Plan including a comprehensive vegetative management plan for the Project is included as Appendix J. Preventive maintenance will be conducted on a schedule based on manufacturer’s recommendations and industry best practices and standards of care. Regular maintenance will include vegetation control, fence inspection and physical inspection of all system components. A mowing schedule shall be established based on the plant species in the seed mix that is properly timed to balance avoiding the disturbance of wildlife and native pollinator-friendly vegetation with the need to avoid the establishment of weeds. Vegetation underneath and between the solar panels will be well maintained in the defined lease area to keep vegetation below the low edge of the solar panels at maximum tilt angle. Mowing and weed trimming schedules will be adjusted from time to time to allow for flexibility based on rainfall and vegetation growth. Chemical control shall be used in accordance with Illinois noxious weed regulations. The Project will be monitored continuously for system failures via a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Qualified and insured technicians will be dispatched to address any system failures, including inverter, transformer, or tracker motor malfunctions. 3.14 Decommissioning Plan The Decommissioning Plan for the Project is included as Appendix C and includes removal of all structures (including equipment, fencing and roads) and foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation. The decommissioning plan shall be accompanied by a decommissioning bond to provide certainty to the City that the financial resources will be available to fully decommission the site. At the end of operational life of the Project, the Project will be safely dismantled using conventional construction equipment. The Project consists of numerous materials that can be resold or recycled for significant scrap value, including steel, aluminum, glass, copper, and plastics. The solar panels are not considered hazardous waste. The panels used in the Project will contain silicon, glass, and aluminum, which have value for recycling. Often, current market salvage values of a Project exceed estimated decommissioning and site restoration expenses. The site will be restored and reclaimed to approximately the pre-construction condition in conformance with the site lease agreement and the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). It is assumed that the site will be returned to agricultural use after decommissioning, and appropriate measures will be implemented to achieve said use. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 13 3.15 Itemized Cost Estimate Below is a table summarizing the anticipated cost estimate for the Project. These numbers are approximate and exclude contingency and interconnection. Cost Category $/W $ Solar Modules 0.360 $ 2,700,000 Inverters 0.045 $ 337,500 Racking 0.120 $ 900,000 EPC 0.500 $ 3,750,000 D&E 0.015 $ 112,500 GC & Overhead 0.050 $ 375,000 Subtotal 1.090 $ 8,175,000 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA 4.1 Special Use Required Findings of Facts (Section 10-4-9, Zoning Code) a) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. The property is located in a portion of Yorkville with low population density and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare to the community. Solar components do not have any moving parts and can be disposed of in a non- hazardous landfill. Numerous studies have shown them not to have a negative environmental impact. Please refer to Appendix N for a copy of these studies. Also, please refer to IDNR’s response to the Project’s EcoCAT submission. The Project will comply with all local, state, and federal regulations and will be always operated in a safe manner. In addition, the Project will promote the general welfare of Yorkville by supplying new jobs, new tax revenue and will be a source of generation of sustainable, clean, pollution-free renewable electricity. Also, the community will benefit from the significant economic benefit without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, limited use of roads, little to no need for police or fire departments. b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. As mentioned previously, the property is located in a portion of Yorkville with low population density. The Project will fully comply with all setbacks as specified in the Yorkville Ordinance 10.19.17(b) will fully comply with all performance standards listed in the Yorkville Zoning Code 10.19.4 and 10.19.9 and the Special Use Permit, as well as the noise limits imposed in Yorkville Application for Special Use Permit | Page 14 Ordinance 4.4.5. The Project will also include a landscape buffer to the portion of the Project adjacent to residences to reduce the visual impact on neighbors who live nearby. Moreover, as indicated by the property value impact study, the existence of the Project will have no impact on neighboring property values, and therefore will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood of the Project. The CohnReznick General Impact Study Report indicates that solar facilities located in similar areas, with similar land uses, do not appear to cause any negative impacts to adjacent real estate, based on a review of academic studies, CohnReznick’s own paired sales data, and interviews with County Assessors and other Market Participants. The report details how solar facilities are generally harmonious with surrounding uses as they do not generate any odor, emit any air pollution, and overall, provide a net environmental benefit. c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The Project will have little to no impact on neighboring properties or the future development of the community. The Project does not generate any odor, or emit any air pollution and, in fact, provides a net environmental benefit. There will be no tree clearing. In converting the property from a farm field to a solar facility, pesticides will not be utilized unless mandated by state or local laws for the control of noxious weeds. The setback will be planted with a double row of evergreens coordinated with a licensed landscape architect, and the balance of the buffer will include native and pollinator-friendly species. Upon construction completion, traffic to the solar facility will be required only a few times a year to conduct maintenance. With low impacts of solar farms, the community should see no obstructions to future development. d) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Project will have adequate utility interconnections. The completion of the system impact study by ComEd provides assurance that the electrical capacity is available to host the Project and the proposed substation for electrical interconnection is located directly across the street. The Project does not require water or sewer facilities to operate. The Project will also build all roads and entrances necessary to access its facilities. A drain tile survey will be completed prior to construction and foundation design will work around or reroute any identified drain tiles to ensure proper drainage. The Project will also be designed in a manner that will not materially modify existing water drainage patterns around its facilities. Moreover, the replacement of row crops with a pollinator seed mix is actually a net positive for stormwater. According to the Minnesota Rural Water Association, solar installations with native pollinator-friendly ground cover achieve positive impacts similar to soil conservation projects, which reduce soil erosion, reduce soil quality degradation, and improve water quality. This report is included in Appendix N. The Project will be designed to account for all existing features, Application for Special Use Permit | Page 15 environmental features, the Yorkville Solar Ordinance, and the Kendall County Natural Resources Inventory findings. Please refer to Appendix B for the Zoning Site Plan. e) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The Project will be designed to include all roads and road entrances necessary to provide adequate ingress and egress to its facilities. Construction traffic will include approximately 25 work trucks per day. Considering the low number of work trucks visiting the project site over the construction phase, traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Project will not be impacted. The Project will have minimal traffic upon completion of construction. Landscape maintenance and maintenance to the Project components are anticipated to occur only a few times a year. Existing traffic patterns will not be impacted in the post-construction phase. f) The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city as amended. The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan references The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (CMAP) “GO TO 2040” comprehensive regional plan. “GO TO 2040” recommends communities consider solar energy for environmental sustainability and for potential economic improvements in energy-intensive water treatment facilities. Solar Farms are a great addition to the neighborhood (quiet, low maintenance, low traffic volume, environmentally safe) and provide sources of renewable energy that is important to a residential area and the community. Although it is a long-term use, a solar facility is not permanent. At the end of the Project’s life the location will be reclaimed and restored as close as possible to its current state. At that time, the landowner may be amenable to other, more-public uses. The parcel is currently included in the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan Undeveloped Residential Zoning Area Capacity that will not be needed for up to 89 years (Table 2.17, Residential Built-Out Projections). CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE R.O.W.)BNSF RAIL (FID 20375)TPE IL KE105, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAPSCALE 1" = 5000'PROJECT LOCATIONSITE DATA TABLELEGENDNOTESSOILS DATA TABLENORTHBNSF RAILCANNONBALL TRAILUS-34GALENA RDKENNEDY RDIL-251 APPENDIX A – APPLICATION FORMS Application for Special Use Permit APPLICATION FOR AGREEMENT AMENDMENT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us DATE: PZC NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL: FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: LIST ALL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OR AGENCIES REQUIRED TO RECEIVE NOTICE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) 02/09/2023 TPE IL KE105, LLC Scott Osborn TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 (303) 618-9570 sosborn@tpoint-e.com Daniel B. Light 15 Cannonball Trail East of Cannonball Trail, North of BNSF Rail line and Oak Street, south of Galena Rd, and west of Blackberry Creek and Kennedy Road PUD (underlying: R2, R3) PUD (R2, R3), A1-SU, A1 A1 A1, R3 R3, B3 02-15-126-004 ● APPLICATION FOR AGREEMENT AMENDMENT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yor kville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF AGREEMENT: DATE OF RECORDING: SUMMARIZE THE ITEMS TO BE AMENDED FROM THE EXISTING AGREEMENT: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. Petitioner must attach a true and correct copy of the existing agreement and title it as “Exhibit C”. Petitioner must attach amendments from the existing agreement and title it as “Exhibit D”. Ordinance 2006-126 Authorizing Execution of Annexation Agreement of the Bristol Ridge Subdivision February 22, 2007 / May 15, 2007 Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Kendall County Parcel identified above from the Bristol Ridge Annexation Agreement and Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. Petitioner will further seek to rezone this parcel to Agricultural District Use in which, solar energy development is allowable as a Special Use. This withdrawal is requested to avoid affecting the zoning of neighboring parcels also included in the Bristol Ridge PUD and now owned by a different entity. A letter documenting that owner's consent to this withdrawal is attached to this application. *%&&" * %$%(#) ( " " )( &* %$: A@E1 ;@B9AE9ABF9@@D< %* 3 )" " )( &* %$ ) (%#* (+)* 5) * + +)*H1B@AG *- $ ()* - )* $!$$ "4 *2 %( $""%+$*/1 H8CA8B@AG=B@AG@@@ACIAF " )( &* %$3 *&(*% * %""%- $ )( &( ""/ $ )* ("/% * $* (" $ % $$%$""( "3 &(*% * %(* " % * %$AE1%-$) &CG%(* 1$ G1)*% * (( $ &" ( $1 )( ) %""%-)3%## $ $ *&% $*%$* )*" $ % * +" -/" $ %(* (%# +$*), "" 1 $) ( * %$*&% $*- ( * )* ("/" $ % ) -/ $* () *)* )%+* ("/ " $ % " 0 * (5) $2* $ )* ("/1"%$ * )%+* ("/" $ % ) " 0 * (5) $CAE *1*%* )%+* )*%($ (* ( % 1* $ $%(* *( *$ " )- * ) ()*" $ "%$ * )*" $ % ) ( $1*%* $* (% ) ( )*%"%2* $ $%(* )* ("/1"%$ * $* (% ) -/1*%* )%+* ("/" $ % "$ "%$ $ *% ((/4" )2* $ )%+* )* ("/"%$ * )%+* ("/" $ % ) " )"$1*%&% $* $) )%+* ("/" $ F@ $) (%#* )*" $ % ) * %$2* $ )*1"%$ * ) )%+* ("/" $ % ) ((/4" ) $*%* H * %$" $ 1$ $ * - )*" $ % 44 (5)"$2* $ )%+* 1%$) H * %$" $ $ (5)- )*" $ *%* *% /% 44$442* $ )%+* - )* ("/1"%$ * %(* ("/" $ % ) *% / % ) "(%%4*%- ( * )# ) $* () * /* $%(* ("/" $ % # ) $$ /5)"$2 * $ - )* ("/"%$ * $%(* " $ % ) $$ /5)"$1*%* $%(* - )*%($ (% ) # ) $$ /5)"$2* $ $%(* ("/"%$ * -/*%* &" % $$ $ 1 $"+ $ * )* " # " % -/- )* ("/$%( ( $ ) &( # ) )2 . &* $ (%#* %, &( # ) )*-%"%*)D/ H(%) $* )%+* - )*%($ (% * %, )( &( # ) )1 ( *% %( *% %) & $$ /$ # ) $$ /1) *+* $* *%-$% ( )*%"1 $""%+$*/1 "" $% )4 . &* $ * ( (%#* %""%- $ )( ( " )** ( *% %( %$, / *%%##%$- "* )%$ %#&$/ ( %( )%+# $*$%4GC9AIGD1*%* *&(*% * $%(* " % * %$AE1 %-$) &CG%(* 1$ G1)*% * (( $ &" ( $1 )( ) %""%-)3 $$ $ ** $* () * %$% * )*" $ % * - )* " % * $%(* )*'+(* (% ) * %$AE$* %(* - )* ("/ *% /" $ % * +(" $ *%$%(* ($;%(# ("/ %1+(" $ *%$$+ $/< "(%2* $ )%+* GD ( )AI# $+* )AG) %$)- )*"%$ * $%(* ("/ *% /" $ % ) "(%1 )*$ % BIA@4DE **%* )%+* )*%($ (% 6 , )7"$ )( $ ( %( ( AC1AIEB1)%+# $*=A@AICF2* $ $%(* C ( )A@# $+* )DC) %$)- )* "%$ * )* ("/" $ % ) 6 , )7"$ )*$ % AB4H@ **%* $%(* )*%($ (* ( % 2 * $ $%(* HA ( )E@# $+* )AH) %$)- )*"%$ * $%(* ("/" $ 6 , )7"$1 )*$ CD@4AH **%* $* () * %$% ) " $ - * " $ (-$AE@ *$%(* - )* ("/% 1# )+( * ( *$ " )*%1$&("" "- * * $%(* ("/* *% -/% ) ( "(%2* $ $%(* GD ( )AI # $+* )AG) %$) )*"%$ ) &("" "" $ )*$ % CCA4HC *2* $ $%(* AE ( )D@ # $+* )DC) %$)- )*1& (& $ +"(*%* ")* )( " $ 1 )*$ % D@ *2* $ $%(* GD ( )AI# $+* )AG) %$) )*"%$ " $ % ) ( "(%1 )*$ % BIDA4AD **%* )* " $ % ) - )* " % * $%(* )*'+(* (2* $ )%+* @ ( )AC# $+* )D@) %$)- )* "%$ * )*" $ % ) - )* " % * $%(* )*'+(* (1 )*$ % AIG4EG **%* &% $*% $$ $ 2"" $ $""%+$*/1 "" $% )1 ")%. &* $ * ( (%#* *&(*% * $%(* - )*M% * %$AE1%-$) &CG%(* 1$ G1)* % * (( $ &" ( $) )( ) %""%-)3 $$ $ ** $* () * %$% * $* (" $ % $$%$""( "; $ * $* (" $ % ** %+*)A@1 * %$AI9AE<$" $ (-$&("" "- * $H@4@ *1$%(#""/ )*$*1)%+* ("/% 6" 0 * (5) $71* $ )* ("/"%$ ) &("" " " $ BCI4A@ *2* $ )%+* ("/*( *$ " )*%* ")* )( %+() 1CED4IF **%* $%(* " $ % *(*% "$%$, / *% # ) $$ //(($*/ ( %( %$&( "BA1AIHB1 $%%! DH% )1& DH@2 $ - )* ("/"%$ ) $%(* " $ 1A@F4G@ **%* )*" $ 1)%+& $#%$+# $* 1% "$)%$, / *% %( - (* (/(($*/ ( %( /A1AHII1 $%%!EE% )1 BE2* $ $%(* ("/*( *$ " )*%* ")* )( %+() 1 $ "%$ ) )*" $ $) )*" $ .* $ ACB4@ *2* $ - )* ("/*( *$ " )*%* ")* )( %+() 1AI@4CC **%) $* (" $ 2* $ $%(* )* ("/"%$ ) $* (" $ 1*%* &% $*% $$ $ 1 $( )*%"%-$) &1 $""%+$*/1 "" $% )4 r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:22 PM ([KLELW% Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:23 PM Law Offices of Daniel J. Kramer 1107A S. Bridge Street Daniel J. Kramer Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Kelly A. Helland 630-553-9500 D.J. Kramer Fax: 630-553-5764 February 8, 2023 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy Via Email: sosborn@tppoint-e.com RE: Solar Energy Project in Bristol Ridge P.U.D. in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois Dear Mr. Osborn: In regard to your request for Consent by one of the Bristol Ridge P.U.D, Members as to your Petition for a Solar Array being established in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. Please be advised that I am providing this letter as Land Trustee for the Beneficiaries of Daniel J. Kramer Trust No. 100. As an Owner of a portion of the real property that was originally included in this Planned Unit Development the underlying Beneficiaries to my Trust have no objection whatsoever to your Petition to get a Special Use from the United City of Yorkville for a Solar Array on real property that is located within Bristol Ridge P.U.D. Hopefully this letter suffices for your filing purposes. Very truly yours, Daniel J. Kramer Daniel J. Kramer Attorney at Law DJK:rg cc: Steve Kratz APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us DATE: PZC NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL: FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: REQUESTED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: TOTAL ACREAGE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) 02/09/2023 TPE IL KE105, LLC Scott Osborn TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 (303) 618-9570 sosborn@tpoint-e.com Daniel B. Light 15 Cannonball Trail East of Cannonball Trail, North of BNSF Rail line and Oak Street, south of Galena Rd, and west of Blackberry Creek and Kennedy Road PUD (underlying: R2, R3) Agricultural 54.23 PUD (R2, R3), A1-SU, A1 A1 A1, R3 R3, B3 02-15-126-004 ● APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. Kyle C. Barry McGuireWoods LLP 1 North Old State Capitol Plaza Suite 410 Springfield, IL 62701 217-527-1282 kbarry@mcguirewoods.com 217-527-1290 Jason Cooper Kimley Horn 570 Lake Cook Rd, Suite 200 Deerfield, IL 60015 (630) 487-3449 Jason.Cooper@kimley-horn.com APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION(S) AND USES OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED REZONED PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE TREND OF DEVELOPMENT, IF ANY, IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, INCLUDING CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE DAY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROPERTY VALUES ARE DIMINISHED BY THE PARTICULAR ZONING RESTRICTIONS: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES OF PETITIONER PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC: Ordinance 2006-126 Authorizing Execution of Annexation Agreement of the Bristol Ridge Subdivision February 22, 2007 / May 15, 2007 Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Kendall County Parcel identified above from the Bristol Ridge Annexation Agreement and Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. Petitioner will further seek to rezone this parcel to Agricultural District Use in which, solar energy development is allowable as a Special Use. This withdrawal is requested to avoid affecting the zoning of neighboring parcels also included in the Bristol Ridge PUD and now owned by a different entity. A letter documenting that owner's consent to this withdrawal is attached to this application. The Project would create approximately 50-75 jobs during the approximately 4 to 6-month construction period, generating property tax revenue of approximately $840,000 over 30 years. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community would benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, extremely limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. The proposed facility under this rezoning effort will produce enough electricity to power approximately 1,030 homes. The EPA Clean Energy Equivalencies Calculator estimates an offset of approximately 8,070 metric tons of carbon dioxide which is the equivalent of removing 1,739 gas-powered cars from the roads, or consuming 918,000 gallons of gasoline. APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE LENGTH OF TIME THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT AS ZONED CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE COMMUNITY NEED FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE: WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLEASE STATE THE CARE WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PLAN ITS LAND USE DEVELOPMENT: PLEASE STATE THE IMPACT THAT SUCH RECLASSIFICATION WILL HAVE UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON SAID ROUTES; THE EFFECT, IF ANY, SUCH RECLASSIFICATION AND/OR ANNEXATION WOULD HAVE UPON EXISTING ACCESSES TO SAID ROUTES; AND THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL ACCESSES AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND FLOW ON SAID ROUTES (ORD. 1976-43, 11-4-1976): The parcel has remained vacant since its annexation by Yorkville in 2006. The bulk of the adjoining land remains in agricultural production. North of Galena road, the Village of Montgomery has expanded residential development with home construction and sales in recent years. The proposed use for the re-zoned property will promote the general welfare of the community by contributing new jobs during the construction of the solar facility and $840,000 over 30 years in new tax revenues to the community. The proposed use will also help shore up the electric grid and enhance its reliability in the immediate vicinity of the property by installing a new source for generating clean, pollution-free electricity. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Yorkville’s Comprehensive Plan by promoting sustainable energy infrastructure that will also support the City's energy efficiency goals for homeowners through community solar subscriptions. The parcel is currently listed as undeveloped residential property (Section 2: Community Characteristics and Land Use Trends), Per Comprehensive Plan Table 2.17, Residential Built-Out Projections, it could be up to 89 years before this parcel, part of the Undeveloped Residential Zoning Area Capacity, is needed for residential use. The resulting use of this parcel as proposed by this application package is that of a solar energy facility. Petitioner anticipates minimal construction traffic (approximately 25 vehicles per day) on Cannonball Trail during the 4-6 months of construction activity. Post-construction traffic is expected to be limited to regular maintenance of of the facility using 1-ton service vehicles, a few times per year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r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:22 PM ([KLELW% Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:23 PM APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us DATE: PZC NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL: FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) 02/09/2023 TPE IL KE105, LLC Scott Osborn TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 (303) 618-9570 sosborn@tpoint-e.com Daniel B. Light 15 Cannonball Trail East of Cannonball Trail, North of BNSF Rail line and Oak Street, south of Galena Rd, and west of Blackberry Creek and Kennedy Road PUD (underlying: R2, R3) PUD (R2, R3), A1-SU, A1 A1 A1, R3 R3, B3 02-15-126-004 ● APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within 500 feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE CONFIRM THE PROPOSED VARIATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY. Kyle C. Barry McGuireWoods LLP 1 North Old State Capitol Plaza Suite 410 Springfield, IL 62701 217-527-1282 kbarry@mcguirewoods.com 217-527-1290 Jason Cooper Kimley Horn 570 Lake Cook Rd, Suite 200 Deerfield, IL 60015 (630) 487-3449 Jason.Cooper@kimley-horn.com Ordinance 2006-126 Authorizing Execution of Annexation Agreement of the Bristol Ridge Subdivision APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE CITY ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE SECTION NUMBERS TO BE VARIED: PLEASE STATE HOW THE PARTICULAR SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED, A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE, IF THE STRICT LETTER OF REGULATIONS WAS CARRIED OUT: PLEASE STATE HOW THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIATION IS SOUGHT AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE, GENERALLY, TO OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THIS TITLE AND HAS NOT BEEN CREATED BY ANY PERSON PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: February 22, 2007 / May 15, 2007 Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Kendall County Parcel identified above from the Bristol Ridge Annexation Agreement and Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. Petitioner will further seek to rezone this parcel to Agricultural District Use in which, solar energy development is allowable as a Special Use. This withdrawal is requested to avoid affecting the zoning of neighboring parcels also included in the Bristol Ridge PUD and now owned by a different entity. A letter documenting that owner's consent to this withdrawal is attached to this application. The Project would create approximately 50-75 jobs during the approximately 4 to 6-month construction period, generating property tax revenue of approximately $840,000 over 30 years. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community would benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, extremely limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. The proposed facility under this rezoning effort will produce enough electricity to power approximately 1,030 homes. The EPA Clean Energy Equivalencies Calculator estimates an offset of approximately 8,070 metric tons of carbon dioxide which is the equivalent of removing 1,739 gas-powered cars from the roads, or consuming 918,000 gallons of gasoline. To petitioner's knowledge, no person presently having an interest in the property was involved in the drafting of the Alternative Energy Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The minimum clearance of 10 feet above surface level was suggested to have originated with a concern that individuals could be injured from climbing on, and then sliding down the surface of the panels. For this project, the proposed structures are not climbable, and the array will be fenced for safety and security. The height requirement would impose an unnecessary hardship that would cause the project to use more concrete and increase visibility while offering no positive benefits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r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:22 PM ([KLELW% Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:23 PM APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yor kville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fa x: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE: PZC NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL: FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED SPECIAL USE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) 02/09/2023 TPE IL KE105, LLC Scott Osborn TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 ●(303) 618-9570 sosborn@tpoint-e.com Daniel B. Light 15 Cannonball Trail East of Cannonball Trail, North of BNSF Rail line and Oak Street, south of Galena Rd, and west of Blackberry Creek and Kennedy Road PUD (underlying: R2, R3) Solar Farm (Freestanding Solar Energy Systems) To petitioner's PUD (R2, R3), A1-SU, A1 A1 A1, R3 R3, B3 02-15-126-004 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME: COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL: FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. Kyle C. Barry McGuireWoods LLP 1 North Old State Capitol Plaza Suite 410 Springfield, IL 62701 217-527-1282 kbarry@mcguirewoods.com 217-527-1290 Jason Cooper Kimley Horn 570 Lake Cook Rd, Suite 200 Deerfield, IL 60015 (630) 487-3449 Jason.Cooper@kimley-horn.com APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 We bsite: www.yorkville.il.us SPECIAL USE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, COMFORT OR GENERAL WELFARE: PLEASE STATE HOW THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR THE PURPOSE ALREADY PERMITTED, NOR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH AND IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT: PLEASE STATE HOW ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS ROADS, DRAINAGE OR OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED: Ordinance 2006-126 Authorizing Execution of Annexation Agreement of the Bristol Ridge Subdivision February 22, 2007 / May 15, 2007 Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Kendall County Parcel identified above from the Bristol Ridge Annexation Agreement and Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. Petitioner will further seek to rezone this parcel to Agricultural District Use in which, solar energy development is allowable as a Special Use. This withdrawal is requested to avoid affecting the zoning of neighboring parcels also included in the Bristol Ridge PUD and now owned by a different entity. A letter documenting that owner's consent to this withdrawal is attached to this application. The Project would create approximately 50-75 jobs during the approximately 4 to 6-month construction period, generating property tax revenue of approximately $840,000 over 30 years. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community would benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, extremely limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. The proposed facility under this rezoning effort will produce enough electricity to power approximately 1,030 homes. The EPA Clean Energy Equivalencies Calculator estimates an offset of approximately 8,070 metric tons of carbon dioxide which is the equivalent of removing 1,739 gas-powered cars from the roads, or consuming 918,000 gallons of gasoline. Petitioner retained the ser ices of CohnRe nick a leading ta acco nting and ad isor ser ice firm to e al ate the effect of the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r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:22 PM ([KLELW% Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 10:48:23 PM CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE R.O.W.)BNSF RAIL (FID 20375)TPE IL KE105, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAPSCALE 1" = 5000'PROJECT LOCATIONSITE DATA TABLELEGENDNOTESSOILS DATA TABLENORTHBNSF RAILCANNONBALL TRAILUS-34GALENA RDKENNEDY RDIL-251 CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE R.O.W.)BNSF RAIL (FID 20375)8'8'HEIGHTS SHOWN INDICATE ANTICIPATED SIZE AT MATURITY (5+ YEARS)15' TYP100'-0"8'-0"100'-0"100'-0"100'-0"50' TYP.10' TYP.TYPICAL ENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANTYPICAL ENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER ELEVATIONEVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP.8'-0"MAINTENANCE ACCESS,TYP.MAINTENANCE ACCESS,TYP.HEIGHTS SHOWN INDICATE ANTICIPATED SIZE AT MATURITY (5+ YEARS)TYPICAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANTYPICAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER ELEVATIONLARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP.ORNAMENTAL TREE,TYP.ORNAMENTAL GRASS,TYP.FENCE,TYP.FENCE,TYP.EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP.LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP.ORNAMENTAL TREE,TYP.ORNAMENTAL GRASS,TYP.EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP.LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP.FENCE,TYP.FENCE,TYP.EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP.LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP.EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB 127SAWARA CYPRESS `SOFT SERVE`JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANAJUNIPERUS CHINESIS `MOUNTBATTEN`PICEA PUNGENS `FAT ALBERT`TAXUS CUSPIDATA `CAPITATA`TAXUS X MEDIA `HICKSII`THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `WOODWARDI`ORNAMENTAL TREE 11CORNUS X ALTERNIFOLIACARPINUS CAROLIANACERCIS CANADENSISMAGNOLIA VIRGINIANACRATAEGUS CRESGALLIMALUS SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIESLARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB 92ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIACORNUS SERICEA CARDINALEUONYMUS ALATUS `COMPACTUS`ILEX VERTICILLATALINDERA BENZOINPHYSOCARPOS OPULIFOLIUSSAMUCUS CANADENSISVIBURNUM DENTATUMVIBURNUM LENTAGO `MOHICAN`VIBURNUM PRUNIFOLIUMORNAMENTAL GRASS 30MISCANTHUS SINENSISARRAY AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIXOPEN AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIXWET MEADOW POLLINATOR SEED MIXCONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULETPE IL KE105, LLC©L1.0PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANNORTHVEGETATIVE BUFFERENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB127SAWARA CYPRESS `SOFT SERVE`JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANAJUNIPERUS CHINESIS `MOUNTBATTEN`PICEA PUNGENS `FAT ALBERT`TAXUS CUSPIDATA `CAPITATA`TAXUS X MEDIA `HICKSII`THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `WOODWARDI`ORNAMENTAL TREE 11CORNUS X ALTERNIFOLIACARPINUS CAROLIANACERCIS CANADENSISMAGNOLIA VIRGINIANACRATAEGUS CRESGALLIMALUS SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIESLARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB 92ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIACORNUS SERICEA CARDINALEUONYMUS ALATUS `COMPACTUS`ILEX VERTICILLATALINDERA BENZOINPHYSOCARPOS OPULIFOLIUSSAMUCUS CANADENSISVIBURNUM DENTATUMVIBURNUM LENTAGO `MOHICAN`VIBURNUM PRUNIFOLIUMORNAMENTAL GRASS 30MISCANTHUS SINENSISARRAY AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIXOPEN AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIXWET MEADOW POLLINATOR SEED MIXCONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULETPE IL KE105, LLC©L2.0PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE NOTESVEGETATION MANAGEMENT NOTES1. SOIL PH IS TO BE TESTED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT AND FINAL GRADING. LIME OR SULFUR ISTO BE ADDED IN APPROPRIATE QUANTITY TO BRING PH TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS FORSEED APPLICATION AS NEEDED.2. IN AREAS OF SOIL AMENDMENT OR EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND, SOIL ISRECOMMENDED TO BE DISKED, CULTIVATED, AND ROLLED AS NEEDED.3. SEED TO BE APPLIED WITH NURSE CROP PER SUPPLIER'S RECOMMENDATION.4. THE INITIAL THREE YEARS WILL REQUIRE MORE FREQUENT MAINTENANCE ANDMONITORING TO PROVIDE NATIVE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT INSTEAD OF INVASIVE WEEDS.5. ANNUALLY, AT THE START OF SPRING, SITE SHOULD BE MOWED WITH A ROTARY MOWERAT A HEIGHT BETWEEN 4 AND 6 INCHES TO KNOCKDOWN STANDING VEGETATION FROMTHE PREVIOUS SEASONS.6. INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS WILL BE USED TO CONTROL NOXIOUS ANDINVASIVE WEEDS. CHEMICAL, CULTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS MAYBE USED BASED ON WEED PRESSURE, TIMING, AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH.7. FINAL TREE SELECTION WILL BE BASED ON AVAILABILITY DURING INSTALLATION.8. ALL SITES SHALL BE PREPARED FOR SEEDING BY WEED CONTROL MEASURESAPPROPRIATE TO THE SITE PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED FINAL SEEDING.9. ALL SITES SHALL BE ACTIVE SEEDED AND SHALL NOT BE PRE-PLANTED, TREATED, ORINCLUDED WITH THE USE OF INSECTICIDES.OPEN AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX 25% SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM10% BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA SIDEOATS GRAMA6% SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED5.5% ELYMUS CANADENSIS CANADA WILDRYE5.2% ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER5% DALEA PURPUREA PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER4.3% COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA LANCELEAF COREOPSIS3.5% RUDBECKIA HIRTA BLACKEYED SUSAN3% ALLIUM CERNUUM NODDING WILD ONION2.2% SOLIDAGO NEMORALIS GRAY GOLDENROD2.1% SPIRAEA ALBA DU ROI MEADOWSWEET2% RATIBIDA PINNATA YELLOW PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER2% ROSA SETIGERA MICHX MICHIGAN ROSE1.8% SOLIDAGO SPECIOSA SHOWY GOLDENROD1.8% SYMPHYOTRICHUM LAEVE SMOOTH BLUE ASTER1.6% CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS NEW JERSEY TEA1.5% GERANIUM MACULATUM WILD GERANIUM1.5% LIATRIS ASPERA MICHX ROUGH BLAZING STAR1.4% SOLIDAGO RIDDELLII RIDDELL'S GOLDENROD1.4% SYMPHYOTRICHUM ERICOIDES HEATH ASTER1.3% PENSTEMON HIRSUTUS HAIRY BEARDTONGUE1.2% LOBELIA SIPHILITICA BLUE LOBELIA1.2% ASCLEPAIS TUBEROSA BUTTERFLY WEED1.2% ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA SWAMP MILKWEED1.2% ZIZIA AUREA GOLDEN ALEXANDERS1.1% PENSTEMON DIGITALIS TALL WHITE BEARDTONGUE1% ANEMONE CANADENSIS CANADA ANEMONE1% AQUILEGIA CANADENSIS COLUMBINE1% BAPTISIA BRACTEATA VAR LEUCOPHAEA WILD INDIGO1% LUPINUS PERENNIS V. OCCIDENTALIS WILD LUPINE1% MONARDA FISTULOSA WILD BERGAMOT1% MONARDA PUNCTATA HORSE MINTSEEDING RATE: 25 LB PER ACRESEED WITH COVER CROP OF OATS, JAPANESE MILLET, WINTER PEA, OR ANNUAL RYEDEPENDENT ON SEASON AT A RATE OF 30 LB PER ACRE.SPECIFIED MIX SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY DURING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, ORAPPROVED EQUAL.ARRAY AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX 26% SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM10% BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA SIDEOATS GRAMA8% SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED5% CAREX BICKNELLII COPPER-SHOULDERED OVAL SEDGE5.2% COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA SAND COREOPSIS4.8% SYMPHYOTRICHUM LAEVE SMOOTH BLUE ASTER4% SYMPHYOTRICHUM ERICOIDES HEATH ASTER3.5% DALEA PURPUREA PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER3.5% GERANIUM MACULATUM WILD GERANIUM3% ALLIUM CERNUUM ROTH NODDING WILD ONION3% VERONICASTRUM VIRGINICUM CULVER'S ROOT1.8% DESMODIUM CANADENSES SHOWY TICK TREFOIL1.7% SPIRAEA ALBA DU ROI MEADOWSWEET1.6% ZIZIA AUREA GOLDEN ALEXANDERS1.5% ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER1.4% SOLIDAGO SPECIOSA SHOWY GOLDENROD1.2% PYCNANTHEMUM VIRGINIANUM COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT1.2% EUPATORIUM PERFOLIATUM BONESET1.2% OENOTHERA BIENNIS EVENING PRIMROSE1.2% SILPHIUM PERFOLIATUM CUP PLANT1.2% RUDBECKIA HIRTA BLACKEYED SUSAN1.1% HERACLEUM MAXIMUM COMMON COWPARSNIP1.1% LUPINUS PERENNIS V. OCCIDENTALIS WILD LUPINE1% RATIBIDA PINNATA YELLOW PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER1% LIATRIS ASPERA MICHX ROUGH BLAZING STAR0.9% ANGELICA ATROPURPUREA ANGELICA0.8% CACALIA ATRIPLICIFOLIUM PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN0.8% LOBELIA SIPHILITICA BLUE LOBELIA0.8% PENSTEMON HIRSUTUS HAIRY BEARDTONGUE0.8% ASCLEPAIS TUBEROSA BUTTERFLY WEED0.7% ANEMONE CANADENSIS CANADA ANEMONE0.6% SOLIDAGO NEMORALIS GRAY GOLDENROD0.4% CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS NEW JERSEY TEASEEDING RATE: 25 LB PER ACRESEED WITH COVER CROP OF OATS, JAPANESE MILLET, WINTER PEA, OR ANNUAL RYEDEPENDENT ON SEASON AT A RATE OF 30 LB PER ACRE.SPECIFIED MIX SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY DURING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, ORAPPROVED EQUAL.WET MEADOW POLLINATOR SEED MIX 26% ELYMUS VIRGINICUS VIRGINIA WILD RYE13% PANICUM VIRGATUM SWITCH GRASS9% ERYNGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM RATTLESNAKE MASTER7.5% CHAMAECRISTA FASCICULATA PARTRIDGE PEA6.8% TRADESCANTIA OHIENSIS OHIO SPIDERWORT5.5% ALLIUM CERNUUM NODDING WILD ONION4.8% ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA SWAMP MILKWEED3.7% RUDBECKIA HIRTA BLACKEYED SUSAN2.3% RUDBECKIA SUBTOMENTOSA SWEET BLACKEYED SUSAN2.2% ZIZIA AUREA GOLDEN ALEXANDERS1.8% CAREX MOLESTA FIELD OVAL SEDGE1.8% CAREX VULPINOIDEA BROWN FOX SEDGE1.7% CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS BLUE JOINT GRASS1.5% CAREX BREVIOR PLAINS OVAL SEDGE1.5% CAREX CRISTATELLA CRESTED OVAL SEDGE1.5% CAREX STIPATA COMMON FOX SEDGE1.3% JUNCUS DUDLEYI DUDLEY'S RUSH1.3% JUNCUS EFFUSUS COMMON RUSH1.1% DESMODIUM CANADENSE SHOWY TICK TREFOIL1.1% DOELLINGERIA UMBELLATA FLAT-TOPPED ASTER1% ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER1% LIATRIS SPICATA MARSH BLAZING STAR0.8% HELENIUM AUTUMNALE SNEEZEWEED0.8% EUTROCHIUM MACULATUM SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED0.7% MONARDA FISTULOSA WILD BERGAMOT0.6% PENSTEMON DIGITALIS TALL WHITE BEARDTONGUE0.5% SOLIDAGO RIDDELLII RIDDELL'S GOLDENROD0.5% SYMPHYOTRICHUM NOVAE-ANGLIAE NEW ENGLAND ASTERSEEDING RATE: 18 LB PER ACRESEED WITH COVER CROP OF JAPANESE MILLET, OR GRAIN RYE DEPENDENT ONSEASON AT A RATE OF 30 LB PER ACRE.SPECIFIED MIX SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY DURING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, ORAPPROVED EQUAL. Illinois Solar Site Pollinator Habitat Planning Form Use this form as a draft before completing the Illinois Planned Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard online In Between and Under Solar Panels 1. PLANNED PLANT DIVERSITY IN ROWS & UNDER SOLAR ARRAY (choose up to 2) 4-6 species +5 pts 7 or More species +8 pts All Native Species (minimum 4 species) +10 pts Perimeter and Buffer Area 2. VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANNED ADJACENT TO THE SOLAR SITE (choose all that apply) Buffer planned outside of array fencing +5 pts Buffer is 30-49ft wide measured from array fencing +5 pts Buffer is at least 50ft wide measured from array fencing +10 pts Buffer has Native shrubs/trees that provide food for wildlife +5 pts 3. SEEDS USED FOR NATIVE PERIMETER & BUFFER AREAS (choose all that apply) Mixes are seeded using at least 20 seeds per square foot of Pure Live Seed or 40 Seeds per square foot on slopes > 5% +10 pts All seeds are from a source within 150 miles of site +5 pts At least 2% milkweed cover is planned to be established from seeds/plants +5 pts 4. PLANNED # OF NATIVE SPECIES IN SITE PERIMETER & BUFFER AREA (species with more than 1% cover)(choose 1) 5-10 species +2 pts 10-15 species +5 pts 16-20 species +10 pts >20 species +15 pts Exclude invasive and non-native plant species from total 5. PLANNED PERCENT OF PERIMETER & BUFFER AREA DOMINATED BY NATIVE PLANT SPECIES (choose 1) 26- 50 % +2 pts 51-75 % +10 pts More than 75% +15 pts Whole Site 6. PLANNED PERCENT OF SITE VEGETATION COVER TO BE DOMINATED BY DESIRABLE WILDFLOWERS (choose 1) 26- 50 % +2 pts 51-75 % +10 pts More than 75% +15 pts 12/3/2019 7. PLANNED SEASONS WITH AT LEAST THREE BLOOMING NATIVE SPECIES PRESENT (choose all that apply) Spring (April-May) +5 pts Summer (June-August) +5 pts Fall (September-October) +5 pts 8. HABITAT SITE PREPARATION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION (choose all that apply) Soil preparation done to promote germination and reduce erosion as appropriate for the site. +10 pts Measures taken to control weeds prior to seeding +10 pts None -10 pts 9. AVAILABLE HABITAT COMPONENTS WITHIN 0.25 MILES (choose all that apply) Native bunch grass for bee nesting +2 pts Native trees/shrubs for bee nesting +2 pts Clean, perennial water sources +2 pts Created habitat nesting features +2 pts 10. SITE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT(choose all that apply) Detailed establishment and management plan developed +10 pts Signage legible at forty or more feet stating “pollinator friendly solar habitat” +3 pts 11. INSECTICIDE RISK (choose all that apply) Planned on-site use of insecticide or pre-planting seed/plant treatment (excluding buildings/electrical boxes, etc.) -40 pts Communication/registration with local chemical applicators or on www.fieldwatch.com to prevent drift +5 pts Total Points: _____________ Meets Preliminary Pollinator Standards - 85 Provides Exceptional Habitat - 110 and higher Owner:__________________________________ Vegetation Consultant: ____________________ Project Location: ________________________ Project Size: ________________________acres Final Seeding Date: _______________________ This form is designed (with the help of the Solar Site Pollinator Guidelines found on IDNR’s website) to guide owners or managers of solar sites to meet the requirements to be able to claim a site is pollinator friendly according to the “Pollinator Friendly Solar Site Act (525 ILCS 55)”. This form is for company records only and does not grant the title of a Pollinator Friendly Solar Site until the “Illinois Planned Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard” is completed with a score of 85 or higher on IDNR’s website. This preliminary recognition is good for 3yrs, after which the “Established Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard” will need to be completed every 5 years to maintain recognition as a Pollinator Friendly Solar Site. Turning Point Energy Kimley-Horn 126 15 Cannonball Trail, Yorkville IL 54 TPE IL KE105, LLC Kendall County, IL TPE IL KE105, LLC Community Solar Project Decommissioning Plan TPE IL KE105, LLC has prepared the following plan to fulfill local requirements and assumes that the Project will be constructed in accordance with all permits and approvals. 1.0 Project Description The TPE IL KE105, LLC Community Solar Project is an approximately 5 MW AC solar farm located on parcel 02-15-126-004, at 15 Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL 60512 in Kendall County (the “Project”). The Project is to be constructed on approximately 26 acres. The purpose of the Project is the generation of renewable solar electricity. The Project will be interconnected to the Commonwealth Edison (”ComEd”) electric distribution grid near the southwest corner of the site, along the BNSF railroad. The estimated useful Project lifetime is 25-40 years, or more. The following list is a summary of the Project features: Approximately 5 MW AC total solar array consisting of silicon solar panels Driven post or ground screw foundations and steel and aluminum racking system 7’ Security fence surrounding the array perimeter Inverters and transformers for power conditioning Concrete equipment pads for inverter and/or switchgear locations Copper and aluminum wire Underground conduit at the array location Overhead poles and wires from the array location to utility poles Gravel access roads Metal security gates at array location Miscellaneous electrical equipment 2.0 Decommissioning Plan The Project has an anticipated operation life of 25 to 40 years or longer if maintenance is continued. At the end of operational life of the Project, the Project will be safely dismantled using conventional construction equipment, rather than being demolished or otherwise disposed of. Decommissioning shall include stabilization of the site and the removal of all solar collectors, cabling, electrical components, fencing and any other associated equipment. The Project consists of numerous materials that can be resold or recycled for significant scrap value, including steel, aluminum, glass, copper and plastics. Often, current market salvage values of a Project exceed estimated decommissioning and site restoration expenses. TPE IL KE105, LLC Kendall County, IL 2.1 Temporary Erosion Control Temporary erosion and sedimentation control best management practices will be used during the decommissioning phase of the Project. Control features will be regularly inspected during the decommissioning phase and removed at the end at the process. All decommissioning activities will conform with local and state regulations. 2.2 Material Removal Process The decommission process will consist of the following general steps: 2.2.1 Project shall be disconnected safely from the power grid and all equipment shall be switched to off position 2.2.2 PV modules shall be disconnected, packaged, and returned to manufacturer or appropriate facility for recycling or resold for use in other projects 2.2.3 Above and underground cabling shall be removed and sent to an appropriate recycling facility 2.2.4 Inverters will be disconnected from modules and shipped intact to an approved electrical equipment recycler 2.2.5 Racking materials shall be dismantled, removed, and recycled off-site at an approved recycler 2.2.6 Fencing will be dismantled, removed, and recycled off-site at an approved recycler 2.2.7 Grade slabs will be broken and removed and disposed of in compliance with local and state regulations 2.2.8 All remaining electrical and support equipment will be dismantled and recycled or disposed of in compliance with local and state regulations 2.2.9 Site access roads will be removed and recycled. Once the road material is removed, the compacted soil beneath and surrounding the access road shall be be scarified to a depth of a minimum 18-inches 2.2.10 The site shall be re-stabilized once all utilities, equipment, and site features have been removed from the site 2.3 PV Module Removal Solar photovoltaic modules used in the Project are manufactured within regulatory requirements for toxicity based on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The solar panels are not considered hazardous waste. The panels used in the Project will contain silicon, glass, and aluminum, which have value for recycling. Solar panels have a warranty of 20 – 25 years and useful life of 35 – 50 years. The most realistic outcome for solar modules is re-use in other generation TPE IL KE105, LLC Kendall County, IL projects. Modules will be sold for re-use or dismantled and packaged per manufacturer or approved recyclers specifications and shipped to an approved off-site recycler. 2.4 Electric Wire Removal Electric wire made from copper or aluminum has value for recycling. DC wiring can be removed manually from the panels to the inverter. Underground wire in the array will be pulled and removed from the ground. Overhead cabling for the interconnection will be removed from poles. All wire will be sent to an approved off-site recycler. 2.5 Electrical Equipment Removal Inverters, panels, transformers, switchgear and other electrical equipment will be dismantled, packaged, and removed from the site per manufactures specifications for removal, decontamination, disposal or recycling. Any dielectric fluids present in transformer, or other electric equipment will be removed, packaged, and sent to an approved waste facility. 2.6 Racking and Fencing removal All racking and fencing material will be broken down into manageable units and removed from Project and sent to an approved recycler. All racking posts driven into the ground will be pulled and removed. 2.7 Concrete Slab Removal Concrete slabs used as equipment pads will be broken and removed. Clean concrete will be crushed and disposed of off-site and or recycled and reused either on or off-site. 2.8 Access Road Removal Gravel from on-site access roads shall be removed and recycled if requested by the Landowner or Required under an AIMA. Once the gravel is removed, the soil below the gravel and the soil along compacted dirt access roads shall be scarified a depth of 18-inches and blended as noted in the Site Restoration section below. 2.9 Landscaping Unless required to remain in place by the Land Owner or an AIMA agreement, all vegetative landscaping and screening installed as part of the Project will remain in place. Landscape areas will be restored as noted in the Site Stabilization section below. TPE IL KE105, LLC Kendall County, IL 2.1 Final Site Walkthrough A final site walkthrough will be conducted to remove debris and/or trash generated within the site during the decommissioning process and will include removal and proper disposal of any debris that may have been wind-blown to areas outside the immediate footprint of the Project being removed. 2.11 Site Stabilization Once removal of all project equipment is complete, all areas of the project site that were traversed by vehicles and construction and/or decommission equipment that exhibit compaction and rutting shall be restored. All prior agricultural land shall be ripped at least 18 inches deep or the extent practicable and all pasture and woodland shall be ripped at least 12 inches deep or to the extent practicable. The existence of drain tile lines or underground utilities may necessitate less ripping depth. Once this is complete, seed will be planted if desired (in consultation with landowners). 3.0 Future Land Use The site will be restored and reclaimed to approximately the pre-construction condition in conformance with the site lease agreement and the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). It is assumed that the site will be returned to agricultural use after decommissioning, and appropriate measures will be implemented to achieve said use. 4.0 Decommissioning Terms The Project shall be decommissioned within six(6) months of the end of the Project’s operational life. At completion of the decommissioning phase as described in this document, and expiration of the site lease, the land will be returned to the owner in a stabilized condition. Decommissioning security financing shall be required by the county in order to assure the proper decommissioning of the site and in no instance shall the financial security be less than $1,000 per acre. This security financing should be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or cash placed in a county escrow account. The county board may, in its sole discretion, agree to accept security, or a portion thereof, in another form such as a bond or corporate guarantee. The Final decommissioning plan and financial security must be presented to and accepted by the Kendall County Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project. An updated decommissioning plan shall be submitted to the county every three years. MEMORANDUM To: Michelle Carpenter Turning Point Energy From: Ashley Payne Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 22, 2022 Subject: Bristol Township, Illinois – KE105 Level 1 Wetland Investigation Memorandum INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn was contracted to review the KE105 project site for potential wetlands. See Figure 1 for project location and Figure 2 for project site boundary. The project site is located in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. A review of available background data was completed to assist in determining if any potential aquatic resources are present within the project site. AVAILABLE BACKGROUND DATA: USGS Topographical Map A review of the USGS topographical Map did not identify any wetlands or waterbodies within the project site. The USGS Topographical Map is Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified zero wetlands within the project site. The NWI is included in Attachment A. USGS National Hydrography Data (NHD Data) A review of the USGS National Hydrography Data (NHD data) was completed. One NHD Waterbody was identified within the southwest region of the project site. No linear waterway features were identified within the project site. The information is included in Attachment A. Kendall County Soil Survey A review of the Kendall County soil survey via Websoil survey identified three soil types that are considered hydric soil. Approximately 13% of the project site is mapped at or above a hydric rating of 95%. The remaining area was mapped with a predominantly non-hydric soil rating below 5%. The soil survey is included in Attachment B. DNR Public Waters Inventory A review of the Illinois DNR (IL DNR) Public Waters Inventory was completed. No IL DNR Public Waters were identified within the project site. The information is included in Attachment C. 2-foot Contours Two-foot contours were reviewed to determine if any wetland areas or drainage swales are present on the site. The site slopes downhill towards the south with a high point in the northwest corner of the site. Two low areas along the southern central boundary were identified within the project site. The 2- ft contours are included in Attachment D. FEMA 100-Year Floodplain The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer was reviewed to determine if any FEMA 100-year floodplain is located within the project site. Based on the NFHL Viewer, the project site is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. The FEMA 100-year floodplain is included in Attachment E. Previous Site Disturbance Historic aerials from 1993 to 2021 were reviewed to determine previous land use and disturbance on the site (Attachment F). The site has been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1993. Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 1993 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in two low spots, both on the southern side of the site. 1998 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2002 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Crop stress visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2005 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2008 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2010 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central p ortion of site. 2012 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central p ortion of site. 2015 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2017 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 2018 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central p ortion of site. 2019 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central p ortion of site. 2021 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. There are two areas of continued stunted or stressed vegetation visible on the reviewed historic aerials. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the historic aerial review and a review of desktop data, two agricultural wetlands may be located in the southern central portion of the subject property (see Figure 4). A level 2 (field) wetland delineation is recommended if project infrastructure is situated in the southern portion of the property. If the current (as of the date of this report) project extents remain as-is, a field delineation would be needed. If project infrastructure will avoid the potential wetland features, a field delineation would not be needed. Figures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k 0LOHV )LJXUH3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW )LJXUH3URMHFW6LWH%RXQGDU\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH &RS\ULJKW 1DWLRQDO*HRJUDSKLF6RFLHW\LFXEHG k 86)HHW )LJXUH86*67RSRJUDSKLFDO0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H 3OXP 6W 6RXWK 6 W 'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W&URVV 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q %U LV W 15R\DO2 (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k )LJXUH/HYHO'HOLQHDWHG5HVRXUFHV %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 'HVNWRS:HWODQGV 86)HHW ATTACHMENT A National Wetlands Inventory and NHD Data W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W 3(0$ 3(0& 3(0& 3)2$ 38%*[ 38%*[ 58%+ (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW 1DWLRQDO:HWODQGV,QYHQWRU\ 1:, DQG1+'0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 1+')ORZOLQH 1+':DWHUERG\ 1:, ATTACHMENT B Hydric Soils Map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k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²$XJ 7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW+\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW².HQGDOO&RXQW\,OOLQRLV 3URMHFW6LWH 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\3DJHRI +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW 0DSXQLWV\PERO 0DSXQLWQDPH 5DWLQJ $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2, $ %UHQWRQVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV $ 7KRUSVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV & /RUHQ]RORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV HURGHG $ 'UHVGHQVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV % 'UHVGHQVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV $ 3HRWRQHVLOW\FOD\ORDP WRSHUFHQWVORSHV $ :DXSHFDQVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV $ 5XVKVLOWORDPWR SHUFHQWVORSHV 7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW +\GULF5DWLQJE\0DS8QLW²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²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².HQGDOO&RXQW\,OOLQRLV 3URMHFW6LWH 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH :HE6RLO6XUYH\ 1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRI ATTACHMENT C DNR Public Waters *DOHQD 5G$VKH5G'XJDQ 5G -HUL F K R 5 G %\SDVV +DUYHVW DUPV )R[5LYHU &DQQRQEDOO7U O(OGDPDLQ 5G *DOHQD 5G 1%ULGJH6W%ULVWRO 6F K R RO +RXVH 5G6%ULGJH 6W [ <RUNYLOOH *DOH QD 5 G $XFXWW 5 G 3UDLULH 6 W 2UFKDUG5G2UFKDUG5G2UFKDU6 *URYH 5G *D OHQD5G 2UFKDUG 5G 6WDWH 5 R X WH %ODFNEHUU\ 2DNV *ROI &RXUVH 6DZ :HH .HH 3DUN /\QQZRRG 2VZHJR :DD.HH6 3DUN RR O ,OOLQRLV'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV2IILFHRI:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RXQW\ RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7, 1$6$86*6(3$13686'$ k 0LOHV ,/'153XEOLF:DWHUV0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 3XEOLF:DWHU3RO\JRQV $HULDO,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI86'$1$,3 ATTACHMENT D 2-ft Contours W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW IW&RQWRXUV0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH IW&RQWRXUV ATTACHMENT E FEMA 100 Year Floodplain D P 'U 5RVHQZLQ%L J %HQG ' U 3HFRV & L U )R VWHU'U'LFNVRQ 5G &RU Q HL OV 5G %LJ%HQG'U1&DQQRQEDOO7UO*DOHQD 5 G 6RXWK 6W )DLUKDY HQ 'U2 D N 6 W .H QQHG\ 5 G/L OOLDQ/Q%ULVWRO 5LGJH 5 G 6&DQQRQEDOO 7UO&DQ QRQE D OO 7 U O%ULVWRO $XW X PQ & U HH N %G \5 G 'U0DQFKHVWHU 'U'U*'U3DWWHU VRQ 5 G RLQW'U :LOO RZ /Q %DLOH\5G0LOO 5 G -XOL H/Q *DOHQD5G 6WHYHQ * %ULGJH 3DUN .HQQ H G\5G%XUU6W%U L V W R O 5L G J H 5 G &U\GHU:D\3 DUN YL H Z$Y H9HWHUDQ%ODFNEHUU\ 2DNV *ROI &RXUVH 5RWDU\ 3DUN 6W(PH U D O G / Q&RUDO'ULPVRQ/QZZZZZLQ%L J %H Q GG '''''UUUU 3333 H F RR V &&&&&&&&&& L UUUU )))))))))RR VVWWHUUUU'''''UUUU''''LFNNNNNVVRRQ555555GG&&&&&&&R UUUUU Q H LOV 55555 GG %LJ%HQGG'''''UUUU1111&&&&&&&&DQQRRQEEDOO7777777UUUUO****DOHQD 555555GGG %UUUUU L V WW RRR O 0 D Q F KK H V W H UUUU ''''''''UUUU'''''UUUU**'''''UUUU3333 DD WW W H UUUUUUUU V R Q 555555 GG LQW'''''UUUU :%%DDLOHH\\\\\\55555555GG0LOO 555555GGG ---X O L H ////Q ****DOHQD55555GGQ **%%UUU LGGJJHH*%UUU LGJ .......HQQHGGG\\\\\\\5555555 GGG////L OOLDDQ///////Q$$$$$XXW XX PQ &&&&&& UUUUUU HH NN55555GG''''''UUUUUUUUUU.......H Q Q H GGGG\\\\\\55555GG%XUUUUUUUUU66W% UUUUL V W RRR O 555555 L GGG J H 5555555 GG &&&&&UUUUU\\\\\\GGHHUUU::::::DD:\\\\\\\\\3333 DUUUUUNNNNNYYYYYYYYLH ZZZZZ$$$$$$$ YYYYYYYYY H999999999999999HWHUUUUUUUDQ555RRRWWDD UUU \\33DDUUU NN 6W(PH UUUUU D O GGG //// Q&&&&&RRRUUUUUDO'''''UUUULPVRQ////Q6RXWKK 66W ))))DDLUUUUKKKKDDYYYYYY H Q ''''''UUU222222222 D NNNN 6 W %UUUUULVWRRO 5555555LGGJH 5555555GG 6&&&&&&&DQQRRRQEEDO O 777777777UUUUO R Q EEE D O O 777777777 UUUU O%%%O DDD FF NN EEEHUUU UUU\\222DD NNN V *******RRROOII &&&RRXXUUUV HH 5GG% ) &&&&&&D Q Q RR D P '''''UUUU L55GG*%UUU LGGJ NN RR ZZZZZ ////Q 666 WWHHYYYY HHQQ 33DUUU N :::::::LOO R 3$1(/ &+ HII 3$1(/ &+ HII 3$1(/ &+ HII 3$1(/ &* HII &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV(VUL+(5( *DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686 &HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW )(0$<HDU)ORRGSODLQ0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH )(0$<HDU)ORRGSODLQ ),503DQHOV ATTACHMENT F Historic Aerials W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0DUFK %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS )HEUXDU\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS -XQH %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0DUFK %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 6HSWHPEHU %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS -XO\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 2FWREHU %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0D\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 MEMORANDUM To: Michelle Carpenter Turning Point Energy From: Ashley Payne Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 22, 2022 Subject: Bristol Township, Illinois – KE105 Desktop Environmental Review and Limited Wetland Assessment INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn was contracted to review the KE105 project site for potential environmental constraints. See Figure 1 for project location and Figure 2 for the project site. The project site is located in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. The site is located in Section 15 of Township 37N, Range 7E. Kimley-Horn reviewed available background data to assist in determining if there are any potential environmental constraints for the site. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS: Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment Kimley-Horn reviewed available topographic mapping, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), LiDAR, soil survey data, public waters, and aerial photography to identify potential wetlands or surface waters within the site vicinity. USGS Topographical Map A review of the USGS topographical Map did not identify any wetlands or waterbodies within the project site. The USGS topographical map is shown on Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified zero wetlands within the project site. The NWI is included in Figure 4. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD Data) A review of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD data) was completed. One NHD Waterbody was identified within the southwest region of the project site. No linear waterway features were identified within the project site. The information is included in Figure 4. 2-ft LiDAR Contours Two-foot contours were reviewed to determine if any wetland areas or drainage swales are present on the site. The site slopes downhill towards the south with a high point in the northwest corner of the site. Two low areas along the southern central boundary were identified within the project site. The 2- ft contours are included in Figure 5. Page 2 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Kendall County Soil Survey A review of the Kendall County soil survey via Websoil survey identified three soil types that are considered hydric soil. Approximately 13% of the project site is mapped at or above a hydric rating of 95%. The remaining area was mapped with a predominantly non-hydric soil rating below 5%. The soil survey is included in Figure 6. DNR Public Waters Inventory A review of the Illinois DNR (IL DNR) Public Waters Inventory was completed. No IL DNR Public Waters were identified within the project site. The information is included in Figure 7. Previous Site Disturbance Historic aerials from 1993 to 2021 were reviewed to determine previous land use and disturbance on the site (Attachment A). There are two areas of continued stunted or stressed vegetation visible on the reviewed historic aerials. Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 1993 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in two low spots, both on the southern side of the site. 1998 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2002 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Crop stress visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2005 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2008 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2010 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central portion of site. 2012 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central portion of site. 2015 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. 2017 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2018 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central portion of site. Page 3 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 2019 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Standing water visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Crop stress visible in southern central portion of site. 2021 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Saturation visible in one low spot, on the southwestern side of the site. Desktop Wetlands Assessment Based on the Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment, Kimley-Horn identified two potential wetlands within the project site (see Figure 8). A level 2 (field) wetland delineation is recommended if project infrastructure is situated in the southern portion of the property. If the current (as of the date of this report) project extents remain as-is, a field delineation would be needed. If project infrastructure will avoid the potential wetland features, a field delineation would not be needed. USFWS Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Kimley-Horn conducted a preliminary review of the potential for federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species to occur within the site or be affected by the proposed project for the purposes of due diligence in complying with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A list of the threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and designated critical habitat that could occur in Kendall County was obtained and evaluated from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online planning tool. Habitat descriptions for the identified species were compared to the habitat within or near the site. An official species list dated July 7, 2022 was generated by IPaC and transmitted to Kimley-Horn on behalf of the Illinois- Iowa Ecological Services Field Office. The official species list is included in Attachment B. Five federally listed species has been identified within the site vicinity. The species are identified below in Table 1. Table 1. USWFS Listed Threatened and Endangered Species S pecies Status Preferred Habitat Proposed Im pacts Myotis sodalis (Indiana Bat) Endangered During summer, Indiana Bats roost under loose bark or in hallows and cavities of mature trees in the floodplain forest or savanna habitats adjacent to riparian corridors. In winter, Indiana bats hibernate in caves. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-Eared Bat) (NLEB) Threatened During summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. This bat uses tree species based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern long-eared No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Page 4 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 S pecies Status Preferred Habitat Proposed Im pacts bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Bombus affinis (Rusty Patched Bumble Bee) Endangered RPBB prefer grasslands with flowering plants from April through October, underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground as nesting sites, and undisturbed soil for hibernating queens to overwinter. The site is located within a USFWS high- potential RPBB zone. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Platanthera leucophaea (Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid) Threatened Includes prairies; wetlands, including sedge meadows, marshes, and bogs; grassy environments with optimal sun. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Danaus plexippus (Monarch butterfly) Candidate The monarch butterfly requires grassland habitats where milkweed and flowers are present. Minimal preferred habitat may appear within the site. The area is primarily active farmland. No adverse impacts anticipated. Migratory Birds According to the IPaC resource list, thirteen migratory species on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list have been identified within the site. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to “take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations by the USFWS”. Typically, if active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA are identified, the USFWS recommends avoiding tree clearing or nest removal until at least the peak of the nesting season (generally March through August) has passed or until the nest is abandoned. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, published a memorandum (M-37050) dated December 22, 2017 regarding the MBTA and how “incidental take” is viewed by the Department. The memorandum analyzes whether the MBTA prohibits the accidental or “incidental” taking or killing of migratory birds. “Incidental take” is take that results from an activity, but is not the purpose of that activity. In this memorandum, the Department of the Interior concluded that “the MBTA’s prohibition on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same applies only to direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by killing or capturing, to human control.” Therefore, according to the Department of the Interior, the MBTA does not prohibit “incidental take.” Courts have different opinions and decisions with respect to including or excluding “incidental take” when considering the prohibitions under the MBTA. In 2015, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. issued an opinion that agreed with the Eighth and Ninth circuits that a taking is limited to deliberate acts done directly and intentionally to migratory birds. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit decided that the MBTA only prohibits Page 5 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 intentional take and does not prohibit incidental take. This decision by the Fifth Circuit set precedent within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction. On January 7, 2021, the USFWS published a final rule (“MBTA rule”) defining the scope of the MBTA which excluded incidental take of migratory birds from being unlawful. This interpretation of the MBTA was effective as of March 8, 2021. On May 7, 2021, the USFWS proposed to revoke the January 7, 2021 final regulation and opened a public comment period which closed on June 7, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Interior announced a series of actions to unwind the most recent rulemaking in an effort “to ensure that the MBTA conserves birds today and into the future.” On October 4, 2021, the USFWS published a final rule revoking the most recent rule enacted by the Trump Administration that limited the scope of the MBTA. According to the Federal Register, the final MBTA revocation rule will go into effect on December 3, 2021. It is our understanding that as of December 3, 2021, incidental take would be enforceable under the MBTA; however, currently given that the purpose of the site is to develop a solar project, incidental take is currently not enforceable (as of the date of this report). In addition, on October 4, 2021, the USFWS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing the intent to solicit public comments and information to help develop proposed regulations that would establish a permitting system to authorize the incidental take of migratory birds in certain circumstances. The USFWS issued a Director’s Order establishing criteria for the types of conduct that will be a priority for enforcement activities with respect to incidental take of migratory birds. It should be noted that the regulatory climate with respect to the MBTA is changing; however, it is our understanding that as of December 3, 2021 incidental take of migratory birds will be liable under the MBTA. This should be considered until a rulemaking process is complete. Kimley-Horn downloaded the Trust Resources Report Migratory Bird List from the IPaC online planning tool. The IPaC results are included in Attachment B. Kimley-Horn conducted a preliminary desktop review of the potential for migratory bird habitat (focusing primarily on trees and shrubs) to occur on the proposed site or be affected by the proposed site for the purposes of due diligence in complying with the MBTA. The desktop review revealed the presence of minimal potential migratory bird habitat within the site. It is our understanding that as of December 3, 2021, incidental take would be enforceable under the MBTA; however, currently given that the purpose of the project is to develop a solar project, incidental take is currently not enforceable (as of the date of this report). Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern The IDNR identified no state Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites, dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity of the site. The IDNR identified protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed action; however, the IDNR determined that adverse effects are unlikely. IDNR Consultation Letter is included in Attachment B. Historic Resources Database Review Kimley-Horn reviewed the Illinois Historic Preservation Division (IHPD) database for known historic resources within the project vicinity. According to the IHPD database, the project area contains no previously identified archaeological sites VHH$WWDFKPHQW& . There are 18 previously identified archaeological sites and 8 archaeological surveys completed within 0.5 miles of the site. The identified sites are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. According to the Historic & Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS), the site does not contain previously identified historic Page 6 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 buildings or sites and no buildings have been previously recorded within 0.5 miles of the site. The results of the IHPD review are sensitive in nature and should not be shared publicly. Correspondence with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing and results are pending. CONCLUSIONS Based on the information reviewed, Kimley-Horn has identified potential environmental constraints that could require additional planning. Based on the Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment, Kimley-Horn identified two potential wetlands within the property. A level 2 (field) wetland delineation is recommended if project infrastructure is situated in the southern portion of the property. If the current (as of the date of this report) project extents remain as-is, a field delineation would be needed. If project infrastructure will avoid the potential wetland features, a field delineation would not be needed. Minimal potential suitable habitat for listed federal species was observed within the site. If tree clearing or structure demolition is anticipated, it is recommended to occur from November 1st – March 31st, which is outside of the active bat season. The IDNR determined that adverse effects to state listed species or protected resources are unlikely. No impacts to known IHPD-listed resources are anticipated. Correspondence with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing and results are pending. Figures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k 0LOHV )LJXUH3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW )LJXUH3URMHFW6LWH%RXQGDU\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH &RS\ULJKW 1DWLRQDO*HRJUDSKLF6RFLHW\LFXEHG k 86)HHW )LJXUH86*67RSRJUDSKLFDO0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 R U W K H UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWR O 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W 3(0$ 3(0& 3(0& 3)2$ 38%*[ 38%*[ 58%+ (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW )LJXUH1:,DQG1+'0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 1+')ORZOLQH 1+':DWHUERG\ 1:, W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 R U W K H UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWR O 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\ RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k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k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k 0LOHV )LJXUH,/'153XEOLF:DWHUV0DS %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 3XEOLF:DWHU3RO\JRQV $HULDO,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI86'$1$,3 W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 R U W K H UQ 6 D Q W D ) H 3OXP 6W 6RXWK 6 W 'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH6W&URVV 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWR O 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q %U LV W 15R\DO2 (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k )LJXUH/HYHO'HOLQHDWHG5HVRXUFHV %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH 'HVNWRS:HWODQGV 86)HHW ATTACHMENT A Historic Aerials W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0DUFK %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS )HEUXDU\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS -XQH %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0DUFK %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 6HSWHPEHU %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS $SULO %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS -XO\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W (VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$ 13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$&RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU0LFURVRIW k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 2FWREHU %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK W6W 1&DQQRQEDOO7UO%XUOLQJW R Q 1 RUWKH UQ 6 D Q W D ) H &URVV 6W'LYLVLRQ 6W*URYH 6W6RXWK 6 W 3OXP 6W 2D N 6W %ULVWRO 5LGJH5G %XUOL Q 15R\DO2 %U LV W &RXQW\RI:LOO0D[DU(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0LFURVRIW(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF0(7,1$6$86*6(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$ k 86)HHW +LVWRULF$HULDO0DS 0D\ %ULVWRO7RZQVKLS.HQGDOO&RXQW\ 7XUQLQJ3RLQW(QHUJ\ /HJHQG 3URMHFW6LWH $HULDO,PDJH&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK ATTACHMENT B Species Resources ƓƓ Applicant: IDNR Project Number: Address: Contact:Scott Osborn 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 Alternate Number: Date: 26817300X Project: Address: Turning Point Energy KE105 15 Cannonball Drive , Bristol Description:The project proposed entails the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located at 15 Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL 60512. The project area includes roughly 55 acres of land zoned in the Residential 2 and 3 zoning districts. 07/05/2022 2300083Turning Point Energy Natural Resource Review Results Consultation for Endangered Species Protection and Natural Areas Preservation (Part 1075) The Illinois Natural Heritage Database shows the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the project location: Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) An IDNR staff member will evaluate this information and contact you to request additional information or to terminate consultation if adverse effects are unlikely. Location The applicant is responsible for the accuracy of the location submitted for the project. County:Kendall Township, Range, Section: 37N, 7E, 15 Government Jurisdiction IL Environmental Protection Agency Terri LeMasters 1020 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794 -9276 IL Department of Natural Resources Contact Adam Rawe 217-785-5500 Division of Ecosystems & Environment Disclaimer The Illinois Natural Heritage Database cannot provide a conclusive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of natural resources in Illinois. This review reflects the information existing in the Database at the time of this inquiry, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, compliance with applicable statutes and regulations is required. Terms of Use By using this website, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to these terms. These terms may be revised by IDNR as necessary. If you continue to use the EcoCAT application after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not accept the Terms of Use, you may not continue to use the website. Page 1 of 2 1. The IDNR EcoCAT website was developed so that units of local government, state agencies and the public could request information or begin natural resource consultations on-line for the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act, Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act, and Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act. EcoCAT uses databases, Geographic Information System mapping, and a set of programmed decision rules to determine if proposed actions are in the vicinity of protected natural resources. By indicating your agreement to the Terms of Use for this application, you warrant that you will not use this web site for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. 3. IDNR reserves the right to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website at any time without notice, or to terminate or restrict access. Security EcoCAT operates on a state of Illinois computer system. We may use software to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information, to cause harm or otherwise to damage this site. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this server is strictly prohibited by law. Unauthorized use, tampering with or modification of this system, including supporting hardware or software, may subject the violator to criminal and civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant information regarding possible violation of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. Privacy EcoCAT generates a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Otherwise, IDNR uses the information submitted to EcoCAT solely for internal tracking purposes. Page 2 of 2 IDNR Project Number: 2300083 Denver, CO 80237 RE: Turning Point Energy KE105 Project Number(s): 2300083 [26817300X] County: Kendall Dear Applicant: Adam Rawe Division of Ecosystems and Environment 217-785-5500 July 05, 2022 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy 3720 S Dahlia St This letter is in reference to the project you recently submitted for consultation. The natural resource review provided by EcoCAT identified protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed action. The Department has evaluated this information and concluded that adverse effects are unlikely. Therefore, consultation under 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 is terminated. This consultation is valid for two years unless new information becomes available that was not previously considered; the proposed action is modified; or additional species, essential habitat, or Natural Areas are identified in the vicinity. If the project has not been implemented within two years of the date of this letter, or any of the above listed conditions develop, a new consultation is necessary. The natural resource review reflects the information existing in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database at the time of the project submittal, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, you must comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. Also, note that termination does not imply IDNR's authorization or endorsement of the proposed action. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this review. JB Pritzker, Governor Colleen Callahan, Director ATTACHMENT C Historic Resources Project Site Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, METI/ NASA, EPA, USDA 0 0.45 0.90.23 mi 00.71.40.35 km 1:36,112 ArcGIS Web AppBuilder Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA | Data capture, compilation and library maintenance: Marge Bargh, Colin Treworgy, and other ISGS Coal Denver, CO 80237 RE: Turning Point Energy KE105 Project Number(s): 2300083 [26817300X] County: Kendall Dear Applicant: Adam Rawe Division of Ecosystems and Environment 217-785-5500 July 05, 2022 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy 3720 S Dahlia St This letter is in reference to the project you recently submitted for consultation. The natural resource review provided by EcoCAT identified protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed action. The Department has evaluated this information and concluded that adverse effects are unlikely. Therefore, consultation under 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 is terminated. This consultation is valid for two years unless new information becomes available that was not previously considered; the proposed action is modified; or additional species, essential habitat, or Natural Areas are identified in the vicinity. If the project has not been implemented within two years of the date of this letter, or any of the above listed conditions develop, a new consultation is necessary. The natural resource review reflects the information existing in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database at the time of the project submittal, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project’s implementation, you must comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. Also, note that termination does not imply IDNR's authorization or endorsement of the proposed action. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this review. JB Pritzker, Governor Colleen Callahan, Director Applicant: IDNR Project Number: Address: Contact:Scott Osborn 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 Alternate Number: Date: 26817300X Project: Address: Turning Point Energy KE105 15 Cannonball Drive , Bristol Description:The project proposed entails the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located at 15 Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL 60512. The project area includes roughly 55 acres of land zoned in the Residential 2 and 3 zoning districts. 07/05/2022 2300083Turning Point Energy Natural Resource Review Results Consultation for Endangered Species Protection and Natural Areas Preservation (Part 1075) The Illinois Natural Heritage Database shows the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the project location: Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) An IDNR staff member will evaluate this information and contact you to request additional information or to terminate consultation if adverse effects are unlikely. Location The applicant is responsible for the accuracy of the location submitted for the project. County:Kendall Township, Range, Section: 37N, 7E, 15 Government Jurisdiction IL Environmental Protection Agency Terri LeMasters 1020 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794 -9276 IL Department of Natural Resources Contact Adam Rawe 217-785-5500 Division of Ecosystems & Environment Disclaimer The Illinois Natural Heritage Database cannot provide a conclusive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of natural resources in Illinois. This review reflects the information existing in the Database at the time of this inquiry, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project’s implementation, compliance with applicable statutes and regulations is required. Terms of Use By using this website, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to these terms. These terms may be revised by IDNR as necessary. If you continue to use the EcoCAT application after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not accept the Terms of Use, you may not continue to use the website. Page 1 of 2 1. The IDNR EcoCAT website was developed so that units of local government, state agencies and the public could request information or begin natural resource consultations on-line for the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act, Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act, and Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act. EcoCAT uses databases, Geographic Information System mapping, and a set of programmed decision rules to determine if proposed actions are in the vicinity of protected natural resources. By indicating your agreement to the Terms of Use for this application, you warrant that you will not use this web site for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. 3. IDNR reserves the right to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website at any time without notice, or to terminate or restrict access. Security EcoCAT operates on a state of Illinois computer system. We may use software to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information, to cause harm or otherwise to damage this site. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this server is strictly prohibited by law. Unauthorized use, tampering with or modification of this system, including supporting hardware or software, may subject the violator to criminal and civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant information regarding possible violation of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. Privacy EcoCAT generates a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Otherwise, IDNR uses the information submitted to EcoCAT solely for internal tracking purposes. Page 2 of 2 IDNR Project Number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¶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¶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Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋɋɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ Ï ɋȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ɋÏɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ Ï ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï Ï Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏȸɋÏÏÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏÏ Ï ȸɋ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸȸɋÏ ɋɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋÏ Ï ɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸ ɋȸɋÏɋȸɋÏ Ï ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋÏɋ ȸ ȸȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏÏ ȸɋ ȸȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏÏÏÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ÏɋɋÏɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋÏ ȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ɋȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏɋȸɋÏȸɋÏȸɋÏȸɋÏɋȸɋÏȸɋÏȸɋÏȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸɋÏ ȸ ȸ ( ż ( ż ɋÏ ȸɋÏɋɋ Ïɋɋ ɋÏ ɋȸȸɋɋÏɋɋ ɋÏɋɋɋɋɋ ɋÏɋɋ ȸȸɋɋÏÏÏɋɋɋɋ ɋɋÏ ȸɋÏÏɋɋ ÏÏÏ ɋÏÏ ȸȸȸɋÏɋɋ ɋȸɋÏɋɋÏÏÏ ɋȸɋÏɋɋȸɋÏÏÏÏɋɋ ȸɋÏÏÏÏÏÏɋɋɋɋȸɋÏɋɋ ȸɋɋɋɋÏÏÏɋ ɋɋɋɋɋÏÏÏÏÏɋ ɋɋɋɋÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏɋ ɋȸȸȸɋɋɋÏÏÏÏÏÏÏɋɋɋɋɋɋɋɋ ȸɋÏÏÏÏɋɋ ȸɋÏɋɋȸȸȸȸɋÏÏÏÏɋɋ&32 !" !" !" !" !" !" &32 !" ^ ^ ^ ;××ƫ,ɽnɽn ɽn ɽn ɽn ɽnɽn ɽn ɽnɽn ɽn ɽn ɽn ) ) ) )700700 70 0 700 650700 700600650 6506006506006506 5 0 600650 650600 650600600650650650650650650600650 650 6 5 0 650 6506506006 5 0650 650 6 5 0 600650 650650 600 650 650 600650650 650 700650 650 650 650600600 700650 650600650 6506506 5 0 650650650 650 6506506506006 5 0 650650 650650650 650 650650650 600 650650650 650 65065 0650650650 6 5 0 600 650 65 065065065 0 600650650 650 650650650 650650 650650650 650650650650 650650 650650700 650 700 650650700 6 5 0 650 650 650 650650 700 7 0 0 650650 650 650 700 650650650650650650600 650650650650 650 650 700 750750600700700700 GnatCatcherTrlSaw Wee Kee TrlVerticalVelocityTr lE MITCHELL DR ANDREW ST SCHAEFER RD WOODVIEW ST BASELINE RD H EATHER LN FAIRFIELD WAY £¤30 EMILLBROOKCIRSH ETLAND DR GALE N A R D FOSTER DR THUNDER GULCH RDBASELINE RD LAKEWOODCREEKDRSIMPSON PK W Y WILL O W L NGORDON RDSECRETARIAT LN KENNEDY DR STACY CIRGALEN A R D B RIAN LN AVALON LNMILLRA CE LN C O N C O RD D RROSENWI NKELS TDICKSON RDCANDLELIGHTCIRTROON DR ADAM AVE BRISTOL BAY DR GALENA RD BIG B E N D DR WAVERLY WAYASHE RDREBECCACIRBASELINE RD FOXMOOR DR BERTRAM DR JE R IC H O R D J E N N A C I R W BEECHER RDPATTERSON RD WHIRLAWAY LN PROVIDENCE LN £¤30 BERTRAM RDMANCHESTER DR DEERPOINT DRJERIC H O R D HARTFIELD DRVENETIA N WAYMIGHELLRD PRESCOTTDRRIVARIDGERD¬«47 E BEECHER RDPECOS CIR ¬«71 MINKLER RD¬«47 £¤30 BARNES RD JERICHO R D SUNCREST DR SUMMERHILL DRARBORLNMILL RD TUSCANY TRL PINE R I D G E D R S ORCHARD RDG R A PEVINETRLSEELEY¬«34 M AYFIELD DR ORCHARDRDWILLIA M DR RIVER W OODDRWILDWOOD DRBUCKTAILDRWOLVERIN E D R BEECHER RDCORNEILS RD JOHN ST FOX GL E N CI R R I V E R RD CHESTNUT L N C O TTONWO O D T RLELDAMAIN RD£¤34 CO HW Y 1ASPE N LNEVERGREENLNK LATTSTELDAMAINRDDEAMES S T FAXON RD KRISTENSTC U M MINS ST FOLI ST TALLGRASS LNC O U N T R Y R D R E S E R V A T I O N R D OAK CREEKDRJETER RDBERG M A NSTJOHN ST JETTER RDJERICHO RD R A Y M O N D R DDUGAN RDPRAIRIE ST MCCANNON RDBEECHERRDA L A NDALELNE M E R A L D L N ERICA LN ¬«34 CO H W Y 20 ¬«47 EDWARDLNWKENDAL L D R W C O U N T R Y S I DE P KWY BLACKBERRY SHORE LN WHEATON AV E ¬«47 SUMACDRCENTERPKWYBLUEST E M D R WESTERN LN NROYALOAKSDRMARKETVIEWDRE VETER A NS PK WY JOHH ST BOOMERLNFAXONRDKIN G M O O R L NNBRIDGESTIROQUOIS LNCANNONBALL TRLEKENDALLDR KENN E D Y R D HIGH RIDGE RDLILLIANLNHAYDEN D R FAIRHAVEN DR ISABEL DRRYAN DRBRISTOL RIDGE RD ¬«34 AUTUMNCRE E K B L VDW VETERAN S P K W YCANNONBALL TRLWINDINGCREEKRDMCLELLANBLVDCRYDERWAYALDENAVEW RICKARD DRRICKARD DRB E R RY WO OD LN P A R KW A Y D R HILLT O P R D GRANDE T R LOLDGLORYDR SQUIR ECIRANNA MARIE LN AUDREY AVEMATLOCKDRE L L SWORTHDRSCHMIDT LNFIELDS DRMADELINE DRMINKLER RDL Y MA NL OOPSUNDOWN LNJUSTICE DRFREEMONTSTCONOVER LN WHITEOAKWAYRIV E R SID E D ROMAHADR SBRIDGESTQUINSEY LN E PARK ST POPLAR DRHEARTLANDDR TAUS CIRHIDE A W A Y L NSPRINGST STATE ST¬«126 E ORANGE STHEUSTIS STGAMEFARMRDTUM A R D E VAN EMMON ST E SPRING ST KELLYAVEARROWH E A D D R ¬«71LIBERTY STE MAIN ST MILL STCROOKEDCREEKDRMORGANSTWI NDHAMCI R¬«47 E S C H O O L H O U S E R D WALSH DRWBARBE R RY CIR WALNUT ST N C ARLYCIR VAN EMMO N R D NORWAY C I R WACKERDRMCHUGH RDBENJAMINSTW FOX S T QUINSEYRD JACKSON ST HO MES TEAD DR S MAIN ST.(1'$//&2 .$1(&2 .$1(&2 .(1'$//&2 Jericho Lake Diversion Aurora Chain of Lakes Blackbe r r y C r B la ckberryCrBigRockCreek Fox Ri v e r RobRoyCrBlackberryCreek Blackberry C r Fox RiverFox River5RE5R\&UF o x R i v e r Morg a n C r Kendall County Courthouse Jericho Cem Doud Cem Keck Memorial Cem Cowdrey Cem Elmwood Cem Saint Patricks Cem Oak Grove Cem Bristol SUGAR GROVE OSWEGO Big Rock PLANO AURORA YORKVILLE MONTGOMERY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 4623000mN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4610000mN 22 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8476 385000mE 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 376000mE 85 41.6250° 41.7500° -88.5000°-88.3750° 41.7500° 41.6250°-88.3750°-88.5000° 19 27 36 3 21 6 33 1 30 33 34 17 10 26 26 32 29 20 6 23 1 22 3 5 13 12 29 25 31 9 1 24 11 30 25 8 35 4 2 28 4 34 25 32 18 16 15 27 25 5 35 7 31 14 36 2 28 1 13 36 36 24 12 QUADRANGLE LOCATION YORKVILLE QUADRANGLE ILLINOIS 7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY × Ø GN MN 0°57´ 17 MILS 3°16´ 58 MILS UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET &0 *ULG=RQH'HVLJQDWLRQ 7 U.S. National Grid P6TXDUH,' ILLINOIS 1 Big Rock 8 Yorkville SE 2 Sugar Grove 3 Aurora North 4 Plano 5 Aurora South 6 Newark 7 Plattville ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 3 87 1 54 6 2 Imagery.....................................................NAIP, August 2019 - August 2019 Roads......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Names............................................................................GNIS, 1980 - 2021 Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 2003 - 2018 Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2019 Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2018 - 2019 Public Land Survey System................................................BLM, 2020 Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory Not Available North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and 1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T Produced by the United States Geological Survey This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before entering private lands. This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 10.50 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET YORKVILLE, IL 2021 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./*7643016365942*NSN.7643016365942NGA REF NO.USGSX24K50144 $(5,$/0$3 176 &DQQRQEDOO7UDLO%ULVWRO,/6+((7180%(52)1257+ +$5*,60$3 176 &DQQRQEDOO7UDLO%ULVWRO,/6+((7180%(52)1257+ Petitioner: ______________________________________Contact Person:_____________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ __________________________________________________ City, State, Zip: __________________________________ __________________________________________________ Phone Number: ( ) ______ ( ) _______________________ Email: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Please select: How would you like to receive a copy of the NRI Report? Email Mail Site Location & Proposed Use Township Name __________________________________ Township _______ N, Range ________ E, Section(s) ___________ Parcel Index Number(s) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Project or Subdivision Name ___________________________________________ Number of Acres _____________________ Current Use of Site________________________________ Proposed Use __________________________________________ Proposed Number of Lots __________________________ Proposed Number of Structures ____________________________ Proposed Water Supply ____________________________ Proposed type of Wastewater Treatment ____________________ Proposed type of Storm Water Management _________________________________________________________________ Type of Request Change in Zoning from ___________________ to ___________________ Variance (Please describe fully on separate page) Special Use Permit (Please describe fully on separate page) Name of County or Municipality the request is being filed with: _________________________________________________ In addition to this completed application form, please including the following to ensure proper processing: Plat of Survey/Site Plan – showing location, legal description and property measurements Concept Plan - showing the locations of proposed lots, buildings, roads, stormwater detention, open areas, etc. If available: topography map, field tile map, copy of soil boring and/or wetland studies NRI fee (Please make checks payable to Kendall County SWCD) The NRI fees, as of July 1, 2010, are as follows: Full Report: $375.00 for five acres and under, plus $18.00 per acre for each additional acre or any fraction thereof over five. Executive Summary Report: $300.00 (KCSWCD staff will determine when a summary or full report will be necessary.) Fee for first five acres and under $ 375.00_ ______ Additional Acres at $18.00 each $__________ Total NRI Fee $__________ NOTE:Applications are due by the 1st of each month to be on that month’s SWCD Board Meeting Agenda. Once a completed application is submitted, please allow 30 days for inspection, evaluation and processing of this report. I (We) understand the filing of this application allows the authorized representative of the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to visit and conduct an evaluation of the site described above. The completed NRI report expiration date will be 3 years after the date reported. _______________________________________________ __________________ Petitioner or Authorized Agent Date This report will be issued on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, handicap or marital status. 7775A Route 47, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 භ (630)553-5821 extension 3 www.kendallswcd.org NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION (NRI) REPORT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY NRI#________ Date initially rec’d ____________ Date all rec’d ____________ Board Meeting ________________________ Fee Due $___________ Fee Paid $ ___________ Check #_______ Over/Under Payment __________Refund Due_________ WCD) to visit and condnuct an ev 3 yeararrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs sssssssssssss sssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss aaaaaffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaateter thee dadadaddddddddadadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddtete rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrepepepeeeeeeeeeppepppepepepepeepepepepeeppepeepeepeeeeeepeppppepepepppepeeeepeeeepepppepepepppepeeeeeppppppeeeeeeepeppepepepepeeeppeeepepeepeeeppeppepppppppppppppppppororooooooooooooooooooooooooooteteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedddd.dddddddd.dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PePeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetitititiononerer or r AAAAuAAAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAththororizizeded AAgee July 28, 2022 CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE R.O.W.)BNSF RAIL (FID 20375)TPE IL KE105, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAPSCALE 1" = 5000'PROJECT LOCATIONSITE DATA TABLELEGENDNOTESSOILS DATA TABLENORTHBNSF RAILCANNONBALL TRAILUS-34GALENA RDKENNEDY RDIL-251 Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ――│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï Ï │Ï ―│Ï │Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―― ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│ÏÏÏ │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï │―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―――│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï Ï │Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ――│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│―│Ï│―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï │―――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏÏÏ │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï │―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ― Ï││Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―― . ... . .. . ... . . ... .... . ....... ...... . . ... .. . . . . . .... ... .... . . . . . . . ............................................................ ..... . . .. . .. .... . ... . . ... . . . ... . . ... . ... . . ... ... . . ...... .. ... . . .................... ...... . . . ... . .... . .... . .. . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . .. .. . ... . ... . . ... .... ....... .... ... . ..... ...... .... ... . ... ....... . ... . . . . ........... .... .... ..... .... .... . . .. ....... ... ...... ..... .. .... .. ...... ......... . . .. ... . . ............ .. . .. . .. .... ...... ............... .... . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . .. . . .. . ... . .. . ...... .. ... ... . . . . . .. .. . .. ..... .. . ........ ..... . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ....... .. . .... . . . ....... .... ..... .......... ...... .... .... .. . . ... . . ..... . ... . ....... ... . . ... ... . . .. . . .. .... ... . ............... ....... .. . ....... .... ... ........ . ..... . ...... . .... . .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...... .. . ................... ...... . . . . .. ... . . . ..... . . .. . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .. ..... .. ..... .. ......... . .. ...... ..... ..... .. ... ..... .... ... ............... . ... . .... . .. . ..... .. ... ......... . ....... ........ .. ... . .. . . ..... . . . . ...... ...... .. . .. . .... ................. . ...... .. . . . ... .. . . . . .... .. . . . . .. . .. . . ... .. ........ . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . ... .. .. .... .. . . .. . . ... . . . ..... . .... . ... .. .......... . ... .. . . ... . .... .. .. .... . . .. . . ...... . .. ... . . .. ..... .. . .... . ........ .... ..... . . . . .. . .. .. .. ...... .. . ........... .. ........ . . . .. . ... . ... . ...... . . . .. . ........ ..... . .. .. ........ ..... .. . ( ○ ( ○│Ï ―│Ï││Ï│││Ï │――││Ï│││Ï││││││Ï││――││ÏÏÏ││││││Ï ―│ÏÏ││ÏÏÏ │ÏÏ ―――│Ï│││―│Ï││ÏÏÏ │―│Ï││―│ÏÏÏÏ││―│ÏÏÏÏÏÏ││││―│Ï││―││││ÏÏÏ││││││ÏÏÏÏÏ│││││ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ││―――│││ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ││││││││―│ÏÏÏÏ││―│Ï││――――│ÏÏÏÏ││&PO !" !" !" !" !" !" &PO !" ^ ^ ^ ;!-ııΙI▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n F F F F700700 70 0 700 650700 700600650 6506006506006506 5 0 600650 650600 650600600650650650650650650600650 650 6 5 0 650 6506506006 5 0650 650 6 5 0 600650 650650 600 650 650 600650650 650 700650 650 650 650600600 700650 650600650 6506506 5 0 650650650 650 6506506506006 5 0 650650 650650650 650 650650650 600 650650650 650 65065 0650650650 6 5 0 600 650 65 065065065 0 600650650 650 650650650 650650 650650650 650650650650 650650 650650700 650 700 650650700 6 5 0 650 650 650 650650 700 7 0 0 650650 650 650 700 650650650650650650600 650650650650 650 650 700 750750600700700700 GnatCatcherTrlSaw Wee Kee TrlVerticalVelocityTr lE MITCHELL DR ANDREW ST SCHAEFER RD WOODVIEW ST BASELINE RD H EATHER LN FAIRFIELD WAY £¤30 EMILLBROOKCIRSH ETLAND DR GALE N A R D FOSTER DR THUNDER GULCH RDBASELINE RD LAKEWOODCREEKDRSIMPSON PK W Y WILL O W L NGORDON RDSECRETARIAT LN KENNEDY DR STACY CIRGALEN A R D B RIAN LN AVALON LNMILLRA CE LN C O N C O RD D RROSENWI NKELS TDICKSON RDCANDLELIGHTCIRTROON DR ADAM AVE BRISTOL BAY DR GALENA RD BIG B E N D DR WAVERLY WAYASHE RDREBECCACIRBASELINE RD FOXMOOR DR BERTRAM DR JE R IC H O R D J E N N A C I R W BEECHER RDPATTERSON RD WHIRLAWAY LN PROVIDENCE LN £¤30 BERTRAM RDMANCHESTER DR DEERPOINT DRJERIC H O R D HARTFIELD DRVENETIAN WAYMIGHELLRD PRESCOTTDRRIVARIDGERD¬«47 E BEECHER RDPECOS CIR ¬«71 MINKLER RD¬«47 £¤30 BARNES RD JERICHO R D SUNCREST DR SUMMERHILL DRARBORLNMILL RD TUSCANY TRL PINE R I D G E D R S ORCHARD RDG R A PEVINETRLSEELEY¬«34 M AYFIELD DR ORCHARDRDWILLIA M DR RIVER W OODDRWILDWOOD DRBUCKTAILDRWOLVERIN E D R BEECHER RDCORNEILS RD JOHN ST FOX GL E N CI R R I V E R RD CHESTNUT L N C O TTONWO O D T RLELDAMAIN RD£¤34 CO HW Y 1ASPE N LNEVERGREENLNK LATTSTELDAMAINRDDEAMES S T FAXON RD KRISTENSTC U M MINS ST FOLI ST TALLGRASS LNC O U N T R Y R D R E S E R V A T I O N R D OAK CREEKDRJETER RDBERG M A NSTJOHN ST JETTER RDJERICHO RD R A Y M O N D R DDUGAN RDPRAIRIE ST MCCANNON RDBEECHERRDA L A NDALELNE M E R A L D L N ERICA LN ¬«34 CO H W Y 20 ¬«47 EDWARDLNWKENDAL L D R W C O U N T R Y S I DE P KWY BLACKBERRY SHORE LN WHEATON AV E ¬«47 SUMACDRCENTERPKWYBLUEST E M D R WESTERN LN NROYALOAKSDRMARKETVIEWDRE VETER A NS PK WY JOHH ST BOOMERLNFAXONRDKIN G M O O R L NNBRIDGESTIROQUOIS LNCANNONBALL TRLEKENDALLDR KENN E D Y R D HIGH RIDGE RDLILLIANLNHAYDEN D R FAIRHAVEN DR ISABEL DRRYAN DRBRISTOL RIDGE RD ¬«34 AUTUMNCRE E K B L VDW VETERAN S P K W YCANNONBALL TRLWINDINGCREEKRDMCLELLANBLVDCRYDERWAYALDENAVEW RICKARD DRRICKARD DRB E R RY WO OD LN P A R KW A Y D R HILLT O P R D GRANDE T R LOLDGLORYDR SQUIR ECIRANNA MARIE LN AUDREY AVEMATLOCKDRE L L SWORTHDRSCHMIDT LNFIELDS DRMADELINE DRMINKLER RDL Y MA NL OOPSUNDOWN LNJUSTICE DRFREEMONTSTCONOVER LN WHITEOAKWAYRIV E R SID E D ROMAHADR SBRIDGESTQUINSEY LN E PARK ST POPLAR DRHEARTLANDDR TAUS CIRHIDE A W A Y L NSPRINGST STATE ST¬«126 E ORANGE STHEUSTIS STGAMEFARMRDTUM A R D E VAN EMMON ST E SPRING ST KELLYAVEARROWH E A D D R ¬«71LIBERTY STE MAIN ST MILL STCROOKEDCREEKDRMORGANSTWI NDHAMCI R¬«47 E S C H O O L H O U S E R D WALSH DRWBARBE R RY CIR WALNUT ST N C ARLYCIR VAN EMMO N R D NORWAY C I R WACKERDRMCHUGH RDBENJAMINSTW FOX S T QUINSEYRD JACKSON ST HO MES TEAD DR S MAIN STKENDALL CO KANE CO KANE CO KENDALL CO Jericho Lake Diversion Aurora Chain of Lakes Blackbe r r y C r B la ckberryCrBigRockCreek Fox Ri v e r RobRoyCrBlackberryCreek Blackberry C r Fox RiverFox RiverRob Roy CrF o x R i v e r Morg a n C r Kendall County Courthouse Jericho Cem Doud Cem Keck Memorial Cem Cowdrey Cem Elmwood Cem Saint Patricks Cem Oak Grove Cem Bristol SUGAR GROVE OSWEGO Big Rock PLANO AURORA YORKVILLE MONTGOMERY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 4623000mN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4610000mN 22 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8476 385000mE 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 376000mE 85 41.6250° 41.7500° -88.5000°-88.3750° 41.7500° 41.6250°-88.3750°-88.5000° 19 27 36 3 21 6 33 1 30 33 34 17 10 26 26 32 29 20 6 23 1 22 3 5 13 12 29 25 31 9 1 24 11 30 25 8 35 4 2 28 4 34 25 32 18 16 15 27 25 5 35 7 31 14 36 2 28 1 13 36 36 24 12 QUADRANGLE LOCATION YORKVILLE QUADRANGLE ILLINOIS 7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY × Ø GN MN 0°57´ 17 MILS 3°16´ 58 MILS UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET CM Grid Zone Designation 16T U.S. National Grid 100,000 - m Square ID ILLINOIS 1 Big Rock 8 Yorkville SE 2 Sugar Grove 3 Aurora North 4 Plano 5 Aurora South 6 Newark 7 Plattville ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 3 87 1 54 6 2 Imagery.....................................................NAIP, August 2019 - August 2019 Roads......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Names............................................................................GNIS, 1980 - 2021 Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 2003 - 2018 Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2019 Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2018 - 2019 Public Land Survey System................................................BLM, 2020 Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory Not Available North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and 1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T Produced by the United States Geological Survey This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before entering private lands. This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 10.50 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET YORKVILLE, IL 2021 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./*7643016365942*NSN.7643016365942NGA REF NO.USGSX24K50144 August 9, 2022 TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S. Dahlia St. Denver, CO 80237 Dear Petitioner, The Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District completed a Natural Resource Information (NRI) Report #2211 for a Special Use Permit request with the City of Yorkville, IL to construct a freestanding solar energy system. The proposed solar facility is located on one parcel (Parcel Index Number 02-15-126- 004)in the NE and NW ¼ of Section 15, Township 37N, and Range 7E of Bristol Township in Kendall County, IL. Copies of NRI Report #2211 have been provided to the City of Yorkville’s Zoning Department and Bristol Township. Attached please find a copy of the NRI Report and payment receipt for $1,257.00. We received your payment by mail. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (630) 553-5821 extension 3 or email Alyse.Olson@il.nacdnet.net. Sincerely, Alyse Olson Resource Conservationist Enclosures 7775A Route 47, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 භ (630)553-5821 extension 3 www.kendallswcd.org Alyse Olson NRI Receipt Date 8/8/2022 NRI No. 2211 Applicant 73(,/.(//& 6'DKOLD6W 'HQYHU&2 Contact 73(,/.(//& $WWQ 6FRWW2VERUQ 3720 S Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District Check No. 486 Payment Method Check Total 7775A Route 47 Yorkville, IL 60560 Phone: 630.553.5821 ext.3 Fax: 630.553.7442 alyse.olson@il.nacdnet.net Item Project Name Acres Additional Acres Rate Amount NRI Fee (1st 5 acres) NRI Fee for 1st 5 acres TPE IL KE105, LLC 1 1 375.00 375.00 NRI Fee (additional acres) Additional acres 49 49 18.00 882.00 $1,257.00 NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION (NRI) REPORT: #2211 Aug. 2022 Petitioner: TPE IL KE105, LLC Contact: TPE IL KE105, LLC Prepared By: 7775A Route 47 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Phone: (630) 553-5821 x3 www.kendallswcd.org NRI 2211 August 2022 Natural Resource Information Report Number 2211 Date District Board Reviews Application August 2022 Applicant’s Name TPE IL KE105, LLC Size of Parcel (+/-) 54.02 acres Current Zoning & Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development; Agricultural field Proposed Zoning & Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development Special Use; Freestanding Solar Energy System Parcel Index Number(s) 02-15-126-004 Contact Person TPE IL KE105, LLC Copies of this report or notification of the proposed land-use change was provided to: Yes No The Applicant X X The Applicant’s Legal Representation The Local/Township Planning Commission X The Village/City/County Planning and Zoning Department or Appropriate Agency X The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District Files X Report Prepared By: Alyse Olson Position: Resource Conservationist KENDALL COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION (NRI) REPORT NRI 2211 August 2022 PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this report is to provide officials of the local governing body and other decision-makers with natural resource information. This information may be useful when undertaking land use decisions concerning variations, amendments or relief of local zoning ordinances, proposed subdivision of vacant or agricultural lands and the subsequent development of these lands. This report is a requirement under Section 22.02a of the Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act. The intent of this report is to present the most current natural resource information available in a readily understandable manner. It contains a description of the present site conditions, the present resources, and the potential impacts that the proposed change may have on the site and its resources. The natural resource information was gathered from standardized data, on-site investigations and information furnished by the petitioner. This report must be read in its entirety so that the relationship between the natural resource factors and the proposed land use change can be fully understood. Due to the limitations of scale encountered with the various resource maps, the property boundaries depicted in the various exhibits in this report provide a generalized representation of the property location and may not precisely reflect the legal description of the PIQ (Parcel in Question). This report, when used properly, will provide the basis for proper land use change decisions and development while protecting the natural resource base of the county. It should not be used in place of detailed environmental and/or engineering studies that are warranted under most circumstances, but in conjunction with those studies. The conclusions of this report in no way indicate that a certain land use is not possible, but it should alert the reader to possible problems that may occur if the capabilities of the land are ignored. Any questions on the technical data supplied in this report or if anyone feels that they would like to see more additional specific information to make the report more effective, please contact: Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District 7775A Route 47, Yorkville, IL 60560 Phone: (630) 553-5821 ext. 3 E-mail: Alyse.Olson@il.nacdnet.net NRI 2211 August 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 PARCEL LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 ARCHAEOLOGIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ............................................................................. 9 ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ............................................................................................................... 10 SOILS INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 12 SOILS INTERPRETATIONS EXPLANATION..................................................................................................... 14 BUILDING LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 15 SOIL WATER FEATURES ............................................................................................................................... 21 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ................................................................................................... 24 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 25 LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) .................................................................................... 26 LAND USE PLANS ......................................................................................................................................... 28 DRAINAGE, RUNOFF, AND FLOOD INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 2 8 WATERSHED PLANS .................................................................................................................................... 33 WETLAND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................... 34 HYDRIC SOILS .............................................................................................................................................. 36 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS .............................................................................................. 38 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................... 39 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 42 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Soil Map ………………………………..……………………..……………………………………………………..………………… 2 FIGURE 2: Soil Limitations …………..……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………. 4 FIGURE 3: 2021 Plat Map ………………..……………………………………………………….………...………………………………….. 7 FIGURE 4: 2019 Aerial Map with NRI Site Boundary ……………………………….…………….………….……………..…….. 8 FIGURE 5: Soil Map ………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………… 13 FIGURE 6A-6C: Maps of Building Limitations ……………………………………………..……………………………..…….. 18-20 NRI 2211 August 2022 FIGURE 7: Map of Prime Farmland Soils …………………………………………………………………..…………………….…….. 25 FIGURE 8A: FEMA Floodplain Map (West half) …………………….……………….……………….……………………………… 30 FIGURE 8B: FEMA Floodplain Map (East half) ………………………………………………………….……………………………. 31 FIGURE 9: USGS Topographic Map …………………………………………………………………..………………….……………….. 32 FIGURE 01: Wetland Map – USFWS National Wetland Inventory …………………………………..…….……….………. 35 FIGURE 11: Hydric Soils Map …………………………………………………………………………………….……….…….…………… 37 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Soils Information ……………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….. 2 TABLE 2: Soil Limitations ………………………………..………………………………………………….……………………….………….. 4 TABLE 3: Soil Map Unit Descriptions …………………………………………………………….…………………………..………….. 13 TABLE 4: Building Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 TABLE 5: Water Features ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 TABLE 6: Soil Erosion Potential ……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 24 TABLE 7: Prime Farmland Soils …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 25 TABLE 8: Land Evaluation Computation …………………………………………………………..…………………………..………. 26 TABLE 9: Hydric Soils ………………………..……………………………………………………..…………………………….…..………… 36 NRI 2211 August 2022 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Natural Resource Information Report Number #2211 Petitioner TPE IL KE105, LLC Contact Person TPE IL KE105, LLC County or Municipality the Petition is Filed With City of Yorkville Location of Parcel NE & NW ¼ of Section 15, Township 37 North, Range 7 East (Bristol Township) of the 3rd Principal Meridian Project or Subdivision Name TPE IL KE105, LLC Solar Development Existing Zoning & Land Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development; Agricultural field Proposed Zoning & Land Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development Special Use; Freestanding Solar Energy System Proposed Water Source N/A Proposed Type of Sewage Disposal System N/A Proposed Type of Storm Water Management Not provided Size of Site (+/-) 54.02 acres Land Evaluation Site Assessment Score Land Evaluation: 84; Site Assessment: N/A NRI 2211 August 2022 2 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Figure 1: Soil Map SOIL INFORMATION Based on information from the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 2008 Kendall County Soil Survey, this parcel is shown to contain the following soil types (please note this does not replace the need for or results of onsite soil testing; if completed, please refer to onsite soil test results for planning/engineering purposes): Table 1: Soils Information Map Unit Soil Name Drainage Class Hydrologic Group Hydric Designation Farmland Designation 149A Brenton silt loam, 0-2% slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained B/D Non-Hydric, Hydric Inclusions Likely Prime Farmland 206A Thorp silt loam, 0-2% slopes Poorly Drained C/D Hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 318C2 Lorenzo loam, 4-6% slopes, eroded Well Drained B Non-Hydric Farmland of Statewide Importance 325A Dresden silt loam, 0-2% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland NRI 2211 August 2022 3 325B Dresden silt loam, 2-4% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland 330A Peotone silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes Very Poorly Drained C/D Hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 369A Waupecan silt loam, 0-2% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland 791A Rush silt loam, 0-2% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland Hydrologic Soil Groups – Soils have been classified into four (A, B, C, D) hydrologic groups based on runoff characteristics due to rainfall. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second letter is for undrained areas. Hydrologic group A: Soils have a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Hydrologic group B: Soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have a moderately fine to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Hydrologic group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Hydrologic group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Hydric Soils – A hydric soil is one that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile that supports the growth or regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils with hydric inclusions have map units dominantly made up of non-hydric soils that may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landscape. Of the soils found onsite, two are classified as hydric soil (206A Thorp silt loam and 330A Peotone silty clay loam), five are classified as non-hydric soil (318C2 Lorenzo loam, 325A & 325B Dresden silt loam, 369A Waupecan silt loam, and 791A Rush silt loam), and one is classified as non-hydric soil with hydric inclusions likely (149A Brenton silt loam). Prime Farmland – Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for agricultural production. Prime farmland soils are an important resource to Kendall County and some of the most productive soils in the United States occur locally. Of the soils found onsite, five are designated as prime farmland (149A Brenton silt loam, 325A & 325B Dresden silt loam, 369A Waupecan silt loam, and 791A Rush silt loam), two are designated as prime farmland if drained (206A Thorp silt loam and 330A Peotone silty clay loam), and one is designated as farmland of statewide importance (318C2 Lorenzo loam). All are considered designations of prime farmland. Soil Limitations – The USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey rates the limitations of soils for dwellings with basements, dwellings without basements, small commercial buildings, shallow excavations, NRI 2211 August 2022 4 lawns/landscaping, and local roads and streets. Soils have different properties which influence the development of building sites. The USDA-NRCSclassifies soils as Not Limited, Somewhat Limited, and Very Limited. Soils that are Not Limited indicatesthat the soil has properties that are favorable for the specified use. They will perform well and will have low maintenance. Soils that are Somewhat Limited are moderately favorable, and their limitations can be overcome through special planning, design, or installation. Soils that are Very Limited have features that are unfavorable for the specified use, and their limitations cannot easily be overcome. Table 2: Soil Limitations Soil Type Solar Arrays, Soil- Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns/ Landscaping Local Roads & Streets 149A Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Somewhat Limited Very Limited 206A Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited 318C2 Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited 325A Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited 325B Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited 330A Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited Very Limited 369A Very Limited Very Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Very Limited 791A Very Limited Very Limited Somewhat Limited Somewhat Limited Very Limited Figure 2: Soil Limitations KENDALL COUNTY LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) Decision-makers in Kendall County use the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to determine the suitability of a land use change and/or a zoning request as it relates to agricultural land. The LESA system was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) and takes into consideration local conditions such as physical characteristics of the land, compatibility of surrounding land-uses, and urban growth factors. The LESA system is a two-step procedure that includes: Land Evaluation (LE): The soils of a given area are rated and placed in groups ranging from the best to worst suited for a stated agriculture use, cropland, or forestland. The best group is 0 20 40 60 80 100 Solar Arrays, Soil- Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns/Landscaping Local Roads & Streets % OF SOIL TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SOIL LIMITATIONS Not Limited Somewhat Limited Very Limited NRI 2211 August 2022 5 assigned a value of 100 and all other groups are assigned lower values. The Land Evaluation is based on data from the Kendall County Soil Survey. The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. The Land Evaluation score for this site is 84, indicating that the soils are well suited for agricultural uses. Site Assessment (SA): The site is numerically evaluated according to important factors that contribute to the quality of the site. Each factor selected is assigned values in accordance with the local needs and objectives. The Site Assessment value is based on a 200-point scale and accounts for 2/3 of the total score. The Kendall County LESA Committee is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. Please Note: A land evaluation (LE) score will be compiled for every project parcel. However, when a parcel is located within municipal planning boundaries, a site assessment (SA) score is not compiled as the scoring factors are not applicable. As a result, only the LE score is available, and a full LESA score is unavailable for the parcel. The Site Assessment score for this site is not applicable. WETLANDS The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory map does not indicate the presence of a wetland(s) on the proposed project site. To determine if a wetland is present, a wetland delineation specialist, who is recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, should determine the exact boundaries and value of the wetlands. FLOODPLAIN The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Kendall County, Community Panel No. 17093C0035H (effective date January 8, 2014) was reviewed to determine the presence of floodplain and floodway areas within the project site. According to the map, the site is not located within the floodplain or floodway. SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Development on this site should include an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Soil erosion on construction sites is a resource concern because suspended sediment from areas undergoing development is a primary nonpoint source of water pollution. Please consult the Illinois Urban Manual (https://illinoisurbanmanual.org/) for appropriate best management practices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ugust 2022 7 PARCEL LOCATION Figure 3: 2021 Plat Map Location Map for Natural Resources Information Report #2211 NE and NW ¼ of Section 15, Township 37 North, Range 7 East (Bristol Township) on 54.02 acres. This parcel is located east of Cannonball Trail, south of Galena Road, west of Kennedy Road, and north of the BNSF Railroad in Bristol, IL. NRI 2211 August 2022 8 Figure 4: 2021 Aerial Map with NRI Site Boundary NRI 2211 August 2022 9 ARCHAEOLOGIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Simply stated, cultural resources are all the past activities and accomplishments of people. They include the following: buildings; objects made or used by people; locations; and less tangible resources, such as stories, dance forms, and holiday traditions. The Soil and Water Conservation District most often encounters cultural resources as historical properties. These may be prehistoric or historical sites, buildings, structures, features, or objects. The most common type of historical property that the Soil and Water Conservation District may encounter is non-structural archaeological sites. These sites often extend below the soil surface and must be protected against disruption by development or other earth moving activity if possible. Cultural resources are non- renewable because there is no way to “grow” a site to replace a disrupted site. Landowners with historical properties on their land have ownership of that historical property. However, the State of Illinois owns all the following: human remains, grave markers, burial mounds, and artifacts associated with graves and human remains. Non-grave artifacts from archaeological sites and historical buildings are the property of the landowner. The landowner may choose to disturb a historical property but may not receive federal or state assistance to do so. If an earth moving activity disturbs human remains, the landowner must contact the county coroner within 48 hours. The Illinois Historic Preservation Agency has not been notified of the proposed land use change by the Kendall County SWCD. The applicant may need to contact the IHPA according to current Illinois law. NRI 2211 August 2022 10 ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS WHAT IS BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND WHY SHOULD IT BE CONSERVED?1 Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the range of life on our planet. A more thorough definition is presented by botanist Peter H. Raven: “At the simplest level, biodiversity is the sum total of all the plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms in the world, or in a particular area; all of their individual variation; and all of the interactions between them. It is the set of living organisms that make up the fabric of the planet Earth and allow it to function as it does, by capturing energy from the sun and using it to drive all of life’s processes; by forming communities of organisms that have, through the several billion years of life’s history on Earth, altered the nature of the atmosphere, the soil and the water of our Planet; and by making possible the sustainability of our planet through their life activities now” (Raven 1994). It is not known how many species occur on our planet. Presently, about 1.4 million species have been named. It has been estimated that there are perhaps 9 million more that have not been identified. What is known is that they are vanishing at an unprecedented rate. Reliable estimates show extinction occurring at a rate several orders of magnitude above “background” in some ecological systems (Wilson 1992, Hoose 1981). The reasons for protecting biological diversity are complex, but they fall into four major categories. First, loss of diversity generally weakens entire natural systems. Healthy ecosystems tend to have many natural checks and balances. Every species plays a role in maintaining this system. When simplified by the loss of diversity, the system becomes more susceptible to natural and artificial perturbations. The chances of a system-wide collapse increase. In parts of the midwestern United States, for example, it was only the remnant areas of natural prairies that kept soil intact during the dust bowl years of the 1930s (Roush 1982). Simplified ecosystems are almost always expensive to maintain. For example, when synthetic chemicals are relied upon to control pests, the target species are not the only ones affected. Their predators are almost always killed or driven away, exasperating the pest problem. In the meantime, people are unintentionally breeding pesticide-resistant pests. A process has begun where people become perpetual guardians of the affected area, which requires the expenditure of financial resources and human ingenuity to keep the system going. A second reason for protecting biological diversity is that it represents one of our greatest untapped resources. Great benefits can be reaped from a single species. About 20 species provide 90% of the world’s food. Of these 20, just three, wheat, maize, and rice-supply over one half of that food. American wheat farmers need new varieties every five to 15 years to compete with pests and diseases. Wild strains of wheat are critical genetic reservoirs for these new varieties. Further, every species is a potential source of human medicine. In 1980, a published report identified the market value of prescription drugs from higher plants at over $3 billion. Organic alkaloids, a class of NRI 2211 August 2022 11 chemical compounds used in medicines, are found in an estimated 20% of plant species. Yet only 2% of plant species have been screened for these compounds (Hoose 1981). The third reason for protecting diversity is that humans benefit from natural areas and depend on healthy ecosystems. The natural world supplies our air, our water, our food and supports human economic activity. Further, humans are creatures that evolved in a diverse natural environment between forest and grasslands. People need to be reassured that such places remain. When people speak of “going to the country,” they generally mean more than getting out of town. For reasons of their own sanity and wellbeing, they need a holistic, organic experience. Prolonged exposure to urban monotony produces neuroses, for which cultural and natural diversity cure. Historically, the lack of attention to biological diversity, and the ecological processes it supports, has resulted in economic hardships for segments of the basin’s human population. The final reason for protecting biological diversity is that species and natural systems are intrinsically valuable. The above reasons have focused on the benefits of the natural world to humans. All things possess intrinsic value simply because they exist. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONCERNING THE SUBJECT PARCEL As part of the Natural Resources Information Report, staff checks office maps to determine if any nature preserves or ecologically sensitive areas are in the general vicinity of the parcel in question. If there is a nature preserve in the area, then that resource will be identified as part of the report. The SWCD recommends that every effort be made to protect that resource. Such efforts should include, but are not limited to erosion control, sediment control, stormwater management, and groundwater monitoring. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1Taken from The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities, prepared by the Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 79W. Monroe Street, Suite 1309, Chicago, IL 60603, January 1994. Office maps indicate that ecologically sensitive area(s) are located on or near the parcel in question (PIQ). Blackberry Creek is located within ¼ mile east/northeast of the PIQ. NRI 2211 August 2022 12 SOILS INFORMATION IMPORTANCE OF SOILS INFORMATION Soils information comes from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Maps and Descriptions for Kendall County. This information is important to all parties involved in determining the suitability of the proposed land use change. Each soil polygon is given a number, which represents its soil type. The letter found after the soil type number indicates the soils slope class. Each soil map unit has limitations for a variety of land uses such as septic systems, buildings with basements, and buildings without basements. It is important to remember that soils do not function independently of each other. The behavior of a soil depends upon the physical properties of adjacent soil types, the presence of artificial drainage, soil compaction, and its position in the local landscape. The limitation categories (not limited, somewhat limited, or very limited) indicate the potential for difficulty in using that soil unit for the proposed activity and, thus, the degree of need for thorough soil borings and engineering studies. A limitation does not necessarily mean that the proposed activity cannot be done on that soil type. It does mean that the reasons for the limitation need to be thoroughly understood and dealt with to complete the proposed activity successfully. Very limited indicates that the proposed activity will be more difficult and costly to do on that soil type than on a soil type with a somewhat limited or not limited rating. Soil survey interpretations are predictions of soil behavior for specified land uses and specified management practices. They are based on the soil properties that directly influence the specified use of the soil. Soil survey interpretations allow users of soil surveys to plan reasonable alternatives for the use and management of soils. Soil interpretations do not eliminate the need for on-site study and testing of specific sites for the design and construction for specific uses. They can be used as a guide for planning more detailed investigations and for avoiding undesirable sites for an intended use. The scale of the maps and the range of error limit the use of the soil delineation. NRI 2211 August 2022 13 Figure 5: Soil Map Table 3: Soil Map Unit Descriptions Symbol Descriptions Acres Percent 149A Brenton silt loam, 0-2% slopes 0.6 1.0% 206A Thorp silt loam, 0-2% slopes 5.6 10.3% 318C2 Lorenzo loam, 4-6% slopes, eroded 0.4 0.8% 325A Dresden silt loam, 0-2% slopes 5.9 10.9% 325B Dresden silt loam, 2-4% slopes 14.9 27.5% 330A Peotone silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes 1.7 3.1% 369A Waupecan silt loam, 0-2% slopes 12.4 22.9% 791A Rush silt loam, 0-2% slopes 12.7 23.5% Source: National Cooperative Soil Survey – USDA-NRCS NRI 2211 August 2022 14 SOILS INTERPRETATIONS EXPLANATION GENERAL – NONAGRICULTURAL These interpretative ratings help engineers, planners, and others to understand how soil properties influence behavior when used for nonagricultural uses such as building site development or construction materials. This report gives ratings for proposed uses in terms of limitations and restrictive features. The tables list only the most restrictive features. Other features may need treatment to overcome soil limitations for a specific purpose. Ratings come from the soil's "natural" state, that is, no unusual modification occurs other than that which is considered normal practice for the rated use. Even though soils may have limitations, an engineer may alter soil features or adjust building plans for a structure to compensate for most degrees of limitations. Most of these practices, however, are costly. The final decision in selecting a site for a particular use generally involves weighing the costs for site preparation and maintenance. Soil properties influence development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. Soil limitation ratings of not limited, somewhat limited, and very limited are given for the types of proposed improvements that are listed or inferred by the petitioner as entered on the report application and/or zoning petition. The most common types of building limitation that this report gives limitations ratings for is septic systems. It is understood that engineering practices can overcome most limitations for buildings with and without basements, and small commercial buildings. Limitation ratings for these types of buildings are not commonly provided. Organic soils, when present on the parcel, are referenced in the hydric soils section of the report. This type of soil is considered unsuitable for all types of construction. LIMIATIONS RATINGS Not Limited: This soil has favorable properties for the use. The degree of limitation is minor. The people involved can expect good performance and low maintenance. Somewhat Limited: This soil has moderately favorable properties for the use. Special planning, design, or maintenance can overcome this degree of limitation. During some part of the year, the expected performance is less desirable than for soils rated slight. Very Limited: This soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the rated use. These may include the following: steep slopes, bedrock near the surface, flooding, high shrink-swell potential, a seasonal high water table, or low strength. This degree of limitation generally requires major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance, which in most situations is difficult and costly. NRI 2211 August 2022 15 BUILDING LIMITATIONS BUILDING ON POORLY SUITED OR UNSUITABLE SOILS Building on poorly suited or unsuitable soils can present problems to future property owners such as cracked foundations, wet basements, lowered structural integrity and high maintenance costs associated with these problems. The staff of the Kendall County SWCD strongly urges scrutiny by the plat reviewers when granting parcels with these soils exclusively. Solar Arrays, Soil-Based Anchor Systems – Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole. These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground. Two basic methods are used to hold the systems to the ground, based on site conditions and cost. One method employs driven piles, screw augers, or concrete piers that penetrate the soil to provide a stable foundation. Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole. These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground. Ballast anchor systems can be used in some places where soil-penetrating systems cannot, such as in shallow or stony soil. Also, since they do not penetrate the soil, ballast systems can be used where the soil is contaminated, and disturbance is to be avoided. The soil in the area must have sufficient strength to be able to support the vehicles that haul the ballast and the machinery to install it. Shallow Excavations – Trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. Ratings are based on soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and Landscaping – Require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained (irrigation is not considered in the ratings). The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. Local Roads and Streets – They have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material, a base of gravel, crushed rock or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete) or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the east of excavation and grading and the traffic-supporting capacity. NRI 2211 August 2022 16 Table 4: Building Limitations Soil Type Solar Arrays, Soil-Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns & Landscaping Local Roads & Streets Acres % 149A Very Limited: Frost action; Low strength; Steel corrosion; Depth to saturated zone; Hillslope position Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Depth to saturated zone Hillslope position Very Limited: Depth to saturated zone Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Depth to saturated zone Dusty Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Depth to saturated zone Shrink-swell 0.6 1.0% 206A Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Slope shape across Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Dusty Unstable excavation walls Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Dusty Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Shrink-swell 5.6 10.3% 318C2 Somewhat Limited: Steel corrosion Frost action Hillslope position Somewhat Limited: Frost action Hillslope position Somewhat Limited: Unstable excavation walls Dusty Somewhat Limited: Droughty Dusty Somewhat Limited: Frost action 0.4 0.8% 325A Somewhat Limited: Steel corrosion; Frost action; Hillslope position; Shrink-swell; Low strength Somewhat Limited: Frost action Hillslope position Low strength Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Somewhat Limited: Frost action Shrink-swell Low strength 5.9 10.9% 325B Somewhat Limited: Steel corrosion Frost action Hillslope position Slope shape across Shrink-swell Somewhat Limited: Frost action Hillslope position Slope shape across Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Somewhat Limited: Frost action Shrink-swell 14.9 27.5% 330A Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Shrink-swell Frost action Low strength Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Slope shape across Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Unstable excavation walls Dusty Too clayey Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Dusty Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Shrink-swell Frost action Low strength 1.7 3.1% NRI 2211 August 2022 17 Soil Type Solar Arrays, Soil-Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns & Landscaping Local Roads & Streets Acres % 369A Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Hillslope position Shrink-swell Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Hillslope position Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Shrink-swell 12.4 22.9% 791A Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Shrink-swell Hillslope position Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Hillslope position Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Very Limited: Frost-action Low strength Shrink-swell 12.7 23.5% % Very Limited 60.8% 60.8% 14.4% 13.4% 60.8% NRI 2211 August 2022 18 NRI Report 2211 Map of Building Limitations: Solar Arrays (Soil-Based & Ballast Anchor Systems) and Local Roads & Streets (Paved & Unpaved) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: NE & NW ¼ Sec. 15, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 6A: Map of Building Limitations – Solar Arrays (Soil-Based & Ballast Anchor Systems) and Local Roads & Streets (Paved & Unpaved) NRI 2211 August 2022 19 NRI Report 2211 Map of Building Limitations: Shallow Excavations Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: NE & NW ¼ Sec. 15, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 6B: Map of Building Limitations – Shallow Excavations NRI 2211 August 2022 20 NRI Report 2211 Map of Building Limitations: Lawns/Landscaping Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: NE & NW ¼ Sec. 15, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 6C: Map of Building Limitations – Lawns/Landscaping NRI 2211 August 2022 21 SOIL WATER FEATURES Table 5, below, gives estimates of various soil water features that should be taken into consideration when reviewing engineering for a land use project. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS (HSGs) – The groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. Group A: Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained, or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Note: If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D or C/D) the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. SURFACE RUNOFF – Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based upon slope, climate and vegetative cover and indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions (it is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal). The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. MONTHS – The portion of the year in which a water table, ponding, and/or flooding is most likely to be a concern. WATER TABLE – Water table refers to a saturated zone in the soil and the data indicates, by month, depth to the top (upper limit) and base (lower limit) of the saturated zone in most years. These estimates are based upon observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone (grayish colors or mottles (redoximorphic features)) in the soil. Note: A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. PONDING – Ponding refers to standing water in a closed depression, and the data indicates surface water depth, duration, and frequency of ponding. NRI 2211 August 2022 22 Duration: Expressed as very brief if less than 2 days, brief if 2 to 7 days, long if 7 to 30 days and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency: Expressed as: none meaning ponding is not possible; rare means unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (chance of ponding is 0-5% in any year); occasional means that it occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years (chance of ponding is 5 to 50% in any year); and frequent means that it occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years (chance of ponding is more than 50% in any year). FLOODING – The temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding. Duration: Expressed as: extremely brief if 0.1 hour to 4 hours; very brief if 4 hours to 2 days; brief if 2 to 7 days; long if 7 to 30 days; and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency: Expressed as: none means flooding is not probable; very rare means that it is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions (chance of flooding is less than 1% in any year); rare means that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (chance of flooding is 1 to 5% in any year); occasional means that it occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (chance of flooding is 5 to 50% in any year but is less than 50% in all months in any year); and very frequent means that it is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (chance of flooding is more than 50% in all months of any year). Note: The information is based on evidence in the soil profile. In addition, consideration is also given to local information about the extent and levels of flooding and the relation of each soil on the landscape to historic floods. Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific than that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at specific flood frequency levels. NRI 2211 August 2022 23 Table 5: Water Features Map Unit Hydrologic Group Surface Runoff Water Table Ponding Flooding 149A B/D Low January - May Upper Limit: 1.0’-2.0’ Lower Limit: 6.0’ June – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 206A C/D Negligible January - May Upper Limit: 0.0’-1.0’ Lower Limit: 6.0’ June – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – May Surface Water Depth: 0.0’-0.5’ Duration: Brief (2 to 7 days) Frequency: Frequent June – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 318C2 B Medium January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 325A B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 325B B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: None January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 330A C/D Negligible January - June Upper Limit: 0.0’-1.0’ Lower Limit: 6.0’ July – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – May Surface Water Depth: 0.0’-0.5’ Duration: Brief (2 to 7 days) Frequency: Frequent June – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 369A B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: None January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 791A B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None NRI 2211 August 2022 24 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Erosion is the wearing away of the soil by water, wind, and other forces. Soil erosion threatens the Nation's soil productivity and contributes the most pollutants in our waterways. Water causes about two thirds of erosion on agricultural land. Four properties, mainly, determine a soil's erodibility: texture, slope, structure, and organic matter content. Slope has the most influence on soil erosion potential when the site is under construction. Erosivity and runoff increase as slope grade increases. The runoff then exerts more force on the particles, breaking their bonds more readily and carrying them farther before deposition. The longer water flows along a slope before reaching a major waterway, the greater the potential for erosion. Soil erosion during and after this proposed construction can be a primary non-point source of water pollution. Eroded soil during the construction phase can create unsafe conditions on roadways, decrease the storage capacity of lakes, clog streams and drainage channels, cause deterioration of aquatic habitats, and increase water treatment costs. Soil erosion also increases the risk of flooding by choking culverts, ditches, and storm sewers and by reducing the capacity of natural and man-made detention facilities. The general principles of erosion and sedimentation control measures include: Reducing/diverting flow from exposed areas, storing flows, or limiting runoff from exposed areas Staging construction to keep disturbed areas to a minimum Establishing or maintaining temporary or permanent groundcover Retaining sediment on site Properly installing, inspecting, and maintaining control measures Erosion control practices are useful controls only if they are properly located, installed, inspected, and maintained. The SWCD recommends an erosion and sediment control plan for all building sites, especially if there is a wetland or stream nearby. Table 6: Soil Erosion Potential Soil Type Slope Rating Acreage Percent of Parcel 149A 0-2% Slight 0.6 1.0% 206A 0-2% Slight 5.6 10.3% 318C2 4-6% Slight 0.4 0.8% 325A 0-2% Slight 5.9 10.9% 325B 2-4% Slight 14.9 27.5% 330A 0-2% Slight 1.7 3.1% 369A 0-2% Slight 12.4 22.9% 791A 0-2% Slight 12.7 23.5% NRI 2211 August 2022 25 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS Prime farmland soils are an important resource to Kendall County. Some of the most productive soils in the United States occur locally. Each soil map unit in the United States is assigned a prime or non-prime rating. Prime agricultural land does not need to be in the production of food & fiber. Section 310 of the NRCS general manual states that urban or built-up land on prime farmland soils is not prime farmland. The percentages of soils map units on the parcel reflect the determination that urban or built up land on prime farmland soils is not prime farmland. Table 7: Prime Farmland Soils Soil Types Prime Designation Acreage Percent 149A Prime Farmland 0.6 1.0% 206A Prime Farmland if drained 5.6 10.3% 318C2 Farmland of Statewide Importance 0.4 0.8% 325A Prime Farmland 5.9 10.9% 325B Prime Farmland 14.9 27.5% 330A Prime Farmland if drained 1.7 3.1% 369A Prime Farmland 12.4 22.9% 791A Prime Farmland 12.7 23.5% % Prime Farmland 100% Figure 7: Map of Prime Farmland Soils NRI 2211 August 2022 26 LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) Decision-makers in Kendall County use the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to determine the suitability of a land use change and/or a zoning request as it relates to agricultural land. The LESA system was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) and takes into consideration local conditions such as physical characteristics of the land, compatibility of surrounding land-uses, and urban growth factors. The LESA system is a two-step procedure that includes: LAND EVALUATION (LE) The soils of a given area are rated and placed in groups ranging from the best to worst suited for a stated agriculture use, cropland, or forestland. The best group is assigned a value of 100, and all other groups are assigned lower values. The Land Evaluation is based on data from the Kendall County Soil Survey. The LE score is calculated by multiplying the relative value of each soil type by the number of acres of that soil. The sum of the products is then divided by the total number of acres; the answer is the Land Evaluation score on this site. The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. SITE ASSESSMENT (SA) The site is numerically evaluated according to important factors that contribute to the quality of the site. Each factor selected is assigned values in accordance with the local needs and objectives. The value group is a predetermined value based upon prime farmland designation. The Kendall County LESA Committee is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. Please Note: A land evaluation (LE) score will be compiled for every project parcel. However, when a parcel is located within municipal planning boundaries, a site assessment (SA) score is not compiled as the scoring factors are not applicable. As a result, only the LE score is available, and a full LESA score is unavailable for the parcel. Table 8: Land Evaluation Computation Soil Type Value Group Relative Value Acres Product (Relative Value x Acres) 149A 1 100 0.6 60.0 206A 3 87 5.6 487.2 318C2 6 69 0.4 27.6 325A 4 79 5.9 466.1 325B 4 79 14.9 1,177.1 330A 3 87 1.7 147.9 369A 2 94 12.4 1,165.6 791A 4 79 12.7 1,003.3 Totals 54.1 4,534.8 See next page NRI 2211 August 2022 27 LE Calculation (Product of relative value / Total Acres) 4,534.8 / 54.1 = 83.8 LE Score LE = 84 The Land Evaluation score for this site is 84, indicating that the soils are well suited for agricultural uses considering the Land Evaluation score is above 80. The Land Evaluation (LE) score for this site is 84, indicating that the soils are well suited for agricultural uses. The full LESA Score is not applicable for the proposed project site since it is within municipal planning boundaries. Note: Selecting the project site with the lowest total points will generally protect the best farmland located in the most viable areas and maintain and promote the agricultural industry in Kendall County. NRI 2211 August 2022 28 LAND USE PLANS Many counties, municipalities, villages, and townships have developed land-use plans. These plans are intended to reflect the existing and future land-use needs of a given community. Please contact the City of Yorkville’s Zoning Department for information regarding the City’s comprehensive land use plan and map. DRAINAGE, RUNOFF, AND FLOOD INFORMATION U.S.G.S Topographic maps give information on elevations, which are important mostly to determine slopes, drainage directions, and watershed information. Elevations determine the area of impact of floods of record. Slope information determines steepness and erosion potential. Drainage directions determine where water leaves the PIQ, possibly impacting surrounding natural resources. Watershed information is given for changing land use to a subdivision type of development on parcels greater than 10 acres. WHAT IS A WATERSHED? Simply stated, a watershed is the area of land that contributes water to a certain point. The watershed boundary is important because the area of land in the watershed can now be calculated using an irregular shape area calculator such as a dot counter or planimeter. Using regional storm event information, and site-specific soils and land use information, the peak stormwater flow through the point marked “{” for a specified storm event can be calculated. This value is called a “Q” value (for the given storm event) and is measured in cubic feet per second (CFS). When construction occurs, the Q value naturally increases because of the increase in impermeable surfaces. This process decreases the ability of soils to accept and temporarily hold water. Therefore, more water runs off and increases the Q value. Theoretically, if each development, no matter how large or small, maintains their preconstruction Q value after construction by the installation of stormwater management systems, the streams and wetlands and lakes will not suffer damage from excessive urban stormwater. For this reason, the Kendall County SWCD recommends that the developer for intense uses such as a subdivision calculate the preconstruction Q value for the exit point(s). A stormwater management system NRI 2211 August 2022 29 should be designed, installed, and maintained to limit the postconstruction Q value to be at or below the preconstruction value. IMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INFORMATION A floodplain is defined as land adjoining a watercourse (riverine) or an inland depression (non-riverine) that is subject to periodic inundation by high water. Floodplains are important areas demanding protection since they have water storage and conveyance functions which affect upstream and downstream flows, water quality and quantity, and suitability of the land for human activity. Since floodplains play distinct and vital roles in the hydrologic cycle, development that interferes with their hydrologic and biologic functions should be carefully considered. Flooding is both dangerous to people and destructive to their properties. The following maps, when combined with wetland and topographic information, can help developers and future homeowners to “sidestep” potential flooding or ponding problems. FIRM is the acronym for the Flood Insurance Rate Map, produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These maps define flood elevation adjacent to tributaries and major bodies of water and superimpose that onto a simplified USGS topographic map. The scale of the FIRM maps is generally dependent on the size and density of parcels in that area. (This is to correctly determine the parcel location and floodplain location.) The FIRM map has three (3) zones. Zone A includes the 100-year flood, Zone B or Zone X (shaded) is the 100 to 500-year flood, and Zone C or Zone X (unshaded) is outside the floodplain. The Hydrologic Atlas (H.A.) Series of the Flood of Record Map is also used for the topographic information. This map is different from the FIRM map mainly because it will show isolated or pocketed flooded areas. Kendall County uses both these maps in conjunction with each other for flooded area determinations. The Flood of Record maps show the areas of flood for various years. Both maps stress that the recurrence of flooding is merely statistical. A 100-year flood may occur twice in one year, or twice in one week, for that matter. It should be noted that greater floods than those shown on the two maps are possible. The flood boundaries indicated provide a historic record only until the map publication date. Additionally, these flood boundaries are a function of the watershed conditions existing when the maps were produced. Cumulative changes in runoff characteristics caused by urbanization can result in an increase in flood height of future flood episodes. Floodplains play a vital role in reducing the flood damage potential associated with an urbanizing area and, when left in an undisturbed state, also provide valuable wildlife habitat benefits. If it is the petitioner's intent to conduct floodplain filling or modification activities, the petitioner, and the Unit of Government responsible need to consider the potentially adverse effects this type of action could have on adjacent properties. The change or loss of natural floodplain storage often increases the frequency and severity of flooding on adjacent property. NRI 2211 August 2022 30 If the available maps indicate the presence of a floodplain on the PIQ, the petitioner should contact the IDNR-OWR and FEMA to delineate a floodplain elevation for the parcel. If a portion of the property is indeed floodplain, applicable state, county, and local regulations will need to be reflected in the site plans. Another indication of flooding potential can be found in the soils information. Hydric soils indicate the presence of drainageways, areas subject to ponding, or a naturally occurring high water table. These need to be considered along with the floodplain information when developing the site plan and the stormwater management plan. Development on hydric soils can contribute to the loss of water storage within the soil and the potential for increased flooding in the area. Figure 8A: FEMA Floodplain Map (West half) This parcel is located on slight topography (slopes 0 to 6%) and an elevation range of approximately 642’-654’ above sea level. According to the FEMA Floodplain Map, the parcel in question is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. It is mapped as Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. The parcel drains predominantly to the south. NRI 2211 August 2022 31 Figure 8B: FEMA Floodplain Map (East half) NRI 2211 August 2022 32 Figure 9: Topographic Map NRI 2211 August 2022 33 WATERSHED PLANS WATERSHED AND SUB WATERSHED INFORMATION A watershed is the area of land that drains into a specific point including a stream, lake, or other body of water. High points on the Earth’s surface, such as hills and ridges define watersheds. When rain falls in the watershed, it flows across the ground towards a stream or lake. Rainwater carries pollutants such as oils, pesticides, and soil. Everyone lives in a watershed. Their actions can impact natural resources and people living downstream. Residents can minimize this impact by being aware of their environment and the implications of their activities, implementing practices recommended in watershed plans, and educating others about their watershed. The following are recommendations to developers for protection of this watershed: Preserve open space Maintain wetlands as part of development Use natural water management Prevent soil from leaving a construction site Protect subsurface drainage Use native vegetation Retain natural features Mix housing styles and types Decrease impervious surfaces Reduce area disturbed by mass grading Shrink lot size and create more open space Maintain historical and cultural resources Treat water where it falls Preserve views Establish and link trails This parcel is located within the Fox River watershed and the East Run – Blackberry Creek sub watershed. NRI 2211 August 2022 34 WETLAND INFORMATION IMPORTANCE OF WETLAND INFORMATION Wetlands function in many ways to provide numerous benefits to society. They control flooding by offering a slow release of excess water downstream or through the soil. They cleanse water by filtering out sediment and some pollutants and can function as rechargers of our valuable groundwater. They also are essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for many species of wildlife. These benefits are particularly valuable in urbanizing areas as development activity typically adversely affects water quality, increases the volume of stormwater runoff, and increases the demand for groundwater. In an area where many individual homes rely on shallow groundwater wells for domestic water supplies, activities that threaten potential groundwater recharge areas are contrary to the public good. The conversion of wetlands, with their sediment trapping and nutrient absorbing vegetation, to biologically barren stormwater detention ponds can cause additional degradation of water quality in downstream or adjacent areas. It has been estimated that over 95% of the wetlands that were historically present in Illinois have been destroyed while only recently has the true environmental significance of wetlands been fully recognized. America is losing 100,000 acres of wetland a year and has saved 5 million acres total (since 1934). One acre of wetland can filter 7.3 million gallons of water a year. These are reasons why our wetlands are high quality and important. This section contains the National Wetlands Inventory, which is the most comprehensive inventory to date. The National Wetlands Inventory is reproduced from an aerial photo at a scale of 1” equals 660 feet. The NRCS developed these maps in cooperation with U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency,) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, using the National Food Security Act Manual, 3rd Edition. The main purpose of these maps is to determine wetland areas on agricultural fields and areas that may be wetlands but are in a non-agriculture setting. The National Wetlands Inventory in no way gives an exact delineation of the wetlands, but merely an outline, or the determination that there is a wetland within the outline. For the final, most accurate wetland determination of a specific wetland, a wetland delineation must be certified by NRCS staff using the National Food Security Act Manual (on agricultural land.) On urban land, a certified wetland delineator must perform the delineation using the ACOE 1987 Manual. See the glossary section for the definitions of “delineation” and “determination. NRI 2211 August 2022 35 Figure 10: Wetland Map – USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Office maps indicate that mapped wetlands/waters are not present on the parcel in question (PIQ). NRI 2211 August 2022 36 HYDRIC SOILS Soils information gives another indication of flooding potential. The soils map on the following page indicates the soil(s) on the parcel that the Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates as hydric. Hydric soils, by definition, have seasonal high water at or near the soil surface and/or have potential flooding or ponding problems. All hydric soils range from poorly suited to unsuitable for building. One group of the hydric soils are the organic soils, which formed from dead organic material. Organic soils are unsuitable for building because of not only the high water table but also their subsidence problems. It is important to add the possibility of hydric inclusions in a soil type. An inclusion is a soil polygon that is too small to appear on these maps. While relatively insignificant for agricultural use, hydric soil inclusions become more important to more intense uses such as a residential subdivision. While considering hydric soils and hydric inclusions, it is noteworthy to mention that subsurface agriculture drainage tile occurs in almost all poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils. Drainage tile expedites drainage and facilitates farming. It is imperative that these drainage tiles remain undisturbed. A damaged subsurface drainage tile may return original hydrologic conditions to all the areas that drained through the tile (ranging from less than one acre to many square miles.) For an intense land use, such as a subdivision, the Kendall County SWCD recommends the following: a topographical survey with 1 foot contour intervals to accurately define the flood area on the parcel, an intensive soil survey to define most accurately the locations of the hydric soils and inclusions, and a drainage tile survey on the area to locate the tiles that must be preserved to maintain subsurface drainage. Table 9: Hydric Soils Soil Types Drainage Class Hydric Designation Hydric Inclusions Likely Acreage Percent 149A Somewhat Poorly Drained Non-Hydric Yes 0.6 1.0% 206A Poorly Drained Hydric No 5.6 10.3% 318C2 Well Drained Non-Hydric No 0.4 0.8% 325A Well Drained Non-Hydric No 5.9 10.9% 325B Well Drained Non-Hydric No 14.9 27.5% 330A Very Poorly Drained Hydric No 1.7 3.1% 369A Well Drained Non-Hydric No 12.4 22.9% 791A Well Drained Non-Hydric No 12.7 23.5% NRI 2211 August 2022 37 Figure 11: Hydric Soil Map NRI 2211 August 2022 38 WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS The laws of the United States and the State of Illinois assign certain agencies specific and different regulatory roles to protect the waters within the State's boundaries. These roles, when considered together, include protection of navigation channels and harbors, protection against floodway encroachments, maintenance and enhancement of water quality, protection of fish and wildlife habitat and recreational resources, and, in general, the protection of total public interest. Unregulated use of the waters within the State of Illinois could permanently destroy or alter the character of these valuable resources and adversely impact the public. Therefore, please contact the proper regulatory authorities when planning any work associated with Illinois waters so that proper consideration and approval can be obtained. WHO MUST APPLY? Anyone proposing to dredge, fill, rip rap, or otherwise alter the banks or beds of, or construct, operate, or maintain any dock, pier, wharf, sluice, dam, piling, wall, fence, utility, floodplain or floodway subject to State or Federal regulatory jurisdiction should apply for agency approvals. REGULATORY AGENCIES Wetland or U.S. Waters: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Clock Tower Building, Rock Island, IL Floodplains: Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water Resources, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1270. Water Quality/Erosion Control: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL COORDINATION We recommend early coordination with the regulatory agencies BEFORE finalizing work plans. This allows the agencies to recommend measures to mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts. Also, the agency can make possible environmental enhancement provisions early in the project planning stages. This could reduce time required to process necessary approvals. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO DO ANY WORK NEAR A STREAM (THIS INCLUDES SMALL UNNAMED STREAMS), LAKE, WETLAND OR FLOODWAY. CAUTION: Contact with the United States Army Corps of Engineers is strongly advised before commencement of any work in or near a Waters of the United States. This could save considerable time and expense. Persons responsible for willful and direct violation of Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 or Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are subject to fines ranging up to $27,500 per day of violation and imprisonment for up to one year or both. NRI 2211 August 2022 39 GLOSSARY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREAS (AG AREAS) - Allowed by P.A. 81-1173. An AG AREA consists of a minimum of 350 acres of farmland, as contiguous and compact as possible. Petitioned by landowners, AG AREAS protect for a period of ten years initially, then reviewed every eight years thereafter. AG AREA establishment exempts landowners from local nuisance ordinances directed at farming operations, and designated land cannot receive special tax assessments on public improvements that do not benefit the land, e.g. water and sewer lines. AGRICULTURE - The growing, harvesting and storing of crops including legumes, hay, grain, fruit and truck or vegetable including dairying, poultry, swine, sheep, beef cattle, pony and horse production, fur farms, and fish and wildlife farms; farm buildings used for growing, harvesting and preparing crop products for market, or for use on the farm; roadside stands, farm buildings for storing and protecting farm machinery and equipment from the elements, for housing livestock or poultry and for preparing livestock or poultry products for market; farm dwellings occupied by farm owners, operators, tenants or seasonal or year around hired farm workers. B.G. - Below Grade. Under the surface of the Earth. BEDROCK - Indicates depth at which bedrock occurs. Also lists hardness as rippable or hard. FLOODING - Indicates frequency, duration, and period during year when floods are likely to occur. HIGH LEVEL MANAGEMENT - The application of effective practices adapted to different crops, soils, and climatic conditions. Such practices include providing for adequate soil drainage, protection from flooding, erosion and runoff control, near optimum tillage, and planting the correct kind and amount of high-quality seed. Weeds, diseases, and harmful insects are controlled. Favorable soil reaction and near optimum levels of available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for individual crops are maintained. Efficient use is made of available crop residues, barnyard manure, and/or green manure crops. All operations, when combined efficiently and timely, can create favorable growing conditions and reduce harvesting losses -- within limits imposed by weather. HIGH WATER TABLE - A seasonal high water table is a zone of saturation at the highest average depth during the wettest part of the year. May be apparent, perched, or artesian kinds of water tables. Water table, Apparent: A thick zone of free water in the soil. An apparent water table is indicated by the level at which water stands in an uncased borehole after adequate time is allowed for adjustment in the surrounding soil. Water table, Artesian: A water table under hydrostatic head, generally beneath an impermeable layer. When this layer is penetrated, the water level rises in an uncased borehole. Water table, Perched: A water table standing above an unsaturated zone. In places an upper, or perched, water table is separated from a lower one by a dry zone. NRI 2211 August 2022 40 DELINEATION - For Wetlands: A series of pink or orange flags placed on the ground by a certified professional that outlines the wetland boundary on a parcel. DETERMINATION - A polygon drawn on a map using map information that gives an outline of a wetland. HYDRIC SOIL - This type of soil is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1987). INTENSIVE SOIL MAPPING - Mapping done on a smaller more intensive scale than a modern soil survey to determine soil properties of a specific site, e.g. mapping for septic suitability. LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (L.E.S.A.) - LESA is a systematic approach for evaluating a parcel of land and to determine a numerical value for the parcel for farmland preservation purposes. MODERN SOIL SURVEY - A soil survey is a field investigation of the soils of a specific area, supported by information from other sources. The kinds of soil in the survey area are identified and their extent shown on a map, and an accompanying report describes, defines, classifies, and interprets the soils. Interpretations predict the behavior of the soils under different used and the soils' response to management. Predictions are made for areas of soil at specific places. Soils information collected in a soil survey is useful in developing land-use plans and alternatives involving soil management systems and in evaluating and predicting the effects of land use. PALUSTRINE - Name given to inland freshwater wetlands. PERMEABILITY - Values listed estimate the range (in rate and time) it takes for downward movement of water in the major soil layers when saturated but allowed to drain freely. The estimates are based on soil texture, soil structure, available data on permeability and infiltration tests, and observation of water movement through soils or other geologic materials. PIQ - Parcel in question POTENTIAL FROST ACTION - Damage that may occur to structures and roads due to ice lens formation causing upward and lateral soil movement. Based primarily on soil texture and wetness. PRIME FARMLAND - Prime farmland soils are lands that are best suited to food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. It may be cropland, pasture, woodland, or other land, but it is not urban and built up land or water areas. It either is used for food or fiber or is available for those uses. The soil qualities, growing season, and moisture supply are those needed for a well-managed soil economically to produce a sustained high yield of crops. Prime farmland produces in highest yields with minimum inputs of energy and economic resources and farming the land results in the least damage to the environment. Prime farmland has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitation or irrigation. The temperature and growing season are favorable. The level of acidity or alkalinity is acceptable. Prime farmland has few or no rocks and is permeable to water and air. It is not excessively erodible or saturated NRI 2211 August 2022 41 with water for long periods and is not frequently flooded during the growing season. The slope ranges mainly from 0 to 5 percent (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). PRODUCTIVITY INDEXES - Productivity indexes for grain crops express the estimated yields of the major grain crops grown in Illinois as a single percentage of the average yields obtained under basic management from several of the more productive soils in the state. This group of soils is composed of the Muscatine, Ipava, Sable, Lisbon, Drummer, Flanagan, Littleton, Elburn and Joy soils. Each of the 425 soils found in Illinois are found in Circular 1156 from the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. SEASONAL - When used in reference to wetlands indicates that the area is flooded only during a portion of the year. SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL - Indicates volume changes to be expected for the specific soil material with changes in moisture content. SOIL MAPPING UNIT - A map unit is a collection of soil areas of miscellaneous areas delineated in mapping. A map unit is generally an aggregate of the delineations of many different bodies of a kind of soil or miscellaneous area but may consist of only one delineated body. Taxonomic class names and accompanying phase terms are used to name soil map units. They are described in terms of ranges of soil properties within the limits defined for taxa and in terms of ranges of taxadjuncts and inclusions. SOIL SERIES - A group of soils, formed from a particular type of parent material, having horizons that, except for texture of the A or surface horizon, are similar in all profile characteristics and in arrangement in the soil profile. Among these characteristics are color, texture, structure, reaction, consistence, and mineralogical and chemical composition. SUBSIDENCE - Applies mainly to organic soils after drainage. Soil material subsides due to shrinkage and oxidation. TERRAIN - The area or surface over which a particular rock or group of rocks is prevalent. TOPSOIL - That portion of the soil profile where higher concentrations of organic material, fertility, bacterial activity and plant growth take place. Depths of topsoil vary between soil types. WATERSHED - An area of land that drains to an associated water resource such as a wetland, river or lake. Depending on the size and topography, watersheds can contain numerous tributaries, such as streams and ditches, and ponding areas such as detention structures, natural ponds and wetlands. WETLAND - An area that has a predominance of hydric soils and that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient enough to support, and under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. NRI 2211 August 2022 42 REFERENCES Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007. DFIRM – Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Kendall County. Prepared by FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency. Hydrologic Unit Map for Kendall County. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System. The Kendall County Department of Planning Building and Zoning, and The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District. In cooperation with: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Kendall County. United States Department of Agriculture 2008, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Illinois Urban Manual. Association of Illinois Soil & Water Conservation Districts, 2020. Kendall County Land Atlas and Plat Book. 21st Edition, 2021. Potential For Contamination of Shallow Aquifers from Land Burial of Municipal Wastes. Illinois State Geological Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service National Wetland Inventory Map. United States Department of Agriculture. Geologic Road Map of Illinois. Department of Natural Resources, Illinois State Geological Survey, Natural Resources Building, 615 East Peabody, Champaign IL 61820-6964. Wetlands - The Corps of Engineers' Administration of the Section 404 Program (GAO/RCED-88-110). Soil Erosion by Water - United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Agriculture Information Bulletin 513. The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities, prepared by the Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 79W. Monroe Street, Suite 1309, Chicago, IL 60603, January 1994. Up to 6% Using TrueCapture Smart Control System Best-in Class Software Ecosystem and Global Services 35 GW Delivered on 5 Continents 5 years in a row Global Market Share Leader (2015-18) Features and ʵ˘ˡ˘Ё˧˦ Flexible and Resilient by Design With its self-aligning module rails and vibration-proof fasteners, NX Horizon can be easily and rapidly installed. The self-powered, decentralized architecture allows each row to be commissioned in advance of site power, and is designed to withstand high winds and other adverse weather conditions. On a recent 838 megawatt project in Villanueva, Mexico, these design features allowed for the project to go online nine months ahead of schedule. TrueCapture and Bifacial Enabled Incorporating the most promising innovations in utility scale solar, NX Horizon with TrueCapture™ smart control system can add additional energy production by up to six percent. Further unlocking the advantages of independent-row architecture and the data collected from thousands of sensors across its built-in wireless network, the software continuously optimizes the tracking algorithm of each row in response to site terrain and changing weather conditions. NX Horizon can also be paired with bifacial PV module technology, which can provide even more energy harvest and performance. With bifacial technology, NX Horizon outperforms conventional tracking systems with over 1% more annual energy. Quality and Reliability from Day One Quality and reliability are designed and tested into every NX Horizon component and system across our supply chain and manufacturing operations. Nextracker is the leader in dynamic wind analysis and safety ˦˧ˢ˪˜ˡ˚ʟ˗˘˟˜˩˘˥˜ˡ˚ˠ˔˝ˢ˥˕˘ˡ˘Ё˧˦˜ˡ˨ˣ˧˜ˠ˘˔ˡ˗˟ˢˡ˚ʠ˧˘˥ˠ˗˨˥˔˕˜˟˜˧ˬ ˁˋʻˢ˥˜˭ˢˡ˜˦˖˘˥˧˜Ё˘˗˧ˢˈʿʥʪʣʦ˔ˡ˗ˈʿʦʪʣʦ˦˧˔ˡ˗˔˥˗˦ʟ˨ˡ˗˘˥˦˖ˢ˥˜ˡ˚ Nextracker’s commitment to safety, reliability and quality. Serving as the backbone on over 35 gigawatts of solar power plants around the world, the NX Horizon™ smart solar tracker system combines best-in-class hardware and software to help EPCs and asset owners maximize performance and minimize operational costs. NX Horizon Smart Solar Tracking System nextracker.com INSTALLATION, OPERATIONS AND SERVICE PE stamped structural calculations and drawings Included Onsite training and system commissioning Included Installation requirements Simple assembly using swaged fasteners ˔ˡ˗˕ˢ˟˧˘˗˖ˢˡˡ˘˖˧˜ˢˡ˦ʡˁˢЁ˘˟˗˖˨˧˧˜ˡ˚ʟ drilling or welding. Monitoring NX Data Hub™ centralized data aggregation and monitoring Module cleaning compatibility ʶˢˠˣ˔˧˜˕˟˘˪˜˧˛ˁˋˤ˨˔˟˜Ё˘˗ cleaning systems Warranty 10-year structural, 5-year drive and control components. Codes and standards ˈʿʦʪʣʦʢˈʿʥʪʣʦʢʼʸʶʩʥʫʤʪ ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS Solar tracking method Astronomical algorithm with backtracking. TrueCapture™ upgrades available for terrain adaptive backtracking and diffuse tracking mode Control electronics NX tracker controller with inbuilt inclinometer and backup battery Communications Zigbee wireless communications to all tracker rows and weather stations via network control units (NCUs) Nighttime stow Yes Power supply SELF POWERED: ˁˋˣ˥ˢ˩˜˗˘˗ʦʣˢ˥ʩʣˊ Smart Panel AC POWERED: Customer-provided 120-240 VAC circut GENERAL AND MECHANICAL Tracking type Horizontal single-axis, independent row. String voltage 1,500 VDC or 1,000 VDC Typical row size ʪʫʠʬʣˠˢ˗˨˟˘˦ʟ˗˘ˣ˘ˡ˗˜ˡ˚ˢˡˠˢ˗˨˟˘ string length. Drive type Non-backdriving, high accuracy slew gear. Motor type 24 V brushless DC motor Array height Rotation axis elevation ʤʡʦ˧ˢʤʡʫˠʢʧʚʦʕ˧ˢʨʚʤʣʕ Ground coverage ratio (GCR)ʶˢˡЁ˚˨˥˔˕˟˘ʡˇˬˣ˜˖˔˟˥˔ˡ˚˘ʥʫʠʨʣʘʡ Modules supported Mounting options available for virtually all utility-scale crystalline modules, First Solar ˆ˘˥˜˘˦ʩ˔ˡ˗ʹ˜˥˦˧ˆˢ˟˔˥ˆ˘˥˜˘˦ʧʡ Bifacial features High-rise mounting rails, bearing + driveline gaps and round torque tube. Tracking range of motion ˂ˣ˧˜ˢˡ˦˙ˢ˥̃ʩʣ̂ˢ˥̃ʨʣ̂ Operating temperature range SELF POWERED:ʠʦʣ̂ʶ˧ˢʨʨ̂ʶʛʠʥʥ̂ʹ˧ˢʤʦʤ̂ʹʜ AC POWERED:ʠʧʣ̂ʶ˧ˢʨʨ̂ʶʛʠʧʣ̂ʹ˧ˢʤʦʤ̂ʹʜ ˀˢ˗˨˟˘˖ˢˡЁ˚˨˥˔˧˜ˢˡ 1 in portrait. 3 x 1,500 V or 4 x 1,000 V strings per standard tracker. Partial length trackers available. Module attachment Self-grounding, electric tool-actuated fasteners. Materials Galvanized steel Allowable wind speed ʶˢˡЁ˚˨˥˔˕˟˘˨ˣ˧ˢʥʥʨ˞ˣ˛ʛʤʧʣˠˣ˛ʜ 3-second gust Wind protection Intelligent wind stowing with symmetric dampers for maximum array stability in all wind conditions Foundations ˆ˧˔ˡ˗˔˥˗ˊʩ˦˘˖˧˜ˢˡ˙ˢ˨ˡ˗˔˧˜ˢˡˣˢ˦˧˦ © Nextracker Inc. Contents subject to change without notice. 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway | Fremont, CA 94555 | USA | +1 510 270 2500 | nextracker.com Nextracker NX Horizon MKT-000060-C Technical Data 100/125kW, 1500Vdc String Inverters for North America The 100 & 125kW high power CPS three phase string inverters are designed for ground mount applications. The units are high performance, advanced and reliable inverters designed specifically for the North American environment and grid. High efficiency at 99.1% peak and 98.5% CEC, wide operating voltages, broad temperature ranges and a NEMA Type 4X enclosure enable this inverter platform to operate at high performance across many applications. The CPS 100/125kW products ship with the Standard or Centralized Wire-box, each fully integrated and separable with AC and DC disconnect switches. The Standard Wire-box includes touch safe fusing for up to 20 strings. The CPS FlexOM Gateway enables communication, controls and remote product upgrades. NFPA 70, NEC 2014 and 2017 compliant Touch safe DC Fuse holders adds convenience and safety CPS FlexOM Gateway enables remote FW upgrades Integrated AC & DC disconnect switches 1 MPPT with 20 fused inputs for maximum flexibility Copper and Aluminum compatible AC connections Key Features Datasheet CPS SCH100/125KTL-DO/US-600 100/125KTL Centralized Wire-box CHINT POWER SYSTEMS AMERICA 2021/10-MKT NA Chint Power Systems America 6800 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 235 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Tel: 855-584-7168 Mail: AmericaSales@chintpower.com Web: www.chintpowersystems.com NEMA Type 4X outdoor rated, tough tested enclosure Advanced Smart-Grid features (CA Rule 21 certified) kVA Headroom yields 100kW @ 0.9PF and 125kW @ 0.95PF Generous 1.87 and 1.5 DC/AC Inverter Load Ratios Separable wire-box design for fast service Standard 5 year warranty with extensions to 20 years 100/125KTL Standard Wire-box Technical Data Model Name CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 CPS SCH125KTL-DO/US-600 Max. PV Power Max. DC Input Voltage Operating DC Input Voltage Range Start-up DC Input Voltage / Power Number of MPP Trackers MPPT Voltage Range1 Max. PV Input Current (Isc x1.25) Number of DC Inputs DC Disconnection Type DC Surge Protection Rated AC Output Power 100kW 125kW Max. AC Output Power2 100kVA (111KVA @ PF>0.9) 125kVA (132KVA @ PF>0.95) Rated Output Voltage Output Voltage Range3 Grid Connection Type4 Max. AC Output Current @600Vac 96.2/106.8A 120.3/127.0A Rated Output Frequency Output Frequency Range3 Power Factor >0.99 (±0.8 adjustable) >0.99 (±0.8 adjustable) Current THD Max. Fault Current Contribution (1-cycle RMS) Max. OCPD Rating AC Disconnection Type AC Surge Protection Topology Max. Efficiency CEC Efficiency Stand-by / Night Consumption Enclosure Protection Degree Cooling Method Operating Temperature Range Non-Operating Temperature Range5 Operating Humidity Operating Altitude Audible Noise User Interface and Display Inverter Monitoring Site Level Monitoring Modbus Data Mapping Remote Diagnostics / FW Upgrade Functions Dimensions (WxHxD) Weight Mounting / Installation Angle AC Termination DC Termination Fused String Inputs Safety and EMC Standard Selectable Grid Standard Smart-Grid Features Standard6 Extended Terms 1) See user manual for further information regarding MPPT Voltage Range when operating at non-unity PF 2) "Max. AC Apparent Power" rating valid within MPPT voltage range and temperature range of -30°C to +40°C (-22°F to +104°F) for 100KW PF >0.9 and 125KW PF >0.95 3) The "Output Voltage Range" and "Output Frequency Range" may differ according to the specific grid standard. 4) Wye neutral-grounded, Delta may not be corner-grounded. 5) See user manual for further requirements regarding non-operating conditions. 6) 5 year warranty effective for units purchased after October 1st, 2019. 187.5kW 275A UL1741-SA-2016, CSA-C22.2 NO.107.1-01, IEEE1547a-2014; FCC PART15 Warranty 45.28x24.25x9.84in (1150x616x250mm) with Standard Wire-box 39.37x24.25x9.84in (1000x616x250mm) with Centralized Wire-box Inverter: 121lbs / 55kg; Wire-box: 55lbs / 25kg (Standard Wire-box); 33lbs / 15kg (Centralized Wire-box) Screw Clamp Fuse Holder (Wire range: #12 - #6AWG CU) - Standard Wire-box Busbar, M10 Bolts (Wire range: #1AWG - 500kcmil CU/AL [1 termination per pole], #1AWG - 300kcmil CU/AL [2 terminations per pole], Lugs not supplied) - Centralized Wire-box 20A fuses provided (Fuse values up to 30A acceptable) Display and Communication Mechanical M10 Stud Type Terminal [3ĭ] (Wire range:1/0AWG - 500kcmil CU/AL, Lugs not supplied) Screw Clamp Terminal Block [N] (#12 - 1/0AWG CU/AL) -40°F to +158°F / -40°C to +70°C maximum <3% Load-rated AC switch Transformerless 99.1% Load-rated DC switch Type II MOV (with indicator/remote signaling), Up=2.5kV, In=20kA (8/20uS) 10, 15 and 20 years 5 years Safety IEEE 1547a-2014, CA Rule 21, ISO-NE Volt-RideThru, Freq-RideThru, Ramp-Rate, Specified-PF, Volt-VAr, Freq-Watt, Volt-Watt -22°F to +140°F / -30°C to +60°C (derating from +108°F / +42°C) AC Output System Environment <4W 60Hz 57-63Hz Type II MOV (with indicator/remote signaling), Up=2.5kV, In=20kA (8/20uS) 600Vac 528-660Vac 3ĭ / PE / N (Neutral optional) 98.5% NEMA Type 4X Variable speed cooling fans 41.47A 200A 20 PV source circuits, pos. & neg. fused (Standard Wire-box) 1 PV output circuit, 1-2 terminations per pole, non-fused (Centralized Wire-box) DC Input 15 - 90 degrees from horizontal (vertical or angled) 1500V 860-1450Vdc 900V / 250W 1 LED Indicators, WiFi + APP 870-1300Vdc <65dBA@1m and 25°C CPS FlexOM Gateway (1 per 32 inverters) SunSpec/CPS Standard / (with FlexOM Gateway) Modbus RS485 8202ft / 2500m (no derating) 0-100% Operations & Maintenance ("O&M") Plan [TPE IL KE105 LLC] O&M Plan / O&M Practices and Services The O&M plan is structured to both maximize system performance and meet all permitting requirements. Regional O&M staff and seasonal staff will be assigned to perform: 1. Preventative maintenance, 2. Corrective maintenance, and 3. Support of monitoring and asset management services. A summary scope of work for each is as follows: Preventative Maintenance Industry standard of care to ensure and maintain solar production levels Regular maintenance on project components per manufacturer recommendations and industry best practices and standards of care Module cleanings are not expected given the average monthly rainfall in the area. If cleaning is required, modules will be cleaned to ensure project performance. Vegetation abatement as required to ensure project performance Primary component inspection on an annual basis (panels, inverter, high voltage equipment) o Array & balance of system inspection o Module visual inspection o Data Acquisition System (DAS) & Meteorological (MET) station inspection o Inverter full inspection o High voltage equipment inspections Mechanical & electrical maintenance on an annual basis including inverter maintenance per manufacturer warranty requirements and standards of care Yearly inspection and maintenance as needed for roads, storm water, and other site civil features Corrective Maintenance Remote problem diagnosis & qualification via the project SCADA system On-site technician dispatch: Trained, qualified and insured service techs utilized for rapid response Warranty submittal/claims notification, tracking of replacement parts’ arrival/storage/ installation, etc. Maintenance ticket updates and closure identifying root cause/problem resolution reporting to owner Monitoring Remote equipment monitoring (24x7x365) via SCADA system Remote dispatch per customer/owner requirements Ticketing: Create and dispatch automated ticketing with issue resolution notifications and root cause reporting Problem tracking and ensured resolution reporting included within monthly report Identify potential and actual underperformance issues; recommend remedies Customized data analysis and alerts for customer: o Collection and hosting of system monitoring data o Owner access to online portal monitoring and production with weather data o Operator to host site communication and fees for monitoring Monitoring and asset management services are provided by the late-stage development company’s remote operation center and central services staff. Plan and Timeline for Responding to Loss of Major Plant Components O&M personnel will be notified of any loss of major plant component or related failures by the 7x24 remote operations center. This center will dispatch onsite technicians for system critical failures (inverter, transformer, or tracker motor failure). The plan for such losses is to: Remove and replace the failed equipment with spare parts, nearby parts in inventory or emergency delivery of parts from manufacturer as rapidly as possible. Diagnose reason for failure. Work with general contractor and/or manufacturers for any warranty or related claims. Compliance with Prudent Utility Practices All O&M practices follow Prudent Utility Practices with the utmost focus on safety. As a part of all O&M contracts with vendors, contractors, and sub-contractors, our team will ensure that these companies are responsible for the safe performance of work and for the safety of its, and its subcontractors’, employees, representatives, agents and invitees of contractor or its subcontractors at and around the project site, or any other person who enters the project site for any purpose. To facilitate this, all contractors must provide a safety plan whereby contractor maintains responsibility for maintaining all safety precautions and measures for areas on and around the project site. As part of this safety plan, contractor must provide a safe working environment at the project site during the performance of the work, and shall, among other requirements, seek to minimize the number of safety-related incidents during the performance of the work (with both TPE’s and contractor’s mutual objective of zero lost time accidents). Such safety plan shall include requirements for the safety prequalification of each subcontractor and a drug and alcohol program (which shall include a drug testing policy). Furthermore, the safety plan shall meet the requirements of applicable laws and applicable standards. After the commencement of work, TPE and contractor shall periodically review safety compliance, particularly in light of any injuries or near-miss incidents that may arise through the performance of the work and cooperate jointly to develop necessary changes to the safety plan in light of such circumstances, if any. The safety plan shall apply to all individuals accessing the project site and performing work on the project. As part of the safety plan, a safety representative will be identified with the necessary qualifications and experience to supervise the implementation of, and monitoring of compliance with, the safety plan. The safety representative shall make routine inspections of the project site and shall hold regular safety meetings with contractor’s personnel, subcontractors and others. Each staff member undergoes personal background checks, qualifies as possessing safety and related solar skills training required, or shall gain this training from an approved O&M training program prior to starting work on the job site. The contractor shall make the site safety plan available to local authorities having jurisdiction/permitting authorities (AHJs) during the construction process, upon request. The safety plan should include provisions for the management of site access, traffic management, road maintenance, and site security. Emergency Response The site owner shall provide an emergency response plan to the AHJs prior to commercial operation of the facility, if required by the local AHJs. The site owner shall provide an education training session to county representatives and first responders prior to commercial operation of the facility, if required by the local AHJs. The site owner shall provide a means and procedure for site access in coordination with the local AHJs. Equipment Manufacturer Recommendations The O&M plan referenced above complies with or exceeds all standard utility-scale PV equipment manufacturer recommendations. We can provide copies of all major equipment O&M recommendations prior to formal procurement as needed. Mowing and Weed Management A comprehensive vegetation management plan shall be implemented and followed for the duration of the project life. A mowing schedule shall be established based on the plant species in the seed mix that is properly timed to balance avoiding the disturbance of wildlife and native vegetation with the need to avoid the establishment of weeds. Vegetation underneath and between the solar panels should be well maintained in the defined lease area to keep vegetation below the low edge of the solar panels at maximum tilt angle. Management should comply with any local ordinances or conditions of approval. Mowing and weed whacking schedules will be adjusted from time to time to allow for flexibility based on rainfall and vegetation growth. Chemical control shall be used in accordance with the Illinois noxious weed regulations. Buffer Management Vegetative Buffers should be inspected during maintenance visits to ensure compliance with local ordinances or conditions of approval. Tree health and growth should be assessed and promoted to ensure compliance with local ordinances. Warranties All warranties are managed and handled at the project company level and are the responsibility of the late-stage development company that will operate and own the project over its useful life. Manufacturers of major equipment including modules, inverters, racking and transformers provide equipment warranties for the life of their products. Outage Schedules All planned shutdown of equipment for routine maintenance will be planned and coordinated with the local utility. When possible, these outages will occur in non-solar producing hours (nighttime). As such, no planned outages are scheduled. Spare Parts As part of the installation of the project, spare parts may be procured and stored with the O&M service provider for faster access to parts when necessary. This may include spare modules, inverters, parts, tracker components, fuses, wire and related inventory. Additionally, along with the warranty of the equipment, we expect to gain committed response intervals from manufacturers to address equipment replacement requirements. Spare parts will not be stored on site, rather, they will be stored off site in the O&M provider’s facilities. Start-up / Ramp-up Requirements / Times The PV solar plant starts up as the sun rises in the morning and ramps down as the sun sets in the evening. We can provide specific historical times for the location of our solar array as a means of working to optimize this generation asset. TPE IL KE105, LLC©TRANSPORTATIONAND ACCESS PLANNORTH Project Number: ICC Part 466 Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement Fixed Cost Option / 30 Day Completion This agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 10th day of November 2022 by and between TPE IL KE105, LLC ("interconnection customer"), as a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and Commonwealth Edison Company ("Electric Distribution Company" (EDC)), a Corporation existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. Interconnection customer and EDC each may be referred to as a "Party", or collectively as the "Parties". Recitals: Whereas, interconnection customer is proposing to develop a distributed energy resources or modifying an existing distributed energy resources consistent with the interconnection request application form completed by interconnection customer on; 7/29/2022 ; and Whereas, interconnection customer desires to interconnect the distributed energy resources with EDC's electric distribution system; and Whereas, EDC has completed an interconnection system impact study and provided the results of said study to interconnection customer (unless proceeding directly from Level 1, 2 or 3 review); and Whereas, interconnection customer has requested EDC to perform an interconnection facilities study to specify and estimate the cost of the equipment, engineering, procurement and construction work needed to interconnect the distributed energy resources; Now, therefore, in consideration of and subject to the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 1. All terms defined in Section 466.20 of the Illinois Distributed Generation Interconnection Standard shall have the meanings indicated in that Section when used in this Agreement. 2. Interconnection customer elects and EDC shall cause an interconnection facilities study consistent with Section 466.120 of the Illinois Distributed Generation Interconnection Standard. 3. The scope of the interconnection facilities study shall be determined by the information provided in Attachment A to this Agreement. 4. An interconnection facilities study report (1) shall provide a description, estimated cost of distribution upgrades, and a schedule for required facilities to interconnect the distributed energy resources to EDC's electric distribution system; and (2) shall address all issues identified in the interconnection system impact study (or identified in this study if the system impact study is combined herein). 5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Appendix G to Part 466 of the Illinois Administrative Code, the interconnection facilities study shall be completed and the results shall be transmitted to the Project Number: interconnection customer within 30 business days after this Agreement has been signed by the Parties or the study fee of $10,000 pursuant to item 6 of this Agreement has been received by the EDC, whichever is later. The study will not commence until the study fee has been received by the EDC. 6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Appendix G to part 466 of the Illinois Administrative Code, the interconnection customer and the EDC agree the cost of the interconnection facilities study shall be $10,000 regardless of the time and materials actually required for the conduct of the study and the interconnection customer will not be invoiced or otherwise provided actual costs of the study. In witness whereof, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized officers or agents on the day and year first above written. Project Name: TPE IL KE105, LLC Interconnection Customer TPE Development, LLC Signed: Name (Printed):James Marshall Title:EVP, Project Operations Commonwealth Edison Company Signed: Name (Printed): Title: : TPE IL KE105, LLC on CuCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCstomer TPE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DeDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelololololooooolololooloololllllllolooololollololllololololooooolllollllooooooolollolololollololoololollllloloooooooooooopmpmpmpmpmmpmpmmmmmmmmmmpmpmpmpmpmmpmpmmmpmmmpmpmmpmpmpmmpmpmpmmmpmpmmpmpmpmmpmmmpmpmmmmmpmpmmpmmpmpmmmmpmppppmmmmmpmpmmpmpmppppppmmpmmpmpppmppmpmmppppmpmmmpppppmmmppppmpmppppppppmpppppppppppp James Marshall Project Number: Attachment A to Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement Minimum Information That Interconnection Customer Must Provide with the Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement. Provide location plan and simplified one-line diagram of the distributed generation facilities. See provided location plan and simplified one-line diagram provided with the application. For staged projects, please indicate size and location of planned additional future generation. N/A On the one-line diagram, indicate the generation capacity attached at each metering location. (Maximum load on CT/PT). See one-line diagram. On the one-line diagram, indicate the location of auxiliary power. (Minimum load on CT/PT) Amps. One set of metering is required for each generation connection to the EDC's electric distribution system. Number of generation connections: 1 Will an alternate source of auxiliary power be available during CT/PT maintenance? ܆Yes N/A ܈No N/A Will a transfer bus on the generation side of the metering require that each meter set be designed for the total distributed generation capacity? ܆Yes N/A ܈No N/A (Please indicate on the one-line diagram). What type of control system or PLC will be located at the distributed energy resources? To be determined in final design What protocol does the control system or PLC use? DNP3 or ICCP. To be confirmed in final design. Please provide a scale drawing of the site. Indicate the point of common coupling, distribution line, and property lines. Number of third party easements required for EDC's interconnection facilities: 1 (project landowner) Project Number: To be completed in coordination with EDC. Is the distributed energy resources located in EDC's service area? ܆Yes ܆No If No, please provide name of local provider: Please provide the following proposed schedule dates: Begin construction date: Generator step-up transformers receive back feed power date: Generation testing date: Commercial operation date: (Source: Amended at 41 Ill. Reg. 862, effective January 20, 2017) ComEd Amended – Fixed Cost Option and 30 Day Completion – July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•! #)2"$"#)'.!( $' )! )).% !!.' +."$+ # '%)$'($''$""$+ # '!)$'(3-"%!2"$"#)'.($!''!) $#'$""$+ # '3 •!'2$#) #*$*(($*'$' )! )).% !!.' +.()) %)$'($''$"!' '!) +(*'(3!' ( #'!!.(($ ), ) ()) $#'.$ )(0, 0*)$) (!$, '!) +"$+"#)$) (*#0'!)(*#! )$'!$# '*') $#3 %' "'. '#),# ! #)# !' (*') $#3 $' $!'!'* )$$!%)*'( $) ).%($'!) $#$#) (*''$*# # '$(#,!! # (3 $! " )'!) $##"- " /$#+'( $#)$!)' ).0($!'%#!('$#()'*)$' ( ! $#,'(8!!(, ) ! )9($' # ")' !(#) !(( ($+', ) ##) 9'!) + $) # :;(( $,# # *'>!$,3 (( #)*'(! " )(*#! )'!)## "- " /(*#! )($'%) $#3 $!*!) *(#(%*!''!)#$($!'"$*!(0 #!#: ;%'$'")() *( # ) B=@=:-)'#! )!)#;()#'(#) '(*!)('( $,# # *'?!$,3 '!) + ).$).% !"$#$9'.()!! #% $)$+$!) ($!'%#! (%%'$- ")!.@3AE0, ( ,!!!$,) $) '$#)'$!("%!( #!* #) )()3 ( #%*))$) ($),'0$*)%)$'(,'')!$# '$,.( #+ # ).$) ( )3 ) ,("(*')@5$+ '$*#)$"*!)%((# '( #'(3*') '0('+) $#%)$'(,' "$!)(% ,!! # (!$)'$*#) %' ")'$) ($!'''.3 )(,'"$! )@5$+ '$*#)$"*!)'( #)($#) >!$$'$,!! # (#+!*)) !' "%)$' )>@5$+ '$*#)$"*!)'( #)($##.?!$$'$,!! # (3 "$!((*"() (*# (( # # >==E$) ) " ) ($+) $' /$#:*' # !.! ) $*'(;3 ) (0 )$(#$)$*#)$'!$*.$'$+'()$# ) $#(, #) (*# (#$)( # # 0) '$') '(*!)(%'(#),$*!) "- "*"-%) ! #)# !'*' # #.( # !.'3 - () # )$%$ '% . () # #)$$*#) #) ( "*!) $#($# :6 ))) $## # # 7;)3- () # #%!##+ )) $#'#$)$#( ' #) ( "*!) $#3 "$! ((*"/'$+ )) $#) )".('#) '$ )0($) ("*()$#( ', # #)'%') # ) ()*.'(*!)(3 ')! #$( )),#) '$ )#) ( #)$*)%)$'(# ('+) $#%)$'( ('&* ')$%'$*#. ('# ! ! #)8 !'0($ ) ' (- () # $' %'$%$(+ )) $#),#) '%)$'#) %'$ )0#. ! #)8 !',$*!! " #)3 $!'%#!(, !!"$*#)$#( # !- ()' '(, ) ($*) '#/ "*) #) %#!(, !!)' ) (*#)$%)*'("* (*#! )(%$(( !3 '$'0 !' ().% !!.#$)-%' #*' # #$'"!$%') $#! $*'(( ##.'!) $#,$*! )$,') !$) $#$) (*#3$)#) ! !' ("$()#$) !, #) (*# (!$,$#) $' /$#0'!. #) "$'# # $'!) #) )'#$$#0, #(*#! )'!)($) %#!( # $' /$#)!%$( ) $#:()$,"$;)) $%%$( ) !$,# !!$# ) $' /$#)$) ()$') ,()3$'* !' #) ()#,() ') $#( *' # ) (!$,(*#%' $(0@9 ')' ''() # # !,( "%!"#)*' # ) () "( , +$ () " #($*'$ !'$'($!'%'$ )(3 ($#) %'$ )(% !$) $#0(*#%$( ) $#) '$* $*)) .'0#) $+ #%*)(8((*"%) $#(0#$%$)#) !$' ! #)$' !',( #) #) #!.( ()#.$) $*) %)$'($'# $' # ('+) $#%)$'(3 !-!*'$") #!.( (0- () # # %!##+ )) $#, !!*') '( !) + ,$) %'$ )'$"#'.%'$%') (#'$,.(3 $ ) $#!" ) ) $#"(*'(''$""#( ##$ ! #)$' !' (#) %)($#) $' $!'!'* '(*!)(3 ) $#! #$'") $# (#0$#)) * (# /0+!$%"#)0 )!(# /<)%$ #)9 3$"3 FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Summary of Results No glare predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Total annual glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 Project: ILKE105 Site configuration: 5DEG RESTING 15FT OP Created 19 Jul, 2022 Updated 23 Nov, 2022 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-6 Site ID 72718.12803 Category 1 MW to 5 MW DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad Methodology V2 Page 1 of 12 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 2 of 12 Component Data PV Arrays Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade-slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 5.0° Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.35 Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.690869 -88.425208 651.93 5.00 656.93 2 41.689363 -88.425487 651.19 5.00 656.19 3 41.689251 -88.424050 648.16 5.00 653.16 4 41.689779 -88.423063 646.02 5.00 651.02 5 41.689811 -88.422333 643.48 5.00 648.48 6 41.689555 -88.422011 645.99 5.00 650.99 7 41.689219 -88.422011 646.28 5.00 651.28 8 41.689347 -88.420337 644.39 5.00 649.39 9 41.689859 -88.417999 647.33 5.00 652.33 10 41.689924 -88.417773 647.06 5.00 652.06 11 41.691310 -88.417966 651.67 5.00 656.67 12 41.690861 -88.423129 651.16 5.00 656.16 Page 3 of 12 Route Receptors Name: Route 1 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.682920 -88.446207 642.93 15.00 657.93 2 41.691893 -88.406124 654.01 15.00 669.01 3 41.693480 -88.398979 654.38 15.00 669.38 4 41.693480 -88.398979 654.38 15.00 669.38 5 41.695066 -88.391833 656.91 15.00 671.91 Name: Route 2 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.682428 -88.431942 636.65 5.00 641.65 2 41.683422 -88.430912 637.98 5.00 642.98 3 41.685730 -88.428080 641.29 5.00 646.29 4 41.687495 -88.427751 647.46 5.00 652.46 5 41.689057 -88.427386 650.92 5.00 655.92 6 41.689842 -88.427011 651.41 5.00 656.41 7 41.690587 -88.426270 652.62 5.00 657.62 8 41.691797 -88.424876 652.53 5.00 657.53 9 41.692758 -88.423824 652.67 5.00 657.67 10 41.693200 -88.423498 652.98 5.00 657.98 11 41.693897 -88.423240 653.59 5.00 658.59 12 41.694502 -88.423069 653.23 5.00 658.23 13 41.695865 -88.422708 652.95 5.00 657.95 14 41.698173 -88.422096 650.46 5.00 655.46 15 41.698790 -88.421882 652.14 5.00 657.14 16 41.699799 -88.421442 655.28 5.00 660.28 Page 4 of 12 Name: Route 3 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.705435 -88.446435 648.95 5.00 653.95 2 41.703641 -88.437552 661.72 5.00 666.72 3 41.703417 -88.435921 661.97 5.00 666.97 4 41.702744 -88.432488 655.99 5.00 660.99 5 41.702455 -88.431072 653.47 5.00 658.47 6 41.701783 -88.428454 653.08 5.00 658.08 7 41.700725 -88.424463 656.28 5.00 661.28 8 41.698098 -88.415751 654.62 5.00 659.62 9 41.697495 -88.413582 650.60 5.00 655.60 10 41.697335 -88.412895 650.60 5.00 655.60 11 41.697271 -88.412208 650.64 5.00 655.64 12 41.697399 -88.411307 649.92 5.00 654.92 13 41.697816 -88.409612 650.78 5.00 655.78 14 41.698284 -88.407812 651.75 5.00 656.75 15 41.698621 -88.407169 652.08 5.00 657.08 16 41.699486 -88.406053 652.95 5.00 657.95 Page 5 of 12 Name: Route 4 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.698235 -88.408026 650.75 5.00 655.75 2 41.695775 -88.407457 650.50 5.00 655.50 3 41.691934 -88.406189 654.70 5.00 659.70 4 41.684900 -88.405409 652.70 5.00 657.70 5 41.684504 -88.405483 650.45 5.00 655.45 6 41.681810 -88.407172 643.12 5.00 648.12 7 41.681105 -88.407880 646.99 5.00 651.99 8 41.679661 -88.410931 643.21 5.00 648.21 9 41.679948 -88.411044 641.54 5.00 646.54 10 41.681506 -88.412726 638.87 5.00 643.87 11 41.681929 -88.413267 640.35 5.00 645.35 12 41.682906 -88.414828 643.37 5.00 648.37 13 41.683499 -88.415783 645.27 5.00 650.27 14 41.683924 -88.416512 645.42 5.00 650.42 15 41.684308 -88.417371 646.46 5.00 651.46 16 41.684726 -88.418939 647.33 5.00 652.33 17 41.685191 -88.423069 648.11 5.00 653.11 18 41.685511 -88.425505 645.00 5.00 650.00 19 41.685744 -88.428091 641.14 5.00 646.14 Page 6 of 12 Discrete Observation Point Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 41.689593 -88.426598 653.83 15.00 OP 2 2 41.690274 -88.427124 650.39 15.00 OP 3 3 41.690683 -88.426749 652.83 15.00 OP 4 4 41.689585 -88.427607 651.02 15.00 OP 5 5 41.691838 -88.424200 653.71 15.00 OP 6 6 41.692535 -88.412605 648.98 15.00 OP 7 7 41.693112 -88.413367 651.61 15.00 OP 8 8 41.691334 -88.406589 649.44 15.00 OP 9 9 41.689003 -88.406571 644.33 15.00 OP 10 10 41.688319 -88.410659 650.43 15.00 OP 11 11 41.688202 -88.411983 649.36 15.00 OP 12 12 41.687765 -88.413770 647.19 15.00 OP 13 13 41.686425 -88.415082 647.15 15.00 OP 14 14 41.685614 -88.416637 647.73 15.00 OP 15 15 41.684815 -88.417612 647.73 15.00 OP 16 16 41.685316 -88.421203 641.64 15.00 OP 17 17 41.685801 -88.421879 638.44 15.00 OP 18 18 41.687796 -88.423005 648.44 15.00 OP 19 19 41.688266 -88.423772 645.47 15.00 OP 20 20 41.687513 -88.424180 648.47 15.00 OP 21 21 41.687144 -88.425875 645.25 15.00 OP 22 22 41.686865 -88.427138 645.21 15.00 OP 23 23 41.688757 -88.426838 650.72 15.00 OP 24 24 41.688340 -88.427299 650.47 15.00 Page 7 of 12 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results No glare predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Total annual glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 8 of 12 PV: PV array 1 no glare found Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Route 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 PV array 1 and Route 1 Receptor type: Route No glare found PV array 1 and Route 2 Receptor type: Route No glare found Page 9 of 12 PV array 1 and Route 3 Receptor type: Route No glare found PV array 1 and Route 4 Receptor type: Route No glare found PV array 1 and OP 1 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 2 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 3 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 4 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 5 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 6 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 7 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 8 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 9 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 10 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 11 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 12 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 13 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 14 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 15 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 16 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 17 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 18 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found Page 10 of 12 PV array 1 and OP 19 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 20 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 21 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 22 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 23 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 24 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found Page 11 of 12 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians 2016 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. Page 12 of 12 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-AGL-16501-OE Page 1 of 3 Issued Date: 08/22/2022 Scott Osborn TPE IL KE105, LLC 3720 S. Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Solar Panel KE105 Location: Bristol, IL Latitude: 41-41-24.93N NAD 83 Longitude: 88-25-16.77W Heights: 650 feet site elevation (SE) 15 feet above ground level (AGL) 665 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M. This determination expires on 02/22/2024 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO Page 2 of 3 SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (816) 329-2525, or natalie.schmalbeck@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- AGL-16501-OE. Signature Control No: 543264302-550719194 ( DNE ) Natalie Schmalbeck Technician Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 3 of 3 Verified Map for ASN 2022-AGL-16501-OE WHITE PAPER Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics By Tommy Cleveland May 2017 Contents 1.1 • Project Installation / Construction...................................................................4 1.2 • System Components | 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability........5 1.2.2 • Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies...................................................................7 1.2.3. • Panel End-of-Life Management...............................................................10 1.2.4 • Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer)..12 1.4 • Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control....13 2 • Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)........................................................................14 3 • Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards ...........................................................16 4 • Fire Safety.......................................................................................................16 Summary..............................................................................................................17 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics May 2017 | Version 1 3 The increasing presence of utility-scale solar pho- tovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina’s landscape. Due to the new and un- known nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be con- cerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortu- nately, the quick emergence of utility-scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half- truths about the health impacts of this technology, ZKLFKFDQOHDGWRXQQHFHVVDU\IHDUDQGFRQÀLFW Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters DUHQRWNQRZQWRSRVHDQ\VLJQL¿FDQWKHDOWKGDQ- gers to their neighbors. The most important dan- JHUVSRVHGDUHLQFUHDVHGKLJKZD\WUDI¿FGXULQJ the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil-fu- HO¿UHGHOHFWULFJHQHUDWRUVWKHRYHUDOOLPSDFWRI solar development on human health is overwhelm- ingly positive. This pollution reduction results from DSDUWLDOUHSODFHPHQWRIIRVVLOIXHO¿UHGJHQHUDWLRQ by emission-free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen ox- LGHV 12[ DQG¿QHSDUWLFXODWHPDWWHU 30 Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National /DERUDWRU\ERWKDI¿OLDWHVRIWKH86'HSDUWPHQW of Energy, estimates the health-related air quali- W\EHQH¿WVWRWKHVRXWKHDVWUHJLRQIURPVRODU39 generators to be worth 8.0 ¢ per kilowatt-hour of solar generation.1 This is in addition to the value of the electricity and VXJJHVWVWKDWWKHDLUTXDOLW\EHQH¿WVRIVRODUDUH worth more than the electricity itself. Even though we have only recently seen large- scale installation of PV technologies, the technol- ogy and its potential impacts have been studied since the 1950s. A combination of this solar-spe- FL¿FUHVHDUFKDQGJHQHUDOVFLHQWL¿FUHVHDUFKKDV OHGWRWKHVFLHQWL¿FFRPPXQLW\KDYLQJDJRRGXQ- derstanding of the science behind potential health and safety impacts of solar energy. This paper uti- OL]HVWKHODWHVWVFLHQWL¿FOLWHUDWXUHDQGNQRZOHGJH of solar practices in N.C. to address the health and safety risks associated with solar PV technol- ogy. These risks are extremely small, far less than those associated with common activities such as driving a car, and vastly outweighed by health ben- H¿WVRIWKHJHQHUDWLRQRIFOHDQHOHFWULFLW\ This paper addresses the potential health and safety impacts of solar PV development in North Carolina, organized into the following four catego- ries: (1) Hazardous Materials (2) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash (4) Fire Safety 1 • Hazardous Materials One of the more common concerns towards solar is that the panels (referred to as “modules” in the solar industry) consist of toxic materials that en- danger public health. However, as shown in this section, solar energy systems may contain small amounts of toxic materials, but these materials do not endanger public health. To understand poten- tial toxic hazards coming from a solar project, one must understand system installation, materials used, the panel end-of-life protocols, and system operation. This section will examine these aspects of a solar farm and the potential for toxicity im- pacts in the following subsections: (1.2) Project Installation/Construction (1.2) System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability 1.2.2 Photovoltaic technologies (a) Crystalline Silicon (b) Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) (c) CIS/CIGS 1.2.3 Panel End of Life Management 1.2.4 Non-panel System Components (1.3) Operations and Maintenance 1.1 Project Installation/ Construction The system installation, or construction, process does not require toxic chemicals or processes. The site is mechanically cleared of large vegetation, fences are constructed, and the land is surveyed to layout exact installation locations. Trenches for underground wiring are dug and support posts are driven into the ground. The solar panels are bolt- ed to steel and aluminum support structures and wired together. Inverter pads are installed, and an inverter and transformer are installed on each pad. Once everything is connected, the system is tested, and only then turned on. May 2017 | Version 1 4 Figure 1: Utility-scale solar facility (5 MWAC) located in Catawba County. Source: Strata Solar Solar PV panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life.2 Today there are two PV technol- ogies used in PV panels at utility-scale solar facil- LWLHVVLOLFRQDQGWKLQ¿OP$VRIDOOWKLQ¿OP used in North Carolina solar facilities are cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels from the US manufacturer )LUVW6RODUEXWWKHUHDUHRWKHUWKLQ¿OP39SDQHOV available on the market, such as Solar Frontier’s CIGS panels. Crystalline silicon technology con- sists of silicon wafers which are made into cells DQGDVVHPEOHGLQWRSDQHOVWKLQ¿OPWHFKQRORJLHV consist of thin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass, polymer or metal substrates. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of so- lar technologies, many aspects of their PV panel FRQVWUXFWLRQDUHYHU\VLPLODU6SHFL¿FVDERXWHDFK type of PV chemistry as it relates to toxicity are covered in subsections a, b, and c in section 1.2.2; on crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, and CIS/ CIGS respectively. The rest of this section applies HTXDOO\WRERWKVLOLFRQDQGWKLQ¿OPSDQHOV 1.2 • System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability May 2017 | Version 1 5 To provide decades of corrosion-free operation, PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Frameless modules include a protective layer of glass on the rear of the pan- el, which may also be tempered. The plastic eth- ylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) commonly provides the cell encapsulation. For decades, this same mate- rial has been used between layers of tempered glass to give car windshields and hurricane win- dows their great strength. In the same way that a car windshield cracks but stays intact, the EVA layers in PV panels keep broken panels intact (see Figure 4). Thus, a damaged module does not generally create small pieces of debris; instead, it largely remains together as one piece. May 2017 | Version 1 6 Figure 4: The mangled PV panels in this picture illustrate the nature of broken solar panels; the glass cracks but the panel is still in one piece. Image Source: http://img.alibaba.com/pho- to/115259576/broken_solar_panel.jpg PV panels constructed with the same basic com- ponents as modern panels have been installed across the globe for well over thirty years.3 The long-term durability and performance demonstrat- ed over these decades, as well as the results of accelerated lifetime testing, helped lead to an in- dustrystandard 25-year power production warran- ty for PV panels. These power warranties warrant a PV panel to produce at least 80% of their origi- nal nameplate production after 25 years of use. A recent SolarCity and DNV GL study reported that today’s quality PV panels should be expected to UHOLDEO\DQGHI¿FLHQWO\SURGXFHSRZHUIRUWKLUW\¿YH years.4 Local building codes require all structures, includ- ing ground mounted solar arrays, to be engineered WRZLWKVWDQGDQWLFLSDWHGZLQGVSHHGVDVGH¿QHG by the local wind speed requirements. Many rack- ing products are available in versions engineered for wind speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, which LVVLJQL¿FDQWO\KLJKHUWKDQWKHZLQGVSHHGUHTXLUH- ment anywhere in North Carolina. The strength of PV mounting structures were demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again during Hurri- cane Matthew in 2016. During Hurricane Sandy, the many large-scale solar facilities in New Jer- sey and New York at that time suffered only minor damage.5 In the fall of 2016, the US and Carib- bean experienced destructive winds and torrential rains from Hurricane Matthew, yet one leading so- lar tracker manufacturer reported that their numer- ous systems in the impacted area received zero GDPDJHIURPZLQGRUÀRRGLQJ6 In the event of a catastrophic event capable of dam- aging solar equipment, such as a tornado, the sys- tem will almost certainly have property insurance May 2017 | Version 1 7 that will cover the cost to cleanup and repair the project. It is in the best interest of the system own- er to protect their investment against such risks. It is also in their interest to get the project repaired and producing full power as soon as possible. Therefore, the investment in adequate insurance is a wise business practice for the system owner. For the same reasons, adequate insurance cover- age is also generally a requirement of the bank or ¿UPSURYLGLQJ¿QDQFLQJIRUWKHSURMHFW 1.2.2 Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies a. Crystalline Silicon This subsection explores the toxicity of sili- con-based PV panels and concludes that they do not pose a material risk of toxicity to public health and safety. Modern crystalline silicon PV panels, which account for over 90% of solar PV panels installed today, are, more or less, a commodity product. The overwhelming majority of panels installed in North Carolina are crystalline silicon SDQHOVWKDWDUHLQIRUPDOO\FODVVL¿HGDV7LHU,SDQ- els. Tier I panels are from well-respected manu- facturers that have a good chance of being able to honor warranty claims. Tier I panels are under- stood to be of high quality, with predictable perfor- mance, durability, and content. Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tem- pered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them togeth- er, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth’s crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen PROHFXOHV7KHUH¿QHGVLOLFRQLVFRQYHUWHGWRD PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of bo- ron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. The other minor components of the PV cell are also generally benign; however, some contain lead, which is a human toxicant that is particularly harmful to young children. The minor components LQFOXGH DQ H[WUHPHO\ WKLQ DQWLUHÀHFWLYH FRDWLQJ (silicon nitride or titanium dioxide), a thin layer of aluminum on the rear, and thin strips of silver alloy that are screen-printed on the front and rear of cell.7 In order for the front and rear electrodes to make effective electrical contact with the proper layer of the PV cell, other materials (called glass frit) are mixed with the silver alloy and then heated to etch the metals into the cell. This glass frit historically contains a small amount of lead (Pb) in the form of lead oxide. The 60 or 72 PV cells in a PV panel are connected by soldering thin solder-covered cop- per tabs from the back of one cell to the front of the next cell. Traditionally a tin-based solder contain- ing some lead (Pb) is used, but some manufactur- ers have switched to lead-free solder. The glass frit and/or the solder may contain trace amounts of other metals, potentially including some with hu- man toxicity such as cadmium. However, testing to simulate the potential for leaching from broken panels, which is discussed in more detail below, GLGQRW¿QGDSRWHQWLDOWR[LFLW\WKUHDWIURPWKHVH trace elements. Therefore, the tiny amount of lead in the grass frit and the solder is the only part of silicon PV panels with a potential to create a neg- ative health impact. However, as described below, the very limited amount of lead involved and its strong physical and chemical attachment to other components of the PV panel means that even in worst-case scenarios the health hazard it poses is LQVLJQL¿FDQW May 2017 | Version 1 8 As with many electronic industries, the solder in sil- icon PV panels has historically been a leadbased solder, often 36% lead, due to the superior prop- erties of such solder. However, recent advances in lead-free solders have spurred a trend among PV panel manufacturers to reduce or remove the lead in their panels. According to the 2015 Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a group that tracks environmental responsibili- ty of photovoltaic panel manufacturers, fourteen companies (increased from twelve companies in PDQXIDFWXUH39SDQHOVFHUWL¿HGWRPHHWWKH European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard. This means that the amount of cadmium and lead in the panels they manufacture fall below the RoHS thresholds, which are set by the European Union and serve as the world’s de facto standard for hazardous substances in man- ufactured goods.8 The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard requires that the maximum concentration found in any homog- enous material in a produce is less than 0.01% cadmium and less than 0.10% lead, therefore, any solder can be no more than 0.10% lead.9 While some manufacturers are producing PV panels that meet the RoHS standard, there is no requirement that they do so because the RoHS Directive explicitly states that the directive does not apply to photovoltaic panels.107KHMXVWL¿FDWLRQ for this is provided in item 17 of the current RoHS Directive: “The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (4) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union envi- ronmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sus- tainable and economically viable.” The use of lead is common in our modern econo- my. However, only about 0.5% of the annual lead consumption in the U.S. is for electronic solder for all uses; PV solder makes up only a tiny portion of this 0.5%. Close to 90% of lead consumption in the US is in batteries, which do not encapsu- late the pounds of lead contained in each typical automotive battery. This puts the lead in batteries at great risk of leaching into the environment. Es- timates for the lead in a single PV panel with lead- based solder range from 1.6 to 24 grams of lead, with 13g (less than half of an ounce) per panel seen most often in the literature.11 At 13 g/panel12, each panel contains one-half of the lead in a typi- cal 12-gauge shotgun shell. This amount equates to roughly 1/750th of the lead in a single car bat- tery. In a panel, it is all durably encapsulated from air or water for the full life of the panel.14 As indicated by their 20 to 30-year power warran- ty, PV modules are designed for a long service life, generally over 25 years. For a panel to comply with its 25-year power warranty, its internal components, including lead, must be sealed from any moisture. Otherwise, they would corrode and the panel’s out- put would fall below power warranty levels. Thus, the lead in operating PV modules is not at risk of release to the environment during their service life- time. In extreme experiments, researchers have shown that lead can leach from crushed or pulver- ized panels.15, 16 However, more real-world tests designed to represent typical trash compaction that are used to classify waste as hazardous or non- hazardous show no danger from leaching.17,18 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. As illustrated throughout this section, silicon-based PV panels do not pose a material threat to public health and safety. The only aspect of the panels with potential toxicity concerns is the very small amount of lead in some panels. However, any lead in a panel is well sealed from environmental expo- sure for the operating lifetime of the solar panel and thus not at risk of release into the environment. May 2017 | Version 1 9 b. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) PV Panels This subsection examines the components of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV panel. Research demonstrates that they pose negligible toxicity ULVNWRSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\ZKLOHVLJQL¿FDQW- ly reducing the public’s exposure to cadmium by reducing coal emissions. As of mid-2016, a few hundred MWs of cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, all manufactured by the U.S. company First Solar, have been installed in North Carolina. Questions about the potential health and environ- mental impacts from the use of this PV technology are related to the concern that these panels con- tain cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. However, sci- HQWL¿FVWXGLHVKDYHVKRZQWKDWFDGPLXPWHOOXULGH differs from cadmium due to its high chemical and thermal stability.19 Research has shown that the tiny amount of cadmium in these panels does not pose a health or safety risk.20 Further, there are very compelling reasons to welcome its adoption due to reductions in unhealthy pollution associat- ed with burning coal. Every GWh of electricity gen- erated by burning coal produces about 4 grams of cadmium air emissions.21 Even though North Car- ROLQDSURGXFHVDVLJQL¿FDQWIUDFWLRQRIRXUHOHF- tricity from coal, electricity from solar offsets much more natural gas than coal due to natural gas plants being able to adjust their rate of production more easily and quickly. If solar electricity offsets 90% natural gas and 10% coal, each 5-megawatt (5 MWAC, which is generally 7 MWDC) CdTe solar facility in North Carolina keeps about 157 grams, or about a third of a pound, of cadmium out of our environment.22, 23 Cadmium is toxic, but all the approximately 7 grams of cadmium in one CdTe panel is in the form of a chemical compound cadmium telluride,24 which has 1/100th the toxicity of free cadmium.25 Cadmium telluride is a very stable compound that is non-volatile and non-soluble in water. Even in WKHFDVHRID¿UHUHVHDUFKVKRZVWKDWOHVVWKDQ 0.1% of the cadmium is released when a CdTe SDQHOLVH[SRVHGWR¿UH7KH¿UHPHOWVWKHJODVV and encapsulates over 99.9% of the cadmium in the molten glass.27 It is important to understand the source of the cad- mium used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. The FDGPLXPLVDE\SURGXFWRI]LQFDQGOHDGUH¿QLQJ The element is collected from emissions and waste streams during the production of these metals and combined with tellurium to create the CdTe used in PV panels. If the cadmium were not collected for use in the PV panels or other products, it would otherwise either be stockpiled for future use, ce- mented and buried, or disposed of.28 Nearly all the cadmium in old or broken panels can be recycled which can eventually serve as the primary source of cadmium for new PV panels.29 Similar to silicon-based PV panels, CdTe panels are constructed of a tempered glass front, one instead of two clear plastic encapsulation layers, and a rear heat strengthened glass backing (to- JHWKHU! E\ZHLJKW 7KH¿QDOSURGXFWLVEXLOW to withstand exposure to the elements without VLJQL¿FDQWGDPDJHIRURYHU\HDUV:KLOHQRW representative of damage that may occur in the ¿HOGRUHYHQDWDODQG¿OOODERUDWRU\HYLGHQFHKDV LOOXVWUDWHGWKDWZKHQSDQHOVDUHJURXQGLQWRD¿QH powder, very acidic water is able to leach portions of the cadmium and tellurium,30 similar to the pro- cess used to recycle CdTe panels. Like many sil- icon-based panels, CdTe panels are reported (as far back ask 199831 to pass the EPA’s Toxic Char- acteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, which WHVWVWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUFUXVKHGSDQHOVLQDODQG¿OOWR leach hazardous substances into groundwater.32 3DVVLQJWKLVWHVWPHDQVWKDWWKH\DUHFODVVL¿HG as non-hazardous waste and can be deposited in ODQG¿OOV33,34 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. There is also concern of environmental impact re- sulting from potential catastrophic events involv- ing CdTe PV panels. An analysis of worst-case scenarios for environmental impact from CdTe PV May 2017 | Version 1 10 SDQHOVLQFOXGLQJHDUWKTXDNHV¿UHVDQGÀRRGV was conducted by the University of Tokyo in 2013. After reviewing the extensive international body of research on CdTe PV technology, their report concluded, “Even in the worst-case scenarios, it is unlikely that the Cd concentrations in air and sea water will exceed the environmental regulation values.”35 In a worst-case scenario of damaged SDQHOV DEDQGRQHG RQ WKH JURXQG LQVLJQL¿FDQW amounts of cadmium will leach from the panels. This is because this scenario is much less condu- cive (larger module pieces, less acidity) to leach- ing than the conditions of the EPA’s TCLP test XVHGWRVLPXODWHODQG¿OOFRQGLWLRQVZKLFK&G7H panels pass.36 )LUVW6RODUD86FRPSDQ\DQGWKHRQO\VLJQL¿- cant supplier of CdTe panels, has a robust panel take-back and recycling program that has been operating commercially since 2005.37 The compa- ny states that it is “committed to providing a com- mercially attractive recycling solution for photovol- taic (PV) power plant and module owners to help them meet their module (end of life) EOL obliga- tion simply, costeffectively and responsibly.” First Solar global recycling services to their custom- ers to collect and recycle panels once they reach the end of productive life whether due to age or damage. These recycling service agreements are VWUXFWXUHGWREH¿QDQFLDOO\DWWUDFWLYHWRERWK)LUVW Solar and the solar panel owner. For First Solar, the contract provides the company with an afford- able source of raw materials needed for new pan- els and presumably a diminished risk of undesired UHOHDVHRI&G7KHFRQWUDFWDOVREHQH¿WVWKHVRODU panel owner by allowing them to avoid tipping fees at a waste disposal site. The legal contract helps provide peace of mind by ensuring compliance by both parties when considering the continuing trend of rising disposal costs and increasing regulatory requirements. c. CIS/CIGS and other PV technologies Copper indium gallium selenide PV technology, of- ten referred to as CIGS, is the second most com- PRQW\SHRIWKLQ¿OP39SDQHOEXWDGLVWDQWVHFRQG behind CdTe. CIGS cells are composed of a thin layer of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium on a glass or plastic backing. None of these elements are very toxic, although selenium is a regulated metal under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).38 The cells often also KDYHDQH[WUHPHO\WKLQOD\HURIFDGPLXPVXO¿GH that contains a tiny amount of cadmium, which is WR[LF7KHSURPLVHRIKLJKHI¿FLHQF\&,*6SDQ- els drove heavy investment in this technology in the past. However, researchers have struggled WRWUDQVIHUKLJKHI¿FLHQF\VXFFHVVLQWKHODEWR ORZFRVWIXOOVFDOHSDQHOVLQWKH¿HOG39 Recently, a CIGS manufacturer based in Japan, Solar Fron- tier, has achieved some market success with a rig- id, glass-faced CIGS module that competes with silicon panels. Solar Frontier produces the major- ity of CIS panels on the market today.40 Notably, these panels are RoHS compliant,41 thus meeting the rigorous toxicity standard adopted by the Eu- ropean Union even thought this directive exempts PV panels. The authors are unaware of any com- pleted or proposed utility-scale system in North Carolina using CIS/CIGS panels. 1.2.3 Panel End-of-Life Management Concerns about the volume, disposal, toxicity, and recycling of PV panels are addressed in this sub- section. To put the volume of PV waste into per- spective, consider that by 2050, when PV systems installed in 2020 will reach the end of their lives, it is estimated that the global annual PV panel waste tonnage will be 10% of the 2014 global e-waste tonnage.42 In the U.S., end-of-life disposal of so- lar products is governed by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state policies in some situations. RCRA sepa- rates waste into hazardous (not accepted at ordi- QDU\ODQG¿OO DQGVROLGZDVWH JHQHUDOO\DFFHSWHG May 2017 | Version 1 11 DWRUGLQDU\ODQG¿OO EDVHGRQDVHULHVRIUXOHV$F- cording to RCRA, the way to determine if a PV SDQHOLVFODVVL¿HGDVKD]DUGRXVZDVWHLVWKH7R[LF Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. 7KLV(3$WHVWLVGHVLJQHGWRVLPXODWHODQG¿OOGLV- posal and determine the risk of hazardous sub- VWDQFHVOHDFKLQJRXWRIWKHODQG¿OO43,44,45 Multiple sources report that most modern PV panels (both crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride) pass the TCLP test.46,47 Some studies found that some older (1990s) crystalline silicon panels, and perhaps some newer crystalline silicon panels VSHFL¿FVDUHQRWJLYHQDERXWYLQWDJHRISDQHOV tested), do not pass the lead (Pb) leachate limits in the TCLP test.48,49 The test begins with the crushing of a panel into centimeter-sized pieces. The pieces are then mixed in an acid bath. After tumbling for eighteen KRXUVWKHÀXLGLVWHVWHGIRUIRUW\KD]DUGRXVVXE- VWDQFHVWKDWDOOPXVWEHEHORZVSHFL¿FWKUHVKROG levels to pass the test. Research comparing TCLP conditions to conditions of damaged panels in the ¿HOGIRXQGWKDWVLPXODWHGODQG¿OOFRQGLWLRQVSUR- vide overly conservative estimates of leaching for ¿HOGGDPDJHGSDQHOV50 Additionally, research in Japan has found no detectable Cd leaching from cracked CdTe panels when exposed to simulated acid rain.51 Although modern panels can generally be land- ¿OOHGWKH\FDQDOVREHUHF\FOHG(YHQWKRXJK recent waste volume has not been adequate WR VXSSRUW VLJQL¿FDQW 39VSHFL¿F UHF\FOLQJ LQ- frastructure, the existing recycling industry in North Carolina reports that it recycles much of the current small volume of broken PV panels. In an informal survey conducted by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center survey in early 2016, seven of the eight large active North Carolina utility-scale solar developers surveyed report- ed that they send damaged panels back to the manufacturer and/or to a local recycler. Only one developer reported sending damaged panels to WKHODQG¿OO The developers reported at that time that they are usually paid a small amount per panel by local re- F\FOLQJ¿UPV,QHDUO\D39GHYHORSHUUH- ported that a local recycler was charging a small fee per panel to recycle damaged PV panels. The ORFDOUHF\FOLQJ¿UPNQRZQWRDXWKRUVWRDFFHSW39 panels described their current PV panel recycling practice as of early 2016 as removing the alumi- num frame for local recycling and removing the wire leads for local copper recycling. The remain- der of the panel is sent to a facility for processing the non-metallic portions of crushed vehicles, re- IHUUHGWRDV³ÀXII´LQWKHUHF\FOLQJLQGXVWU\52 This processing within existing general recycling plants DOORZV IRU VLJQL¿FDQW PDWHULDO UHFRYHU\ RI PDMRU components, including glass which is 80% of the module weight, but at lower yields than PV-spe- FL¿FUHF\FOLQJSODQWV1RWDEO\DOPRVWKDOIRIWKH material value in a PV panel is in the few grams of silver contained in almost every PV panel pro- duced today. In the long-term, dedicated PV panel recycling plants can increase treatment capacities and maximize revenues resulting in better output quality and the ability to recover a greater fraction of the useful materials.5339VSHFL¿FSDQHOUHF\- cling technologies have been researched and im- plemented to some extent for the past decade, and have been shown to be able to recover over 95% of PV material (semiconductor) and over 90% of the glass in a PV panel.54 A look at global PV recycling trends hints at the future possibilities of the practice in our country. Europe installed MW-scale volumes of PV years before the U.S. In 2007, a public-private partner- ship between the European Union and the solar industry set up a voluntary collection and recycling system called PV CYCLE. This arrangement was later made mandatory under the EU’s WEEE di- rective, a program for waste electrical and elec- tronic equipment.55 Its member companies (PV SDQHO SURGXFHUV IXOO\ ¿QDQFH WKH DVVRFLDWLRQ This makes it possible for end-users to return the member companies’ defective panels for recycling at any of the over 300 collection points around May 2017 | Version 1 12 Europe without added costs. Additionally, PV CYCLE will pick up batches of 40 or more used panels at no cost to the user. This arrangement has been very successful, collecting and recycling over 13,000 tons by the end of 2015.56 In 2012, the WEEE Directive added the end-of-life collection and recycling of PV panels to its scope.57 This directive is based on the principle of extend- ed-producer-responsibility. It has a global impact be- cause producers that want to sell into the EU market are legally responsible for end-of-life management. Starting in 2018, this directive targets that 85% of PV products “put in the market” in Europe are recovered and 80% is prepared for reuse and recycling. The success of the PV panel collection and recycling practices in Europe provides promise for the future of recycling in the U.S. In mid-2016, the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) announced that they are starting a national solar panel recycling pro- gram with the guidance and support of many leading PV panel producers.58 The program will aggregate the services offered by recycling vendors and PV manufacturers, which will make it easier for consum- ers to select a cost-effective and environmentally re- sponsible end-of-life management solution for their PV products. According to SEIA, they are planning the program in an effort to make the entire industry ODQG¿OOIUHH,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHQDWLRQDOUHF\FOLQJQHW- work program, the program will provide a portal for system owners and consumers with information on how to responsibly recycle their PV systems. While a cautious approach toward the potential for negative environmental and/or health impacts from retired PV panels is fully warranted, this sec- tion has shown that the positive health impacts of reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion from PV systems more than outweighs any poten- tial risk. Testing shows that silicon and CdTe pan- HOVDUHERWKVDIHWRGLVSRVHRILQODQG¿OOVDQGDUH also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster. Additionally, analysis by local engineers has found that the current salvage value of the equipment in a utility scale PV facili- ty generally exceeds general contractor estimates for the cost to remove the entire PV system.59,60,61 1.2.4 Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer) While previous toxicity subsections discussed PV panels, this subsection describes the non-panel components of utility-scale PV systems and inves- tigates any potential public health and safety con- FHUQV7KHPRVWVLJQL¿FDQWQRQSDQHOFRPSRQHQW of a ground-mounted PV system is the mounting structure of the rows of panels, commonly referred to as “racking”. The vertical post portion of the rack- ing is galvanized steel and the remaining above- ground racking components are either galvanized steel or aluminum, which are both extremely com- mon and benign building materials. The inverters that make the solar generated electricity ready to send to the grid have weather-proof steel enclo- sures that protect the working components from WKHHOHPHQWV7KHRQO\ÀXLGVWKDWWKH\PLJKWFRQ- tain are associated with their cooling systems, which are not unlike the cooling system in a com- puter. Many inverters today are RoHS compliant. The electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connec- tion point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, WKHÀXLGXVHGIRUWKDWIXQFWLRQLVHLWKHUDQRQWR[LF mineral oil or a biodegradable non-toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of EHLQJPXFKOHVVÀDPPDEOHWKDQWUDGLWLRQDOPLQ- HUDO RLOV 6LJQL¿FDQW KHDOWK KD]DUGV DUH DVVRFL- ated with old transformers containing cooling oil with toxic PCBs. Transfers with PCB-containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979. PCBs still exist in older transformers LQWKH¿HOGDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\ May 2017 | Version 1 13 Other than a few utility research sites, there are no batteries on- or off-site associated with utility-scale solar energy facilities in North Carolina, avoiding any potential health or safety concerns related to battery technologies. However, as battery technol- ogies continue to improve and prices continue to decline we are likely to start seeing some batter- ies at solar facilities. Lithium ion batteries current- ly dominate the world utility-scale battery market, which are not very toxic. No non-panel system components were found to pose any health or en- vironmental dangers. 1.4 Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control Throughout the eastern U.S., the climate provides frequent and heavy enough rain to keep panels adequately clean. This dependable weather pat- tern eliminates the need to wash the panels on a regular basis. Some system owners may choose to wash panels as often as once a year to increase production, but most in N.C. do not regularly wash any PV panels. Dirt build up over time may justify panel washing a few times over the panels’ life- time; however, nothing more than soap and water are required for this activity. The maintenance of ground-mounted PV facili- ties requires that vegetation be kept low, both for aesthetics and to avoid shading of the PV panels. Several approaches are used to maintain vegeta- tion at NC solar facilities, including planting of lim- ited-height species, mowing, weed-eating, herbi- cides, and grazing livestock (sheep). The following descriptions of vegetation maintenance practices are based on interviews with several solar devel- RSHUVDVZHOODVZLWKWKUHHPDLQWHQDQFH¿UPVWKDW together are contracted to maintain well over 100 of the solar facilities in N.C. The majority of solar facilities in North Carolina maintain vegetation pri- marily by mowing. Each row of panels has a single row of supports, allowing sickle mowers to mow under the panels. The sites usually require mow- ing about once a month during the growing sea- son. Some sites employ sheep to graze the site, which greatly reduces the human effort required to maintain the vegetation and produces high quality lamb meat.62 In addition to mowing and weed eating, solar fa- cilities often use some herbicides. Solar facilities generally do not spray herbicides over the entire acreage; rather they apply them only in strategic locations such as at the base of the perimeter fence, around exterior vegetative buffer, on interior dirt roads, and near the panel support posts. Also unlike many row crop operations, solar facilities generally use only general use herbicides, which are available over the counter, as opposed to re- stricted use herbicides commonly used in com- mercial agriculture that require a special restricted use license. The herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-D and glyphosate (Round-up®), which are two of the most common herbicides used in lawns, parks, and agriculture across the FRXQWU\ 2QH PDLQWHQDQFH ¿UP WKDW ZDV LQWHU- viewed sprays the grass with a class of herbicide known as a growth regulator in order to slow the growth of grass so that mowing is only required twice a year. Growth regulators are commonly used on highway roadsides and golf courses for the same purpose. A commercial pesticide appli- cator license is required for anyone other than the landowner to apply herbicides, which helps ensure that all applicators are adequately educated about proper herbicide use and application. The license must be renewed annually and requires passing RIDFHUWL¿FDWLRQH[DPDSSURSULDWHWRWKHDUHDLQ which the applicator wishes to work. Based on the limited data available, it appears that solar facili- WLHVLQ1&JHQHUDOO\XVHVLJQL¿FDQWO\OHVVKHUEL- cides per acre than most commercial agriculture or lawn maintenance services. May 2017 | Version 1 14 2. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) PV systems do not emit any material during their operation; however, they do generate electromag- QHWLF¿HOGV (0) VRPHWLPHVUHIHUUHGWRDVUDGL- ation. EMF produced by electricity is non-ionizing radiation, meaning the radiation has enough en- ergy to move atoms in a molecule around (experi- enced as heat), but not enough energy to remove electrons from an atom or molecule (ionize) or to damage DNA. As shown below, modern humans are all exposed to EMF throughout our daily lives without negative health impact. Someone outside of the fenced perimeter of a solar facility is not H[SRVHGWRVLJQL¿FDQW(0)IURPWKHVRODUIDFLOLW\ Therefore, there is no negative health impact from the EMF produced in a solar farm. The following paragraphs provide some additional background and detail to support this conclusion. Since the 1970s, some have expressed concern over potential health consequences of EMF from electricity, but no studies have ever shown this EMF to cause health problems.63 These concerns are based on some epidemiological studies that found a slight increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential SRZHUIUHTXHQF\PDJQHWLF¿HOGVDERYHWR μT (microteslas) (equal to 3.0 to 4.0 mG (milli- gauss)). μT and mG are both units used to mea- VXUHPDJQHWLF¿HOGVWUHQJWK)RUFRPSDULVRQWKH average exposure for people in the U.S. is one mG or 0.1 μT, with about 1% of the population with an average exposure in excess of 0.4 μT (or 4 mG).64 These epidemiological studies, which found an association but not a causal relation- ship, led the World Health Organization’s Interna- tional Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to FODVVLI\(/)PDJQHWLF¿HOGVDV³SRVVLEO\FDUFLQR- JHQLFWRKXPDQV´&RIIHHDOVRKDVWKLVFODVVL¿- FDWLRQ7KLVFODVVL¿FDWLRQPHDQVWKHUHLVOLPLWHG evidence but not enough evidence to designate as either a “probable carcinogen” or “human carcinogen”. Overall, there is very little concern that ELF EMF damages public health. The only concern that does exist is for long-term exposure above 0.4 μT (4 mG) that may have some con- nection to increased cases of childhood leuke- mia. In 1997, the National Academies of Science were directed by Congress to examine this con- cern and concluded: “Based on a comprehensive evaluation of pub- lished studies relating to the effects of power-fre- TXHQF\HOHFWULFDQGPDJQHWLF¿HOGVRQFHOOVWLV- VXHV DQG RUJDQLVPV LQFOXGLQJ KXPDQV WKH conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure WRWKHVH¿HOGVSUHVHQWVDKXPDQKHDOWKKD]DUG 6SHFL¿FDOO\ QR FRQFOXVLYH DQG FRQVLVWHQW HYL- dence shows that exposures to residential electric DQGPDJQHWLF¿HOGVSURGXFHFDQFHUDGYHUVHQHX- UREHKDYLRUDOHIIHFWVRUUHSURGXFWLYHDQGGHYHORS- PHQWDOHIIHFWV´65 7KHUHDUHWZRDVSHFWVWRHOHFWURPDJQHWLF¿HOGV DQHOHFWULF¿HOGDQGDPDJQHWLF¿HOG7KHHOHF- WULF¿HOGLVJHQHUDWHGE\YROWDJHDQGWKHPDJ- QHWLF¿HOGLVJHQHUDWHGE\HOHFWULFFXUUHQWLH PRYLQJHOHFWURQV$WDVNJURXSRIVFLHQWL¿FH[- perts convened by the World Health Organiza- tion (WHO) in 2005 concluded that there were no VXEVWDQWLYHKHDOWKLVVXHVUHODWHGWRHOHFWULF¿HOGV (0 to 100,000 Hz) at levels generally encoun- tered by members of the public.66 The relatively low voltages in a solar facility and the fact that HOHFWULF¿HOGVDUHHDVLO\VKLHOGHG LHEORFNHG by common materials, such as plastic, metal, or soil means that there is no concern of negative KHDOWKLPSDFWVIURPWKHHOHFWULF¿HOGVJHQHUDWHG by a solar facility. Thus, the remainder of this sec- WLRQDGGUHVVHVPDJQHWLF¿HOGV0DJQHWLF¿HOGV are not shielded by most common materials and thus can easily pass through them. Both types of ¿HOGVDUHVWURQJHVWFORVHWRWKHVRXUFHRIHOHF- tric generation and weaken quickly with distance from the source. May 2017 | Version 1 15 The direct current (DC) electricity produced by PV panels produce stationary (0 Hz) electric and mag- QHWLF¿HOGV%HFDXVHRIPLQLPDOFRQFHUQDERXWSR- WHQWLDOULVNVRIVWDWLRQDU\¿HOGVOLWWOHVFLHQWL¿FUH- VHDUFKKDVH[DPLQHGVWDWLRQDU\¿HOGV¶LPSDFWRQ human health.67 In even the largest PV facilities, the DC voltages and currents are not very high. One can illustrate the weakness of the EMF gen- erated by a PV panel by placing a compass on an operating solar panel and observing that the nee- dle still points north. While the electricity throughout the majority of a solar site is DC electricity, the inverters convert this DC electricity to alternating current (AC) elec- tricity matching the 60 Hz frequency of the grid. Therefore, the inverters and the wires delivering this power to the grid are producing non-station- ary EMF, known as extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF, normally oscillating with a frequency of 60 Hz. This frequency is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, it has less energy than other commonly encountered types of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves, infrared radiation, and visible light. The wide use of electricity results in background levels of ELF EMFs in nearly all locations where people spend time – homes, workplaces, schools, cars, the supermarket, etc. A person’s average ex- posure depends upon the sources they encounter, how close they are to them, and the amount of time they spend there.68 As stated above, the av- HUDJHH[SRVXUHWRPDJQHWLF¿HOGVLQWKH86LV estimated to be around one mG or 0.1 μT, but can vary considerably depending on a person’s expo- sure to EMF from electrical devices and wiring.69 At times we are often exposed to much higher ELF PDJQHWLF¿HOGVIRUH[DPSOHZKHQVWDQGLQJWKUHH IHHWIURPDUHIULJHUDWRUWKH(/)PDJQHWLF¿HOGLV 6 mG and when standing three feet from a micro- ZDYHRYHQWKH¿HOGLVDERXWP*70 The strength RIWKHVH¿HOGVGLPLQLVKTXLFNO\ZLWKGLVWDQFHIURP the source, but when surrounded by electricity in our homes and other buildings moving away from one source moves you closer to another. However, unless you are inside of the fence at a utility-scale solar facility or electrical substation it is impossible to get very close to the EMF sources. Because of this, EMF levels at the fence of electrical sub- stations containing high voltages and currents are considered “generally negligible”.71,72 The strength of ELF-EMF present at the perimeter of a solar facility or near a PV system in a commer- FLDORUUHVLGHQWLDOEXLOGLQJLVVLJQL¿FDQWO\ORZHUWKDQ the typical American’s average EMF exposure.73,74 Researchers in Massachusetts measured mag- QHWLF¿HOGVDW39SURMHFWVDQGIRXQGWKHPDJQHWLF ¿HOGVGURSSHGWRYHU\ORZOHYHOVRIP*RUOHVV and in many cases to less than background levels (0.2 mG), at distances of no more than nine feet from the residential inverters and 150 feet from the utility-scale inverters.75 Even when measured within a few feet of the utility-scale inverter, the (/)PDJQHWLF¿HOGVZHUHZHOOEHORZWKH,QWHUQD- tional Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Pro- WHFWLRQ¶V UHFRPPHQGHG PDJQHWLF ¿HOG OHYHO H[- posure limit for the general public of 2,000 mG.76 It is typical that utility scale designs locate large inverters central to the PV panels that feed them because this minimizes the length of wire required and shields neighbors from the sound of the in- verter’s cooling fans. Thus, it is rare for a large PV inverter to be within 150 feet of the project’s security fence. Anyone relying on a medical device such as pacemaker or other implanted device to maintain proper heart rhythm may have concern about the potential for a solar project to interfere with the operation of his or her device. However, there is no reason for concern because the EMF outside of the solar facility’s fence is less than 1/1000 of the level at which manufacturers test for ELF EMF interference, which is 1,000 mG.77 Manufacturers of potentially affected implanted devices often pro- vide advice on electromagnetic interference that includes avoiding letting the implanted device get WRRFORVHWRFHUWDLQVRXUFHVRI¿HOGVVXFKDVVRPH May 2017 | Version 1 16 household appliances, some walkie-talkies, and similar transmitting devices. Some manufactur- ers’ literature does not mention high-voltage pow- er lines, some say that exposure in public areas should not give interference, and some advise not spending extended periods of time close to power lines.78 3. Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards There is a real danger of electric shock to any- one entering any of the electrical cabinets such as combiner boxes, disconnect switches, inverters, or transformers; or otherwise coming in contact with voltages over 50 Volts.79 Another electrical KD]DUGLVDQDUFÀDVKZKLFKLVDQH[SORVLRQRIHQ- ergy that can occur in a short circuit situation. This H[SORVLYHUHOHDVHRIHQHUJ\FDXVHVDÀDVKRIKHDW and a shockwave, both of which can cause seri- ous injury or death. Properly trained and equipped technicians and electricians know how to safely install, test, and repair PV systems, but there is al- ways some risk of injury when hazardous voltages and/or currents are present. Untrained individuals should not attempt to inspect, test, or repair any aspect of a PV system due to the potential for inju- U\RUGHDWKGXHWRHOHFWULFVKRFNDQGDUFÀDVK7KH National Electric Code (NEC) requires appropriate levels of warning signs on all electrical compo- nents based on the level of danger determined by the voltages and current potentials. The national electric code also requires the site to be secured from unauthorized visitors with either a six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire or an eight-foot fence, both with adequate hazard warning signs. 4. Fire Safety 7KHSRVVLELOLW\RI¿UHVUHVXOWLQJIURPRULQWHQVL¿HG by PV systems may trigger concern among the JHQHUDOSXEOLFDVZHOODVDPRQJ¿UH¿JKWHUV+RZ- HYHUFRQFHUQRYHUVRODU¿UHKD]DUGVVKRXOGEH limited because only a small portion of materials in WKHSDQHOVDUHÀDPPDEOHDQGWKRVHFRPSRQHQWV FDQQRWVHOIVXSSRUWDVLJQL¿FDQW¿UH)ODPPDEOH components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer backsheets (framed panels only), plas- tic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of QRQÀDPPDEOH FRPSRQHQWV QRWDEO\ LQFOXGLQJ one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. +HDWIURPDVPDOOÀDPHLVQRWDGHTXDWHWRLJQLWHD 39SDQHOEXWKHDWIURPDPRUHLQWHQVH¿UHRUHQ- ergy from an electrical fault can ignite a PV panel.80 One real-world example of this occurred during July 2015 in an arid area of California. Three acres RIJUDVVXQGHUDWKLQ¿OP39IDFLOLW\EXUQHGZLWKRXW LJQLWLQJWKHSDQHOVPRXQWHGRQ¿[HGWLOWUDFNVMXVW above the grass.81 While it is possible for electri- cal faults in PV systems on homes or commercial EXLOGLQJVWRVWDUWD¿UHWKLVLVH[WUHPHO\UDUH82 ,PSURYLQJXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKH39VSHFL¿FULVNV VDIHU V\VWHP GHVLJQV DQG XSGDWHG ¿UHUHODWHG codes and standards will continue to reduce the ULVNRI¿UHFDXVHGE\39V\VWHPV 39 V\VWHPV RQ EXLOGLQJV FDQ DIIHFW ¿UH¿JKWHUV in two primary ways, 1) impact their methods of ¿JKWLQJWKH¿UHDQG SRVHVDIHW\KD]DUGWRWKH ¿UH¿JKWHUV2QHRIWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWWHFKQLTXHV WKDW¿UH¿JKWHUVXVHWRVXSSUHVV¿UHLVYHQWLODWLRQ of a building’s roof. This technique allows super- heated toxic gases to quickly exit the building. By GRLQJ VR WKH ¿UH¿JKWHUV JDLQ HDVLHU DQG VDIHU access to the building, Ventilation of the roof also PDNHVWKHFKDOOHQJHRISXWWLQJRXWWKH¿UHHDVLHU However, the placement of rooftop PV panels may interfere with ventilating the roof by limiting access to desired venting locations. 1HZ VRODUVSHFL¿F EXLOGLQJ FRGH UHTXLUHPHQWV are working to minimize these concerns. Also, the May 2017 | Version 1 17 latest National Electric Code has added require- PHQWVWKDWPDNHLWHDVLHUIRU¿UVWUHVSRQGHUVWR safely and effectively turn off a PV system. Con- FHUQIRU¿UH¿JKWLQJDEXLOGLQJZLWK39FDQEHUH- GXFHG ZLWK SURSHU ¿UH ¿JKWHU WUDLQLQJ V\VWHP design, and installation. Numerous organizations KDYHVWXGLHG¿UH¿JKWHUVDIHW\UHODWHGWR390DQ\ organizations have published valuable guides and training programs. Some notable examples are listed below. • The International Association of Fire Fight- ers (IAFF) and International Renewable Energy Council (IREC) partnered to create an online training course that is far beyond the PowerPoint click-andview model. The self-paced online course, “Solar PV Safety for Fire Fighters,” features rich video con- WHQWDQGVLPXODWHGHQYLURQPHQWVVR¿UH ¿JKWHUVFDQSUDFWLFHWKHNQRZOHGJHWKH\¶YH learned. www.iaff.org/pvsafetytraining • Photovoltaic Systems and the Fire Code: 2I¿FHRI1&)LUH0DUVKDO • Fire Service Training, Underwriter’s Labo- ratory • )LUH¿JKWHU6DIHW\DQG5HVSRQVHIRU6RODU Power Systems, National Fire Protection Research Foundation • Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety & Green Buildings, National Association of State Fire Marshalls • Guidelines for Fire Safety Elements of So- lar Photovoltaic Systems, Orange County Fire Chiefs Association • Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines, California Department of Forestry & Fire 3URWHFWLRQ2I¿FHRIWKH6WDWH)LUH0DUVKDOO • 396DIHW\ )LUH¿JKWLQJ, Matthew Paiss, Homepower Magazine • PV Safety and Code Development: Mat- thew Paiss, Cooperative Research Network Summary The purpose of this paper is to address and al- leviate concerns of public health and safety for utility-scale solar PV projects. Concerns of public health and safety were divided and discussed in the four following sections: (1) Toxicity, (2) Electro- magnetic Fields, (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash, and (4) Fire. In each of these sections, the nega- tive health and safety impacts of utility-scale PV development were shown to be negligible, while WKHSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\EHQH¿WVRILQVWDOOLQJ WKHVHIDFLOLWLHVDUHVLJQL¿FDQWDQGIDURXWZHLJKDQ\ negative impacts. 1 Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin A. Heath. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Environmental and Public +HDOWK%HQH¿WVRI$FKLHYLQJ+LJK3HQHWUDWLRQVRI Solar Energy in the United States. Golden, CO: Na- tional Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65628.pdf 2 IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), “End-of-Life Man- agement: Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overview of Field Experience – Degradation Rates & Lifetimes. September 14, 2015. Solar Power International Con- ference. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/65040.pdf 4 Miesel et al. SolarCity Photovoltaic Modules with 35 Year Useful Life. June 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://www.solarcity.com/newsroom/reports/solarci- ty-photovoltaic-modules-35-year-useful-life 5 David Unger. Are Renewables Stormproof? Hur- ULFDQH6DQG\7HVWV6RODU:LQG. November 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voic- es/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurri- cane-Sandy-tests-solarwind & http://www.csmonitor. com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-re- newables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandytests-solar-wind 6 NEXTracker and 365 Pronto, Tracking Your Solar Investment: Best Practices for Solar Tracker O&M. May 2017 | Version 1 18 Accessed March 2017. www.nextracker.com/content/uploads/2017/03/NEX- Tracker_OandM-WhitePaper_FINAL_March-2017.pdf 7 Christiana Honsberg, Stuart Bowden. Overview of Screen Printed Solar Cells. Accessed January 2017. www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/ screen-printed 8 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2015 Solar Score- card. Accessed August 2016. www.solarscorecard.com/2015/2015-SVTC-Solar- Scorecard.pdf 9 European Commission. Recast of Reduction of +D]DUGRXV6XEVWDQFHV 5R+6 'LUHFWLYH. September 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/in- dex_en.htm 2I¿FLDO-RXUQDORIWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQDIREC- TIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA- MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. June 2011. Accessed May 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PD- F/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065&from=en 11 Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. (YDOXDWLRQRIWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO%HQH¿WVRI New High Value Process for the Management of the End of Life of Thin Film Photovoltaic Modules. July 2013. Accessed August 2016. www.researchgate.net/publication/257408804_Evalu- DWLRQBRIBWKHBHQYLURQPHQWDOBEHQH¿WVBRIBQHZBKLJKB value_process_for_the_management_of_the_end_ RIBOLIHBRIBWKLQB¿OPBSKRWRYROWDLFBPRGXOHV 12 European Commission. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing The Impact Assessment for a 5HFDVWRIWKH:HHH'LUHFWLYH. April 2011. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/ 6WXG\RQ39V%LR¿QDOSGI 14 The amount of lead in a typical car battery is 21.4 pounds. Waste 360. Chaz Miller. Lead Acid Batteries. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://waste360.com/mag/waste_leadacid_batteries_3 15 Okkenhaug G. Leaching from CdTe PV module PDWHULDOUHVXOWVIURPEDWFKFROXPQDQGDYDLODELOLW\ tests. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI report No. 20092155-00-6-R; 2010 16 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching +D]DUGRXV6XEVWDQFHVRXWRI3KRWRYROWDLF0RGXOHV. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/arti- cle/download/485/298 17 ibid 18 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 19 Bonnet, D. and P. Meyers. 1998. Cadmium-tellu- ULGH²0DWHULDOIRUWKLQ¿OPVRODUFHOOV. J. Mater. Res., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 2740-2753 20 V. Fthenakis, K. Zweibel. CdTe PV: Real and Per- ceived EHS Risks. National Center ofr Photovoltaics and Solar Program Review Meeting, March 24-26, 2003. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33561.pdf. Ac- cessed May 2017 21 International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. March 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=315 22 Data not available on fraction of various genera- tion sources offset by solar generation in NC, but this is believed to be a reasonable rough estimate. The SunShot report entitled The Environmental and Public +HDOWK%HQH¿WVRI$FKLHYLQJ+LJK3HQHWUDWLRQVRI Solar Energy in the United States analysis contributes VLJQL¿FDQW QRWSURYLGHG RIIVHWWLQJRIFRDO¿UHG generation by solar PV energy in the southeast. 23 7 MWDC * 1.5 GWh/MWDC * 25 years * 0.93 degradation factor * (0.1 *4.65 grams/GWh + 0.9*0.2 grams/GWh) 24 Vasilis Fthenakis. CdTe PV: Facts and Handy Comparisons. January 2003. Accessed March 2017. KWWSV ZZZEQOJRYSY¿OHVSGIDUWBSGI 25 Kaczmar, S., Evaluating the Read-Across Ap- proach on CdTe Toxicity for CdTe Photovoltaics, SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 2011. Available at: ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/campo-verdesolar/ ¿QDOHYDOXDWLQJWR[LFLW\SGI, Accessed May 2017 27 V. M. Fthenakis et al, Emissions and Encapsula- tion of Cadmium in CdTe PV Modules During Fires Renewable Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:1–11, Accessed March 2017, ZZZEQOJRYSY¿OHVSGIDEVB SGI 28 Fthenakis V.M., Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cad- mium in CdTe Photovoltaic Production, Renewable May 2017 | Version 1 19 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 303-334, 2004. www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Life_Cycle_Impact_ Analysis_Cadmium_CdTe_Photovoltaic_production. pdf, Accessed May 2017 29 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. 30 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching +D]DUGRXV6XEVWDQFHVRXWRI3KRWRYROWDLF0RGXOHV. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/arti- cle/download/485/298 31 Cunningham D., Discussion about TCLP protocols, Photovoltaics and the Environment Workshop, July 23-24, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL- 52557 32 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 33 Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamen- tals and Applications. T. Markvart and L. Castaner. &KDSWHU9,, 2YHUYLHZRI3RWHQWLDO+D]DUGV. Decem- ber 2003. Accessed August 2016. KWWSV ZZZEQOJRYSY¿OHVSGIDUWBSGI 34 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Environmental Risks Regarding the Use and End-of-Life Disposal of CdTe PV Modules. April 2010. Accessed August 2016. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/ Norwegian-Geotechnical-InstituteStudy.pdf 35 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. August 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Cata- strophic Events in Japan. KWWS ZZZ¿UVWVRODUFRPPHGLD'RFXPHQWV6XV- tainability/PeerReviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsu- no_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 36 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. 2015 IEEE 37 See p. 22 of First Solar, Sustainability Report. Available at: ZZZ¿UVWVRODUFRPPHGLD)LUVW6RODU6XVWDLQDELOL- ty-Documents/03801_FirstSolar_SustainabilityRe- port_08MAR16_Web.ashx, Accessed May 2017 38 40 CFR §261.24. Toxicity Characteristic. May 2017. Accessed May 2017. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx- ?node=se40.26.261_124&rgn=div8 2I¿FHRI(QHUJ\(I¿FLHQF\ 5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\ Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide. Accessed March 2017. https://www.energy.gov/eere/sunshot/copper-indi- um-gallium-diselenide 40 Mathias Maehlum. Best Thin Film Solar Panels – $PRUSKRXV&DGPLXP7HOOXULGHRU&,*6" April 2015. Accessed March 2017. KWWS HQHUJ\LQIRUPDWLYHRUJEHVWWKLQ¿OPVRODUSDQ- els-amorphous-cadmium-telluride-cigs/ 5R+6WHVWHGFHUWL¿FDWHIRU6RODU)URQWLHU39PRG- ules. TUVRheinland, signed 11.11.2013 42 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of /LIH0DQDJHPHQW 6RODU3KRWRYROWDLF3DQHOVJune 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 43 40 C.F.R. §261.10. Identifying the Characteris- WLFVRI+D]DUGRXV:DVWHDQGIRU/LVWLQJ+D]DUGRXV :DVWH. November 2016. Accessed November 2016 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=ce0006d- 66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261&rgn=div5#sp40.28.261.b 44 40 C.F.R. §261.24 Toxicity Characteristic. Novem- ber 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=ce0006d- 66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261&rgn=div5#se40.28.261_124 45 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 46 TLCP test results from third-party laboratories for REC, Jinko, and Canadian Solar silicon-based pan- els. Provided by PV panel manufacturers directly or indirectly to authors 47 Sinovoltaics, Introduction to Solar Panel Recycling, March 2014. Accessed October 2016. http://sinovoltaics.com/solarbasics/introduction-to-so- lar-panel-recycling/ 48 Brookhaven National Laboratory. Vasilis Fthenakis, May 2017 | Version 1 20 Regulations on Photovoltaic Module Disposal and Recycling. January 29, 2001. 49 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. 50 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. October 2015. Accessed August 2016. KWWS ZZZ¿UVWVRODUFRPPHGLD'RFXPHQWV6XV- tainability/PVSC42-Manuscript-20150912--Assess- ment-of-Leaching-Tests-for-Evaluating-PotentialEnvi- ronmental-Impa.ashx 51 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. KWWS ZZZ¿UVWVRODUFRPPHGLD'RFXPHQWV6XV- tainability/PeerReviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsu- no_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 52 Phone interview, February 3, 2016, TT&E Iron & Metal, Garner, NC www.ncscrapmetal.com 53 Wen-His Huang, et al. Strategy and Technology To 5HF\FOH:DWHUVLOLFRQ6RODU0RGXOHV. Solar Energy, Volume 144, March 2017, Pages 22-31 54 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 2I¿FLDO-RXUQDORIWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQDirective 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the &RXQFLORI-XO\RQ:DVWH(OHFWULFDODQG(OHF- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 56 PV CYCLE. Annual Report 2015. Accessed No- vember 2016. https://pvcyclepublications.cld.bz/Annual-Report-PV- CYCLE-2015/6-7 2I¿FLDO-RXUQDORIWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQDirective 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the &RXQFLORI-XO\RQ:DVWH(OHFWULFDODQG(OHF- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 58 SEIA National PV Recycling Program: www.seia.org/seia-national-pv-recycling-program 59 RBI Solar, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in June 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2015-05_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 60 Birdseye Renewables, Decommissioning Plan sub- mitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in May 2015. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2015-04_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 61 Cypress Creek Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in September 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2016-06decommission.pdf 62 Sun Raised Farms: http://sunraisedfarms.com/index.html 63 National Institute of Environmental Health Scienc- es and National Institutes of Health, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with Electric Power: Questions and Answers, June 2002 64 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/ en/ 65 Committee on the Possible Effects of Electro- magnetic Fields on Biologic Systems, National Re- search Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, ISBN: 0-309-55671-6, 384 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5155.html 66 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 67 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Static Electric and Magnetic Fields. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs299/ en/ 68 Asher Sheppard, Health Issues Related to the Static and Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) of the Soitec Solar Energy Farms, April May 2017 | Version 1 21 30, 2014. Accessed March 2017: www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/ Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/Appendix_9.0-1_ EMF.pdf 69 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. December 2012. Accessed August 2016. 70 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequent- ly_asked_questions.asp 71 National Institute of Environmental Health Sci- ences, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associate with the use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers, 2002. Accessed November 2016 www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/electric_and_ PDJQHWLFB¿HOGV 72 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequent- ly_asked_questions.asp 73 R.A. Tell et al, Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Electric Power Generating Facilities, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 12, 2015,- Issue 11. Abstract Accessed March 2016: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1545962 4.2015.1047021 74 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro- tection, and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Questions & Answers: Ground-Mounted Solar Photo- voltaic Systems. June 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/so- lar/solar-pv-guide.pdf 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 EMFs and medical devices, Accessed March 2017. www.emfs.info/effects/medical-devices/ 78 ibid. 79 Damon McCluer. Electrical Construction & Main- tenance: NFPA 70E’s Approach to Considering DC +D]DUGV. September 2013. Accessed October 2016. http://ecmweb.com/safety/nfpa-70e-s-approach-con- sidering-dc-hazards 80 Hong-Yun Yang, et. al. Experimental Studies on WKH)ODPPDELOLW\DQG)LUH+D]DUGVRI3KRWRYROWDLF 0RGXOHV0DWHULDOV. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4210/pdf 81 Matt Fountain. The Tribune. Fire breaks out at To- SD]6RODU)DUP. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39055539. html 82 Cooperative Research Network. Matthew Paiss. Tech Surveillance: PV Safety & Code Developments. October 2014. Accessed August 2016. http://www.nreca.coop/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ WVBSYB¿UHBVDIHW\BRFWBSGI “Clean Energy in Michigan” Series, Number 12 Solar Panels. Photo by Mariana Proenca on UnsplashQ: Do solar panels contribute to PFAS contamination? Multiple states have raised concerns about PFAS contamination from solar farms, largely citing academic research on how PFAS could potentially be used in photovoltaic (PV) solar panels.1 The fact is that PFAS is not customarily used in solar panels because safer, effective alternatives have already been developed and commercialized. Moreover, no studies have shown the presence or leaching of PFAS from PV panels—either while they are in active use or at the end of their life (e.g., in >>`w®° Anatomy of a solar panel These three parts of a solar panel cause confusion about the presence of PFAS. Self-Cleaning Coat A self-cleaning coating on the top of a solar panel helps reduce dust, pollen, and snow adhesion, extending both the power output and the lifetime of the panel.2 Multiple self-cleaning coating options are available on the market, many of which make use of non-hazardous silicon-based chemistry.3 Confusion comes from the fact that some other commercialized self-cleaning coating options do make use of PFAS-based chemicals, although even those do not degrade under normal use. Adhesives PV panels are sealed from the elements to maximize power output and lifetime. While PFAS chemicals are found in certain adhesives, such as carpentry glues, they are not typically used in sealant adhesives for solar panels.4 Instead, solar adhesives are based on silicone polymers, which are well known for their lack of negative health impacts and remarkable stability.5 Substrate PV modules are housed in a weather-resistant substrate that offers additional «ÀÌiVÌvÀÌ iiiiÌð/ w*6ÕÌÃÕÃi}>ÃÃ>ÃÌ iÃÕLÃÌÀ>Ìi]Ü i crystalline silicon PV units use a polymer substrate, which has led to the rumors of Acknowledgement This material is based upon work supported by the &GRCTVOGPVQH'PGTI[CPFVJG/KEJKICP'PGTI[1HƂEG (MEO) under Award Number EE00007478. The Clean Energy in Michigan series provides case studies and fact sheets answering common questions about clean energy projects in Michigan. Find this document and more about the project online at graham.umich.edu/climate-energy/energy-futures. Facts about solar panels: PFAS contamination By Dr. Annick Anctil, Michigan State University potential PFAS use in solar panels. The most common polymer used in silicon PV units is Tedlar, a weather resistant polymer that is not a PFAS compound itself and makes no use of PFAS during its manufacturing process.6 Far more common materials, like those used in construction projects and weather resistant fabrics, present a higher risk of PFAS exposure than PV. In fact, a recent study found that these more common materials release PFAS under conditions where solar panels do not, indicating that PFAS exposure risk may be higher sitting on outdoor furniture, for example, than living next to a solar farm.7 What is PFAS anyway? Per/Poly Fluoro-Alkyl Substances, PFAS for short, are a class of chemical compounds. PFAS are used in several industries for their unique properties, notably their ability to create coatings that are highly water repellent. PFAS are extremely persistent within the environment, not breaking down over time. Certain PFAS compounds have been linked to human health issues–notably low infant birth weights, increased risk of certain cancers, and thyroid issues. As a result of their «iÀÃÃÌiVi>`ÌÝVÌÞ]Ì Ãi*Ƃ-V«Õ`ÃÌ >Ì«Ãi>Ã}wV>ÌÀà >ÛiLii banned from use and production, and subsequently replaced with safer alternatives. It’s important to note that not all PFAS compounds are dangerous. Some PFAS V«Õ`Ã]ÃÕV >Ã/iy]>ÀiÕV ÀiÃÌ>Li>`«ÀiÃiÌÀÃÌ Õ> health under normal conditions of use.8 47485-OCT-20 1 S. Maharjan et al., “Self-cleaning hydrophobic nanocoating on glass: A scalable manufacturing process,” Mater. Chem. Phys., vol. 239, Jan. 2020.; . Son et al., ºč«À>VÌV>ÃÕ«iÀ Þ`À« VÃivVi>}>`>ÌÀiyiVÌÛiÃÕÀv>VivÀÕÌ`À« ÌÛÌ>V>««V>ÌÃ]» Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2012.; H. C. Han et al., º >V}ivwViVÞÜÌ yÕÀ>Ìi`ÌiÀ>ÞiÀÃÃ>iVÕiÀ}>VÃ>ÀViÃ]»J. Mater. Chem., vol. 22, no. 43, 2012. 2 ºÜ>Ã>ÀViÜÀÃqčiÀV> iV>-ViÌÞ°» [Online]; H. C. Han et al., º >V}ivwViVÞÜÌ yÕÀ>Ìi`ÌiÀ>ÞiÀÃÃ> molecule organic solar cells,” J. Mater. Chem., vol. 22, no. 43, 2012.; M. Simon and E. L. Meyer, “Detection and analysis of hot-spot formation in solar cells,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells. pp. 106–113, 2010. 3 º->Þ`LÞi/->À*>i i>}N1Ì>Ìi vwViVÞN->À- >ÀVÁ°» [Online]. 4 º iVÌÀVÃ*À`ÕVÌ >Ì>}N ÜV°» [Online]; B. J. Henry et al., ºčVÀÌV>ÀiÛiÜvÌ i>««V>Ìv«ÞiÀvÜVViÀ>` Ài}Õ>ÌÀÞVÀÌiÀ>ÌyÕÀ«ÞiÀÃ]» Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 14, no. 3. pp. 316–334, May-2018. 5 º iVÌÀVÃ*À`ÕVÌ >Ì>}N ÜV°»; “Properties of Silicones.” [Online]; A. M. Bueche, º/ iVÕÀ}vÃViÀÕLLiÀÜÌ LiâÞ peroxide,” J. Polym. Sci., vol. 15, no. 79, pp. 105–120, Jan. 1955. 6 M. H. Alaaeddin, S. M. Sapuan, M. Y. . Zuhri, E. . Zainudin, and F. M. AL-Oqla, º*ÞÛÞyÕÀ`i*6®ÆÌÃ*À«iÀÌiÃ]č««V>ÌÃ]>` Manufacturing Prospects,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 538, p. 012010, Jun. 2019. 7 R. M. Janousek, S. Lebertz, and T. P. Knepper, º*ÀiÛÕÃÞÕ`iÌwi`ÃÕÀViÃv«iÀyÕÀ>Þ>`«ÞyÕÀ>ÞÃÕLÃÌ>ViÃvÀLÕ`} materials and industrial fabrics,” Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1936–1945, Nov. 2019. 8 º*iÀ>`*ÞyÕÀ>Þ-ÕLÃÌ>ViÃ*č-®N1- *č°» [Online].; B. J. Henry et al., ºčVÀÌV>ÀiÛiÜvÌ i>««V>Ìv«ÞiÀvÜ VViÀ>`Ài}Õ>ÌÀÞVÀÌiÀ>ÌyÕÀ«ÞiÀû Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics: A California-Focused Forward to the Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics white paper published by the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University in May 2017 By:Thomas H. Cleveland, P.E., lead author of the North Carolina white paper RE:Soscol Ferry Road Solar, a proposed 1.98 MWAC PV facility in Napa, CA Date:July 31, 2019 For the last several years North Carolina (NC) has trailed only California in the capacity of annual solar photovoltaic (PV) installed. For most of that time North Carolina’s PV development was nearly entirely distribution-connected ground-mounted solar facilities, most commonly 5 MWAC projects. More recently, North Carolina is developing a mixture of transmission-connected PV facilities between 20 and 75 MWAC and distribution-connected facilities of 1 to 5 MWAC, but still has relatively few commercial or residential PV projects. As the state quickly transitioned from zero utility-scale solar facilities to over 400 utility-scale solar facilities concerns about the health and safety impacts of photovoltaics were raised at countless public hearings across the state and in many meetings of state officials and regulators, including several NC general assembly committee meetings. These concerns led to several years of engagement on this topic by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University that resulted in a detailed, peer-reviewed university white paper on the latest scientific understanding regarding PV health and safety impacts, with a focus on North Carolina. Naturally, there is also interest in the potential health and safety impacts of PV in California, where there is significantly more installed solar capacity than in North Carolina, in a mixture of residential, commercial, and small- and large-scale ground-mounted utility-scale solar projects. While there are massive similarities between the PV installations and their potential health and safety impacts in each state, there are some differences in policy, climate, industry practices, electricity regulation, and more that are worth highlighting. This forward is an attempt by the lead researcher and author of the North Carolina white paper to provide a supplement to the original paper that clearly demonstrates the applicability of the paper to PV in California and to offer California-specific supplements or modifications where the original paper had a North Carolina focus. Most importantly, all the white paper’s conclusions about the negligible negative health and safety impacts of photovoltaics apply fully in California, as well as anywhere in the United States. Similarly, there is nothing unique about the 1.98 MWAC Soscol Ferry Road Solar project that would cause any health or safety impacts different than those discussed in the N.C. white paper. Throughout the white paper there are instances of North Carolina-specific information, or issues where the situation in California is different than it is in North Carolina. The following is a list of the significant instances of either situation, in the order they appear in the white paper, along with the relevant California-specific information. Type of PV Technology Used: Crystalline silicon, Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), and CIGS are all being installed in California as they are in N.C. Since the publication of the N.C. report the author has confirmed the recent installation of utility-scale projects using CIGS modules, but these are still not common. Like in NC, the majority of the current PV installation capacity in California is crystalline silicon, also like NC these are generally Tier I modules. The Soscol Ferry Rd. project will use Tier I crystalline silicon modules. Design Wind Speed: The ASCE 7-2016 design wind speed in the vast majority of California, including in Napa County where the Soscol Ferry Road Solar project is located, is 90-95 MPH, which is much lower than the design wind speeds of hurricane-prone eastern N.C. where most PV development in the state is located. A few mountainous regions of California have design wind speeds over 100 MPG, however these extreme terrains are unlikely to install ground-mounted PV systems. Offset Electricity Fuel Mix: The white paper includes a rough estimation that the fuel mix of the generators offset by PV energy production in N.C. is 90% natural gas and 10% coal. From this mix an estimate of the reduction in cadmium emissions due to PV was calculated. The 10% coal estimate is certainly too high for California. An offset fuel mix for California could be reasonably estimated as 100% natural gas, resulting in about 75% of the cadmium emissions savings calculated for NC. PV Module Recycling: The white paper included local reports from PV developers in North Carolina of recycling damaged PV modules. It is quite possible that the same is occurring in California, but the author does not have data on the current common waste management practices for damaged PV modules in California. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published two extensive reports on the Photovoltaic Module Recycling in the United States (April 2018) and Insights in Photovoltaic Recycling Processes in Europe (December 2017), which are great sources for current information on PV module recycling. The EPRI report on recycling in the U.S. states that there are commercial recyclers in the U.S. accepting and recycling PV modules, using processes not unlike those described in the white paper. PV Module Washing: Unlike North Carolina, many regions of California regularly experience long periods of time with little to no rain, which can result in enough accumulation of dirton the PV modules that itjustifies occasionally washing the modules to renew their performance. In North Carolina there is generally a heavy rain often enough to keep the panels clean enough to not require manual panel washing. This difference does not have an impact on the health or safety impact of the photovoltaic modules other than perhaps some increased risk of electric shock when washing the modules. Proper installation, maintenance, and washing techniques should reduce this risk to near zero. Vegetation Maintenance:The climate in many regions of California, including Napa County where the Soscol Ferry Road Solar project is located, cause the growth of vegetation requiring maintenance to be less vigorous than the vegetation in moist North Carolina. Thus, PV sites in California use similar vegetation maintenance techniques to North Carolina however they need to spend less time and make fewer trips to adequately maintain vegetation on site. California Hazardous Waste Policy: o As explained in the white paper, in the United States a waste material is considered hazardous waste if the results of a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test find concentrations of any of 40 hazardous chemicals above the allowed EPA concentration limit for that chemical. However, in California, materials must additionally meet the more stringent Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), which is like the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) directive, adopted in February 2003 by the European Union (EU).i o In 2015, California passed SB-489 directing the CA DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control) to write rules to reclassify PV modules as universal waste, even if they fail TCLP. These rules exclude physically damaged, fractured, or fragmented PV modules that are no longer recognizable as PV modules.ii A primary goal of the legislation is to allow producers of waste PV modules to avoid difficult and costly waste determination procedures. In April 2019 the CA DTSC proposed rules to implement SB- 489. After the public comment period that ended in June 2019 DTSC may adjust and adopt the rules. iii i Program on Technology Innovation: Feasibility Study on Photovoltaic Module Recycling in the United States,Technical Update, April 2018; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); April 2018. ii ibid iii (webpage) Beveridge & Diamond law firm; News alert: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Proposes Regulation Classifying Discarded Solar Panels as Universal Waste ;https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/california-department- of-toxic-substances-control-proposes-regulation-classifying-discarded-solar-panels-as-universal-waste/(last accessed 7/22/2019) )FBMUIBOE4BGFUZ*NQBDUTPG4PMBS 1IPUPWPMUBJDT .": 2017 1 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics The increasing presence of utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina’s landscape. Due to the new and unknown nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be concerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortunately, the quick emergence of utility-scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half-truths about the health impacts of this technology, which can lead to unnecessary fear and conflict. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters are not known to pose any significant health dangers to their neighbors. The most important dangers posed are increased highway traffic during the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil-fuel-fired electric generators, the overall impact of solar development on human health is overwhelmingly positive. This pollution reduction results from a partial replacement of fossil-fuel fired generation by emission-free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, both affiliates of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the health-related air quality benefits to the southeast region from solar PV generators to be worth 8.0 ¢ per kilowatt-hour of solar generation.0F 1 This is in addition to the value of the electricity and suggests that the air quality benefits of solar are worth more than the electricity itself. Even though we have only recently seen large-scale installation of PV technologies, the technology and its potential impacts have been studied since the 1950s. A combination of this solar-specific research and general scientific research has led to the scientific community having a good understanding of the science behind potential health and safety impacts of solar energy. This paper utilizes the latest scientific literature and knowledge of solar practices in N.C. to address the health and safety risks associated with solar PV technology. These risks are extremely small, far less than those associated with common activities such as driving a car, and vastly outweighed by health benefits of the generation of clean electricity. This paper addresses the potential health and safety impacts of solar PV development in North Carolina, organized into the following four categories: (1) Hazardous Materials (2) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash (4) Fire Safety 2 1. Hazardous Materials One of the more common concerns towards solar is that the panels (referred to as “modules” in the solar industry) consist of toxic materials that endanger public health. However, as shown in this section, solar energy systems may contain small amounts of toxic materials, but these materials do not endanger public health. To understand potential toxic hazards coming from a solar project, one must understand system installation, materials used, the panel end-of-life protocols, and system operation. This section will examine these aspects of a solar farm and the potential for toxicity impacts in the following subsections: (1.2) Project Installation/Construction (1.2) System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability 1.2.2 Photovoltaic technologies (a) Crystalline Silicon (b) Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) (c) CIS/CIGS 1.2.3 Panel End of Life Management 1.2.4 Non-panel System Components (1.3) Operations and Maintenance 1.1 Project Installation/Construction The system installation, or construction, process does not require toxic chemicals or processes. The site is mechanically cleared of large vegetation, fences are constructed, and the land is surveyed to layout exact installation locations. Trenches for underground wiring are dug and support posts are driven into the ground. The solar panels are bolted to steel and aluminum support structures and wired together. Inverter pads are installed, and an inverter and transformer are installed on each pad. Once everything is connected, the system is tested, and only then turned on. Figure 1: Utility-scale solar facility (5 MWAC) located in Catawba County. Source: Strata Solar 3 1.2 System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability Solar PV panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life.1F 2 Today there are two PV technologies used in PV panels at utility-scale solar facilities, silicon, and thin film. As of 2016, all thin film used in North Carolina solar facilities are cadmium telluride(CdTe) panels from the US manufacturer First Solar, but there are other thin film PV panels available on the market, such as Solar Frontier’s CIGS panels. Crystalline silicon technology consists of silicon wafers which are made into cells and assembled into panels, thin film technologies consist of thin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass, polymer or metal substrates. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of solar technologies, many aspects of their PV panel construction are very similar. Specifics about each type of PV chemistry as it relates to toxicity are covered in subsections a, b, and c in section 1.2.2; on crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, and CIS/CIGS respectively. The rest of this section applies equally to both silicon and thin film panels. Figure 2: Components of crystalline silicon panels. The vast majority of silicon panels consist of a glass sheet on the topside with an aluminum frame providing structural support. Image Source: www.riteksolar.com.tw Figure 3: Layers of a common frameless thin-film panel (CdTe). Many thin film panels are frameless, including the most common thin-film panels, First Solar’s CdTe. Frameless panels have protective glass on both the front and back of the panel. Layer thicknesses not to scale. Image Source: www.homepower.com To provide decades of corrosion-free operation, PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Frameless modules include a protective layer of glass on the rear of the panel, which may also be tempered. The plastic ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) commonly provides the cell encapsulation. For decades, this same material has been used between layers of tempered glass to give car windshields and hurricane windows their great strength. In the same way that a car windshield cracks but stays intact, the EVA layers in PV panels keep broken panels intact (see Figure 4). Thus, a damaged module does not generally create small pieces of debris; instead, it largely remains together as one piece. 4 Figure 4: The mangled PV panels in this picture illustrate the nature of broken solar panels; the glass cracks but the panel is still in one piece. Image Source: http://img.alibaba.com/photo/115259576/broken_solar_panel.jpg PV panels constructed with the same basic components as modern panels have been installed across the globe for well over thirty years.2F 3 The long-term durability and performance demonstrated over these decades, as well as the results of accelerated lifetime testing, helped lead to an industry- standard 25-year power production warranty for PV panels. These power warranties warrant a PV panel to produce at least 80% of their original nameplate production after 25 years of use. A recent SolarCity and DNV GL study reported that today’s quality PV panels should be expected to reliably and efficiently produce power for thirty-five years.3F 4 Local building codes require all structures, including ground mounted solar arrays, to be engineered to withstand anticipated wind speeds, as defined by the local wind speed requirements. Many racking products are available in versions engineered for wind speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, which is significantly higher than the wind speed requirement anywhere in North Carolina. The strength of PV mounting structures were demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again during Hurricane Matthew in 2016. During Hurricane Sandy, the many large-scale solar facilities in New Jersey and New York at that time suffered only minor damage.4F 5 In the fall of 2016, the US and Caribbean experienced destructive winds and torrential rains from Hurricane Matthew, yet one leading solar tracker manufacturer reported that their numerous systems in the impacted area received zero damage from wind or flooding.5F 6 In the event of a catastrophic event capable of damaging solar equipment, such as a tornado, the system will almost certainly have property insurance that will cover the cost to cleanup and repair the project. It is in the best interest of the system owner to protect their investment against such risks. It is also in their interest to get the project repaired and producing full power as soon as possible. Therefore, the investment in adequate insurance is a wise business practice for the system owner. For the same 5 reasons, adequate insurance coverage is also generally a requirement of the bank or firm providing financing for the project. 1.2.2 Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies a. Crystalline Silicon This subsection explores the toxicity of silicon-based PV panels and concludes that they do not pose a material risk of toxicity to public health and safety. Modern crystalline silicon PV panels, which account for over 90% of solar PV panels installed today, are, more or less, a commodity product. The overwhelming majority of panels installed in North Carolina are crystalline silicon panels that are informally classified as Tier I panels. Tier I panels are from well-respected manufacturers that have a good chance of being able to honor warranty claims. Tier I panels are understood to be of high quality, with predictable performance, durability, and content. Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tempered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them together, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth's crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of boron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. The other minor components of the PV cell are also generally benign; however, some contain lead, which is a human toxicant that is particularly harmful to young children. The minor components include an extremely thin antireflective coating (silicon nitride or titanium dioxide), a thin layer of aluminum on the rear, and thin strips of silver alloy that are screen-printed on the front and rear of cell.6F 7 In order for the front and rear electrodes to make effective electrical contact with the proper layer of the PV cell, other materials (called glass frit) are mixed with the silver alloy and then heated to etch the metals into the cell. This glass frit historically contains a small amount of lead (Pb) in the form of lead oxide. The 60 or 72 PV cells in a PV panel are connected by soldering thin solder-covered copper tabs from the back of one cell to the front of the next cell. Traditionally a tin-based solder containing some lead (Pb) is used, but some manufacturers have switched to lead-free solder. The glass frit and/or the solder may contain trace amounts of other metals, potentially including some with human toxicity such as cadmium. However, testing to simulate the potential for leaching from broken panels, which is discussed in more detail below, did not find a potential toxicity threat from these trace elements. Therefore, the tiny amount of lead in the grass frit and the solder is the only part of silicon PV panels with a potential to create a negative health impact. However, as described below, the very limited amount of lead involved and its strong physical and chemical attachment to other components of the PV panel means that even in worst-case scenarios the health hazard it poses is insignificant. As with many electronic industries, the solder in silicon PV panels has historically been a lead- based solder, often 36% lead, due to the superior properties of such solder. However, recent advances in lead-free solders have spurred a trend among PV panel manufacturers to reduce or remove the lead in their panels. According to the 2015 Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a group that tracks environmental responsibility of photovoltaic panel manufacturers, fourteen companies (increased from twelve companies in 2014) manufacture PV panels certified to meet the European Restriction of 6 Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard. This means that the amount of cadmium and lead in the panels they manufacture fall below the RoHS thresholds, which are set by the European Union and serve as the world’s de facto standard for hazardous substances in manufactured goods.7F 8 The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard requires that the maximum concentration found in any homogenous material in a produce is less than 0.01% cadmium and less than 0.10% lead, therefore, any solder can be no more than 0.10% lead.8F 9 While some manufacturers are producing PV panels that meet the RoHS standard, there is no requirement that they do so because the RoHS Directive explicitly states that the directive does not apply to photovoltaic panels.9F 10 The justification for this is provided in item 17 of the current RoHS Directive: “The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (4) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union environmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sustainable and economically viable.” The use of lead is common in our modern economy. However, only about 0.5% of the annual lead consumption in the U.S. is for electronic solder for all uses; PV solder makes up only a tiny portion of this 0.5%. Close to 90% of lead consumption in the US is in batteries, which do not encapsulate the pounds of lead contained in each typical automotive battery. This puts the lead in batteries at great risk of leaching into the environment. Estimates for the lead in a single PV panel with lead-based solder range from 1.6 to 24 grams of lead, with 13g (less than half of an ounce) per panel seen most often in the literature.10F 11 At 13 g/panel11F 12, each panel contains one-half of the lead in a typical 12-gauge shotgun shell.12F This amount equates to roughly 1/750th of the lead in a single car battery. In a panel, it is all durably encapsulated from air or water for the full life of the panel.13F 14 As indicated by their 20 to 30-year power warranty, PV modules are designed for a long service life, generally over 25 years. For a panel to comply with its 25-year power warranty, its internal components, including lead, must be sealed from any moisture. Otherwise, they would corrode and the panel’s output would fall below power warranty levels. Thus, the lead in operating PV modules is not at risk of release to the environment during their service lifetime. In extreme experiments, researchers have shown that lead can leach from crushed or pulverized panels.14F 15, 15F 16 However, more real-world tests designed to represent typical trash compaction that are used to classify waste as hazardous or non- hazardous show no danger from leaching.16F 17, 17F 18 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. As illustrated throughout this section, silicon-based PV panels do not pose a material threat to public health and safety. The only aspect of the panels with potential toxicity concerns is the very small amount of lead in some panels. However, any lead in a panel is well sealed from environmental exposure for the operating lifetime of the solar panel and thus not at risk of release into the environment. b. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) PV Panels This subsection examines the components of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV panel. Research demonstrates that they pose negligible toxicity risk to public health and safety while significantly reducing the public’s exposure to cadmium by reducing coal emissions. As of mid-2016, a few hundred MWs of 7 cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, all manufactured by the U.S. company First Solar, have been installed in North Carolina. Questions about the potential health and environmental impacts from the use of this PV technology are related to the concern that these panels contain cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. However, scientific studies have shown that cadmium telluride differs from cadmium due to its high chemical and thermal stability.18F 19 Research has shown that the tiny amount of cadmium in these panels does not pose a health or safety risk.19F 20 Further, there are very compelling reasons to welcome its adoption due to reductions in unhealthy pollution associated with burning coal. Every GWh of electricity generated by burning coal produces about 4 grams of cadmium air emissions.20F 21 Even though North Carolina produces a significant fraction of our electricity from coal, electricity from solar offsets much more natural gas than coal due to natural gas plants being able to adjust their rate of production more easily and quickly. If solar electricity offsets 90% natural gas and 10% coal, each 5-megawatt (5 MWAC, which is generally 7 MWDC) CdTe solar facility in North Carolina keeps about 157 grams, or about a third of a pound, of cadmium out of our environment.21F 22, 22F 23 Cadmium is toxic, but all the approximately 7 grams of cadmium in one CdTe panel is in the form of a chemical compound cadmium telluride, 23F 24 which has 1/100th the toxicity of free cadmium.24F 25 25F Cadmium telluride is a very stable compound that is non-volatile and non-soluble in water. Even in the case of a fire, research shows that less than 0.1% of the cadmium is released when a CdTe panel is exposed to fire. The fire melts the glass and encapsulates over 99.9% of the cadmium in the molten glass.26F 27 It is important to understand the source of the cadmium used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. The cadmium is a byproduct of zinc and lead refining. The element is collected from emissions and waste streams during the production of these metals and combined with tellurium to create the CdTe used in PV panels. If the cadmium were not collected for use in the PV panels or other products, it would otherwise either be stockpiled for future use, cemented and buried, or disposed of.27F 28 Nearly all the cadmium in old or broken panels can be recycled which can eventually serve as the primary source of cadmium for new PV panels.28F 29 Similar to silicon-based PV panels, CdTe panels are constructed of a tempered glass front, one instead of two clear plastic encapsulation layers, and a rear heat strengthened glass backing (together >98% by weight). The final product is built to withstand exposure to the elements without significant damage for over 25 years. While not representative of damage that may occur in the field or even at a landfill, laboratory evidence has illustrated that when panels are ground into a fine powder, very acidic water is able to leach portions of the cadmium and tellurium,29F 30 similar to the process used to recycle CdTe panels. Like many silicon-based panels, CdTe panels are reported (as far back ask 199830F 31) to pass the EPA’s Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, which tests the potential for crushed panels in a landfill to leach hazardous substances into groundwater.31F 32 Passing this test means that they are classified as non-hazardous waste and can be deposited in landfills.32F 33, 33F 34 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. There is also concern of environmental impact resulting from potential catastrophic events involving CdTe PV panels. An analysis of worst-case scenarios for environmental impact from CdTe PV panels, including earthquakes, fires, and floods, was conducted by the University of Tokyo in 2013. After reviewing the extensive international body of research on CdTe PV technology, their report concluded, “Even in the worst-case scenarios, it is unlikely that the Cd concentrations in air and sea water will exceed the environmental regulation values.”34F 35 In a worst-case scenario of damaged panels abandoned on the ground, insignificant amounts of cadmium will leach from the panels. This is because this scenario is 8 much less conducive (larger module pieces, less acidity) to leaching than the conditions of the EPA’s TCLP test used to simulate landfill conditions, which CdTe panels pass.35F 36 First Solar, a U.S. company, and the only significant supplier of CdTe panels, has a robust panel take-back and recycling program that has been operating commercially since 2005.36F 37 The company states that it is “committed to providing a commercially attractive recycling solution for photovoltaic (PV) power plant and module owners to help them meet their module (end of life) EOL obligation simply, cost- effectively and responsibly.” First Solar global recycling services to their customers to collect and recycle panels once they reach the end of productive life whether due to age or damage. These recycling service agreements are structured to be financially attractive to both First Solar and the solar panel owner. For First Solar, the contract provides the company with an affordable source of raw materials needed for new panels and presumably a diminished risk of undesired release of Cd. The contract also benefits the solar panel owner by allowing them to avoid tipping fees at a waste disposal site. The legal contract helps provide peace of mind by ensuring compliance by both parties when considering the continuing trend of rising disposal costs and increasing regulatory requirements. c. CIS/CIGS and other PV technologies Copper indium gallium selenide PV technology, often referred to as CIGS, is the second most common type of thin-film PV panel but a distant second behind CdTe. CIGS cells are composed of a thin layer of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium on a glass or plastic backing. None of these elements are very toxic, although selenium is a regulated metal under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).37F 38 The cells often also have an extremely thin layer of cadmium sulfide that contains a tiny amount of cadmium, which is toxic. The promise of high efficiency CIGS panels drove heavy investment in this technology in the past. However, researchers have struggled to transfer high efficiency success in the lab to low-cost full-scale panels in the field.38F 39 Recently, a CIGS manufacturer based in Japan, Solar Frontier, has achieved some market success with a rigid, glass-faced CIGS module that competes with silicon panels. Solar Frontier produces the majority of CIS panels on the market today.39F 40 Notably, these panels are RoHS compliant,40F 41 thus meeting the rigorous toxicity standard adopted by the European Union even thought this directive exempts PV panels. The authors are unaware of any completed or proposed utility-scale system in North Carolina using CIS/CIGS panels. 1.2.3 Panel End-of-Life Management Concerns about the volume, disposal, toxicity, and recycling of PV panels are addressed in this subsection. To put the volume of PV waste into perspective, consider that by 2050, when PV systems installed in 2020 will reach the end of their lives, it is estimated that the global annual PV panel waste tonnage will be 10% of the 2014 global e-waste tonnage.41F 42 In the U.S., end-of-life disposal of solar products is governed by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state policies in some situations. RCRA separates waste into hazardous (not accepted at ordinary landfill) and solid waste (generally accepted at ordinary landfill) based on a series of rules. According to RCRA, the way to determine if a PV panel is classified as hazardous waste is the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. This EPA test is designed to simulate landfill disposal and determine the risk of hazardous substances leaching out of the landfill.42F 43, 43F 44, 44F 45 Multiple sources report that most modern PV panels (both crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride) pass the TCLP test.45F 46, 46F 47 Some studies found that some older (1990s) crystalline silicon panels, and perhaps some newer crystalline silicon panels (specifics are not given about vintage of panels tested), do not pass the lead (Pb) leachate limits in the TCLP test.47F 48, 48F 49 9 The test begins with the crushing of a panel into centimeter-sized pieces. The pieces are then mixed in an acid bath. After tumbling for eighteen hours, the fluid is tested for forty hazardous substances that all must be below specific threshold levels to pass the test. Research comparing TCLP conditions to conditions of damaged panels in the field found that simulated landfill conditions provide overly conservative estimates of leaching for field-damaged panels.49F 50 Additionally, research in Japan has found no detectable Cd leaching from cracked CdTe panels when exposed to simulated acid rain.50F 51 Although modern panels can generally be landfilled, they can also be recycled. Even though recent waste volume has not been adequate to support significant PV-specific recycling infrastructure, the existing recycling industry in North Carolina reports that it recycles much of the current small volume of broken PV panels. In an informal survey conducted by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center survey in early 2016, seven of the eight large active North Carolina utility-scale solar developers surveyed reported that they send damaged panels back to the manufacturer and/or to a local recycler. Only one developer reported sending damaged panels to the landfill. The developers reported at that time that they are usually paid a small amount per panel by local recycling firms. In early 2017, a PV developer reported that a local recycler was charging a small fee per panel to recycle damaged PV panels. The local recycling firm known to authors to accept PV panels described their current PV panel recycling practice as of early 2016 as removing the aluminum frame for local recycling and removing the wire leads for local copper recycling. The remainder of the panel is sent to a facility for processing the non-metallic portions of crushed vehicles, referred to as “fluff” in the recycling industry.51F 52 This processing within existing general recycling plants allows for significant material recovery of major components, including glass which is 80% of the module weight, but at lower yields than PV-specific recycling plants. Notably almost half of the material value in a PV panel is in the few grams of silver contained in almost every PV panel produced today. In the long-term, dedicated PV panel recycling plants can increase treatment capacities and maximize revenues resulting in better output quality and the ability to recover a greater fraction of the useful materials.52F 53 PV-specific panel recycling technologies have been researched and implemented to some extent for the past decade, and have been shown to be able to recover over 95% of PV material (semiconductor) and over 90% of the glass in a PV panel. 53F 54 A look at global PV recycling trends hints at the future possibilities of the practice in our country. Europe installed MW-scale volumes of PV years before the U.S. In 2007, a public-private partnership between the European Union and the solar industry set up a voluntary collection and recycling system called PV CYCLE. This arrangement was later made mandatory under the EU’s WEEE directive, a program for waste electrical and electronic equipment.54F 55 Its member companies (PV panel producers) fully finance the association. This makes it possible for end-users to return the member companies’ defective panels for recycling at any of the over 300 collection points around Europe without added costs. Additionally, PV CYCLE will pick up batches of 40 or more used panels at no cost to the user. This arrangement has been very successful, collecting and recycling over 13,000 tons by the end of 2015.55F 56 In 2012, the WEEE Directive added the end-of-life collection and recycling of PV panels to its scope.56F 57 This directive is based on the principle of extended-producer-responsibility. It has a global impact because producers that want to sell into the EU market are legally responsible for end-of-life management. Starting in 2018, this directive targets that 85% of PV products “put in the market” in Europe are recovered and 80% is prepared for reuse and recycling. The success of the PV panel collection and recycling practices in Europe provides promise for the future of recycling in the U.S. In mid-2016, the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) announced that they are starting a national solar panel recycling program with the guidance and support of many 10 leading PV panel producers.57F 58 The program will aggregate the services offered by recycling vendors and PV manufacturers, which will make it easier for consumers to select a cost-effective and environmentally responsible end-of-life management solution for their PV products. According to SEIA, they are planning the program in an effort to make the entire industry landfill-free. In addition to the national recycling network program, the program will provide a portal for system owners and consumers with information on how to responsibly recycle their PV systems. While a cautious approach toward the potential for negative environmental and/or health impacts from retired PV panels is fully warranted, this section has shown that the positive health impacts of reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion from PV systems more than outweighs any potential risk. Testing shows that silicon and CdTe panels are both safe to dispose of in landfills, and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster. Additionally, analysis by local engineers has found that the current salvage value of the equipment in a utility scale PV facility generally exceeds general contractor estimates for the cost to remove the entire PV system.58F 59, 59F 60, 60F 61 1.2.4 Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer) While previous toxicity subsections discussed PV panels, this subsection describes the non-panel components of utility-scale PV systems and investigates any potential public health and safety concerns. The most significant non-panel component of a ground-mounted PV system is the mounting structure of the rows of panels, commonly referred to as “racking”. The vertical post portion of the racking is galvanized steel and the remaining above-ground racking components are either galvanized steel or aluminum, which are both extremely common and benign building materials. The inverters that make the solar generated electricity ready to send to the grid have weather-proof steel enclosures that protect the working components from the elements. The only fluids that they might contain are associated with their cooling systems, which are not unlike the cooling system in a computer. Many inverters today are RoHS compliant. The electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connection point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, the fluid used for that function is either a non- toxic mineral oil or a biodegradable non-toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of being much less flammable than traditional mineral oils. Significant health hazards are associated with old transformers containing cooling oil with toxic PCBs. Transfers with PCB-containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979. PCBs still exist in older transformers in the field across the country. Other than a few utility research sites, there are no batteries on- or off-site associated with utility- scale solar energy facilities in North Carolina, avoiding any potential health or safety concerns related to battery technologies. However, as battery technologies continue to improve and prices continue to decline we are likely to start seeing some batteries at solar facilities. Lithium ion batteries currently dominate the world utility-scale battery market, which are not very toxic. No non-panel system components were found to pose any health or environmental dangers. 1.4 Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control 11 Throughout the eastern U.S., the climate provides frequent and heavy enough rain to keep panels adequately clean. This dependable weather pattern eliminates the need to wash the panels on a regular basis. Some system owners may choose to wash panels as often as once a year to increase production, but most in N.C. do not regularly wash any PV panels. Dirt build up over time may justify panel washing a few times over the panels’ lifetime; however, nothing more than soap and water are required for this activity. The maintenance of ground-mounted PV facilities requires that vegetation be kept low, both for aesthetics and to avoid shading of the PV panels. Several approaches are used to maintain vegetation at NC solar facilities, including planting of limited-height species, mowing, weed-eating, herbicides, and grazing livestock (sheep). The following descriptions of vegetation maintenance practices are based on interviews with several solar developers as well as with three maintenance firms that together are contracted to maintain well over 100 of the solar facilities in N.C. The majority of solar facilities in North Carolina maintain vegetation primarily by mowing. Each row of panels has a single row of supports, allowing sickle mowers to mow under the panels. The sites usually require mowing about once a month during the growing season. Some sites employ sheep to graze the site, which greatly reduces the human effort required to maintain the vegetation and produces high quality lamb meat.61F 62 In addition to mowing and weed eating, solar facilities often use some herbicides. Solar facilities generally do not spray herbicides over the entire acreage; rather they apply them only in strategic locations such as at the base of the perimeter fence, around exterior vegetative buffer, on interior dirt roads, and near the panel support posts. Also unlike many row crop operations, solar facilities generally use only general use herbicides, which are available over the counter, as opposed to restricted use herbicides commonly used in commercial agriculture that require a special restricted use license. The herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-D and glyphosate (Round-up®), which are two of the most common herbicides used in lawns, parks, and agriculture across the country. One maintenance firm that was interviewed sprays the grass with a class of herbicide known as a growth regulator in order to slow the growth of grass so that mowing is only required twice a year. Growth regulators are commonly used on highway roadsides and golf courses for the same purpose. A commercial pesticide applicator license is required for anyone other than the landowner to apply herbicides, which helps ensure that all applicators are adequately educated about proper herbicide use and application. The license must be renewed annually and requires passing of a certification exam appropriate to the area in which the applicator wishes to work. Based on the limited data available, it appears that solar facilities in N.C. generally use significantly less herbicides per acre than most commercial agriculture or lawn maintenance services. 2. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) PV systems do not emit any material during their operation; however, they do generate electromagnetic fields (EMF), sometimes referred to as radiation. EMF produced by electricity is non- ionizing radiation, meaning the radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around (experienced as heat), but not enough energy to remove electrons from an atom or molecule (ionize) or to damage DNA. As shown below, modern humans are all exposed to EMF throughout our daily lives without negative health impact. Someone outside of the fenced perimeter of a solar facility is not exposed to significant EMF from the solar facility. Therefore, there is no negative health impact from the EMF 12 produced in a solar farm. The following paragraphs provide some additional background and detail to support this conclusion. Since the 1970s, some have expressed concern over potential health consequences of EMF from electricity, but no studies have ever shown this EMF to cause health problems.62F 63 These concerns are based on some epidemiological studies that found a slight increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic fields above 0.3 to 0.4 μ T (microteslas) (equal to 3.0 to 4.0 mG (milligauss)). μ T and mG are both units used to measure magnetic field strength. For comparison, the average exposure for people in the U.S. is one mG or 0.1 μ T, with about 1% of the population with an average exposure in excess of 0.4 μ T (or 4 mG).63F 64 These epidemiological studies, which found an association but not a causal relationship, led the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Coffee also has this classification. This classification means there is limited evidence but not enough evidence to designate as either a “probable carcinogen” or “human carcinogen”. Overall, there is very little concern that ELF EMF damages public health. The only concern that does exist is for long-term exposure above 0.4 μ T (4 mG) that may have some connection to increased cases of childhood leukemia. In 1997, the National Academies of Science were directed by Congress to examine this concern and concluded: “Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.”64F 65 There are two aspects to electromagnetic fields, an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is generated by voltage and the magnetic field is generated by electric current, i.e., moving electrons. A task group of scientific experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 concluded that there were no substantive health issues related to electric fields (0 to 100,000 Hz) at levels generally encountered by members of the public.65F 66 The relatively low voltages in a solar facility and the fact that electric fields are easily shielded (i.e., blocked) by common materials, such as plastic, metal, or soil means that there is no concern of negative health impacts from the electric fields generated by a solar facility. Thus, the remainder of this section addresses magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are not shielded by most common materials and thus can easily pass through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source of electric generation and weaken quickly with distance from the source. The direct current (DC) electricity produced by PV panels produce stationary (0 Hz) electric and magnetic fields. Because of minimal concern about potential risks of stationary fields, little scientific research has examined stationary fields’ impact on human health.66F 67 In even the largest PV facilities, the DC voltages and currents are not very high. One can illustrate the weakness of the EMF generated by a PV panel by placing a compass on an operating solar panel and observing that the needle still points north. While the electricity throughout the majority of a solar site is DC electricity, the inverters convert this DC electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity matching the 60 Hz frequency of the grid. Therefore, the inverters and the wires delivering this power to the grid are producing non-stationary EMF, known as extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF, normally oscillating with a frequency of 60 Hz. This frequency is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, it has less energy than 13 other commonly encountered types of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves, infrared radiation, and visible light. The wide use of electricity results in background levels of ELF EMFs in nearly all locations where people spend time – homes, workplaces, schools, cars, the supermarket, etc. A person’s average exposure depends upon the sources they encounter, how close they are to them, and the amount of time they spend there.67F 68 As stated above, the average exposure to magnetic fields in the U.S. is estimated to be around one mG or 0.1 μ T, but can vary considerably depending on a person’s exposure to EMF from electrical devices and wiring.68F 69 At times we are often exposed to much higher ELF magnetic fields, for example when standing three feet from a refrigerator the ELF magnetic field is 6 mG and when standing three feet from a microwave oven the field is about 50 mG.69F 70 The strength of these fields diminish quickly with distance from the source, but when surrounded by electricity in our homes and other buildings moving away from one source moves you closer to another. However, unless you are inside of the fence at a utility-scale solar facility or electrical substation it is impossible to get very close to the EMF sources. Because of this, EMF levels at the fence of electrical substations containing high voltages and currents are considered “generally negligible”.70F 71, 71F 72 The strength of ELF-EMF present at the perimeter of a solar facility or near a PV system in a commercial or residential building is significantly lower than the typical American’s average EMF exposure.72F 73, 73F 74 Researchers in Massachusetts measured magnetic fields at PV projects and found the magnetic fields dropped to very low levels of 0.5 mG or less, and in many cases to less than background levels (0.2 mG), at distances of no more than nine feet from the residential inverters and 150 feet from the utility-scale inverters.74F 75 Even when measured within a few feet of the utility-scale inverter, the ELF magnetic fields were well below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s recommended magnetic field level exposure limit for the general public of 2,000 mG.75F 76 It is typical that utility scale designs locate large inverters central to the PV panels that feed them because this minimizes the length of wire required and shields neighbors from the sound of the inverter’s cooling fans. Thus, it is rare for a large PV inverter to be within 150 feet of the project’s security fence. Anyone relying on a medical device such as pacemaker or other implanted device to maintain proper heart rhythm may have concern about the potential for a solar project to interfere with the operation of his or her device. However, there is no reason for concern because the EMF outside of the solar facility’s fence is less than 1/1000 of the level at which manufacturers test for ELF EMF interference, which is 1,000 mG.76F 77 Manufacturers of potentially affected implanted devices often provide advice on electromagnetic interference that includes avoiding letting the implanted device get too close to certain sources of fields such as some household appliances, some walkie-talkies, and similar transmitting devices. Some manufacturers’ literature does not mention high-voltage power lines, some say that exposure in public areas should not give interference, and some advise not spending extended periods of time close to power lines.77F 78 3. Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards There is a real danger of electric shock to anyone entering any of the electrical cabinets such as combiner boxes, disconnect switches, inverters, or transformers; or otherwise coming in contact with voltages over 50 Volts.78F 79 Another electrical hazard is an arc flash, which is an explosion of energy that can occur in a short circuit situation. This explosive release of energy causes a flash of heat and a shockwave, both of which can cause serious injury or death. Properly trained and equipped technicians and electricians know how to safely install, test, and repair PV systems, but there is always some risk of 14 injury when hazardous voltages and/or currents are present. Untrained individuals should not attempt to inspect, test, or repair any aspect of a PV system due to the potential for injury or death due to electric shock and arc flash, The National Electric Code (NEC) requires appropriate levels of warning signs on all electrical components based on the level of danger determined by the voltages and current potentials. The national electric code also requires the site to be secured from unauthorized visitors with either a six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire or an eight-foot fence, both with adequate hazard warning signs. 4. Fire Safety The possibility of fires resulting from or intensified by PV systems may trigger concern among the general public as well as among firefighters. However, concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer backsheets (framed panels only), plastic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. Heat from a small flame is not adequate to ignite a PV panel, but heat from a more intense fire or energy from an electrical fault can ignite a PV panel.79F 80 One real-world example of this occurred during July 2015 in an arid area of California. Three acres of grass under a thin film PV facility burned without igniting the panels mounted on fixed-tilt racks just above the grass.80F 81 While it is possible for electrical faults in PV systems on homes or commercial buildings to start a fire, this is extremely rare.81F 82 Improving understanding of the PV-specific risks, safer system designs, and updated fire-related codes and standards will continue to reduce the risk of fire caused by PV systems. PV systems on buildings can affect firefighters in two primary ways, 1) impact their methods of fighting the fire, and 2) pose safety hazard to the firefighters. One of the most important techniques that firefighters use to suppress fire is ventilation of a building’s roof. This technique allows superheated toxic gases to quickly exit the building. By doing so, the firefighters gain easier and safer access to the building, Ventilation of the roof also makes the challenge of putting out the fire easier. However, the placement of rooftop PV panels may interfere with ventilating the roof by limiting access to desired venting locations. New solar-specific building code requirements are working to minimize these concerns. Also, the latest National Electric Code has added requirements that make it easier for first responders to safely and effectively turn off a PV system. Concern for firefighting a building with PV can be reduced with proper fire fighter training, system design, and installation. Numerous organizations have studied fire fighter safety related to PV. Many organizations have published valuable guides and training programs. Some notable examples are listed below. x The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and International Renewable Energy Council (IREC) partnered to create an online training course that is far beyond the PowerPoint click-and- view model. The self-paced online course, “Solar PV Safety for Fire Fighters,” features rich video content and simulated environments so fire fighters can practice the knowledge they’ve learned. www.iaff.org/pvsafetytraining x Photovoltaic Systems and the Fire Code: Office of NC Fire Marshal x Fire Service Training, Underwriter's Laboratory 15 x Firefighter Safety and Response for Solar Power Systems, National Fire Protection Research Foundation x Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety & Green Buildings, National Association of State Fire Marshalls x Guidelines for Fire Safety Elements of Solar Photovoltaic Systems, Orange County Fire Chiefs Association x Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall x PV Safety & Firefighting, Matthew Paiss, Homepower Magazine x PV Safety and Code Development: Matthew Paiss, Cooperative Research Network Summary The purpose of this paper is to address and alleviate concerns of public health and safety for utility-scale solar PV projects. Concerns of public health and safety were divided and discussed in the four following sections: (1) Toxicity, (2) Electromagnetic Fields, (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash, and (4) Fire. In each of these sections, the negative health and safety impacts of utility-scale PV development were shown to be negligible, while the public health and safety benefits of installing these facilities are significant and far outweigh any negative impacts. 1 Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin A. Heath. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65628.pdf 2 IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), “End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overview of Field Experience – Degradation Rates & Lifetimes. September 14, 2015. Solar Power International Conference. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/65040.pdf 4 Miesel et al. SolarCity Photovoltaic Modules with 35 Year Useful Life. June 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://www.solarcity.com/newsroom/reports/solarcity-photovoltaic-modules-35-year-useful-life 5 David Unger. Are Renewables Stormproof? Hurricane Sandy Tests Solar, Wind. November 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandy-tests-solar- wind & http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandy- tests-solar-wind 6 NEXTracker and 365 Pronto, Tracking Your Solar Investment: Best Practices for Solar Tracker O&M. Accessed March 2017. www.nextracker.com/content/uploads/2017/03/NEXTracker_OandM-WhitePaper_FINAL_March-2017.pdf 7 Christiana Honsberg, Stuart Bowden. Overview of Screen Printed Solar Cells. Accessed January 2017. www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/screen-printed 8 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2015 Solar Scorecard. Accessed August 2016. www.solarscorecard.com/2015/2015- SVTC-Solar-Scorecard.pdf 9 European Commission. Recast of Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. September 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/index_en.htm 10 Official Journal of the European Union, DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. June 2011. Accessed May 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065&from=en 11 Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. (YDOXDWLRQRIWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO%HQH¿WVRI1HZ+LJK9DOXH Process for the Management of the End of Life of Thin Film Photovoltaic Modules. July 2013. Accessed August 2016. www.researchgate.net/publication/257408804_Evaluation_of_the_environmental_benefits_of_new_high_value_process_for_ the_management_of_the_end_of_life_of_thin_film_photovoltaic_modules 16 12 European Commission. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing The Impact Assessment for a Recast of the Weee Directive. April 2011. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Study%20on%20PVs%20Bio%20final.pdf 14 The amount of lead in a typical car battery is 21.4 pounds. Waste 360. Chaz Miller. Lead Acid Batteries. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://waste360.com/mag/waste_leadacid_batteries_3 15 Okkenhaug G. Leaching from CdTe PV module material results from batch, column and availability tests. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI report No. 20092155-00-6-R; 2010 16 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/article/download/485/298 17 ibid 18 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 19 Bonnet, D. and P. Meyers. 1998. Cadmium-telluride—Material for thin film solar cells. J. Mater. Res., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 2740-2753 20 V. Fthenakis, K. Zweibel. CdTe PV: Real and Perceived EHS Risks. National Center ofr Photovoltaics and Solar Program Review Meeting, March 24-26, 2003. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33561.pdf. Accessed May 2017 21 International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. March 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=315 22 Data not available on fraction of various generation sources offset by solar generation in NC, but this is believed to be a reasonable rough estimate. The SunShot report entitled The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States analysis contributes significant (% not provided) offsetting of coal-fired generation by solar PV energy in the southeast. 23 7 MWDC * 1.5 GWh/MWDC * 25 years * 0.93 degradation factor * (0.1 *4.65 grams/GWh + 0.9*0.2 grams/GWh) 24 Vasilis Fthenakis. CdTe PV: Facts and Handy Comparisons. January 2003. Accessed March 2017. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_165.pdf 25 Kaczmar, S., Evaluating the Read-Across Approach on CdTe Toxicity for CdTe Photovoltaics, SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 2011. Available at: ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/campo-verde- solar/final/evaluating-toxicity.pdf, Accessed May 2017 27 V. M. Fthenakis et al, Emissions and Encapsulation of Cadmium in CdTe PV Modules During Fires Renewable Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:1–11, Accessed March 2017, www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/abs_179.pdf 28 Fthenakis V.M., Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadmium in CdTe Photovoltaic Production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 303-334, 2004. www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Life_Cycle_Impact_Analysis_Cadmium_CdTe_Photovoltaic_productio n.pdf, Accessed May 2017 29 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. 30 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/article/download/485/298 31 Cunningham D., Discussion about TCLP protocols, Photovoltaics and the Environment Workshop, July 23-24, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-52557 32 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 33 Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamentals and Applications. T. Markvart and L. Castaner. Chapter VII-2: Overview of Potential Hazards. December 2003. Accessed August 2016. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf 34 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Environmental Risks Regarding the Use and End-of-Life Disposal of CdTe PV Modules. April 2010. Accessed August 2016. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/Norwegian-Geotechnical-Institute- Study.pdf 35 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. August 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sustainability/Peer- Reviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsuno_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 36 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. Assessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. 2015 IEEE 37 See p. 22 of First Solar, Sustainability Report. Available at: www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First- Solar/Sustainability-Documents/03801_FirstSolar_SustainabilityReport_08MAR16_Web.ashx, Accessed May 2017 17 38 40 CFR §261.24. Toxicity Characteristic. May 2017. Accessed May 2017. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?node=se40.26.261_124&rgn=div8 39 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide. Accessed March 2017. https://www.energy.gov/eere/sunshot/copper-indium-gallium-diselenide 40 Mathias Maehlum. Best Thin Film Solar Panels – Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride or CIGS? April 2015. Accessed March 2017. http://energyinformative.org/best-thin-film-solar-panels-amorphous-cadmium-telluride-cigs/ 41 RoHS tested certificate for Solar Frontier PV modules. TUVRheinland, signed 11.11.2013 42 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 43 40 C.F.R. §261.10. Identifying the Characteristics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing Hazardous Waste. November 2016. Accessed November 2016 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=ce0006d66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40.26.261&rgn=div5#sp40.28.261.b 44 40 C.F.R. §261.24 Toxicity Characteristic. November 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=ce0006d66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40.26.261&rgn=div5#se40.28.261_124 45 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 46 TLCP test results from third-party laboratories for REC, Jinko, and Canadian Solar silicon-based panels. Provided by PV panel manufacturers directly or indirectly to authors 47 Sinovoltaics, Introduction to Solar Panel Recycling, March 2014. Accessed October 2016. http://sinovoltaics.com/solar- basics/introduction-to-solar-panel-recycling/ 48 Brookhaven National Laboratory. Vasilis Fthenakis, Regulations on Photovoltaic Module Disposal and Recycling. January 29, 2001. 49 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. 50 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. Assessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. October 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.firstsolar.com/- /media/Documents/Sustainability/PVSC42-Manuscript-20150912--Assessment-of-Leaching-Tests-for-Evaluating-Potential- Environmental-Impa.ashx 51 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sustainability/Peer- Reviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsuno_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 52 Phone interview, February 3, 2016, TT&E Iron & Metal, Garner, NC www.ncscrapmetal.com/ 53 Wen-His Huang, et al. Strategy and Technology To Recycle Water-silicon Solar Modules. Solar Energy, Volume 144, March 2017, Pages 22-31 54 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 55 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0019 56 PV CYCLE. Annual Report 2015. Accessed November 2016. https://pvcyclepublications.cld.bz/Annual-Report-PV- CYCLE-2015/6-7 57 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0019 58 SEIA National PV Recycling Program: www.seia.org/seia-national-pv-recycling-program 59 RBI Solar, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in June 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2015-05_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 60 Birdseye Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in May 2015. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2015- 04_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 61 Cypress Creek Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in September 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2016- 06decommission.pdf 62 Sun Raised Farms: http://sunraisedfarms.com/index.html 63 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with Electric Power: Questions and Answers, June 2002 18 64 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 65 Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems, National Research Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, ISBN: 0-309-55671-6, 384 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5155.html 66 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 67 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Static Electric and Magnetic Fields. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs299/en/ 68 Asher Sheppard, Health Issues Related to the Static and Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) of the Soitec Solar Energy Farms, April 30, 2014. Accessed March 2017: www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/Appendix_9.0-1_EMF.pdf 69 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. December 2012. Accessed August 2016. 70 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequently_asked_questions.asp 71 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associate with the use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers, 2002. Accessed November 2016 www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields 72 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequently_asked_questions.asp 73 R.A. Tell et al, Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Electric Power Generating Facilities, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 12, 2015,- Issue 11. Abstract Accessed March 2016: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2015.1047021 74 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Questions & Answers: Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems. June 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/solar/solar-pv-guide.pdf 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 EMFs and medical devices, Accessed March 2017. www.emfs.info/effects/medical-devices/ 78 ibid. 79 Damon McCluer. Electrical Construction & Maintenance: NFPA 70E’s Approach to Considering DC Hazards. September 2013. Accessed October 2016. http://ecmweb.com/safety/nfpa-70e-s-approach-considering-dc-hazards, 80 Hong-Yun Yang, et. al. Experimental Studies on the Flammability and Fire Hazards of Photovoltaic Modules, Materials. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4210/pdf 81 Matt Fountain. The Tribune. Fire breaks out at Topaz Solar Farm. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39055539.html 82 Cooperative Research Network. Matthew Paiss. Tech Surveillance: PV Safety & Code Developments. October 2014. Accessed August 2016. http://www.nreca.coop/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ts_pv_fire_safety_oct_2014.pdf Published by the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at N.C. State University TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 1 TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 2 TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 3 TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 4 TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 5 TPE IL KE105, LLC Aerial 6 TPE IL KE105, LLC AnƟcipated View North of Proposed Facility Access, Cannonball Trail TPE IL KE105, LLC AnƟcipated View Velazquez Driveway TPE IL KE105, LLC AnƟcipated View 40 Cannonball Trail TPE IL KE105, LLC AnƟcipated View Southeast Corner Bristol Tap Parking Lot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www.cohnreznick.com REAL ESTATE ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT REPORT: Academic and Peer Authored Property Value Impact Studies, Research and Analysis of Existing Solar Facilities, and Market Participant and Assessor Interviews Prepared For: TPE Development, LLC Submitted By: CohnReznick LLP Valuation Advisory Services 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 508-5900 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS Andrew R. Lines, MAI Erin C. Bowen, MAI June 29, 2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 2 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL June 29, 2022 Adam Beal Executive Vice President of Development TPE Development, LLC 3720 South Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 SUBJECT: Property Value Impact Report An Analysis of Existing Solar Farms To Whom it May Concern: CohnReznick is pleased to submit the accompanying property values impact report for proposed solar energy uses in Illinois. Per the client’s request, CohnReznick researched property transactions adjacent to existing solar farms, researched and analyzed articles and other published studies, and interviewed real estate professionals and Township/County Assessors active in the market where solar farms are located, to gain an understanding of actual market transactions in the presence of solar energy uses. The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to a renewable energy use (solar farm) has an impact adjacent property values. The intended use of our opinions and conclusions is to assist the client in addressing local concerns and to provide information that local bodies are required to consider in their evaluation of solar project use applications. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The client and intended user for the assignment is TPE Development, LLC (“Turning Point”). Additional intended users of our findings include Turning Point’s designated project companies, all relevant permitting authorities for Turning Point’s proposed solar projects in Illinois. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP (“CohnReznick”). This consulting assignment is intended to conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, as well as applicable state appraisal regulations. Based on the analysis in the accompanying report, and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our findings are: Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 3 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. FINDINGS I. Academic Studies (pages 19-21): CohnReznick reviewed and analyzed published academic studies that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies include multiple regression analyses of hundreds and thousands of sales transactions, and opinion surveys, for both residential homes and farmland properties in rural communities, which concluded existing solar facilities have had no negative impact on adjacent property values. Peer Authored Studies: CohnReznick also reviewed studies prepared by other real estate valuation experts that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies found little to no measurable or consistent difference in value between the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales attributed to the proximity to existing solar farms and noted that solar energy uses are generally considered a compatible use. II. CohnReznick Studies (pages 22-92): Further, CohnReznick has performed 26 studies in over 15 states, of both residential and agricultural properties, in which we have determined that the existing solar facilities have not caused any consistent and measurable negative impact on property values. For this Project, we have included 10 of these studies which are most similar to the subject in terms of general location and size, summarized as follows: It is noted that proximity to the solar farms has not deterred sales of nearby agricultural land and residential single-family homes nor has it deterred the development of new single-family homes on adjacent land. This report also includes two “Before and After” analysis, in which sales that occurred prior to the announcement and construction of the solar farm project were compared with sales that occurred after completion of the solar farm project, for both adjoining and non-adjoining properties. No measurable impact on property values was demonstrated. Solar Farm Location Site Area (Acres) Power Output (MW AC) Date Project Completed Impact on Surrounding Property Values 1 Portage Solar Porter County, IN 56 2.0 Sep-12 No Impact 2 Lapeer (Demille & Turrill Solar) Lapeer County, MI 270 48.0 May-17 No Impact 3 Grand Ridge Solar LaSalle County, IL 158 20.0 Dec-10 No Impact 4 Woodland Solar Isle of Wight County, VA 204 19.0 Dec-16 No Impact 5 Dominion Indy Solar III Marion County, IN 134 8.6 Dec-13 No Impact 6 Sunfish Farm Solar Wake County, NC 50 5.0 Dec-15 No Impact 7 Call Farms 3 Solar Genesee County, NY 82 2.0 Jul-18 No Impact 8 IMPA Frankton Madison County, IN 13 1.4 Jun-14 No Impact 9 Jefferson County Community Jefferson County, CO 13 1.2 May-16 No Impact 10 Valparaiso Solar, LLC Porter County, IN 28 1.0 Dec-12 No Impact CohnReznick - Existing Solar Farms Studied Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 4 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. III. Market Participant Interviews (pages 93-95): Our conclusions also consider interviews with over 45 County and Township Assessors, who have at least one solar farm in their jurisdiction, and in which they have determined that solar farms have not negatively affected adjacent property values. With regards to the Project, we specifically interviewed Assessors in Illinois: x In Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois, we spoke with Viki Crouch, the Township Assessor, who she said that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the Grand Ridge Solar Farm. x We spoke with Ken Crowley, Rockford Township Assessor in Winnebago County, Illinois, who stated that he has seen no impact on property values in his township as an effect of proximity to the Rockford Solar Farm. x We spoke with James Weisiger, the Champaign Township Assessor in Champaign County, where the University of Illinois Solar Farm is located, and he noted there appears to have been no impact on property values as a result of proximity to the solar farm. To give us additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of solar farms, we interviewed numerous real estate brokers and other market participants who were party to actual sales of property adjacent to solar; these professionals also confirmed that solar farms did not diminish property values or marketability in the areas they conducted their business. IV. Solar Farm Factors on Harmony of Use (pages 98-103): In the course of our research and studies, we have recorded information regarding the compatibility of these existing solar facilities and their adjoining uses, including the continuing development of land adjoining these facilities. CONCLUSION Considering all of the preceding, the data indicates that solar facilities do not have a negative impact on adjacent property values. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 5 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 6 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS ................................................................................................................................................ 8 INTENDED USE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 DEFINITION OF VALUE ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT .................................................................................................................................... 9 PRIOR SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 INSPECTION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 OVERVIEW OF SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ......................................................................................................... 10 NATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 13 SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS ............................................................................................................................. 14 APPRAISAL THEORY – ADAJCENT PROPERTY’S IMPACT ON VALUE .................................................................................................. 15 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................................................................................. 17 TECHNIQUE 1: REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES .............................................................................................................................. 19 ACADEMIC REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS ............................................................................................................................................. 20 REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 21 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21 TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 22 SOLAR FARM 1: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN ...................................................................................... 22 SOLAR FARM 2: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS ............................................................................. 45 SOLAR FARM 3: WOODLAND SOLAR FARM, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA ....................................................................... 50 SOLAR FARM 4: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA .................................................................................. 55 SOLAR FARM 5: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ........................................................................... 67 SOLAR FARM 6: CALL FARMS 3 SOLAR, BATAVIA, GENESSEE COUNTY, NEW YORK ................................................................ 74 SOLAR FARM 7: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA .................................................................... 22 SOLAR FARM 8: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA ................................................................................... 78 SOLAR FARM 9: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO ................................... 84 SOLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA ................................................................... 89 TECHNIQUE 3: MARKET COMMENTARY .......................................................................................................................................... 94 SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF USE ................................................................................................................................ 97 SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 104 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 7 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 108 ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 112 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 8 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SCOPE OF WORK CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS The client and intended user of this report is TPE Development, LLC and it's designated project companies; other intended users may include the client’s legal and site development professionals. Additional intended users of our findings include all relevant permitting authorities for Turning Point’s proposed solar projects in Illinois. INTENDED USE The intended use of our findings and conclusions is to address certain criteria required for the granting of approvals for proposed solar energy uses. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP (“CohnReznick”). PURPOSE The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to the proposed solar facility will result in an impact on adjacent property values. DEFINITION OF VALUE This report utilizes Market Value as the appropriate premise of value. Market value is defined as: “The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”1 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Chapter I, Part 34.42[h] Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 9 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT June 29, 2022 (Paired sale analyses contained within each study are periodically updated.) PRIOR SERVICES USPAP requires appraisers to disclose to the client any services they have provided in connection with the subject property in the prior three years, including valuation, consulting, property management, brokerage, or any other services. This report is a compilation of the Existing Solar Farms which we have studied over the past year, and is not evaluating a specific subject site. In this instance, there is no “subject property” to disclose. INSPECTION Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 10 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. OVERVIEW OF SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Solar development increased almost exponentially since 2010 in the United States as technology and the economic incentives (Solar Investment Tax Credits or ITC) made the installation of solar farms economically reasonable. The cost to install solar panels has dropped nationally by 70 percent from 2010 to 2020, a major reason leading to the increase in installations. A majority of these solar farm installations are attributed to larger- scale solar farm developments for utility purposes. The chart below portrays the historical increase on an annual basis of solar installations in the U.S. as a whole, as well as the base case projections through 2026, courtesy of research by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie. The United States installed a record of 23.6 Gigawatts (GW) DC of solar photovoltaic capacity for all the sectors, residential, commercial, community solar and utility-scale solar projects in 2021, an increase of 19 percent over 2020. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 11 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Overall, solar power generation accounted for 46 percent of all new electricity-generating capacity additions from in 2021 and continues to make up the largest share of new generating capacity in the U.S. The US solar industry had the weakest quarter in two years for solar installation, with 3.9 gigawatts-direct current (GWdc) of capacity installed, a 24 percent decrease from the first quarter 2021. Supply chain constraints and shipment delays have slowed the installation process and as a result, the US solar industry is expected to have 15.6 GWdc installed in 2022. Despite continued installation growth, 2022 is predicted to be challenging for the solar industry. Thanks to ongoing supply chain constraints and price increases, Wood Mackenzie has lowered the 2022 outlook by 25 percent, a decrease of 7.4 GWdc. However, the 2022 outlook for community solar segments have only been lowered by 0.3 percent. The beginning dates for operation of multiple gigawatts of projects have been pushed from 2022 into 2023 or later. The projects likely to come online in 2022 already have secured equipment, as of the end of 2021. The ITC extension scenario would result in an additional 43.5 GWdc of solar capacity over the next five years, most of which would come from utility-scale solar. The chart below presents the base case forecast for solar installations and projections for an ITC extension scenario.2 Recent articles show that over the past decade, the solar industry has experienced unprecedented growth. Among the factors contributing to its growth were government incentives, significant capacity additions from existing and new entrants and continual innovation. Solar farms offer a wide array of economic and environmental benefits to surrounding properties. Unlike other energy sources, solar energy does not produce emissions that may cause negative health effects or environmental damage. Solar farms produce a lower 2 U.S. Solar Market Insight, Executive Summary, Q4 2021, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 12 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. electromagnetic field exposure than most household appliances, such as TV and refrigerators, and studies have confirmed there are no health issues related to solar farms.3 Solar farm construction in rural areas has also dramatically increased the tax value of the land on which they are built, which has provided a financial boost to some counties. CohnReznick has studied real estate tax increases due to the installation of solar, which can range up to 10-12 times the rate for farmland. A majority of tax revenue is funneled back into the local area, and as much as 50 percent of increased tax revenue can typically be allocated to the local school district. By converting farmland to a passive solar use for the duration of the system’s life, the solar energy use does not burden school systems, utilities, traffic, nor infrastructure as it is a passive use that does not increase population as say a residential subdivision would. In the state of Illinois, the fair cash value for a commercial solar energy system is based on its nameplate capacity per megawatt. Beginning assessment year 2018, in counties with fewer than 3,000,000 inhabitants, the fair cash value of a commercial solar energy system is $218,000 per megawatt of nameplate capacity. This includes the owner of the commercial solar energy system’s interest in the land within the project boundaries and real property improvements. The chief county assessment officer (CCAO) will add an inflationary increase, called a “trending factor” to the 2018 value. The result is called the “trended real property cost basis.” An amount for depreciation is then subtracted from the trended real property cost basis to determine the taxable value for the current assessment year. Beyond creating jobs, solar farms are also benefiting the overall long-term agricultural health of the community. The unused land, and also all the land beneath the solar panels, will be left to rejuvenate naturally. In the long run this is a better use of land since the soil is allowed to recuperate instead of being ploughed and fertilized year after year. A solar farm can offer some financial security for the property owner over 20 to 25 years. Once solar panel racking systems are removed, the land can revert to its original use.4 3 “Electromagnetic Field and Public Health.” Media Centre (2013): 1-4. World Health Organization. 4 NC State Extension. (May 2016). Landowner Solar Leasing: Contract Terms Explained. Retrieved from: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/landowner-solar-leasing-contract-terms-explained Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 13 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. NATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION Community solar projects (facilities that generate 5 MW AC or less of power) account for 4,900 MWdc of installed power in the U.S. as of the second quarter 2022, according to SEIA data. The community solar industry had a record setting year in 2021 with 957 MWdc installed, according to SEIA data. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) through March 2022, there are over 4,033 community solar facilities in operation across the country. Community solar installations significantly grew year-over-year as of first quarter 2022, however, installations are down 59 percent from the fourth quarter 2021. Due to uncertainty around the anti-circumvention investigation, supply chain issues, and long timelines for new community solar policies, community solar installations are expected to contract in 2022. The growth of community solar installations from 2014 to 2021 is presented in the chart below. Illinois community solar installations rank in the top eight states. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 14 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Reductions in some states are offset by increases in other markets, particularly in Illinois. The Illinois Energy Transition Act revives funding for the Adjustable Block Program, laying out a pathway for completing waitlisted projects. If an ITC extension is passed as part of the BBB Act, community solar would see a small 3 percent uplift from 2022 to 2027 compared to the base case, as shown in the chart below. While early growth for community solar installations was led primarily by three key markets - New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts - a growing list of states with community solar programs have helped diversify the market, creating large pipelines set to come to fruition over the next several years. SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS As of the end of the first two quarters of 2022, Illinois had 641.3 MW AC of power installed in 112 facilities overall, ranking seventeenth in the U.S. for the capacity of solar installed. The vast majority of solar farms in Illinois are community solar facilities (105) generating 194.4 MW AC, of power as of March 2022, according to the EIA. Illinois has 1,678.2 MW AC of solar power planned for installation through December 2022 in 12 facilities across the state. Nine of the planned solar installations in Illinois are utility scale and total 1,672.2 MW AC, or 99 percent of all planned installations. Additionally, there is a total of 3,712 MW planned over the next five years. The largest new solar facility in Illinois will be a 600 MW AC utility scale installation projected to become operational in December 2024 in Lee County, that is being developed by Steward Creek Solar. The total planned solar facilities will increase solar power generation in the state by approximately 262 percent. There are 3 community solar projects planned for the state of Illinois before the end of 2022, generating a total of 6.0 MW AC of power. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 15 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. APPRAISAL THEORY – ADJACENT PROPERTY’S IMPACT ON VALUE According to Randall Bell, PhD, MAI, author of text Real Estate Damages, published by the Appraisal Institute in 2016, understanding the market’s perceptions on all factors that may have an influence on a property’s desirability (and therefore its value) is essential in determining if a diminution or enhancement of value has occurred.5 According to Dr. Bell: “There is often a predisposition to believe that detrimental conditions automatically have a negative impact on property values. However, it is important to keep in mind that if a property’s value is to be affected by a negative condition, whether internal or external to the property, that condition must be given enough weight in the decision-making process of buyers and sellers to have a material effect on pricing relative to all the other positive and negative attributes that influence the value of that particular property.”6 Market data and empirical research through the application of the three traditional approaches to value should be utilized to estimate the market value to determine if there is a material effect on pricing due, to the influence of a particular characteristic of or on a property. A credible impact analysis is one that is logical, innate, testable and repeatable, prepared in conformity with approved valuation techniques. In order to produce credible assignment results, more than one valuation technique should be utilized for support for the primary method, or a check of reasonableness, such as utilization of more than one approach to value, conducting a literature review, or having discussions (testimony) with market participants.7 CohnReznick implemented the scientific method 8 to determine if a detrimental condition of proximity to a solar farm exists, further described in the next section. 5 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 1-2) 6 Ibid, Page 314 7 Ibid, Pages 7-8 8 The scientific method is a process that involves observation, development of a theory, establishment of a hypothesis, and testing. The valuation process applies principles of the scientific method as a model, based upon economic principles (primarily substitution) as the hypothesis. The steps for the scientific method are outlined as follows: 1. Identify the problem. 2. Collect relevant data. 3. Propose a hypothesis. 4. Test the hypothesis. 5. Assess the validity of the hypothesis. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 314-316) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 16 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. METHODOLOGY The purpose of this report is to determine whether proximity to the solar facility resulted in any measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. To test this hypothesis, CohnReznick identified three relevant techniques to test if a detrimental condition exists. (1) A review of published studies; (2) Paired sale analysis of properties adjacent to existing solar generating facilities, which may include repeat sale analyses or “Before and After” analyses; and, (3) Interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors. The paired sales analysis is an effective method of determining if there is a detrimental impact on surrounding properties. “One of the most useful applications of the sales comparison approach is paired sale analysis. This type of analysis may compare the subject property or similarly impacted properties called Test Areas (at Points B, C, D, E, or F) with unimpaired properties called Control Areas (Point A). A comparison may also be made between the unimpaired value of the subject property before and after the discovery of a detrimental condition. If a legitimate detrimental condition exists, there will likely be a measurable and consistent difference between the two sets of market data; if not, there will likely be no significant difference between the two sets of data. This process involves the study of a group of sales with a detrimental condition, which are then compared to a group of otherwise similar sales without the detrimental condition.”9 As an approved method, paired sales analysis can be utilized to extract the effect of a single characteristic on value. By definition, paired data analysis is “a quantitative technique used to identify and measure adjustments to the sale prices or rents of comparable properties; to apply this technique, sales or rental data on nearly identical properties is analyzed to isolate a single characteristic’s effect on value or rent.”10 The text further describes that this method is theoretically sound when an abundance of market data, or sale transactions, is available for analysis. Where data is available, CohnReznick has also prepared “Before and After” analyses or a Repeat Sale Analysis,11 to determine if a detrimental impact has occurred. 9 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 33) 10 The Appraisal of Real Estate 14 th Edition. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2013. 11 Another type of paired sales analysis involves studying the sale and subsequent resale of the same property. This method is used to determine the influence of time on market values or to determine the impact of a detrimental condition by comparing values before and after the discovery of the condition. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 35) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 17 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work utilized to test the hypothesis stated on the prior page is as follows: 1. Review published studies, assess credibility, and validity of conclusions; 2. Prepare paired sale analyses for existing solar farms as follows: 2.1. Identify existing solar farms comparable to the proposed project to analyze; 2.2. Define Test Area Sales and Control Areas Sales; 2.3. Collect market data (sale transactions) for both Test Area and Control Area Sales; 2.4. Analyze and confirm sales, including omission of sales that are not reflective of market value; 2.5. Prepare comparative analysis of Test Area and Control Area sales, adjusting for market conditions; 2.6. Interpret calculations; and 3. Conduct interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors who have evaluated real property adjacent to existing solar farms. It should be noted that our impact report data and methodology have been previously reviewed by our peer in the field – Kirkland Appraisals, LLC – as well as by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The following bullet points summarize important elements to consider in our scope of work: x Due to the limited number of community solar projects that qualified for study in the state of Illinois, we have incorporated some regional utility scale projects and community solar projects in other states. x Test Area Sales consists of sales that are adjacent to an existing solar facility. Ownership and sales history for each adjoining property to an existing solar farm through the effective date of this report is maintained within our workfile. Adjoining properties with no sales data or that sold prior to the announcement of the solar farm were excluded from further analysis. x Control Area Sales are generally located in the same market area, although varies based on the general location of the existing solar farm under analysis. In rural areas, sales are identified first within the township, and expands radially outward through the county until a reliable set of data points is obtained. x Control Area Sales are generally between 12 and 18 months before or after the date of the Test Area Sale(s), and are comparable in physical characteristics such as age, condition, style, and size. x Sales of properties that sold in a non-arm’s length transaction (such as a transaction between related parties, bank-owned transaction, or between adjacent owners) were excluded from analysis as these are not considered to be reflective of market value, as defined earlier in this report. The sales that remained after exclusions were considered for a paired sale analysis. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 18 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. x The methodology employed in this report for paired sale analysis does not rely on multiple subjective adjustments that are typical in many appraisals and single-paired sales analyses. Rather, the methodology remains objective, and the only adjustment required is for market conditions ;12 the analysis relies upon market conditions trends tracked by credible agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), who maintains a House Price Index (“HPI”)13 for macro and micro regions in the United States. A market conditions adjustment is a variable that affects all properties similarly and can be adjusted for in an objective manner. x To make direct comparisons, the sale price of the Control Area Sales was adjusted for market conditions to a common date. In this analysis, the common date is the date of the Test Area Sale(s). After adjustment, any measurable difference between the sale prices would be indicative of a possible price impact by the solar facility. x If there is more than one Test Area Sale to evaluate, the sales are grouped if they exhibit similar transactional and physical characteristics; otherwise, they are evaluated separately with their own respective Control Area Sale groups. 12 Adjusting for market conditions is necessary as described in The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition as follows: “Comparable sales that occurred under market conditions different from those applicable to the subject on the effective date of appraisal require adjustment for any differences that affect their values. An adjustment for market conditions is made if general property values have increased or decreased since the transaction dates.” 13 The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. This information is obtained by reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels. Because of the breadth of the sample, it provides more information than is available in other house price indexes. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 19 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 1: REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES The following is a discussion of various studies that consider the impact of solar farms on surrounding property values. The studies range from quantitative analysis to survey-based formal research to less formal analyses . ACADEMIC REPORTS There have been three academic reports that attempt to quantify the effect on property values due to proximity to solar. i. The first report is a study completed by The University of Texas at Austin, published in May 2018.14 The portion of the study focusing on property impact was an Opinion Survey of Assessors with no sales data or evidence included in the survey. The opinion survey was sent to 400 accessors nationwide and received only 37 responses. Of those 37 assessors, only 18 had assessed a home near a utility-scale solar installation, the remainder had not. Of the 18 assessors with experience in valuing homes near solar farms, 17 had not found any impact on home values near solar. Those are the actual facts in the study. A small number of those assessor respondents hypothetically surmised an impact, but none had evidence to support such statements. The paper admits that there is no actual sales data analyzed, and further denotes its own areas of weakness, including “This study did not differentiate between ground-mounted and rooftop installations.” The author states on the last line of page 22: “Finally, to shift from perceived to actual property value impacts, future research can conduct analyses on home sales data to collect empirical evidence of actual property value impacts.” The paper concludes with a suggestion that a statistic hedonic regression model may better identify impacts. It should be noted that the type of statistical analysis that the author states is required to determine “actual property value impacts’ was completed two years later by the following Academic Studies. ii. The second report is a study prepared by a team at the University of Rhode Island, published in September 2020, “Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.”15 The study utilized a hedonic pricing model, or multiple regression analysis, to quantify the effect of proximity on property values due to solar by studying existing solar installations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The study evaluated 208 solar facilities, 71,373 housing sales occurring within one-mile of the solar facilities (Test Group), and 343,921 sales between one-to-three 14 Al-Hamoodah, Leila, et al. An Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations. Policy Research Project (PRP), LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2018, emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/property- value_impacts_near_utility-scale_solar_installations.pdf. 15 Gaur, V. and C. Lang. (2020). Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Submitted to University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension on September 29, 2020. Accessed at https://web.uri.edu/coopext/valuing-sitingoptions-for-commercial-scale-solar-energy-in-rhode-island/. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 20 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. miles (Control Group). Because it is a hedonic regression model, it allowed them to isolate specific variables that could impact value, including isolating rural and non-rural locations. The study defines “Rural,” as an area having a “population density of 850 people per square mile or fewer.” The study provides data which found no negative impact to residential homes near solar arrays in rural areas: “these results suggest that [the Test Area] in rural areas is effectively zero (a statistically insignificant 0.1%), and that the negative externalities of solar arrays are only occurring in non-rural areas.“16 Further, the study tested to determine if the size of the installation impacted values, and found no evidence of differential property values impacts by the solar installation’s size. Thus, not only are there no impacts to homes in similar areas as the proposed Project, but any differences in the size of a solar farm are similarly not demonstrating an impact. iii. The third report is a published study prepared by Dr. Nino Abashidze, School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, dated October 20, 2020, entitled “Utility Scale Solar Farms and Agricultural Land Values.” Abashidze examined 451 solar farms in North Carolina. “Across many samples and specifications, we find no direct negative or positive spillover effect of a solar farm construction on nearby agricultural land values. Although there are no direct effects of solar farms on nearby agricultural land values, we do find evidence that suggests construction of a solar farm may create a small, positive, option-value for land owners that is capitalized into land prices. Specifically, after construction of a nearby solar farm, we find that agricultural land that is also located near transmission infrastructure may increase modestly in value.” VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS We have similarly considered property value impact studies prepared by other experts, which have also noted that the installation of utility-scale solar on a property has no measurable or consistent impact on adjoining property value. According to a report titled “Mapleton Solar Impact Study” from Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, conducted in Murfreesboro, North Carolina in September 2017, which studied 13 existing solar farms in the state, found that the solar farms had no impact on adjacent vacant residential, agricultural land, or residential homes. The paired sales data analysis in the report primarily consisted of low density residential and agricultural land uses and included one case where the solar farm adjoined to two dense subdivisions of homes. Donald Fisher, ARA who has served six years as Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, and has prepared several market studies examining the impact of solar on residential values was quoted in a press release dated February 15, 2021 stating, “Most of the locations were in either suburban or 16 The University of Rhode Island study’s conclusion that there may be an impact to non-rural communities is surmised is that “land is abundant in rural areas, so the development of some land into solar does little to impact scarcity, whereas in non-rural areas it makes a noticeable impact. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 21 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. rural areas, and all of these studies found either a neutral impact or, ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after the installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends.” REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS The Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor’s Office conducted their own study on property prices adjacent to and in the close vicinity of the North Star solar farm in Chisago County, Minnesota. At the November 2017 Chisago County Board meeting, John Keefe, the Chisago County Assessor, presented data from his study. He concluded that the North Star solar farm had, “no adverse impact” on property values. His study encompassed 15 parcels that sold and were adjacent or in the close vicinity to the solar farm between January 2016 and October 2017; the control group used for comparison comprised of over 700 sales within the county. Almost all of the [Test Area] properties sold were at a price above the assessed value. He further stated that, “It seems conclusive that valuation has not suffered.”17 Furthermore, Grant County, Kentucky Property Value Administrator, Elliott Anderson, stated that Duke Energy built a solar farm near Crittenden, adjacent to existing homes on Claiborne Drive in December 2017. At the time of the interview, there have been nine arm’s length homes sales on that street since the solar farm commenced operations. Each of those nine homes sold higher than its assessed value, and one over 32 percent higher. At the time, Anderson noted that several more lots were for sale by the developer and four more homes were currently under construction. Anderson said that the solar farm had no impact either on adjoining home values or on marketability or desirability of those homes adjacent to the solar farm. CONCLUSION These published studies and other valuation expert opinions conclude that there is no impact to property adjacent to established solar farms. These conclusions have been confirmed by academic studies utilizing large sales databases and regression analysis investigating this uses’ potential impact on property values. Further, the conclusion has been confirmed by county assessors who have also investigated this adjacent land use’ potential impact on property values. 17 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No “Solar Effects” (11/03/2017) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 22 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS SOLAR FARM 1: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.333263, Longitude -87.093015 PIN: 64-06-19-176-001.000-015 Total Land Size: 56 AC Date Project Announced: February 2012 Date Project Completed: September 2012 Output: 1.96 MW AC (1.5 MW DC) The solar farm was developed by Ecos Energy, a subsidiary of Allco Renewable Energy Limited, and is currently owned by PLH, Inc. This solar panels are ground-mounted the facility has the capacity for 1.96 Megawatts (MW) AC of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. This solar farm consists of 7,128 solar modules which are of a fixed tilt installation and it contains three inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Portage Solar Farm is located outside the City of Portage, in Portage Township, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the city center. The solar farm is also approximately two miles northwest of South Haven, a neighboring residential community. Portage Township is in the northern portion of Porter County, which is in the northwestern corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 45 miles southeast of downtown Chicago. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the south side of Robbins Road, and is surrounded to the west, south, and east by agricultural land. Just beyond the agricultural land buffer, uses to the west and east area single family homes, and to the south is an apartment complex and a commercial development with an IMAX movie theater and restaurants. To the north of the solar farm, across Robbins Road uses consist of a residential subdivision and vacant land. The solar farm and surrounding properties have a Valparaiso mailing address. The solar farm is fenced from adjacent properties by a fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Natural vegetation borders the northern, and eastern sides of the larger agricultural parcel the solar farm is nestled within. Real Estate Tax Information: The taxes on the 56 acres of farmland were $1,400 per year prior to the solar farm development. After the solar farm was developed, only 13 acres (23 percent of the site) were re-assessed and the remaining 43 acres continued to be farmed. The total real estate tax bill increased to $16,350 after the solar farm was built, including both uses on the site. This indicates that the real estate taxes for the solar farm increased from $25 per acre to $1,175 per acre after the solar farm was developed. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 23 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 24 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the solar farm parcel shaded in blue, and the adjoining properties (outlined in red). Adjoining Properties to the solar farm are numbered for subsequent analysis. Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 25 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 26 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 1 and 7 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Adjoining Property 1 was analyzed as homestead-small farmland tract since at the time of purchase the site was used only as agricultural land. The buyer bought it as vacant land and subsequently built a home on the site. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. GROUP 1 For Adjoining Property 1 (Group 1), the property line is approximtately 836 feet from the closest solar panel and the residential home that was eventually built is approximately 1,228 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. In Group 1, we analyzed nine Control Area Sales of homesteads-small farmland tracts that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 1. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The result of our analysis for Group 1 is presented below. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) PI Index (Corn)Year Built Vacant at the Time of Sale Sale Price per Acre Sale Date 1 442 W 875 N, Valparaiso $149,600 18.70 139.30 2017 (After Purchase)Yes $8,000 Feb-14 Portage Solar Test Area Sale Group 1 No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per Acre 4.25% CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Portage Solar Group 1 Adjoining solar farm $8,000 Control Area Sales (9) No: Not adjoining solar farm $7,674 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (1) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 27 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 For Adjoining Property 7 (Group 2), the residential home is approximately 1,227 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 7. For Adjoining Property 7, we analyzed seven Control Area Sales of similar single family homes that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 7. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Portage Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Sale Price per SF Sale Date 7 836 N 450 W Valparaiso $149,800 1.00 3.0 1.5 1964 1,776 $84.35 Sep-13 Group 2 Portage Solar Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 28 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The result of our analysis for Group 2 is presented below. Noting the relatively small price differentials between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales, with both Test Area Sales (Adjoining Property 1 and 7) having higher unit sale prices than the respective Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Portage Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.10% Control Area Sales (7) No: Not adjoining solar farm $84.27 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Portage Solar Group 2 Test Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $84.35 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 29 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 2: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN Coordinates: Latitude 43.0368219316, Longitude -83.3369986251 PINs: L20-95-705-050-00, L20-98-008-003-00 Total Land Size: ±365 Acres Date Project Announced: 2016 Date Project Completed: May 2017 Output: 48.28 MW AC Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 30 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Surrounding Area: The DTE Lapeer solar farm is located just south of the City of Lapeer, in Lapeer County, Michigan and is a joint project between the City of Lapeer and DTE Electric Company. The solar farm was developed with Inovateus Solar MI, LLC to meet Michigan renewable energy standards. The solar farm features over 200,000 panels, a power output of 48.28 MW AC, and produces enough energy to power 14,000 homes. The Lapeer solar project was developed in two phases: the Demille Solar installation and the Turrill Solar installation. For purposes of our study, taken together, both installations are considered one solar farm. DTE’s Lapeer Solar Projects Demille and Turrill Solar installations Lapeer is considered to be in the Tri-Cities area of central Michigan and is approximately 21 miles east of the City of Flint. Interstate-69 serves Lapeer and runs east-west just south of the solar farm. The two phases of the solar installation are on the east and west sides of Michigan State Route 24 from each other. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 31 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Immediate Area: Land uses surrounding the Demille installation include a correctional facility and industrial uses to the west, buffered by a mature stand of trees, a retail center to the northeast, other commercial uses to the east along MI-24/South Lapeer Road, and residential homes to the southeast. Interstate-69 runs south of the Demille solar installation. The Turrill installation is surrounded to the north by a residential subdivision, to the north and east by industrial uses, to the south by vacant land and residential homes, and to the west by light commercial and professional uses along MI-24/South Lapeer Road. Hunter’s Creek divides two sets of solar arrays in the Turrill installation. The Demille installation adjoins Interstate-69 to the South; while a residential subdivision adjoins the solar farm to the east. To the northeast corner of the solar panels is a senior living facility, Stonegate Health Campus, developed before the solar facility. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to the development of the solar farm, the land under the Demille and Turrill solar installations were municipal-owned and were not subject to property tax. After development, in 2017, the land became taxable and taxes were $82,889 total, as shown below. PIN Acres 2016 Taxes Paid 2017 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2016 Assessed Value 2017 Assessed Value Value Increase Lapeer County, MI L20-98-008-003-00* 110.84 -$ 34,294$ N/A $ - 726,700$ N/A L20-95-705-050-00* 254.84 -$ 48,595$ N/A $ - 1,029,750$ N/A TOTAL 365.68 -$ 82,889$ N/A -$ 1,756,450$ N/A * Prior to development as a solar farm, the parcels were municpal property without a taxable value. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 32 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS The maps, below, and on the following pages display properties adjoining the solar sites that are numbered in red for subsequent analysis. Demille Solar Farm . DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 33 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 34 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Turrill Solar Farm DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 35 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 36 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sale Analysis, several properties and sales were considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. We identified eight Adjoining Properties that sold since the solar farm started operations in May of 2017: Adjoining Properties 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16 for the Demille Solar Farm, and Adjoining Properties 3 and 4 for the Turrill Solar Farm. Of these properties, three were considered atypical for the area. Adjoining Property 7 adjacent to the Demille Solar farm is a split-level home with a finished walk out basement with a pool. The typical home in the area has a traditional basement and pools are atypical. The unusual nature of this sale was confirmed with the selling broker, Renee Voss (see comments below). We note that this home sold twice after the construction of the solar farm, once in September 2018 and again in August 2019. The appreciate rate between the two sale dates are analyzed further later in this section. Adjoining Property 16 just south of the Demille Solar Farm is a 10.1-acre lot that is buffered by trees. The home is atypical for the area, as most homes are situated on lots between 1-acre and 1.5-acres in size and were built before 1980; this home was built in 2008. We interviewed the broker Josh Holbrook (see comments below) who confirmed the atypical nature of this property. Adjoining Property 3, just west of the Turrill Solar Farm, was a ranch home with 1,348 square feet on a lot that was just over one acre. Comparables for homes of this size, type, and lot size were not available in the immediate market area. It should be noted that the price per square foot for this home ($108.01) is significantly higher than median price per square foot of either data set we studied. As a part of our research, we interviewed three local real estate brokers that sold homes adjacent to the Lapeer Solar farm. According to the brokers, there was no impact on the home prices or marketability due to the homes’ proximity to the solar arrays. Renee Voss of Coldwell Banker, selling broker of the raised ranch at 1138 Don Wayne Drive (Adjoining Property 7), which is adjacent to the Demille solar farm at the southeast corner, noted that there was no impact on this sale from the solar farm located to the rear. The home, which has a pool in the backyard, sold quickly with multiple offers, Voss stated. Josh Holbrook, the selling broker of 1408 Turrill Road (known as Adjoining Property 16), located just south of the Demille Solar Farm, said the solar farm had no impact on the sale and that the community takes pride in the solar farm. Anne Pence of National Realty Centers, the selling broker for 1126 Don Wayne Drive, a single-family home adjacent to the Demille solar farm (known as Test Area Sale 9), reported that "the solar farm did not have any effect on the sale of this home. The buyers did not care one bit about the solar field in the back yard. The fact is that you know no one is going to be behind you when they develop a solar farm in your back yard. And [sometimes the developer] put up trees to block the view. My in-laws also actually live at end of that street, even though they haven't sold or put their house on market, they don't mind the solar panels either. It's not an eyesore. And another house sold on that block, a raised ranch home, and it sold with no problems." Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 37 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 1 – DEMILLE Adjoining Properties 3, 4, and 9 to the Demille Solar Farm were considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed these properties as single-family home uses in Group 1. The improvements on these properties are located between 275 to 305 feet to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales in Group 1. The Control Area Sales for Group 1 are ranch homes with three bedrooms and one and a half to two bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties. Adj. Property # Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 3, 4, 9 1174 Alice Dr, 1168 Alice Dr, 1126 Don Wayne Drive $165,000 0.50 3 2.0 1973 1,672 Jan-19 $105.26 Group 1 - Demille Solar Test Area Sales Lapeer Solar-Demille - Group 1: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 38 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 1-Demille is presented on the below. The days on market for the three Test Area Sales had a median of 29 days on market (ranging from 5 to 48 days), while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 21 days (ranging from 5 to 224 days), and we note no significant marketing time differential. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 5.65% Test Area Sales (3) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Group 1 - Demille Solar Adjoining solar farm $105.26 Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $99.64 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 39 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 – DEMILLE Adjoining Property 10 to the Demille Solar Farm was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use in Group 2. The improvements on this property are located approximately 315 to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed five Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are similarly sized homes in Lapeer County with three to four bedrooms and one and half to three bathrooms, with an above-ground pool, and an attached garage. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties . Adj. Property # Address Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Bedrooms Bathrooms Year Built/Renovated Square Feet Other Features Sale Date Price PSF 10 1120 Don Wayne Drive, Lapeer $194,000 0.47 3 2.5 1976/2006 1,700 Above Ground Pool, Two Car Garage Nov-19 $114.12 Test Area Sale Group 2 - Demille Solar DTE Lapeer Solar-Demille - Group 2: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 40 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 2 is presented below. The marketing time for the Test Area Sales was 90 days on market, while the median marketing time for the Control Area Sales was 34 days (ranging from 3 to 73 days). We note the Test Area Sale was initially listed above its market value, as there was a listing price decline after a month on the market. We also note that after the final decrease of the list price, the Test Area Sale home was only on the market 51 more days, which is within the range exhibited by the Control Area Sales. GROUP 3 – TURRILL Adjoining Property 4 to the Turrill Solar Farm was analyzed separately since it is a two-story home on a larger lot than the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The home on Adjoining Property 4 is 290 feet from the property line to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed four single-family homes as Control Area Sales with similar construction that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 4. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.98% Group 2 - Demille Solar CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Test Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $114.12 Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $113.01 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 4 1060 Cliff Drive $200,500 1.30 4 2.5 1970 2,114 Sep-18 $94.84 Test Area Sale Group 3 - Turrill Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 41 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Control Area Sales for Group 3 are two-story homes with two to four bedrooms and 2.5 to 3 bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties . Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project-Turrill – Group 3 is presented on the following page. DTE Lapeer Solar-Turrill - Group 3: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 42 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The marketing time for the Test Area Sale was two days on market, while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 35 days (ranging from 11 to 177 days), and we note no negative marketing time differential. Noting no significant price differential in any of the three groups, it does not appear that the DTE Lapeer Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF -1.53% $96.32 Group 3 - Turrill Solar Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $94.84 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 43 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. BEFORE & AFTER ANALYSIS – DEMILLE SOLAR PROJECT We note two of the Test Area Sales in Group 1 of the Demille Solar project (Adjoining Properties 4 and 9), one sale in Group 2 of the Demille Solar farm (Adjoining Property 10), as well as Adjoining Property 7 have sold at least twice over the past 15 years. To determine if any of the rates of appreciation for these identified home sales were affected by the proximity to the Demille Solar farm, we prepared a Repeat-Sales Analysis on each identified adjoining property. First, we calculated the total appreciation between each sale of the same property, the number of months that elapsed between each sale, and determined the monthly appreciation rate. Then, we compared extracted appreciation rates reflected in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Home Price Index for Michigan’s 48446 zip code (where the identified homes are located) over the same period. The index for zip codes is measured on a yearly basis and is presented below. We have presented the full repeat sales analysis on the following page. Five-Digit ZIP Code Year Annual Change (%) HPI HPI with 1990 base HPI with 2000 base 48446 2004 2.02 438.38 206.29 111.35 48446 2005 3.68 454.53 213.89 115.45 48446 2006 -1.76 446.53 210.12 113.42 48446 2007 -6.35 418.17 196.78 106.22 48446 2008 -8.37 383.17 180.31 97.33 48446 2009 -10.62 342.49 161.16 86.99 48446 2010 -8.94 311.86 146.75 79.21 48446 2011 -6.89 290.37 136.64 73.75 48446 2012 0.29 291.22 137.04 73.97 48446 2013 7.27 312.39 147.00 79.35 48446 2014 7.10 334.56 157.43 84.98 48446 2015 5.10 351.63 165.47 89.32 48446 2016 6.10 373.08 175.56 94.76 48446 2017 6.74 398.23 187.39 101.15 48446 2018 5.96 421.96 198.56 107.18 48446 2019 5.74 446.17 209.95 113.33 48446 2020 4.99 468.43 220.43 118.98 48446 Zip Code - Housing Price Index Change (Year over Year) Not Seasonally Adjusted Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 44 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Conclusion When compared to the FHFA home price index for the local zip code, the median monthly appreciation rate of the sales of properties adjoining the Demille Solar Farm that sold before construction of the solar farm and again after construction of the solar farm outperformed the median for the zip code, as depicted in the far-right column in the table above (and highlighted in orange). Additionally, the extracted appreciation rate for the resales of Adjoining Properties 4 and 7, that sold twice after the solar farm was constructed, exhibited higher rates of appreciation than the Home Price Index for the zip code (highlighted in white). As such, we have concluded that there does not appear to be a consistent detrimental impact on the value of properties adjacent to the DTE Lapeer-Demille Solar Farm.Property IDAddressLand Area (Acres)Total Finished Living Area (SF)Most Recent Sale DateMost Recent Sale PricePrior Sale DatePrior Sale PriceTotal AppreciationMonths Elapsed Between SalesMonthly Appreciation RateIndex Level During Year of Most Recent SalePrior Sale Year Index LevelTotal AppreciationMonthly Appreciation Rate4 1168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 10/9/2019 $176,000 12/8/2017 $144,000 22.22% 22 0.92% 446.17 398.23 12.04% 0.52%4 1168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 12/8/2017 $144,000 10/1/1993 $100,000 44.00% 290 0.13% 398.23 238.05 67.29% 0.18%9 1126 Don Wayne Drive 0.50 1,900 5/21/2018 $160,000 12/21/2007 $119,000 34.45% 125 0.24% 446.17 418.17 6.70% 0.05%10 1120 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 1,700 11/8/2019 $194,000 10/15/2014 $173,200 12.01% 61 0.19% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.47%7 1138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,128 9/7/2018 $179,900 8/22/2014 $148,500 21.14% 49 0.40% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.60%7 1138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,128 8/28/2019 $191,000 9/7/2018 $179,900 6.17% 12 0.51% 446.17 446.17 0.00% 0.00%Median - Test Area Sales 0.47 1,8000.32% 0.33%Median - Before/After 0.49 2,0190.21% 0.11%Repeat Sales Analysis 48446 Zip Code - FHFA House Price Index Change Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 45 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 3: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Coordinates: Latitude 41.143421, Longitude -88.758340 PINs: 34-22-100-000, 34-22-101-000 Total Land Size: 158 acres Date Project Announced: December 31, 2010 Date Project Completed: July 2012 Output: 20 MW AC This solar farm is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of E. 21st and N. 15th Roads, near Streator, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm was developed by Invenergy and is part of a renewable energy center known as Grand Ridge. The Energy Center includes the 20 MW AC solar facility, a 210 MW wind farm, and a 36 MW advanced-energy storage facility, all in one local vicinity. The solar site is located adjacent to the south and west of Invenergy's wind farm. The solar facility consists of 20 individual 1-MW solar inverters and over 155,000 photovoltaic solar panels manufactured by General Electric. The Surrounding Area: The Grand Ridge Solar Farm is situated just outside of the City of Streator, in Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm is located in a primarily rural part of Illinois, with the nearest interstate, Interstate-55, located approximately 14 miles southeast of the site. The Immediate Area: Within a one-mile radius of the solar farm, surrounding uses mainly consist of agricultural land, with some single-family homes to the west. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural and/or residential purposes. The solar site is surrounded by row crops to the north adjoining N. 15th Road. Row crops also adjoin the solar arrays to the east. Scrub shrubbery exists on the western border of the solar site, along E. 21st Road. On the west side of E. 21st Road is the 28-acre private Sandy Ford Sportsmans Club that includes a 12-acre fishing lake. The private Lazy Acres Fishing Club adjoins the solar site to the south and is surrounded by mature trees. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the owner of this 158-acre site paid real estate taxes of $3,000 annually. In the year following the solar farm development, 2012, real estate taxes increased to approximately $240,000, a 7,791 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 46 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the parcels in the solar farm site (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Grand Ridge Solar - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2011 Taxes Paid 2012 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2011 Assessed Value 2012 Assessed Value Value Increase LaSalle County, IL 34-22-100-000 78.99 1,580$ 120,064$ 7501% $ 23,830 $ 1,812,357 7505% 34-22-101-000 78.80 1,457$ 119,539$ 8106% $ 21,975 $ 1,804,433 8111% TOTAL 157.79 3,036$ 239,602$ 7791% 45,805$ 3,616,790$ 7796% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 47 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The surrounding area is primarily populated with agricultural uses. Some of these agricultural parcels contain homesteads on the site and others are fully unimproved. Adjoining Properties 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 have no sales data, therefore, those properties djoining Properties have been excluded from further analysis. Recall, the solar farm was announced on December 31, 2010 and began operations in July 2012. Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were sold in 1997 and 1996, respectively. These sales did not occur within a reasonable time period prior to announcement/completion. Therefore, Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 4 sold in March 2011 while construction was ongoing. However, we have not considered this property for a paired sales analysis because the impact of being proximate to the solar farm could not be differentiated from the impact of the construction. Therefore, Adjoining Property 4 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 2 transferred in September of 2018 with no consideration amount on a Trustee’s deed from Gemini Farms LLC to the Bedeker Family Gift Trust. John and Susan Bedeker are owners of the Adjoining Property 1. This is not considered an arm’s length transaction, therefore, Adjoining Property 2 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Properties 11 and 12 were initially one parcel of 37.07 acres. Adjoining Property 12 sold in October 2016, which is a reasonable time period after completion of the solar farm. When Adjoining Property 12 was sold, the parcel was split into the two-acre homesite now known as Adjoining Propeprty 12, and the 35.07 acre farm, that was retained by the seller. Therefore, we have excluded Adjoining Property 11 and only considered Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) for paired sales analysis. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, we have compared sales of similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of the adjoining property (Test Area Sale), after the completion of the solar farm project. Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use, a 2,328 square foot home located on a 2.0- acre parcel that sold in October 2016. This parcel is approximately 366 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 479 feet from the closest solar panel. The table on the following page outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 48 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. We have found five Control Area Sales using data from the Northern Illinois Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor’s office. We excluded sales that were not arm’s length, such as REO sales or those between related parties. We have excluded any home sites under one acre and included only sales with a similar quantity of bedrooms, bathrooms, and living area. The Control Area Sales are comparable in most physical characteristics and bracket Adjoining Property 12 reasonably. Grand Ridge Solar: Test Area Sale Map Property # Address Sale Price Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Site Size (AC) Sale Price/SF Sale Date Adjoining Property 12 2098 N 15th Rd, Streator, IL $186,000 3 4.0 1997 2,328 Single Family Home and Garage and Farm Acreage 2.0 $79.90 Oct-16 Grand Ridge Solar Farm Test Area Sale - Adjoining Property 12 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 49 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It is important to note that the Control Area Sales are not adjoining to any solar farm, nor do they have a view of one from the property. Therefore, neither the announcement nor the completion of the solar farm use could have impacted the sales price of these properties. It is informative to note that the average marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales of 171 days is consistent with the marketing time for the Test Area Sale which was on the market for 169 days. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. We analyzed the five Control Area Sales and adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identity the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The results of the paired sales analysis for the Grand Ridge Solar Farm are presented below. The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was somewhat higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales. We contacted the selling broker of the Test Area Sale home, Tina Sergenti with Coldwell Banker, who said that the proximity of the solar farm had no impact on the marketing time or selling price of the home. The Test Area Sale sold with 169 days on market (5 – 6 months) compared to the Control Area Sales, which sold between 10 471 days on market (0 and 16 months). Noting no negative price differential , it does not appear that the Grand Ridge Solar Farm impacted the sales price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 12. This was confirmed by the real estate agent who marketed and sold this home. No. of Sales Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $74.35 Adjoining Property 12 7.46% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (5) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $79.90Test Area Sale (1) Grand Ridge Solar Farm CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 50 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 4: WOODLAND SOLAR FARM, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA Coordinates: Latitude 36.890000, Longitude -76.611000 PINs: 41-02-004, 41-02-001, 41-02-001A, 41-02-005 Total Land Size: 211.12 acres Date Project Announced: August 4, 2015 Date Project Completed: December 2016 Output: 19.0 MW AC Aerial imagery retrieved from Google Earth The Woodland Solar Farm is located in unincorporated Isle of Wight County, Virginia, and was developed by Dominion Virginia Power in 2016. This solar farm has a capacity of 19.0 Megawatts (MW) AC of power, which is enough to power 4,700 homes. The solar farm sits on 204 acres, part of Oliver Farms, a 1,000-acre site that was Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 51 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. chosen for its flat land and proximity to power lines. The land under the solar arrays was previously farmed and used to grow broccoli, collards, peas, strawberries, and butter beans. The solar installation includes 79,648 solar panels and was one of the largest of its kind at the time of construction. The Surrounding Area: Isle of Wight County is in the southeast part of Virginia and has shoreline along the James River on its eastern border. The county is predominantly rural and has two incorporated towns, Smithfield and Windsor. The Woodland Solar facility is approximately 27 miles northwest of Norfolk, Virginia, across the Elizabeth River and the Nansemond River. The solar site is also approximately 21 miles southwest of Newport News, Virginia. The town of Smithfield is approximately nine miles northeast of the solar facility and the town of Windsor is approximately 12 miles southwest. The solar facility is near the intersection of State Route 600 (Oliver Drive) and State Route 602 (Longview Drive). The Immediate Area: Land uses surrounding the Woodland Solar facility include forests and agricultural land to the north, west, and south, and residential and farmland to the east. Landscaping around the solar site consists of the naturally occurring vegetation and forests. It should be noted that the landowner that leases the land to the solar owner has agricultural buildings and other structures along Longview Drive and the nearest solar panels are approximately 220 feet from the property line. Real Estate Tax Information: In 2015, prior to the property being assessed as a solar farm, the assessed value of the property was approximately $542,200 and ownership paid $4,609 in real estate taxes (see below). In 2016, the assessed value increased to $3,021,600 and the real estate tax increased to $27,844. PIN Acres 2015 Taxes Paid 2016 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2015 Assessed Value 2016 Assessed Value Value Increase Isle of Wight County, VA 41-02-004 107.32 2,250$ 15,985$ 610% $ 264,700 $ 1,728,100 553% 41-02-001 62.66 1,369$ 8,601$ 529% $ 161,000 $ 939,900 484% 41-02-001A 8.08 230$ 1,193$ 420% $ 27,000 $ 110,700 310% 41-02-005 33.06 761$ 2,065$ 171% 89,500$ 242,900$ 171% TOTAL 211.12 4,609$ 27,844$ 504% 542,200$ 3,021,600$ 457% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 52 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS: The map below displays the Adjoining Properties to the solar farm (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar farm parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Woodland Solar - Adjoining Properties In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sale Analysis, several properties and sales were considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. We identified three Adjoining Properties that sold since the solar farm started operations in December 2016: Adjoining Property 3, and two parcels included in Adjoining Property 5. The two properties that were considered part of Adjoining Property 5, sold between related parties, and were sales between family members of the land lessor for the solar site. These two sales were excluded from further analysis as they were not arms’ length transactions. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 53 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Adjoining Property 3 was considered for a paired sales analysis and we analyzed this property as single-family home use. The improvements on this property are located approximately 600 feet from the nearest solar panel. We analyzed five Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale. The Control Area Sales are one-story homes with three bedrooms and either one or two bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, REO sales, and those between related parties. Woodland Solar – Test Area Sale Map The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The result of our analysis for Woodland Solar Farm is presented on the following page. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC)Beds Baths Year Built Home Size GLA (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 3 18146 Longview Drive $175,000 1.00 3 1 1978 1,210 Jun-16 $144.63 Woodland Solar Farm Test Area Sale - Adjoining Property 3 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 54 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The difference between the unit price of the Test Area Sale and the Adjusted Median Unit Price of the Control Area Sales is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative marketing time differential , the Test Area Sale sold in 33 days (1-2 months), while the Control Area Sales sold between 17 and 37 days (0-2 months), with a median time on market of 28 days. Noting no negative price differential, with the Test Area Sale having a higher unit sale price than the Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Woodland Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $137.76 Adjoining Property 3 4.99% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (5) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $144.63Test Area Sale (1) Woodland Solar Farm CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 55 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 5: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 39°39'14.16"N, Longitude 86°15'35.06"W PIN: 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 Total Land Size: 129 acres Date Project Announced: August 2012 Date Project Completed: December 2013 Output: 8.6 MW AC (11.9 MW DC) The Dominion Indy III solar farm was developed by Dominion Renewable Energy and became operable in December 2013. This solar farm has ground-mounted solar panels and has the capacity for 8.6 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion with 12 inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Dominion Indy III solar farm is located in Decatur Township, in the southwest portion of Marion County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles southeast of the Indianapolis International Airport and approximately eight and a half miles from the center of Indianapolis. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is on the southern side of West Southport Road. Adjoining parcels to the west, south, and east are agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops and large areas of mature trees. There is one single family home on 4.78 acres of land at the northwest corner of the solar site, with frontage on West Southport Road, identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 9. To the north, across West Southport Road from the solar site, is the single-family residential subdivision known as Crossfield. Originally developed with over 81 acres of land by the Key Life Insurance Company, the one- and two-story homes in the subdivision were built between approximately 1998 and 2011. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural or residential purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence around all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are some natural shrubs and trees on all sides of the property; this vegetation was in place before the solar farm was developed. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 56 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2013, the owner of this 129-acre site paid real estate taxes of $1,788 annually. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, real estate taxes increased to approximately $16,405, an 818 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. The map below, and the maps on the following pages, display the parcels within the solar farm is located (outlined in blue). Properties adjoining this site are numbered for subsequent analysis. Dominion Indy III - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value 2015 Assessed Value Value Increase Marion County, IN 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 129.04 1,788$ 16,405$ 818% $ 89,400 $ 109,900 23% TOTAL 129.04 1,788$ 16,405$ 818% 89,400$ 109,900$ 23% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 57 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered two types of paired sales analysis with regards to the Dominion Indy III solar farm. The first compares sales of Adjoining Properties (Test Area Sales) to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for all three groups of Adjoining Properties under study. The second type of paired sale analysis is known as a Before and After analysis which compares sales of Adjoining Properties that occurred prior to the announcement of the solar farm with the sales of the same Adjoining Properties after the completion of the solar farm development. We were able to use home sale data from the Crossfield subdivision that is located to the north of the solar site, across West Southport Road, for this analysis. GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 2 is a vacant 86.96-acre agricultural parcel located to the east of the solar site. Adjoining Property 2 sold in October 2017 and was considered for a paired sale analysis, known as a Test Area Sale, in Group 1. The property line of this unimproved parcel is approximately 166 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Soil Productivity and Land Value Trends and the NCCPI Productivity Index Crop yields have been the basis for establishing a soil productivity index, and are used by county assessors, farmers, and market participants in assessing agricultural land. While crop yields are an integral part in assessing soil qualities, it is not an appropriate metric to rely on because “yields fluctuate from year to year, and absolute yields mean little when comparing different crops. Productivity indices provide a single scale on which soils may be rated according to their suitability for several major crops under specified levels of management such as an average level.”1 The productivity index, therefore, not crop yields, is best suited for applications in land appraisal and land-use planning. Adjoining Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) NCCPI Index Wetlands Floodplain Sale Price/AC Sale Date Adjoining Property 2 5755 W Southport Rd, Indianapolis, IN $738,584 89.96 63.4 1% Zone X $8,210 Oct-17 Group 1 - Agricultural Land Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 58 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) developed and utilizes the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) as a national soil interpreter and is used in the National Soil Information System (NASIS), but it is not intended to replace other crop production models developed by individual states.18 The focus of the model is on identifying the best soils for the growth of commodity crops, as the best soils for the growth of these crops are generally the best soils for the growth of other crops.19 The NCCPI model describes relative productivity ranking over a period of years and not for a single year where external influences such as extreme weather or change in management practices may have affected production. At the moment, the index only describes non-irrigated crops, and will later be expanded to include irrigated crops, rangeland, and forestland productivity.20 Yields are influenced by a variety of different factors including environmental traits and management inputs. Tracked climate and soil qualities have been proven by researchers to directly explain fluctuations in crop yields, especially those qualities that relate to moisture-holding capacity. Some states such as Illinois have developed a soil productivity model that considers these factors to describe “optimal” productivity of farmed land. Except for these factors, “inherent soil quality or inherent soil productivity varies little over time or from place to place for a specific soil (map unit component) identified by the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS).”21 The NRCS Web Soil Survey website has additional information on how the ratings are determined. The State of Indiana does not have its own crop production model and utilizes the NCCPI. In analyzing agricultural land sales for Control Area Sales with similar characteristics to Adjoining Property 2, we have excluded any parcels with NCCPI soil indices less than 50.0 and greater than 85.0. We identified and analyzed four Control Area Sales that were comparable in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. The Control Area Sales for Adjoining Property 2 are land tracts that were larger than 20 acres and utilized specifically as farmland. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, those between related parties, split transactions, and land with significant improvements. The Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. 18 Agricultural land rental payments are typically tied to crop production of the leased agricultural land and is one of the primary reasons the NCCPI was developed, especially since the model needed to be consistent across political boundaries. 19 Per the User Guide for the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index, the NCCPI uses natural relationships of soil, landscape and climate factors to model the response of commodity crops in soil map units. The present use of the land is not considered in the ratings. 20 AgriData Inc. Docs: http://support.agridatainc.com/NationalCommodityCropProductivityIndex(NCCPI).ashx 21 USDA NRCS’s User Guide National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 59 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Dominion Indy III - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using a regression and trend analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. Using the agricultural land sale data published in the Land Sales Bulletin,22 from January 2016 through December 2017, which includes reliable and credible data for analysis, we extracted a monthly rate of change of 0.50 percent. The results of our analysis for Adjoining Property 2, in Group 1 are presented on the following page. 22 https://www.landsalesbulletin.com/ Test 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 60 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Noting the relatively low price differential, in which the Test Area Sale was higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on the adjoining agricultural property value. Dominion Indy III Solar - Adjoining Properties We idenitified a total of nine Adjoining Properties that sold after the develoment of the solar farm as single-family home uses. Adjoining Properties 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 were analyzed in two paired sales analyses (Group 2 and Group 3). These nine properties were analyzed as single-family homes and they are located in the Crossfield subdivision, across West Southport Road from the solar site, as seen in the map above. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per Acre 1.47%Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Group 1 - Agricultural Land $8,091 $8,210 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 2) Yes: Solar Farm was completed by the sale date Indy III Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 61 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It should be noted that Adjoining Properties 11 and 24 have sold more than once since the solar farm was constructed, and each sale is included in the analysis. Adjoining Property 11 sold first in December 2015 and later in July 2018, approximately two and a half years later. Adjoining Property 24 sold first in February 2014 and later in April 2019, approximately five years later. Our research indicated that these were arm’s-length sales. The nine Adjoining Properties that were included in our paired sales analysis were divided into two groups, based on the sale dates of the Test Area Sales. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 62 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 For Group 2 (sales in 2014 – 2016), we analyzed four Control Area Sales with similar location, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 2 Test Area Sales. The Test Area Sales in Group 2 are located between 230 feet and 404 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are located beyond this area in other areas of the Crossfield Division and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III – Group 2: Test Area Sales Adj. Property # Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 11, 20, 22, 24 5933 Sable Dr, 5829 Sable Dr, 5813 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr $129,375 0.23 4 2.0 2008 2,163 Jul-15 $60.61 Test Area Sales Group 2 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 63 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 3 For Group 3 (sales occurring in 2017 - 2019), we analyzed a set of seven Control Area Sales with similar locations, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 3 Test Area Sales. The Test Area Sales in Group 3 are located between 227 feet and 419 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales are located beyond this area, in other areas of the Crossfield Division, and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III – Group 3: Test Area Sales Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 26 5933 Sable Dr, 5921 Sable Dr, 5915 Sable Dr, 5909 Sable Dr, 5841 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr, 5731 Sable Dr $169,900 0.23 3 2.5 2006 2,412 Jul-18 $72.15 Dominion Indy III Solar Test Area Sales Group 3 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 64 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales in Groups 2 and 3 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. The Test Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 18 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 2 and 649 days on market (0-23 months). The Test Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 3 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 2 and 89 days on market (0-3 months). Noting the relatively low price differentials, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining residential property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 4.78% Test Area Sales (4) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Group 2 Adjoining solar farm $60.61 Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $57.84 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.65% Group 3 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (7) Adjoining solar farm $72.15 Control Area Sales (11) No: Not adjoining solar farm $71.69 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 65 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR FARM ANALYSIS Due to the number of sales over time in the Crossfield subdivision, we were able to conduct an analysis on the prices of single-family homes before the solar farm announcement date in comparison to the prices of single- family homes after the construction of the Dominion Indy III solar farm. This analysis shows the appreciation rates of homes in the subdivision over the period before the solar farm was announced to after construction was complete. If there were a difference in the appreciation rates of homes within the Test Area (homes adjoining the solar farm) from the homes within the Control Areas (homes not adjoining the solar farm), we would expect to see it in the results of this analysis. We have provided our conclusions from the analysis below, and the following page displays an explanatory chart. x The Before the Announcement of the solar farm period is from 2006 to July 2012. The After Construction of the solar farm period is from December 2013 to 2019. x 25 Test Area Sales were sold from 2006 to 2019 and 46 Control Area Sales sold from 2008 to 2019. ¾ The Test Area Sales are homes located adjoining the Dominion Indy III Solar Farm in the Crossfield subdivision. ¾ The Control Area Sales are homes located in the remainder of the Crossfield subdivision, not adjoining the solar farm. x In both the Test Area Sales (ORANGE) and Control Area Sales (BLUE) plotted on the chart on the following page, new construction homes sold through 2011, prior to announcement of the solar farm. x The dotted lines are polynomial trend lines plotted by Microsoft Excel in order to illustrate and approximate the “average” trend of each set of data. x After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate (as depicted by the Red lines representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana), it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. x The economic climate improved in the period from 2013 to 2019, as shown by the Red line representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana. After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate, it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. A difference in appreciation rates does not appear to exist between Test Area Sale homes versus the Control Area Sale homes. Sale prices of single-family homes after the construction of the solar farm exhibit a similar appreciation trend as sales prior to the solar farm announcement. Overall, our findings indicate that there is not a consistent and measurable difference in prices that exists in association with homes proximate to the Dominion Indy III solar farm Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 66 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ANALYSIS OF BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOMINION INDY III SOLAR FAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 67 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 6: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Coordinates: Latitude 35 33.457, Longitude 78 44.190 PIN: 675874971 Total Land Size: Approximately 49.6 acres Date Project Completed: December 2015 Output: 5 MW AC This Sunfish Farm solar facility is located in the southern portion of Wake County, North Carolina, approximately 16 miles south of Raleigh. The solar facility was placed into service in December 2015 and has a power generating capacity of 5 MW AC. The solar facility was developed by Cypress Creek Renewables, which has built several community-scale solar farms in North Carolina. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 68 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Surrounding Area: The Sunfish Farm solar facility is surrounding by single family homes, some of which are in subdivisions, as well as agricultural and forest land. The local area is accessible from Raleigh via Fayetteville Road (US Hwy 401) and Interstate 40. The Sunfish Farm solar farm is located southwest of the town of Fuquay-Varina, which has experienced considerable population growth over the past 10 years due to the area’s proximity to Research Triangle Park (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). The Immediate Area: The solar farm is buffered from residences and road frontages by trees and is surrounded by fencing. The solar farm is clearly visible from the roadways. Immediate land uses surrounding the solar farm include residential homes to the north, some residential homes (some that also contain commercial uses) to the west, agricultural land to the south, and agricultural land and residential homes to the east. There is an 11.25-acre carve-out of land in the original, larger farmland parcel that was split from the parent parcel in 2014, as pictured below. Both the carved out parcel and the solar farm parcel are owned by an individual who leases the land for the solar farm use. Real Estate Tax Information: Solar farms in North Carolina are assessed as personal property, separate from the land assessment. After the solar farm was placed into service, there was an increase of 180 percent in total assessed value, and 203 percent increase in total taxes paid. PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid (Per Acre) 2016 Taxes Paid (Per Acre) Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value (Per Acre) 2016 Assessed Value (Per Acre) Value Increase Wake County, NC 675874971 (Post 2015 Split) 49.60 119.52$ 105.33$ $ 18,589 $ 15,123 Personal Property Tax -$ 256.81$ $ - $ 36,871 TOTAL 49.60 119.52$ 362.14$ 203% 18,588.83$ 51,994.82$ 180% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 69 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the properties adjoining the solar arrays and are numbered for subsequent analysis (outlined in yellow). Sunfish Farm Solar - Adjoining Properties PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, comparing sales of properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of adjoining properties (Test Area Sales) after the completion of the solar farm project. We were able to identify two Adjoining Properties to the Sunfish Farm solar facility that sold after the solar installation was placed into service (Adjoining Properties 10 and 15). These sales were analyzed in separate Test Area Sale groups based on home type (conventional single-family home and manufactured single-family home) and sale dates. We collected Control Area Sale data from the Wake County Real Estate database which summarizes data directly from the Real Estate Assessor website for the county. We have also reviewed other public records and verified marketing information through online sources such as Zillow.com, Redfin.com, Realtor.com and Estately.com. We have verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor’s Office. We excluded sales that were not arm’s length, such as REO sales or bank-owned properties, or those between related parties. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 70 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 10 (Test Area Sale 1) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use. The property is a single-story 1,470 square foot home located on a 0.79- acre lot that sold in September 2017. This property line is approximately 50 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 200 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. We have identified 14 single-family home sales in the Control Area Sale group that are located within Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. They were built generally from 1989 to 1999 and are each similar in square footage and layout, as well as quality of construction, to the Test Area Sale and they sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale. Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Sale Price/SF Sale Date Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 10 7513 Glen Willow Court $188,000 0.79 3 2 1989 1,470 One-Story, No Basement $127.89 Sep-17 GROUP 1 TEST AREA SALE SUNFISH FARM SOLAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 71 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It is informative to note that the marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales ranged from 30 to 127 days on market, and the marketing time for Adjoining Property 10 was 98 days, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. We adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2015 to the end of December 2018 (36 months). When adjusting sales prices for market conditions (time between date of Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales date) throughout this analysis we have used regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. We utilized the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index (FHFA HPI) for the 27592 zip code to determine the average monthly rate of appreciation. The FHFA HPI is a broad measure of the movement of single-family house prices. The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or re-financings on the same properties. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels.23 The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 10 are presented below. The difference between the unit price of the Test Area Sale and the Adjusted Median Unit Price of the Control Area Sales is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 10. 23 https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx No. of Sales Sunfish Farm Solar CohnReznick Paired Sales Analysis Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $124.86 GROUP 1 - Adjoining Property 10 2.43% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (14) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $127.89Test Area Sale (1) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 72 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 Adjoining Property 15 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a manufactuerd single-family home use, with 1,860 square feet of improvements, on a parcel of 1.24-acres, that sold in October 2019. The property line for this property is approximately 665 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 760 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 15. In Group 2, we have studied only homes on lots between 0.50 and 1.60 acres and homes that are greater than 1,750 square feet, built between 1990 and 2003, so as to be comparable to the Test Area Sale home. The Control Area Sales sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics, that is they are one-story manufactured homes with no basements, that are located in Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Sale Price/SF Sale Date Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 15 7608 Maude Stewart Road $125,000 1.24 2 2 1990 1,860 One-Story, Manufactured, No Basement $67.20 Oct-19 TEST AREA SALE GROUP 2 SUNFISH FARM SOLAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 73 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. We analyzed the eight Control Area Sales and adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2018 to December 2020 (24 months). The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 15 are presented below. The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was slightly higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales and is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 15. No. of Sales Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $66.23 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales 1.47% GROUP 2 - Adjoining Property 15 Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF Test Area Sale (1) Yes: Adjoining solar farm $67.20 Sunfish Farm Solar CohnReznick Paired Sales Analysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 74 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 7: CALL FARMS 3 SOLAR, BATAVIA, GENESSEE COUNTY, NEW YORK Coordinates: Latitude 43.02305, Longitude -78.1812 PIN: 1824004-1-26.111/A Total Land Size: ± 81.6 Acres Date Project Announced: May 2017 Date Project Completed: July 2018 Output: 2 MW AC This solar facility was put into operation in July 2018 and has a power output capacity of 2 MW AC, enough to power 300 homes. The solar fam is currently owned by AES Distributed Energy. The project was initially being developed by Forefront, and was known as Spring Sun South, until AES acquired it in August 2017 just prior to construction. The facility was built by Expy Energy and features two inverters, fixed tilt ground racking and over 8,700 solar panels. The Surrounding Area: The Call Farms 3 solar farm is located in the town of Batavia, that surrounds the outskirts of the City of Batavia, in Genesee County, New York. Roughly equidistant from Buffalo to the west and Rochester to the east, the solar farm is centrally located in the county, and the county is in the northwestern tip of the state of New York. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 75 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Immediate Area: The solar farm is located along State Street Road, near the interchange of the New York State Thruway (I-90) and Oak Orchard Road. The solar farm is immediately surrounded by agricultural land to the north, west, and south. To the northeast of the solar farm are two commercial properties, Battery Systems of Batavia and an Ashley Home Furniture distribution center. To the south there is a landscape company with a parcel that houses equipment storage and parking. To the east there a few residential properties on the east side of State Street Road, across the road from the solar parcel. Real Estate Tax Information: After development of the solar farm, a sub-parcel number was created for the solar farm and a parent parcel number retained that was taxable at the agricultural land rate. By 2019 the solar parcel started being assessed and taxed separately in addition to the parent land parcel. The addition of the solar farm increased the taxes collected on the land by 18 percent. The map below displays the parcels containing the solar farm and adjoining properties (outlined in yellow). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis (boxed in red). PIN Acres 2017 Taxes Paid 2019 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2017 Assessed Value 2019 Assessed Value Value Increase Genesee, NY 1824004-1-26.111 (Parent) 11,646$ 11,540$ $ 327,900 $ 327,300 1824004-1-26.111/A (Solar Parcel)81.60 2,106$ 900,000$ TOTAL 81.60 11,540$ 13,647$ 18% 327,300$ 1,227,300$ 275% Call Farms 3 Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 76 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. One adjoining residential property, Adjoining Property 4, (300 feet from the house to the nearest solar panel) was sold on April 5, 2018, which was after the solar farm was built and just before the solar farm became operational. We spoke to the selling broker, John Gerace of Gerace Realty, who was under the impression that the solar farm was operational prior to closing because the construction appeared complete prior to the closing date. We note this to illustrate that the market reacted as if the solar farm were operational at the time of sale. Gerace said that interested buyers, including the eventual buyer, expressed relief that the home would no longer face agricultural land with unknown development potential, and that there was no glare from the panels. In addition to being an active broker in the community, Mr. Gerace previously sat on the zoning board, and he frequently attends town hall meetings. He said that typically a portion of the community expresses concerns about potential solar farms, but he never noticed a decrease in value or marketability for solar farm proximity. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Property 4 was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single family home use. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 4. We analyzed five Control Area Sales with similar construction and characteristics that sold within a reasonable time frame relative to the sale date of Adjoining Property 4. We adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Sale Price per SF Sale Date 4 8053 State St Rd, Batavia $155,000 1.00 5 2.0 1967 2,636 $58.80 Apr-18 Call Farms 3 Solar Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 77 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The result of our analysis for the Call Farms 3 solar farm is presented below. Noting no negative price differential, with the Test Area Sale having a higher unit sale price than the Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Call Farms 3 Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.31% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $58.62 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Call Farms 3 Solar Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $58.80 Call Farms 3 Solar Farm – Test Area Sale Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 78 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 8: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA Location: Frankton, Madison County, Indiana Coordinates: Latitude 40.125701; Longitude -85.4626.88 PIN: 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 Total Land Size: 13 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: June 2014 Output: 1.0 MW AC (1.426 MW DC) IMPA Frankton Solar Farm is located on the west side of South Lafayette Street, in the Town of Frankton. The solar farm was built in 2014 in joint effort by Inovateus Solar and Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA). This solar farm has the capacity for 1 MW AC and its expected annual output is 1,426 MWh (megawatt hours). The solar farm is separated off from the adjacent properties by a 6 foot fence that surrounds the entirety of the solar panels. From our inspection of the site, we noted that the driveway to access the panels slopes downward and allows some views of the site. The Surrounding Area: The IMPA Frankton solar farm is located in Lafayette Township, in the central portion of Madison County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 50 miles northeast of the center of Indianapolis and 65 miles northeast of the Indianapolis International Airport. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is relatively centrally located in an undeveloped pocket of the town of Frankton, on the western side of South Lafayette Street. Adjoining parcels to the west include park land featuring baseball fields. Land further to the west is agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops. Adjoining parcels to the north are residential with large estate homes. Adjoining the solar farm to the southeast is a single-family home identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 7, and a baseball field. More farmland is directly south of the solar site. The solar site is adjoining a number of homes located east of the panels, along Lafayette Street. Mature trees at the rear of residential properties act as vegetative buffers. Across Lafayette Street, to the east, are single-family residential homes forming the southeast quadrant of homes in Frankton. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural, residential, or recreational purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence that contains all the solar panels. Additionally, vegetative buffers along sides facing residential properties were planted as part of the solar farm development. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 79 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm in 2014, the original owner held one parcel of 15.667 acres with a home, pole barn and a utility shed, and no personal property was assessed on this parcel. In 2014 the parcel was split into two parcels and 13 acres was sold to IMPA for development of the solar farm. The owner of the parent parcel of 15.667 acres paid real estate taxes of $1,799 annually, prior to the split. After development of the solar farm, real estate taxes for both parcels, plus personal property tax revenue generated from the solar parcel, caused an increase $8,275, or a 360 percent increase in tax revenue for the entire site. The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid 2017 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value 2017 Assessed Value Value Increase Madison County, IN 48-08-06-500-012.000-020 (parent) 15.667 (2013) 1,799$ 1,402$ $ 138,700 $ 127,000 Personal Property -$ -$ $ - $ - 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 (2014 solar parcel split) 13.00 (2017) -$ 4,063$ $ - $ 137,400 Personal Property -$ 2,810$ $ - $ 440,380 TOTAL 0.00 1,799$ 8,275$ 360% 138,700$ 704,780$ 408% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 80 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have performed a paired sales analysis with regards to the IMPA Frankton solar farm. The analysis compares sales of Adjoining Properties to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site (Test Area Sales) to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for both groups of Adjoining Properties under study. GROUP 1 In Group 1, we identified and analyzed six Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, or otherwise non arms’-length transactions. Adjoining Property 2 was manufactured single-family home use. We identified six Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 2) and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. Adj. Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 2 607 S. Lafayette St Frankton, IN $41,900 0.37 2 2 1991 1,466 Jun-15 $28.58 IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Test Area Sales Group 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 81 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm – Group 1: Test Area Sale Map Control Area Sales in Group 1 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price per SF 0.56%Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Group 1 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Test Area Sale (1) Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $28.42 Adjoining Solar Farm $28.58 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 82 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 In Group 2, we identified and analyzed five Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 7) in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, or otherwise non arms’-length transactions. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. We identified five Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm – Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Adj. Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 7 713 S. Lafeytte St Frankton, IN $131,000 3.04 4 2 2003 2,500 Oct-16 $52.40 Group 2 IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Test Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 83 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales in Group 2 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. Noting the relatively small price differential, in which the Test Area Sales were higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, in both Groups 1 and 2, it does not appear that the IMPA Frankton solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price per SF 1.81% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $51.47 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Group 2 Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining Solar Farm $52.40 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 84 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 9: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Coordinates: Latitude 39.859564, Longitude -105.1497 PIN: 29-194-01-037 Total Land Size: 13.63 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: May 2016 Output: 1.2 MW AC The Jefferson County Community Solar Garden is adjacent to the Whisper Creek residential subdivision, just outside the City of Arvada, and was developed by SunShare Management. This solar farm has the capacity for 1.2 Megawatts (AC) of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. After two months of operation, the solar farm was 100 percent subscribed and its three largest customers are the cities of Arvada and Northglenn, as well as the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District. The Surrounding Area: The Whisper Creek subdivision is located between the Welton Reservoir to the west and Standley Lake to the east. To the northwest of the subdivision lies the Colorado Hills Open Space and the Rocky Flats national Wildlife Refuge. The subdivision is primarily in the City of Arvada city limits, but the municipal boundary splits the street the Test Area Sales are located on, West 89 th Loop, some are in Arvada and some are in unincorporated Jefferson County. Arvada is a northwestern suburb of the City of Denver and is accessible via Interstate-25 and Interstate-70 and Interstate-76. The Immediate Area: The immediate area has uses that consist of vacant land to the north and east, a horse and alpaca farm to the south, known as Evening Star Farms, and single-family homes and a municipal police station and vacant land to the west. Real Estate Tax Information: In 2017, real estate taxes totaled $79.10 for the entire parcel for the year, which is slightly less than taxes billed in 2016 and 2015. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 85 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We found three Adjoining Properties that qualified for a paired sales analysis. The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in yellow) and the Adjoining Properties (outlined in red) are numbered for subsequent analysis Jefferson County Community Solar Garden - Adjoining Properties (Q2 2016 imagery date) (Green Arrow – Direction of Photos on Following Page) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 86 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. View from 89th Loop towards Solar Farm at rear of home View from the rear of a Test Area Sale, towards Solar Farm Solar Farm Solar Farm Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 87 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Adjoining Properties 9, 10, and 13 (Test Area Sales 1, 2, and 3, respectively), were considered for a paired sales analysis. The Test Area Sales are two-story, single-family residential homes with four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms, between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet of gross living area, on less than 0.30 acre of land, and each sold in 2016 as new construction homes. The Test Area Sales are located between 595 feet and 720 feet from the house to the solar panels. We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales and are similar to the Test Area Sales in physical characteristics. The Control Area Sales are removed from the solar panels in other areas of the Whisper Creek subdivision. Jefferson County Community Solar Garden – Test Area Sales Map Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 9, 10, 13 13929 W 89TH LOOP, 13919 W 89TH LOOP, 13889 W 89TH LOOP $635,500 0.23 4 3.5 2016 3,848 Jun-16 $165.15 Jefferson County Community Solar Garden Test Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 88 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The results of our analyses for the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden are presented below. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.48% No: Not Adjoining solar farm $164.36 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Jefferson County Community Solar Garden Test Area Sales (3) Adjoining solar farm $165.15 Control Area Sales (6) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 89 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.301180, Longitude –87.094055 PINs: 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 and 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 Total Land Size: 27.9 Acres Date Project Announced: March 2012 Date Project Completed: December 20, 2012 Output: 1 MW AC (1.3 MW DC) The Valparaiso solar farm was developed by Sustainable Power Group, LLC and became operational in December 2012. The solar facility has ground mounted capacity for 1.0 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion and there are two inverters in this solar farm. The Surrounding Area: The Valparaiso solar farm is located in Union Township, in the northwest portion of Porter County, Indiana. Porter County is located in the very northwest corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles northwest of the Porter County Regional Airport and approximately six and a half miles northwest of the center of the city of Valparaiso. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the southern side of Indiana Route 130 (Railroad Avenue) in Valparaiso, Porter County, Indiana and is located approximately 35 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Adjoining parcels to the solar farm to the east and south are residential homes and to the west and north are agricultural in nature. The solar farm is lined by a chain link fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are bushes and trees to the north and west of the solar panels; this vegetation has been in place since before development of the solar farm. Other small trees were planted and spaced out around the perimeter of the solar farm after development. From our inspection, the solar panels cannot be seen from Indiana State Route 130 from the north, nor on N 475 W Road to the east as this is a raised roadway. The adjacent properties to the east of the solar panels have full view of the panels from the backyards of the homes. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 90 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the original parent parcel contained a home, a homesite, excess land, and agricultural land. In 2012, Valparaiso Solar, LLC bought the entire property to develop the solar farm on. Subsequently when Valparaiso Solar, LLC sold the project to PLH, LLC, they split the parcels so that the home and homesite were one parcel of 3.25 acres and the remaining 24.65 acres were the solar panel site. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, total real estate taxes for both parcels had increased to approximately $2,587, a 25 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. The maps below and on the following page display the solar farm parcels (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2011 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2011 Assessed Value 2015 Assessed Value Value Increase Porter County, IN 64-09-07-151-001.000-019 (parent parcel) 2,072$ $ 203,800 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 (split parcel) 24.65 2,587$ $ 156,800 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 (split parcel) 3.25 1,741$ 187,900$ TOTAL 27.90 2,072$ 2,587$ 25% 203,800$ 344,700$ 69% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 91 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 92 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 10 and 14 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Both were analyzed as single-family home uses. GROUP 1 For Adjoining Property 10 (Group 1), the residential home is approximately 514 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. We analyzed five Control Area Sales that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 10. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Price PSF Sale Date 10 489 W 450 N, Valparaiso, IN $105,000 1.45 3 2 1993 1,274 82.42$ Jul-15 Valparaiso Solar Test Area Sale Group 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 93 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Valparaiso Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The result of our analyses for Group 1 is presented below. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 3.09% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $79.95 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (1) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Valparaiso Solar Group 1 Adjoining solar farm $82.42 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 94 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 3: MARKET COMMENTARY Additionally, we have contacted market participants such as appraisers, brokers, and developers familiar with property values around solar farms. Commentary from our conversations with these market participants is recorded below. In Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois, we spoke with Viki Crouch, the Township Assessor, who she said that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the Grand Ridge Solar Farm. We spoke with Ken Crowley, Rockford Township Assessor in Winnebago County, Illinois, who stated that he has seen no impact on property values in his township as an effect of proximity to the Rockford Solar Farm. We spoke with James Weisiger, the Champaign Township Assessor in Champaign County, where the University of Illinois Solar Farm is located, and he noted that no one has petitioned to have their property assessments lowered and there appears to have been no impact on property values as a result of proximity to the solar farm. We spoke with Ken Surface, a Senior Vice President of Nexus Group. Nexus Group is a large valuation group in Indiana and has been hired by 20 counties in Indiana regarding property assessments. Mr. Surface is familiar with the solar farm sites in Harrison County (Lanesville Solar Farm) and Monroe County (Ellettsville Solar Farm) and stated he has noticed no impact on property values from proximity to these sites. We interviewed Missy Tetrick, a Commercial Valuation Analyst for the Marion County Indiana Assessor. She mentioned the Indy Solar III sites and stated that she saw no impact on land or property prices from proximity to this solar farm. We spoke with Dorene Greiwe, Decatur County Indiana Assessor, and she stated that solar farms have only been in the county a couple of years, but she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to this solar farm. Connie Gardner, First Deputy Assessor for Madison County Indiana, stated that there are three solar farms in her county, and she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to these solar farms. We spoke with Tara Shaver, Director of Administration for Marion County, Indiana Assessor/Certified Assessor, and she stated that she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to solar farms . Candace Rindahl of ReMax Results, a real estate broker with 16 years of experience in the North Branch, Minnesota area, said that she has been in most of the homes surrounding the North Star Solar Farm and personally sold two of them. She reported that the neighboring homes sold at market rates comparable to other homes in the area not influenced by the solar farm, and they sold within 45 days of offering, at the end of 2017, which was in line with the market. Dan Squires, Chisago County Tax Assessor (Minnesota), confirmed that the Chisago County Assessor’s Office completed their own study on property values adjacent to and in close vicinity to the solar farm from January Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 95 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 2016 to October 2017. From the study, the assessor determined the residential homes adjacent to the North Star Solar Farm (Minnesota) were in-line with the market and were appreciating at the same rate as the market.24 Renee Davis, Tax Administrator for Bladen County, North Carolina, stated that she has not seen any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Jim Brown, an appraiser for Scotland County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Gary Rose, a tax assessor for Duplin County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values in regards to proximity to a solar farm. Kathy Renn, a property Valuation Manager for Vance County, North Carolina, stated that she has not noticed any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. Larry Newton, a Tax Assessor for Anson County, North Carolina, stated that there are six solar farms in the county ranging from 20 to 40 acres and he has not seen any evidence that solar farms have had any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Patrice Stewart, a Tax Administrator for Pasquotank County, North Carolina, and she has seen no effect on land or residential property values due to proximity to the solar farms in Pasquotank County. We spoke with the selling broker of the Adjoining Property for Elm City Solar, in North Carolina, Selby Brewer, who said the solar farm did not impact the buyer’s motivation. We spoke with Amy Carr, Commissioner of Revenue in Southampton County, Virginia, who stated that most of the solar farms are in rural areas, but she has not seen any effect or made any adjustments on property values. They have evaluated the solar farmland considering a more intense use, which increased the assessed value. The Interim Assessor for the town of Whitestown in Oneida County, New York, Frank Donato, stated that he has seen no impact on property values of properties nearby solar farms. Steve Lehr at the Department of Assessment for Tompkins County, New York, mentioned that the appraisal staff has made no adjustments regarding assessed values of properties surrounding solar farms. Marketing times for properties have also stayed consistent. Lehr noted that a few of the solar farms in Thompkins County are on land owned by colleges and universities and a few are in rural areas. At this point in time, Al Fiorille, Senior Valuation Specialist in the Tompkins County Assessment department in New York, reported that he cannot measure any negativity from the solar farms and arrays that have been installed within the county. 24 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No “Solar Effects” (11/03/2017) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 96 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. In the Assessor’s office in the town of Seneca, Ontario County, New York, Shana Jo Hamilton stated that she has seen no impact on property values of properties adjacent to solar farms . Michael Zazzara, Assessor of the City of Rochester in Monroe County, New York commented that the City has a couple of solar farms, and they have seen no impact on nearby property values and have received no complaints from property owners. While there are one or two homes nearby to existing solar farms in the town of Lisbon in St. Lawrence County, New York, Assessor Stephen Teele has not seen any impact on property values in his town. The solar farms in the area are in rural or agricultural areas in and around Lisbon. The Assessor for the Village of Whitehall in Washington County, New York, Bruce Caza, noted that there are solar farms located in both rural and residential areas in the village and he has seen no impact on adjacent properties, including any concerns related to glare form solar panels. Laurie Lambertson, the Town Assessor for Bethlehem, in Albany County, New York noted that the solar farms in her area are tucked away in rural or industrial areas. Lambertson has seen no impact on property values in properties adjacent to solar farms. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 97 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF USE Zoning changes and conditional use permits often require that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. The following section analyzes specific physical characteristics of solar farms and is based on research and CohnReznick’s personal solar farm site visits and indicate that solar farms are generally harmonious with surrounding property and compliant with most zoning standards. Appearance: Most solar panels have a similar appearance to a greenhouse or single-story residence can range from 8 to 20 feet but are usually not more than 15 feet high. As previously mentioned, developers generally surround a solar farm with a fence and often leave existing perimeter foliage, which minimizes the visibility of the solar farm. The physical characteristics of solar farms are compatible with adjoining agricultural and residential uses. Sound: Solar panels in general are effectively silent and sound levels are minimal, like ambient sound. There are limited sound-emitting pieces of equipment on-site, which only produce a quiet hum (e.g., inverters). However, these sources are not typically heard outside the solar farm perimeter fence. Odor: Solar panels do not produce any byproduct or odor. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Much of the GHG produced in the United States is linked to the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, for energy use. Generating renewable energy from operating solar panels for energy use does not have significant GHG emissions, promoting cleaner air and reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions to fight climate change. Traffic: The solar farm requires minimal daily onsite monitoring by operational employees and thus minimal operational traffic. Hazardous Material: Modern solar panel arrays are constructed to U.S. government standards. Testing shows that modern solar modules are both safe to dispose of in landfills and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster.25 Reuse or recycling of materials would be prioritized over disposal. Recycling is an area of significant focus in the solar industry, and programs for both batteries and solar panels are advancing every year. While the exact method of recycling may not be known yet as it is dependent on specific design and manufacturer protocol, the equipment is designed with recyclability of its components in mind, and it is likely that solar panel and battery energy storage recycling and reuse programs will only improve in 25 years’ time. Examples of homes built adjoining to solar farms are presented on the following pages. 25 Virginia Solar Initiative - Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service – University of Virginia (https://solar.coopercenter.org/taxonomy/term/5311) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 98 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. For the Dominion Indy III solar farm, the adjacent land to the west was acquired and subsequently developed with a large estate home – after the solar panels had been in operation for years. Dominion Indy III Solar Farm September 2014 Dominion Indy III Solar Farm October 2016 Estate home adjacent to Dominion Indy III Solar Farm In ground pool and attached garage (home cost estimated at $450,000 - October 2015 ) ~150 ft Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 99 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Single Family Home Development (1) - End-user built -2,933 SF - Completed on 3/1/2019 - Cost estimate: $170,300 Single Family Home Development (2) - Developer built - 4 Bedroom - 3 Bathroom - 2,401 SF - Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Innovative Solar 42 (2017) Cumberland County, NC Innovative Solar 42 (2019) Cumberland County, NC Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 100 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Developer Built Home Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Cumberland County, NC (adjacent to Innovative 42 solar farm) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 101 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2015 Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2016 4,255 square foot estate home under construction, adjacent to Portage Solar Farm located in Indiana On-site pond and attached garage (cost estimated at $465,000) April 2018 4,255 SF Estate Home Under Construction, 4BR 5Ba + Pond Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 102 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Brighton PV Solar farm became operational in December 2012. Located in Adams County, north of Denver, CO, this solar farm has a capacity of 1.8 MW AC and is located on a triangular parcel of land east of an area of existing custom-built estate homes. A photo of one home (15880 Jackson Street) located directly north of the circled area below, is presented to the right. In December 2012, the 2.55-acre lot circled in red below (15840 Jackson Street) was purchased for future development of a single-family home. This home was built in 2017, and per the county assessor, the two-story home is 3,725 square feet above ground with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms. According to the building permit issued in August 2016, the construction cost was budgeted at $410,000. Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2016 Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2017 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 103 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SUMMARY OF ADJOINING USES The table below summarizes each Existing Solar Farm’s adjoining uses. Overall, the vast majority of the surrounding acreage for each comparable solar farm is made up of agricultural land, some of which have homesteads. There are also smaller single-family home sites that adjoin the solar farms analyzed in this report. Generally, these solar farms are sound comparables to Cypress Creek Renewables’ proposed solar project in terms of adjoining uses, location, and size. Solar Farm #Solar Farm Acreage % of Surrounding Agricultural Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Residential Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Industrial Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Office Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Other Uses Avg. Distance from Panels to Improvements (Feet) 1 DTE Lapeer Solar 60.00% 35.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 260 2 Grand Ridge Solar 97.60% 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 553 3 Woodland Solar 25.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 615 4 Dominion Indy Solar III 97.70% 2.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 474 5 Sunfish Farm Solar 87.70% 18.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 380 6 Call Farms 3 Solar 44.40% 5.50% 3.30% 0.00% 9.40% 328 7 Portage Solar 65.50% 34.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 991 8 IMPA Frankton Solar 76.30% 5.70% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 236 9 Jefferson Community Solar Garden 73.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 790 10 Valparaiso Solar 81.60% 18.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 659 Composition of Surrounding Uses (% of Surrounding Acreage) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 104 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this property value impact report is to determine whether the presence of a solar farm has caused a measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. Under the identified methodology and scope of work, CohnReznick reviewed published methodology for measuring impact on property values as well as published reports that analyzed the impact of solar farms on property values. These studies found little to no measurable and consistent difference between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales attributed to the solar farms. A summary of the chosen CohnReznick impact studies prepared is presented below. As summarized above, we evaluated 30 property sales adjoining existing solar facilities (Test Area Sales) and 115 Control Area Sales. In addition, we studied a total of 37 Test Area Sales and 46 Control Area Sales in two Before and After analyses. In total, we have studied over 1,430 sale transactions across the United States. The solar farms analyzed reflected sales of property adjoining an existing solar farm (Test Area Sales) in which the unit sale prices were effectively the same or higher than the comparable Control Area Sales that were not near a solar farm. The conclusions support that there is no negative impact for improved residential homes adjacent to solar, nor agricultural acreage. This was confirmed with market participants interviews, which provided additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of the solar farm. Solar Farm #Solar Farm Number of Test Area Sales Number of Control Area Sales Median Adjoining Property (Test Area Sales) Sales Price per Unit Control Area Sales Median Price per Unit Difference (%) Avg. Feet from Panel to Lot Avg. Feet from Panel to House Impact Found? Single-Family Residential 1 Portage Solar Group 2 1 7 $84.35 $84.27 +0.09% 1,070 1,233 No Impact 2 DTE Lapeer Solar Group 1 3 6 $105.26 $99.64 +5.64% 205 285 No Impact DTE Lapeer Solar Group 2 1 5 $114.12 $113.01 +0.98% 225 315 No Impact DTE Lapeer Solar Group 3 1 4 $94.84 $96.32 -1.54% 160 290 No Impact 3 Grand Ridge Solar 1 5 $79.90 $74.35 +7.46% 366 479 No Impact 4 Woodland Solar 1 5 $144.63 $137.76 +4.99% 420 615 No Impact 5 Dominion Indy Solar III Group 2 4 8 $59.10 $57.84 +2.18% 240 350 No Impact Dominion Indy Solar III Group 3 7 11 $72.15 $71.69 +0.64% 165 300 No Impact 6 Sunfish Farm Solar Group 1 1 14 $127.89 $124.86 +2.43% 50 200 No Impact Sunfish Farm Solar Group 2 1 10 $67.20 $66.23 +1.47% 665 760 No Impact 7 Call Farms 3 Solar 1 5 $58.80 $58.62 +0.31% 200 297 No Impact 8 IMPA Frankton Solar Group 1 1 6 $28.58 $28.42 +0.56% 120 153 No Impact IMPA Frankton Solar Group 2 1 5 $52.40 $51.47 +1.81% 163 415 No Impact 9 Jefferson Community Solar Garden 3 6 $165.15 $164.36 +0.48% 609 658 No Impact 10 Valparaiso Solar Group 1 1 5 $82.42 $79.95 +3.09% 323 516 No Impact Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test to Control Areas +1.47% 28 Adjoining Test Sales studied and compared to 102 Control Sales Land (Agricultural/Single Family Lots) 1 Portage Solar Group 1 1 9 $8,000 $7,674 +4.25% 845 - No Impact 5 Indy Solar III Group 1 1 4 $8,210 $8,091 +1.47% 280 - No Impact Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test to Control Areas +1.47% 2 Adjoining Test Sales studied and compared to 13 Control Sales CohnReznick Solar Analysis Conclusions Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 105 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It can be concluded that since the Adjoining Property Sales (Test Area Sales) were not adversely affected by their proximity to the solar farm, that properties surrounding other proposed solar farms operating in compliance with all regulatory standards will similarly not be adversely affected, in either the short or long term periods. Based upon the examination, research, and analyses of the existing solar farm uses, the surrounding areas, and an extensive market database, we have concluded that no consistent negative impact has occurred to adjacent property values that could be attributed to proximity to the adjacent solar farm , with regard to unit sale prices or other influential market indicators. Additionally, in our workfile we have retained analyses of additional existing solar farms, each with their own set of matched control sales, which had consistent results, indicating no consistent and measurable impact on adjacent property values. This conclusion has been confirmed by numerous county assessors who have also investigated this use’s potential impact on property values. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 106 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact and data reported are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, findings, and conclusions in this consulting report are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, findings, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this assignment. 6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value finding, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this report. 8. Our analyses, findings, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which includes the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 10. Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. 11. We have not relied on unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, age, and receipt of public assistance income, handicap, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value. 12. Joseph P. B. Ficenec provided significant appraisal consulting assistance to the persons signing this certification, including data verification, research, and administrative work all under the appropriate supervision. 13. We have experience in reviewing properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP. 14. As of the date of this report, Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 107 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 108 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The fact witness services will be subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matter pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. The legal description used in this report is assumed to be correct. 2. The property is evaluated free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent management are assumed. 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct and reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering studies are assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local and environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the evaluation report. 8. It is assumed that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless nonconformity has been identified, described and considered in the evaluation report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 10. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in this report. 11. The date of value to which the findings are expressed in this report apply is set forth in the letter of transmittal. The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some later date which may affect the opinions herein stated. 12. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraisers. The appraisers have no knowledge of the existence of such substances on or in the property. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, lead or lead-based products, toxic waste contaminants, and other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 109 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 13. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates included in this report were utilized to assist in the evaluation process and are based on reasonable estimates of market conditions, anticipated supply and demand, and the state of the economy. Therefore, the projections are subject to changes in future conditions that cannot be accurately predicated by the appraisers and which could affect the future income or value projections. 14. Fundamental to the appraisal analysis is the assumption that no change in zoning is either proposed or imminent, unless otherwise stipulated. Should a change in zoning status occur from the property's present classification, the appraisers reserve the right to alter or amend the value accordingly. 15. It is assumed that the property does not contain within its confined any unmarked burial grounds which would prevent or hamper the development process. 16. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective on January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the property to determine if it is in conformance with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Unless otherwise noted in this report, we have not been provided with a compliance survey of the property. Any information regarding compliance surveys or estimates of costs to conform to the requirements of the ADA are provided for information purposes. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy or completeness of the compliance survey cited in this report, or for the eventual cost to comply with the requirements of the ADA. 17. Any value estimates provided in this report apply to the entire property, and any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such proration or division of interests has been set forth in this report. 18. Any proposed improvements are assumed to have been completed unless otherwise stipulated; any construction is assumed to conform with the building plans referenced in this report. 19. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this evaluation assumes that the subject does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. 20. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, we have not completed nor are we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non-tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. 21. This report should not be used as a basis to determine the structural adequacy/inadequacy of the property described herein, but for evaluation purposes only. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 110 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 22. It is assumed that the subject structure meets the applicable building codes for its respective jurisdiction. We assume no responsibility/liability for the inclusion/exclusion of any structural component item which may have an impact on value. It is further assumed that the subject property will meet code requirements as they relate to proper soil compaction, grading, and drainage. 23. The appraisers are not engineers, and any references to physical property characteristics in terms of quality, condition, cost, suitability, soil conditions, flood risk, obsolescence, etc., are strictly related to their economic impact on the property. No liability is assumed for any engineering-related issues. The evaluation services will be subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. The findings reported herein are only applicable to the properties studied in conjunction with the Purpose of the Evaluation and the Function of the Evaluation as herein set forth; the evaluation is not to be used for any other purposes or functions. 2. Any allocation of the total value estimated in this report between the land and the improvements applies only to the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are not valid if so used. 3. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in the evaluation. 4. This report has been prepared by CohnReznick under the terms and conditions outlined by the enclosed engagement letter. Therefore, the contents of this report and the use of this report are governed by the client confidentiality rules of the Appraisal Institute. Specifically, this report is not for use by a third party and CohnReznick is not responsible or liable, legally or otherwise, to other parties using this report unless agreed to in writing, in advance, by both CohnReznick and/or the client or third party. 5. Disclosure of the contents of this evaluation report is governed by the by-laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute has been prepared to conform with the reporting standards of any concerned government agencies. 6. The forecasts, projections, and/or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future conditions. This evaluation is based on the condition of local and national economies, purchasing power of money, and financing rates prevailing at the effective date of value. 7. This evaluation shall be considered only in its entirety, and no part of this evaluation shall be utilized separately or out of context. Any separation of the signature pages from the balance of the evaluation report invalidates the conclusions established herein. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 111 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 8. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purposes by anyone other than the client without the prior written consent of the appraisers, and in any event, only with property qualification. 9. The appraisers, by reason of this study, are not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser's client, through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to evaluation conclusions, the identity of the appraisers or CohnReznick, LLC, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or the MAI designation. Further, the appraisers and CohnReznick, LLC assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment. 11. This evaluation is not intended to be used, and may not be used, on behalf of or in connection with a real estate syndicate or syndicates. A real estate syndicate means a general or limited partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association or similar organization formed for the purpose of, and engaged in, an investment or gain from an interest in real property, including, but not limited to a sale or exchange, trade or development of such real property, on behalf of others, or which is required to be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange commissions or any state regulatory agency which regulates investments made as a public offering. It is agreed that any user of this evaluation who uses it contrary to the prohibitions in this section indemnifies the appraisers and the appraisers' firm and holds them harmless from all claims, including attorney fees, arising from said use. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 112 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 113 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA Principal and CohnReznick Group – Valuation Advisory National Director 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-508-5802 patricia.mcgarr@cohnreznick.com Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA, is a principal and National Director of CohnReznick Advisory Group’s Valuation Advisory Services practice. Pat’s experience includes market value appraisals of varied property types for acquisition, condemnation, mortgage, estate, ad valorem tax, litigation, zoning, and other purposes. Pat has been involved in the real estate business since 1980. From June 1980 to January 1984, she was involved with the sales and brokerage of residential and commercial properties. Her responsibilities during this time included the formation, management, and training of sales staff in addition to her sales, marketing, and analytical functions. Of special note was her development of a commercial division for a major Chicago-area brokerage firm. Since January 1984, Pat has been exclusively involved in the valuation of real estate. Her experience includes the valuation of a wide variety of property types including residential (SF/MF/LIHTC), commercial, industrial, and special purpose properties including such diverse subjects as quarries, marinas, riverboat gaming sites, shopping centers, manufacturing plants, and office buildings. She is also experienced in the valuation of leasehold and leased fee interests. Pat has performed appraisal assignments throughout the country, including the Chicago Metropolitan area as well as New York, New Jersey, California, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Pat has gained substantial experience in the study and analysis of the establishment and expansion of sanitary landfills in various metropolitan areas including the preparation of real estate impact studies to address criteria required by Senate Bill 172. She has also developed an accepted format for allocating value of a landfill operation between real property, landfill improvements, and franchise (permits) value. Over the past several years, Pat has developed a valuation group that specializes in the establishment of new utility corridors for electric power transmission and pipelines. This includes determining acquisition budgets, easement acquisitions, corridor valuations, and litigation support. Pat has considerable experience in performing valuation impact studies on potential detrimental conditions and has studied properties adjoining solar farms, wind farms, landfills, waste transfer stations, stone quarries, cellular towers, schools, electrical power transmission lines, “Big Box” retail facilities, levies, properties with restrictive covenants, landmark districts, environmental contamination, airports, material defects in construction, stigma, and loss of view amenity for residential high rises. Most recently, the firm has studied property values adjacent to Solar Farms to address criteria required for special use permits across the Midwest. Pat has qualified as an expert valuation witness in numerous local, state, and federal courts. Pat has participated in specialized real estate appraisal education and has completed more than 50 courses and seminars offered by the Appraisal Institute totaling more than 600 classroom hours, including real estate transaction courses as a prerequisite to obtaining a State of Illinois Real Estate Salesman License. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 114 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Pat has earned the professional designations of Counselors of Real Estate (CRE), Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), Fellow of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS) and Certified Review Appraiser (CRA). She has also been a certified general real estate appraiser in 21 states (see below). Education x North Park University: Bachelor of Science, General Studies Professional Affiliations x National Association of Realtors x CREW Commercial Real Estate Executive Women x IRWA International Right Of Way Association Licenses and Accreditations x Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) x Counselors of Real Estate, designated CRE x Fellow of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS) x Certified Review Appraiser (CRA) x Alabama State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x California State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Connecticut State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Colorado State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x District of Columbia Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Illinois State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Indiana State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Louisiana State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Maryland State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Massachusetts Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Michigan State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x North Carolina State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x New Jersey State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Nevada State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x New York State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Pennsylvania State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x South Carolina State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Tennessee State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Virginia State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser x Wisconsin State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Appointments x Appointed by two Governors of Illinois to the State Real Estate Appraisal Board (2017 & 2021) x Chairperson of the State of Illinois Real Estate Appraisal Board (2021) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 115 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal, CohnReznick Advisory 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-508-5892 andrew.lines@cohnreznick.com Andrew R. Lines is a principal in CohnReznick’s Valuation Advisory Services group where he specializes in Real Estate, Affordable Housing, Cannabis and Renewable Energy. Andrew leads a group of appraisers across the country performing valuations on a wide variety of real estate property types including residential, commercial, industrial, hospitality and special purpose properties: landfills, waste transfer stations, marinas, hospitals, universities, self-storage facilities, racetracks, CCRCs, and railroad corridors. Affordable Housing experience includes Market Studies, Rent Compatibility Studies and Feasibility Analysis for LIHTC and mixed-income developments. Cannabis assignments have covered cultivation, processing and dispensaries in over 10 states, including due diligence for mergers and acquisitions of multi-state operational and early stage companies. Renewable Energy assignments have included preparation of impact studies and testimony at local zoning hearings in eight states. Andrew is experienced in the valuation of leasehold, leased fee, and partial interests and performs appraisals for all purposes including financial reporting, litigation, and gift/estate planning. Andrew is a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia. Before joining CohnReznick, Andrew was with Integra Realty Resources, starting as analyst support in 2002 and leaving the firm as a director in late 2011 (including two years with the Phoenix branch). His real estate experience also includes one year as administrator for the residential multifamily REIT Equity Residential Properties Trust (ERP), in the transactions department, where he performed due diligence associated with the sale and acquisition of REIT properties and manufactured home communities. Education x Syracuse University: Bachelor of Fine Arts x MAI Designation (Member of the Appraisal Institute) Professional Affiliations x Chicago Chapter of the Appraisal Institute o Alternate Regional Representative (2016 – 2018) o MAI Candidate Advisor (2014 – Present) x International Real Estate Management (IREM) x National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 116 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Community Involvement x Syracuse University Regional Council – Active Member x Syracuse University Alumni Association of Chicago, Past Board member x Chicago Friends School – Treasurer & Board Member Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 117 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Erin Bowen, MAI Senior Manager, Valuation Advisory Services 858-349-8854 erin.bowen@cohnreznick.com Erin Bowen, MAI is a Senior Manager with CohnReznick in Valuation Advisory Services. Ms. Bowen is based in Phoenix, Arizona, with presence covering the west coast. Ms. Bowen’s work in Commercial Real Estate valuation spans over 11 years. Ms. Bowen specializes in lodging, cannabis, seniors housing, large scale retail and multifamily conversion properties. Lodging work includes all hotel property types and brand segments including limited, full service and resort properties; additionally, Ms. Bowen has appraised numerous hotel to multifamily conversion properties including market rate and affordable housing. Cannabis work includes dispensaries, cultivation facilities including specialized indoor facilities and greenhouse properties, processing and manufacturing facilities. Seniors housing assignments include assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and rehabilitation centers. Retail work spans power centers, lifestyle centers, outlet centers and malls. She has appraised numerous additional properties including multifamily, office, medical office, industrial, churches, and vacant land. Ms. Bowen has expertise in appraising properties at all stages of development, including existing as is, proposed, under construction, renovations and conversion to alternate use. Valuations have been completed nationwide for a variety of assignments including mortgage financing, litigation, tax appeal, estate gifts, asset management, as well as valuation for financial reporting including purchase price allocations (ASC 805). Impact Study Reports have also been generated for zoning hearings related to the development of solar facilities, wind powered facilities Education x University of California, San Diego: Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Theater; College Honors Professional Affiliations x Appraisal Institute, Designated Member Licenses x Certified General Real Estate Appraiser licensed in New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memorandum. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number New Business #7 Tracking Number EDC 2023-24 PZC 2023-03 Bristol Ridge Solar Farm 106 – Rezone, Special Use, Variance, Annexation Amendment Economic Development Committee – April 5, 2023 Majority Approval Proposed Bristol Ridge Solar Farm on southern property for rezone, special use, Variance, and annexation amendment requests Jason Engberg, AICP Community Development Name Department SUMMARY: The applicant, Turning Point Energy, LLC, is requesting rezoning approval, special use authorization, variance approval and an amendment to an annexation agreement to construct a solar farm on the 42-acre parcel generally located east of Cannonball Trail and south of Galena Road within the Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the parcel from the R-2 Single-Family and R-3 Townhome PUD (Bristol Ridge) to the A-1 Agricultural District zoning, special use permit approval for a solar farm land use, and variance approval to decrease the minimum distance between the ground and the solar panels from ten (10) feet to a minimum height of two (2) feet. Finally, the petitioner is seeking to amend the existing annexation agreement for the Bristol Ridge Development to replace the current adopted land use plan with their solar farm. This amendment will also be required to rezone the property to the A-1 Agricultural District. LOCATION & BACKGROUND: The 42-acre property is located in the northeastern part of Yorkville just north of unincorporated Bristol along Cannonball Trail. The property is the northern portion of the existing Bristol Ridge Development which was established in 2006 for residential detached and attached housing units. The current land use of the property is agricultural farmland. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director Date: March 29, 2023 Subject: PZC 2023-03 Bristol Ridge Solar Farm 106 (Rezone, Special Use, Variance, Annexation Agreement Amendment) ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned for R-2 Single-Family dwellings and R-3 Townhome dwellings as part of a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2006-126. The petitioner is seeking to rezone the property to the A-1 Agricultural District. The following are the current immediate surrounding zoning and land uses: Zoning Land Use North B-3 General Business District (Bristol Bay) B-4 Commercial Recreation District (Kendall County) Religious Institution Farmland South R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence District (Bristol Ridge) R-3 Multi-Family Attached Residence District (Bristol Ridge) Farmland East A-1 Agricultural District (Kendall County) Farmland West R-2 One Family Residential District (Kendall County) R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence District (Bristol Ridge) R-3 Multi-Family Attached Residence District (Bristol Ridge) Residential Use Farmland The proposed use is defined in the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance as a Solar Farm which is a special use within the A-1 Agricultural District. This requires the use to abide by the A-1 Agricultural District regulations as well as the Alternative Energy System regulations in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS REGULATIONS: Section 10-19: Alternative Energy Systems establishes regulations which were used in the review of this request. The proposed solar farm will be required to meet the setback standards for the A-1 Agricultural District as well as the provisions under the Freestanding Solar Energy Systems regulations. Setbacks Table 10.07.01 of Chapter 7 in the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides dimensions and bulk regulations for the A-1 Agricultural District. Section 10-19-7-C of the Zoning Ordinance states that freestanding solar energy systems shall not be located within the required front yard or corner side yard. Additionally, Section 10-19-7-B of the Zoning Ordinance states that all parts of any freestanding solar energy system shall be set back 8 feet from interior side and rear property lines. The following table illustrates the minimum required yard setbacks for solar systems based upon the A-1 Agricultural District regulations and the Freestanding Solar Energy System requirements and the proposed setbacks per the submitted site plan (attached): Minimum Requirement Proposed Setback Front 100 feet >100 feet Side (North) 8 feet >50 feet Side (South) 8 feet 28 feet Rear None 41 feet The location of the solar panels meets the front and rear yard setbacks for the A-1 District and the location of the solar panels meets the required setbacks in the side yards per the Freestanding Solar Energy System requirements. Staff is requiring the petitioner to illustrate the exact setback in the front and side yard prior to any public hearing. Height The petitioner has submitted a narrative stating that the height of the entire panel on the stand will not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Section 10-19-7-F states the maximum height will be stipulated as a special use condition. Staff is not opposed to this overall height as the location of the panels and their distance from all existing land uses should not cause a nuisance to any neighboring property. The viewsheds provided by the petitioner illustrate this point. The overall height will be set as a condition of the special use as stated in the zoning ordinance. Clearance Section 10-19-7-D states the minimum clearance between the lowest point of the system and the surface on which the system is mounted is ten feet (10'). The petitioner is requesting a variance to this regulation to reduce the clearance to two (2) feet. The petitioner has provided the reasoning behind this request as the maintenance on the panels at the 10-foot height would be cumbersome, the visibility of the panels would increase as they would be significantly taller, and the wind loads generated at a greater height could damage the cells. Staff supports the variance request as the regulation has been an issue with previous requests for ground mounted solar panels and is not an industry standard. This regulation is being removed in the Unified Development Ordinance which is currently being drafted by the City. Fencing The petitioner is proposing to construct an eight (8) foot “agricultural style” fence around the entire solar field which will be accessible through gates with Knox Boxes for emergency access. Section 10-7-2 does not state any regulations regarding fencing within the A-1 Agricultural District. Therefore, the proposed fencing does meet the minimum requirements. Staff has requested that the petitioner provide an exhibit illustrating the fence alone including a description of the materials prior to any public hearing. Staff also suggested either making the fence chain link or adding a beam to the top of the proposed fence to increase its sturdiness and overall security. All fencing materials, locations, and styles will be included as a condition of special use approval. Glare Section 10-19-7-E states solar panels shall be placed such that concentrated solar radiation or glare shall not be directed onto nearby properties or roadways. The petitioner has submitted a glare study and analysis which concludes that there was no potential for glint or glare identified by the analysis. Additionally, the panels will be buffered by landscaping in areas that could be seen by adjacent property owners or roadways. The petitioner has also provided a viewshed from angles around the solar farm which illustrate how far away the panels will be from the public right-of-way. Signage Section 19-4-F states that “No commercial signage or attention getting device is permitted on any alternative energy system. One (1) sign shall be permitted to indicate the emergency contact information of the property owner or operator. Said sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in size.” The submitted narrative states a warning sign shall be provided at the facility entrance and along the perimeter fence including the facilities 911 address and a 24-hour emergency contact number. The petitioner is aware of the size requirement and will comply with the regulation. Utility Service Provider Section 10-19-4-G states that evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been notified of the owner’s intent to install an interconnected customer owned electricity generator. ComEd has been notified of this project and an interconnection plan has been submitted to them and has been provided by the petitioner. Decommission Section 10-19-9-A-3 states prior to permit issuance, the owner shall sign an acknowledgement that said owner will be responsible for any and all enforcement costs and remediation costs resulting from any violations of that chapter. The costs include, but are not limited to, removal of system, property restoration upon removal of the system, city legal expenses and hearing costs associated with violations of that chapter. The petitioner has verified they are aware of these standards and have included decommissioning plan with their submittal. Additionally, the petitioner has been made aware that they will have to establish an access easement over the entire property in case City staff must remove the solar farm. Landscape Plan Section 8-12-1-C of the Municipal Code states that all other developments other than single-family detached and duplex residential development must meet the parkway, perimeter, parking lot, lot, stormwater storage basin, and median landscaping requirements. For this development, the following are relevant as certain portions of the development are adjacent to residential uses: B. Perimeter landscaping: 1. Nonresidential adjacent to residential: Where a nonresidential property is adjacent to residential property, a thirty foot (30') wide buffer yard shall be provided. The buffer yard shall consist of a berm or architectural masonry wall, at least three feet (3') in height as measured from the property line. The buffer yard shall also consist of two (2) shade trees, five (5) evergreen trees and three (3) ornamental trees per one hundred (100) linear feet of buffer yard. D. Lot landscaping: Lot landscaping shall be required for all developments in accordance with the following: 2. Nonresidential: Two (2) shade trees and fifteen (15) shrubs shall be provided for every twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of lot area. The petitioner has identified areas that face Cannonball Trail and the religious institution to the north and are providing a vegetative buffer. Additionally, the petitioner has identified areas that face the residential use to the southwest and have provided an enhanced vegetative buffer. The vegetative buffer along the western and sections of the northern boundary of the parcel are providing eight (8) evergreen trees/shrubs and seven (7) large deciduous shrubs every one hundred (100) linear feet. These buffers are not required as they are not adjacent to a residential use but do add to the required amount of lot landscaping. These buffers have been provided for potential views from the nearby religious institution and Cannonball Trail. The enhanced vegetative buffer is faces the residential land us to the southwest and is providing ten (10) evergreen trees/shrubs, six (6) large deciduous shrubs, and three (3) ornamental trees every one hundred (100) linear feet. The landscape plan does not quantify how many of each species will be located on site. Staff will require this total on the exhibit to calculate if the petitioner is meeting the standards set it the landscape ordinance outlined above. This mix of landscaping and the types of plantings is being reviewed by the City’s landscaping consultant and will need to be approved prior to any public hearing. The final landscape plan will be made a condition of the special use approval. Special Use Standards Section 10-19-4-C and 10-4-9-F state specific standards for special use which all recommendation bodies will review. The petitioner has provided answers to each of the criteria in the application as well as providing an additional attachment to these standards which are included in the packet for your review and will be entered into the public record as part of the public hearing process. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Please refer to the attached comments prepared by Engineering Enterprises Inc. (EEI) dated March 13, 2023. The work items listed in the review letter will need to be addressed and will become conditions for special use approval. The petitioner’s engineer, Kimley-Horn, has provided a response letter to these requests and is attached. ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: The petitioner is requesting to amend the existing Annexation Agreement for Bristol Ridge (Ordinance 2006-126) to permit this land use instead of the planned residential development. The petitioner is also proposing to add language which states the rezoning, special use, and variance authorization along with the land use change will only take effect once a building permit is issued for the solar farm and not at recordation of the ordinance. Additionally, the petitioner has received permission from all property owners within the Bristol Ridge Development to amend the annexation agreement for the solar farm use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property’s future land use is classified as “Estate Conservation/Residential” which is intended to provide flexibility for residential design in areas of Yorkville that can accommodate low-density detached single-family housing but also include sensitive environmental and scenic features that should be retained and enhanced. The most typical form of development within this land use will be detached single family homes on large lots. In 2016 this future land use designation was also use as a “holding” designation for future development. The 10-year horizon of the plan saw these areas outside of the core not developing within that timeframe. Any development in these areas should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis since it was not anticipated to develop within the plan’s lifespan. The utilization of this property for a solar farm is a suitable land use at this time. The current annexation amendment for a residential neighborhood will expire in 2026 and the lack of development and utilities in this area means it is unlikely to be developed into a more intense use. Additionally, the solar farm is temporary in nature as it currently is being proposed for a 20-year lease. STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff is generally supportive of the rezoning, special use request, variance, and annexation agreement amendment. Should the City Council vote to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions to the special use: 1. The maximum height of the solar panels for this land use will be fifteen (15) feet. 2. A landscape plan which meets the standards set forth in Section 8-12 of the Yorkville Municipal Code and is approved by the City’s landscape consultant. 3. The petitioner provides a security guarantee in a form acceptable to the City to cover such costs including, but not limited to the removal, property restoration, and city legal expenses and a blanket easement be provided over the property to allow the City or its contractor to enter and remove the abandoned system in compliance with the City Code. 4. Adherence to all comments prepared by EEI, city engineering consultant, in a letter dated March 13, 2023. This request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing for the rezoning, special use, and variance at the May 10, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the public hearing for the annexation agreement amendment at the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff and the petitioner are seeking comments from the Economic Development Committee about the proposed solar farm prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project Narrative, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 2) Zoning Site Plan, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 3) Development Applications 4) Decommissioning Plan, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 5) Wetland Delineation, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 6) Environmental Constraints Memorandum, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 7) Title Insurance, as prepared by Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. 8) Decommissioning Estimate, as prepared by New Leaf Energy 9) Illinois Department of Natural Resources EcoCAT Termination Report, as prepared by IDNR 10) Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Report, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. 11) NRI Application & Report, as prepared by Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District 12) Manufacturer’s Specifications 13) Operations and Maintenance Plan, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 14) Transportation and Access Plan, as prepared by Kimley Horn & Associates, LLC 15) Interconnection Agreement 16) Glare Study and FAA Notice Criteria Filing, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 17) Containment and Water Studies 18) Viewshed, as prepared by Turning Point Energy, LLC 19) FEMA Firm Map 20) Property Impact Study, as prepared by Cohn Reznick 21) Plan Council Memorandum – March 17, 2023 22) EEI Comments – March 13, 2023 Application for Special Use Permit Proposed 5-Megawatt AC Ground-Mount Community Solar Facility The United City of Yorkville Kendall County, IL TPE IL KE106, LLC c/o TurningPoint Energy, LLC 3720 South Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 February 9, 2023 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 2 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 About TurningPoint Energy ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 SITE LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................5 2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Natural Resources and Consultations with State and Federal Authorities ................................. 5 2.2.1 Natural Resource Inventory (“NRI”) ........................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplain ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2.3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) ................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Ecological Review ............................. 6 2.2.5 Illinois State Historic Preservation Office ................................................................................ 6 2.2.6 Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) ............................................................................... 6 2.3 Community Outreach & Benefits ................................................................................................ 7 3.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SOLAR PROJECT DESIGN ......................................................7 3.1 Project Description & Design Standards ...................................................................................... 7 3.2 Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Vibration ...................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Air pollution ................................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Toxic substances .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.6 Fire and explosive hazards........................................................................................................... 9 3.7 Glare and heat ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.8 Setback Compliance, Landscape & Buffering Plan .................................................................... 11 3.9 Viewshed ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.10 FAA Filing ................................................................................................................................... 11 3.11 Safety and Security .................................................................................................................... 11 3.12 Interconnection ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.13 Operation and Maintenance ..................................................................................................... 12 3.14 Decommissioning Plan ............................................................................................................... 12 3.15 Itemized Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................. 13 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA ............................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Special Use Required Findings of Facts (Section 10-4-9, Zoning Code) ..................................... 13 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 3 List of Appendices: x A – Application Forms o Application to Amend Agreement o Application for Rezoning o Application for Variance o Application for Special Use x B – Zoning Site Plan x C – Decommissioning Plan x D – Wetland Delineation (Level 1) x E – Environmental Constraints Memorandum x F – IDNR EcoCAT x G – SHPO Concurrence x H – NRI Application & Report x I – Manufacturer’s Specifications x J – Operations and Maintenance Plan x K – Transportation and Access Plan x L – Interconnection Agreement x M – Glare Study and F.A.A. Notice Criteria Filing x N – Contaminant and Water Studies x O – Viewshed x P – FEMA FIRM Map x Q – Property Impact Study Application for Special Use Permit | Page 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview TurningPoint Energy, LLC d/b/a TPE Development through its affiliated entity TPE IL KE106, LLC (the “Applicant”) proposes the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located east of Cannonball Trail and south of Galena Road, Yorkville, IL 60512 (the “Project”). The Project will consist of a single axis tracking ground-mounted solar array, associated electrical equipment, an access driveway and fence covering approximately 28 acres of the 42-acre parcel (ID 02-10-300-017). The Project intends to participate in the Illinois Adjustable Block Community Solar Program and will power the equivalent of approximately 1,0501 homes. Community Solar allows residents of Illinois to purchase locally generated clean electricity at a discount to current electric rates without having to install panels on their roof. The Project’s host parcel is in the R-2 (Single family traditional) and R-3 (Multi-family attached residence) zoning district and is included in the “Bristol Ridge” Planned Unit Development. To comply with the landowner’s requirements, Applicant has submitted separate applications requesting (1) to Amend the Annexation Agreement (Yorkville Ordinance 2006-126) to allow for the withdrawal of the parcel from the Bristol Ridge Planned Unit Development, and (2) Rezone the parcel from R-2 and R-3 to A-1 zoning in which solar is allowable under Special Use. The Applicant has included requests in the Agreement Amendment and Rezoning applications to make the rezoning contingent upon the issuance of a building permit for construction for the Project. The City of Yorkville’s Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) allows for the construction and operation of Solar Farms by Special Use Permit in A-1 Zoning Districts (consideration of the SUP application requires the re-zoning request to be approved first). All setbacks prescribed in the Yorkville Zoning Ordinance will be complied with to ensure a sufficient buffer is maintained between the panels and neighboring property lines and rights-of-way. Additional plantings have been proposed in areas near residential parcels to screen the array from neighboring residences. The City’s solar ordinance (10-19-7-D) requires a minimum height of 10 feet (10’) above the surface. This height will make the panels highly visible from the neighboring roads and parcels. Applicant further requests a Variance lowering this minimum height to two feet (2’) above the surface. The decreased height will reduce both visibility and construction impact by reducing anchoring and foundation requirements. If approved, the Project will bring significant and consistent benefits to the City of Yorkville and the community surrounding the Project. The Project will create approximately 50-75 jobs during the 4 to 6- month construction period, generating property tax revenue of approximately $840,000 over 30 years. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community will benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, extremely limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. 1Calculation based on data provided by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/IL.pdf and https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pd Application for Special Use Permit | Page 5 1.2 About TurningPoint Energy Formed in 2014, TPE is a privately held, independent company transforming our energy future by creating freedom to choose a smarter, cleaner, more flexible way forward through community solar. As a privately held and independent company, TPE customizes projects to the unique needs of each client. Our team has financed and/or built over 2 Gigawatts (GW) of the solar projects operating in the U.S. today. Since 2017, TPE has focused these services on the expanding community solar market in states including Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Rhode Island. TPE’s development and investment portfolio now includes over 169MW of community solar projects in construction or operation, with an additional 840MW in solar projects under development . TPE is a “triple bottom line” company; we believe that our business should create financial, environmental, and community value in every project we create. Our intent is to be long-term community members. Upon successful permitting and utility interconnection, TPE typically makes donations to local charities and non-profits doing good work in the communities in which we work. 2.0 SITE LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS TPE, in coordination with its engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn, has prepared and compiled information from many sources to form the basis of design for the proposed Project. A summary of existing conditions and the design elements that avoid and or minimize impact to the environment and surrounding community is presented below. 2.1 Existing Conditions The proposed Project is located on approximately 54 acres of land in northern Kendall County in the City of Yorkville. The site generally flows south and southeast, and any water eventually discharges to Blackberry Creek. It is presently an empty field having been harvested of soybeans in the Fall. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Services, the onsite soils consist of type B/D, C/D, and B silt loam. 2.2 Natural Resources and Consultations with State and Federal Authorities 2.2.1 Natural Resource Inventory (“NRI”) Kimley-Horn submitted the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) packet on July 29, 2022 to the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District (“SWCD”). The NRI report was finalized on August 9, 2022. A copy of the report is included as Appendix H. The report notes a Land Evaluation (LE) score of 93 out of 100, giving it a high rating for agricultural use. However, the SWCD acknowledges that the report in no way indicates that a certain land use is not possible. See Appendix N for the beneficial effects of a solar farm. 2.2.2 Wetlands and Floodplain The Project will be designed to avoid impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters. A Level 1 Wetland Delineation has been completed and no potential wetlands were identified within the Project Area. Please see Appendix D for additional information. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 6 Per FEMA FIRM Map Panel 17093C0035H, the development is in Zone X, which is considered an area of minimal flood hazard. Refer to Appendix P for a copy of the FEMA FIRM Map. 2.2.3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) The Project will be designed such that no federally listed species will be significantly impacted. Solar projects typically impose only minimal impacts on wildlife species. The Project’s potential to impact federally protected species was evaluated as part of an Environmental Constraint Memorandum, which is included as Appendix E. The assessment indicated that five federally listed species should be considered in an effects analysis for the Project, including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the federally endangered rusty patched bumble bee (Bombas affinis), the federally threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), and the federal candidate monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Prior to construction, consultation with the USFWS will occur to confirm a “No Effect” determination. 2.2.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Ecological Review The Applicant consulted with IDNR for potential impacts to state threatened or endangered species. This consultation is conducted pursuant to IDNR’s Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (“EcoCAT”). The Applicant submitted an EcoCAT review request to IDNR in July 2022. The review found that the Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) may be in the vicinity of the Project. After further consultation, the review concluded that adverse effects are unlikely and, therefore, the consultation was terminated by IDNR. This termination aligns with 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 Refer to Appendix F for a copy of the IDNR EcoCAT. 2.2.5 Illinois State Historic Preservation Office Under the Illinois State Agency Historic Resources Protection Act, the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) division at IDNR is responsible for studying possible Project effects on archaeological and/or architectural (cultural) resources. Agencies requiring SHPO evaluation concurrent with their review include the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”), IDNR, and the USACE. According to the Illinois SHPO database, no surveys, archeological sites, or historic buildings are listed on or within 0.5 mile of the site. The Applicant submitted a SHPO Project Review Form on July 22, 2022, for agency review. A response letter has not yet been received. Once the SHPO’s findings become available, they will be provided to the County, and it will be included as Appendix G. The SHPO Project Review form has been included as part of this package. 2.2.6 Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) The Illinois Renewable Energy Facilities Agricultural Impact Mitigation Act (505 ILCS 147/1 et seq.) requires the owner of a commercial solar energy facility to have an Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) in place within 45 days prior to the commencement of Project construction. The intent of the AIMA is to preserve and/or restore the integrity of affected agricultural land during construction and decommissioning activities. The Project will enter into an AIMA with the Illinois Department of Agriculture in advance of 45 days before construction commencing. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 7 2.3 Community Outreach & Benefits TPE likes to proactively engage the communities in which we work early in the process to determine what questions and concerns potential neighbors might have and give us adequate time to educate and address them prior to the public process. We typically place calls, send letters and door knock on adjacent properties to our planned solar site as well as meet with local officials. Community Solar projects such as KE106 enable residents to receive power savings from signing up to participate in a community scale solar project without installing solar on their rooftops. In 2018, the State of Illinois enacted a statute that imposes a standardized, state assessment of a fair cash value for solar energy projects covering both the improvements and the land. As a result, once constructed this Project will pay property taxes of approximately $840,000 over 30 years split between Kendall County, Bristol Township, the United City of Yorkville, and applicable school, fire, and other taxing authorities. The Project will create approximately 50-75 jobs during the approximate 4 to 6-month construction process. A regional operations and maintenance firm will service the facility over its working life cycle. Unlike nearly all other forms of development (residential, commercial, or industrial), the community will benefit from the significant economic benefits mentioned above without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, limited use of roads, and little to no need for police or fire departments. 3.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SOLAR PROJECT DESIGN 3.1 Project Description & Design Standards The Project will consist of a ground-mounted solar array constructed in the central area of the Project site. The solar array will consist of solar panels attached to single axis trackers structures attached to driven steel pier foundations or ground screw foundations, depending on the subsurface composition. An Illinois licensed engineer will certify the foundation and design of the solar racking system is suitable to meet local soil and climate conditions. The Project will be constructed by a licensed Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (“EPC”) Contractor. The design and construction process will comply with all national, state and local applicable building, electrical and fire codes, as well as the National Electrical Code (“NEC”). The EPC Contractor shall also possess all professional and trade licenses required by the state and local authorities. The EPC Contractor will create and maintain a health and safety manual in accordance with OSHA requirements which establishes appropriate rules and procedures concerning workplace safety. Noise from construction activities will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The inverters and transformers will be located on one or more concrete pads or piles. All power and communication lines within the solar array and to the point of interconnection will be buried Application for Special Use Permit | Page 8 underground. Utility poles at the point of interconnection will be above ground. The Project footprint area covers approximately 28 acres. Specifications for solar panels, inverters, and racking system proposed for the Project are included as Appendix I. The panels will have a maximum height of 15 feet and the array will be surrounded by an 8-foot-high fence for safety and security purposes. Entry into the fenced areas will be through gates with Knox Boxes for emergency access. The Project design and planning process focused on minimizing any potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will produce electricity without requiring any combustion of materials; as a result, the community solar array will not cause or emit odors, dust, gas, smoke, or fumes. In addition, the Project will have very few moving parts and will generate electricity primarily in a passive manner – collecting the sun’s rays and converting energy associated with the rays into electricity – so the Project will not produce vibrations, none of which would impact surrounding properties. The array is designed to meet all required setbacks from neighboring residential and religious properties in compliance with the Ordinance and incorporates vegetative screening that will grow over time for the benefit of nearby parcels, as outlined in Section 3.8. A warning sign shall be provided at the facility entrance and along the perimeter fence including the facilities 911 address and a 24-hour emergency contact number. No outdoor storage is planned for the Project at this time. In the event outdoor storage is needed, the Project will apply for the necessary approvals for the contemplated storage. The scope of work includes but is not limited to: x Construction of 20-ft wide gravel access roads x Construction of project equipment pads x Construction of a temporary staging areas x Installation of solar panels and associated support equipment and structures x Installation of buried and overhead collector lines 3.2 Noise The Project will operate in accordance with City Ordinance, Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 5 (4.4.5). Solar panels themselves do not produce any noise. The only components in the array that generate noise are the inverters and transformers. The inverters have been purposely located away from the nearest residential abutters. The final inverter pad design will ensure that any noise emitting components will be oriented towards the interior of the Project and directed away from neighboring parcels. The inverters are rated at 65 dBA at 1 meter as indicated in the manufacturer’s specification sheet in Appendix I. Sound waves diminish with distance in accordance with mathematical principles of sound level drop. Extrapolating the manufacturer’s sound data at one meter and projecting to neighboring property lines shows that a sound level of less than 50dBA is anticipated at the property line located approximately 100 feet away. The Project will comply with any sound limitations imposed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board during operations. 3.3 Vibration There will be no vibrations generated by the solar panels or racking during the operating period of the Project. There may be de minimis vibrations produced by the inverter, but any such vibrations will not Application for Special Use Permit | Page 9 extend to surrounding properties. The Project’s comprehensive maintenance plan includes routine inspections to assess and correct any malfunctioning equipment. 3.4 Air pollution including (a) Visual emissions, (b) Particulate matter emissions; (c) Fugitive particulate matter emissions; (d) Odorous matter; (e) Airborne toxic matter The Project will not emit air pollution of any kind. It will in fact provide a net environmental carbon benefit. According to the EPA Clean Energy Equivalencies Calculator the Project will avoid the environmental equivalent of 8,235 metric tons of carbon annually, which is comparable to: x Carbon sequestered by 9,745 acres of forest x 926,622 gallons of gasoline consumed each year x 1,774 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles removed from our streets A commitment to wildlife-sensitive building and management practices during and after construction will allow for increased local biodiversity. TPE proposes to use pollinator friendly ground cover underneath the Project and native plantings around the perimeter. Clover and grass species that promote the establishment and long-term health of bee populations will give bee and small mammal populations a new pollinator friendly habitat. The Project will not use any pesticides for vegetation management. 3.5 Toxic substances There are no toxic substances in the panels. The Project will incorporate Tier 1 silicon-based PV panels, which have been analyzed as follows by North Carolina State University: Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tempered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them together, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth's crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of boron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. Please see Appendix N for the full report. 3.6 Fire and explosive hazards The solar panels and racking, which comprise the majority of the Project’s equipment, are not flammable. Tempered glass offers protection from heat and the elements, and the panels are designed to absorb heat as solar energy. From a study by North Carolina State University: Application for Special Use Permit | Page 10 …Concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer back sheets (framed panels only), plastic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. Please see Appendix N for the full report. 3.7 Glare and heat As explained in the fire and explosive hazards Section 3.6, there is no heat generated by the Project. A glare study was performed by TPE using ForgeSolar software to assess the possible effects of reflectivity created by the Project. ForgeSolar software incorporates GlareGauge, the leading solar glare analysis tool which meets Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) standards and is used globally for glare analysis. It is based on the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool licensed from Sandia National Laboratories. A model of the Project was input into the software along with (3) Route Receptors along roadways in vicinity of the site with another Route Receptor for the railroad south of the project area. Height was assessed at 5 feet above ground to emulate passengers in cars. Further, (24) Observation Receptors were modeled at specific dwellings located around the perimeter of the solar array. Heights were modeled at 15 feet above ground to emulate residents on the second floor of dwellings and evaluate the worst-case glare impact (single story dwellings will have lower glare). A direct line of sight between the Project and the designated Route Receptors and Observation Receptors is required to produce any discernible glint/glare. The presence of existing or proposed vegetation between the receptor and the Project will prevent any potential glint/glare from the Project’s panels. The model assumes the sun is shining 100% of the time it is above the horizon (during laylight hours). That is, it does not account for cloudy or overcast conditions when the sun is not shining. The results, therefore, are the maximum (theoretical) expected glint and glare during any single year. Existing topography is taken into account in the simulation based on LIDAR (“Light Detection and Ranging”) data. Existing and planned vegetation are not considered in the simulation. The model assumes zero vegetation screening the Project; this must be considered when interpreting the study results. To reduce glare in the east and west directions during low sun periods, a 5-degree tracker resting angle was implemented during these times; this eliminates the main source of glare for solar projects. This lower angle will position the panels in a near flat position; they will face upwards and not reflect light from the rising or setting sun towards nearby buildings, cars, or trains. Based on the above inputs/assumptions, some potential for glint or glare was identified in the analysis at any of the Route Receptors and neighboring Observation Receptors. While excluded from the analysis, existing and planned vegetation will further shield the view of the project from nearby properties, roadways, and railroad. The current and planned vegetative screening is expected to mitigate the any potential glint or glare. Additional measures such as adjusting panel tilt during the affected hours and days may be enacted should any glare issues not be resolved by planting. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 11 Please see Appendix M for a more detailed analysis of the Forge Solar results and a copy of the ForgeSolar Assessment. 3.8 Setback Compliance, Landscape & Buffering Plan The Project proposes to conform with all applicable City setbacks from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. The western side of the array where the closest residential neighbors are located will incorporate a vegetated buffer. This buffer will consist of two staggered rows of naturalized or native evergreen shrub spaced 28 feet apart on center (from the center of one plant to the center of the next plant). In front of these rows will be a third row consisting of native deciduous shrubs that obscure any gaps, replaced by an understory tree every 100 ft. The buffer area in between these plantings and the road will be seeded with a native pollinator friendly seed mix and areas underneath the solar arrays will be stabilized with a low-height, pollinator-friendly mix. Both pollinator seed mixes are intended to provide food and shelter for wildlife and will attract a variety of pollinators and songbirds. The seed mix will provide an attractive display of color from spring to fall and will provide nectar and food for pollinators and their larva. A final landscape plan will be designed by a landscape architect in accordance with the Ordinance prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3.9 Viewshed TPE conducted a viewshed analysis and prepared photo simulations of the proposed site from nearby public roads and residential property owners. The model is used to provide a mock-up of what portion of the solar array may or may not be visible. The viewshed analysis was conducted from the closest residential neighbors and from Cannonball Trail depicting the viewshed at the time of landscape planting as outlined in Section 3.8, and after 5 years of growth. The viewshed analysis combines a digital model of the terrain, derived from online Google earth terrain data, and incorporates the height and position of Project components, existing vegetation and proposed new plantings and the eye-level of a theoretical observer into input data for a computer model. The model provides a view between the Project and the modeled observer. These viewsheds have been included in Appendix O. 3.10 FAA Filing TPE used an online “Notice Criteria Tool” provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the additional filings were needed. The tool determined that the Notice Criteria were exceeded. A “Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration – Off Airport” was submitted to the FAA on July 11, 2022. A “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” was issued by the FAA. on August 12, 2022. Submittal of FAA from 7460-2 “Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration” is required at the time of Project construction. Please See Appendix M for a copy of the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. 3.11 Safety and Security The solar arrays will be enclosed by an 8-foot-high security fence and locked gates, as required by the Ordinance and the National Electrical Code (NEC). Emergency access to the fenced areas will be through Knox-Boxes to provide the required 24-hour access. The gravel drives have been designed to allow emergency vehicle access, including fire trucks. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 12 Emergency responders will be provided with the key/code for the Knox-Boxes. 3.12 Interconnection The proposed Project will interconnect to an existing 12.5 kV ComEd feeder on the distribution system, which connects to the substation that is approximately 1/3 mile south of the project site. The utility will install approximately 150 feet of overhead powerline on 5 poles with metering, disconnect, and recloser equipment. The applicant is currently in the Facilities Study phase of the electrical interconnection process. A copy of the redacted Interconnection Agreement for the Project is included as Appendix L. 3.13 Operation and Maintenance The Operation and Maintenance Plan including a comprehensive vegetative management plan for the Project is included as Appendix J. Preventive maintenance will be conducted on a schedule based on manufacturer’s recommendations and industry best practices and standards of care. Regular maintenance will include vegetation control, fence inspection and physical inspection of all system components. A mowing schedule shall be established based on the plant species in the seed mix that is properly timed to balance avoiding the disturbance of wildlife and native pollinator-friendly vegetation with the need to avoid the establishment of weeds. Vegetation underneath and between the solar panels will be well maintained in the defined lease area to keep vegetation below the low edge of the solar panels at maximum tilt angle. Mowing and weed trimming schedules will be adjusted from time to time to allow for flexibility based on rainfall and vegetation growth. Chemical control shall be used in accordance with Illinois noxious weed regulations. The Project will be monitored continuously for system failures via a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Qualified and insured technicians will be dispatched to address any system failures, including inverter, transformer, or tracker motor malfunctions. 3.14 Decommissioning Plan The Decommissioning Plan for the Project is included as Appendix C and includes removal of all structures (including equipment, fencing and roads) and foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation. The decommissioning plan shall be accompanied by a decommissioning bond to provide certainty to the City that the financial resources will be available to fully decommission the site. At the end of operational life of the Project, the Project will be safely dismantled using conventional construction equipment. The Project consists of numerous materials that can be resold or recycled for significant scrap value, including steel, aluminum, glass, copper, and plastics. The solar panels are not considered hazardous waste. The panels used in the Project will contain silicon, glass, and aluminum, which have value for recycling. Often, current market salvage values of a Project exceed estimated decommissioning and site restoration expenses. The site will be restored and reclaimed to approximately the pre-construction condition in conformance with the site lease agreement and the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). It is assumed that the site will be returned to agricultural use after decommissioning, and appropriate measures will be implemented to achieve said use. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 13 3.15 Itemized Cost Estimate Below is a table summarizing the anticipated cost estimate for the Project. These numbers are approximate and exclude contingency and interconnection. Cost Category $/W $ Solar Modules 0.360 $ 2,700,000 Inverters 0.045 $ 337,500 Racking 0.120 $ 900,000 EPC 0.500 $ 3,750,000 D&E 0.015 $ 112,500 GC & Overhead 0.050 $ 375,000 Subtotal 1.090 $ 8,175,000 4.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA 4.1 Special Use Required Findings of Facts (Section 10-4-9, Zoning Code) a) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. The property is located in a portion of Yorkville with low population density and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare to the community. Solar components do not have any moving parts and can be disposed of in a non- hazardous landfill. Numerous studies have shown them not to have a negative environmental impact. Please refer to Appendix N for a copy of these studies. Also, please refer to IDNR’s response to the Project’s EcoCAT submission. The Project will comply with all local, state, and federal regulations and will be always operated in a safe manner. In addition, the Project will promote the general welfare of Yorkville by supplying new jobs, new tax revenue and will be a source of generation of sustainable, clean, pollution-free renewable electricity. Also, the community will benefit from the significant economic benefit without stressing community infrastructure – no new children in schools, no use of water and sewer systems, limited use of roads, little to no need for police or fire departments. b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. As mentioned previously, the property is located in a portion of Yorkville with low population density. The Project will fully comply with all setbacks as specified in the Yorkville Ordinance 10.19.17(b) will fully comply with all performance standards listed in the Yorkville Zoning Code 10.19.4 and 10.19.9 and the Special Use Permit, as well as the noise limits imposed in the Application for Special Use Permit | Page 14 Ordinance 4.4.5. The Project will also include a landscape buffer to the portion of the Project adjacent to residences to reduce the visual impact on neighbors who live nearby. Moreover, as indicated by the property value impact study, the existence of the Project will have no impact on neighboring property values, and therefore will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood of the Project. The CohnReznick General Impact Study Report indicates that solar facilities located in similar areas, with similar land uses, do not appear to cause any negative impacts to adjacent real estate, based on a review of academic studies, CohnReznick’s own paired sales data, and interviews with County Assessors and other Market Participants. The report details how solar facilities are generally harmonious with surrounding uses as they do not generate any odor, emit any air pollution, and overall, provide a net environmental benefit. c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The Project will have little to no impact on neighboring properties or the future development of the community. The Project does not generate any odor, or emit any air pollution and, in fact, provides a net environmental benefit. There will be no tree clearing. In converting the property from a farm field to a solar facility, pesticides will not be utilized unless mandated by state or local laws for the control of noxious weeds. The setback will be planted with a double row of evergreens coordinated with a licensed landscape architect, and the balance of the buffer will include native and pollinator-friendly species. Upon construction completion, traffic to the solar facility will be required only a few times a year to conduct maintenance. With low impacts of solar farms, the community should see no obstructions to future development. d) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Project will have adequate utility interconnections. The completion of the system impact study by ComEd provides assurance that the electrical capacity is available to host the Project and the proposed substation for electrical interconnection is located directly across the street. The Project does not require water or sewer facilities to operate. The Project will also build all roads and entrances necessary to access its facilities. A drain tile survey will be completed prior to construction and foundation design will work around or reroute any identified drain tiles to ensure proper drainage. The Project will also be designed in a manner that will not materially modify existing water drainage patterns around its facilities. Moreover, the replacement of row crops with a pollinator seed mix is actually a net positive for stormwater. According to the Minnesota Rural Water Association, solar installations with native pollinator-friendly ground cover achieve positive impacts similar to soil conservation projects, which reduce soil erosion, reduce soil quality degradation, and improve water quality. This report is included in Appendix N. The Project will be designed to account for all existing features, Application for Special Use Permit | Page 15 environmental features, the Yorkville Solar Ordinance, and the Kendall County Natural Resources Inventory findings. Please refer to Appendix B for the Zoning Site Plan. e) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The Project will be designed to include all roads and road entrances necessary to provide adequate ingress and egress to its facilities. Construction traffic will include approximately 25 work trucks per day. Considering the low number of work trucks visiting the project site over the construction phase, traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Project will not be impacted. The Project will have minimal traffic upon completion of construction. Landscape maintenance and maintenance to the Project components are anticipated to occur only a few times a year. Existing traffic patterns will not be impacted in the post-construction phase. f) The proposed special use is not contrary to the objectives of the official comprehensive plan of the city as amended. The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan references The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning’s (CMAP) “GO TO 2040” comprehensive regional plan. “GO TO 2040” recommends communities consider solar energy for environmental sustainability and for potential economic improvements. Solar Farms are a good addition to the neighborhood (quiet, low maintenance, low traffic volume, environmentally safe) and provide sources of renewable energy that is important to a residential area and the community. Although it is a long-term use, a solar facility is not permanent. At the end of the Project’s life the location will be reclaimed and restored as close as possible to its current state. At that time, the landowner may be amenable to other, more-public uses. The parcel is currently included in the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan Undeveloped Residential Zoning Area Capacity that will not be needed for up to 89 years (Table 2.17, Residential Built-Out Projections). CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE ROW)TPE IL KE106, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAPSCALE 1" = 5000'PROJECT LOCATIONSOILS DATA TABLENORTHLEGENDSITE DATA TABLENOTESIL-251 APPENDIX A – APPLICATION FORMS Application for Special Use Permit APPLICATION FOR AGREEMENT AMENDMENT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: LIST ALL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OR AGENCIES REQUIRED TO RECEIVE NOTICE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR AGREEMENT AMENDMENT United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF AGREEMENT: DATE OF RECORDING: SUMMARIZE THE ITEMS TO BE AMENDED FROM THE EXISTING AGREEMENT: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. Petitioner must attach a true and correct copy of the existing agreement and title it as “Exhibit C”. Petitioner must attach amendments from the existing agreement and title it as “Exhibit D”. Exhibit A to Application Forms Legal Description – TPE IL KE106, LLC (02-10-300-017) Note: This legal description is from the Trustee’s Deed dated August 8, 2017 between First Midwest Bank and Daniel B. Light; Recorded Kendall County, IL 8/31/2017 #201700013916 Legal Description: That part of the following described parcels lying easterly of the centerline of Cannonball Trail: The South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian; also the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian lying Westerly of the West line of lands conveyed be Nelson C. Rider to Jerry W. Rider by Warranty Deed Dated October 15, 1911 and Recorded in Book 66 as Page 255 and Depicted in Plat Book 1 at Page 62; all in Kendall County, Illinois. Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 11:25:31 PM Law Offices of Daniel J. Kramer 1107A S. Bridge Street Daniel J. Kramer Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Kelly A. Helland 630-553-9500 D.J. Kramer Fax: 630-553-5764 February 8, 2023 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy Via Email: sosborn@tppoint-e.com RE: Solar Energy Project in Bristol Ridge P.U.D. in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois Dear Mr. Osborn: In regard to your request for Consent by one of the Bristol Ridge P.U.D, Members as to your Petition for a Solar Array being established in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. Please be advised that I am providing this letter as Land Trustee for the Beneficiaries of Daniel J. Kramer Trust No. 100. As an Owner of a portion of the real property that was originally included in this Planned Unit Development the underlying Beneficiaries to my Trust have no objection whatsoever to your Petition to get a Special Use from the United City of Yorkville for a Solar Array on real property that is located within Bristol Ridge P.U.D. Hopefully this letter suffices for your filing purposes. Very truly yours, Daniel J. Kramer Daniel J. Kramer Attorney at Law DJK:rg cc: Steve Kratz APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION:REQUESTED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:TOTAL ACREAGE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION(S) AND USES OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED REZONED PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE TREND OF DEVELOPMENT, IF ANY, IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, INCLUDING CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE DAY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH PROPERTY VALUES ARE DIMINISHED BY THE PARTICULAR ZONING RESTRICTIONS: PLEASE STATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES OF PETITIONER PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC: APPLICATION FOR REZONING United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us REZONING STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE LENGTH OF TIME THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT AS ZONED CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: PLEASE STATE THE COMMUNITY NEED FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE: WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLEASE STATE THE CARE WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PLAN ITS LAND USE DEVELOPMENT: PLEASE STATE THE IMPACT THAT SUCH RECLASSIFICATION WILL HAVE UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ON SAID ROUTES; THE EFFECT, IF ANY, SUCH RECLASSIFICATION AND/OR ANNEXATION WOULD HAVE UPON EXISTING ACCESSES TO SAID ROUTES; AND THE IMPACT OF ADDITIONAL ACCESSES AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER UPON TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND FLOW ON SAID ROUTES (ORD. 1976-43, 11-4-1976): Exhibit A to Application Forms Legal Description – TPE IL KE106, LLC (02-10-300-017) Note: This legal description is from the Trustee’s Deed dated August 8, 2017 between First Midwest Bank and Daniel B. Light; Recorded Kendall County, IL 8/31/2017 #201700013916 Legal Description: That part of the following described parcels lying easterly of the centerline of Cannonball Trail: The South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian; also the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian lying Westerly of the West line of lands conveyed be Nelson C. Rider to Jerry W. Rider by Warranty Deed Dated October 15, 1911 and Recorded in Book 66 as Page 255 and Depicted in Plat Book 1 at Page 62; all in Kendall County, Illinois. Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 11:25:31 PM APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within 500 feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE CONFIRM THE PROPOSED VARIATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us VARIANCE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE CITY ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE SECTION NUMBERS TO BE VARIED: PLEASE STATE HOW THE PARTICULAR SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED, A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE, IF THE STRICT LETTER OF REGULATIONS WAS CARRIED OUT: PLEASE STATE HOW THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIATION IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIATION IS SOUGHT AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE, GENERALLY, TO OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY OR HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY THIS TITLE AND HAS NOT BEEN CREATED BY ANY PERSON PRESENTLY HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY: Exhibit A to Application Forms Legal Description – TPE IL KE106, LLC (02-10-300-017) Note: This legal description is from the Trustee’s Deed dated August 8, 2017 between First Midwest Bank and Daniel B. Light; Recorded Kendall County, IL 8/31/2017 #201700013916 Legal Description: That part of the following described parcels lying easterly of the centerline of Cannonball Trail: The South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian; also the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian lying Westerly of the West line of lands conveyed be Nelson C. Rider to Jerry W. Rider by Warranty Deed Dated October 15, 1911 and Recorded in Book 66 as Page 255 and Depicted in Plat Book 1 at Page 62; all in Kendall County, Illinois. Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 11:25:31 PM APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us DATE:PZC NUMBER:DEVELOPMENT NAME: PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: BUSINESS HOME EMAIL:FAX: PROPERTY INFORMATION NAME OF HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE: IF LEGAL TITLE IS HELD BY A LAND TRUST, LIST THE NAMES OF ALL HOLDERS OF ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN: PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS: DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY’S PHYSICAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION:COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED SPECIAL USE: ZONING AND LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES NORTH: EAST: SOUTH: WEST: KENDALL COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S) APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us ATTORNEY INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ENGINEER INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: LAND PLANNER/SURVEYOR INFORMATION NAME:COMPANY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP:TELEPHONE: EMAIL:FAX: ATTACHMENTS Petitioner must attach a legal description of the property to this application and title it as “Exhibit A”. Petitioner must list the names and addresses of any adjoining or contiguous landowners within five hundred (500) feet of the property that are entitled notice of application under any applicable City Ordinance or State Statute. Attach a separate list to this application and title it as “Exhibit B”. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us SPECIAL USE STANDARDS PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY DETRIMENTAL TO OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, COMFORT OR GENERAL WELFARE: PLEASE STATE HOW THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR THE PURPOSE ALREADY PERMITTED, NOR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH AND IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: PLEASE STATE HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT: PLEASE STATE HOW ADEQUATE UTILITIES, ACCESS ROADS, DRAINAGE OR OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING PROVIDED: United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois, 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 Fax: 630-553-7575 Website: www.yorkville.il.us PROJECT NUMBER: I FUND ACCOUNTNUMBER: PETITIONER DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FUND: APPLICANT DE POSIT ACCOUNT/ ACKN OWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1700 Cannonball Trail It is the policy of the United City of Yorkville to require any petitioner seeking approval on a project or entitlement request to establish a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund to cover all actual expenses occurred as a result of processing such applications and requests. Ty pical requests requiring the establishment of a Petitioner Deposit Account Fund include, but are not limited to, plan review of development approvals/engineering permits. Deposit account funds may also be used to cover costs for services related to legal fees, engineering and other plan reviews, processing of other governmental applications, recording fees and other outside coordination and consulting fees. Each fund account is established with an initial deposit based upon the estimated cost for services provided in the INVOICE & WORKSHEET PETITION APPLICATION. This initial deposit is drawn against to pay for these services related to the project or request. Periodically throughout the project review/approval process, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice reflecting the charges made against the account. At any time the balance of the fund account fall below ten percent (10%) of the original deposit amount, the Financially Responsible Party will receive an invoice requesting additional funds equal to one-hundred percent (100%) of the initial deposit if subsequent reviews/fees related to the project are required. In the event that a deposit account is not immediately replenished, review by the administrative staff, consultants, boards and commissions may be suspended until the account is fully replenished. If additional funds remain in the deposit account at the completion of the project, the city will refund the balance to the Financially Responsible Party. A written request must be submitted by the Financially Responsible Party to the city by the 15th of the month in order for the refund check to be processed and distributed by the 15th of the following month. All refund checks will be made payable to the Financially Responsible Party and mailed to the address provided when the account was established. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NAME: Scott Osborn COMPANY: TPE IL KE106, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 3720 S Dahlia St CITY, STATE, ZIP: Denver, CO, 80237 TELEPHONE: {303) 618-9570 EMAIL: sosborn@tpoint-e.com FAX: FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY: I acknowledge and understand that as the Financialiy Responsible Party, expenses may exceed the estimated initial deposit and, when requested by the United City of Yorkville, I will provide additional funds to m?.tntain 1he required account balance. Further, the sale or other disposition of the property does not relieve the individual or Company/Corporation of their obligation to maintain a positive balance in the fund account, unless the United City of Yorkville approves a Change of Responsible Party and transfer of funds. Should the account go into deficit, all City work may stop until the requested replenishment deposit is received. Adam M. Beal Authorized Representative PRINT NAME TITLE b�-gJ -z....0,,2-) SIGNATURE• DATE "The name of the individual and the person who s,gm this declaration must be the same. If a corporation is listed, a corporate officer must sign the declaration (President, Vice- President, Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer) INITIAL ENGINEERING/LEGAL DEPOSIT TOTALS ENGINEERING DEPOSITS: LEGAL DEPOSITS: Up to one (1) acre $5,000 Less than two (2) acres $1,000 Over one (1) acre, but less than ten (10) acres $10,000 Over two (2) acres, but less than ten (10) acres $2,500 Over ten (10) acres, but less than forty (40) acres $15,000 Over ten (10) acres $5,000 Over forty (40) acres, but less than one hundred (100) $20,000 In excess of one hundred (100.00) acres $25,000 Exhibit A to Application Forms Legal Description – TPE IL KE106, LLC (02-10-300-017) Note: This legal description is from the Trustee’s Deed dated August 8, 2017 between First Midwest Bank and Daniel B. Light; Recorded Kendall County, IL 8/31/2017 #201700013916 Legal Description: That part of the following described parcels lying easterly of the centerline of Cannonball Trail: The South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian; also the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East of the Third Principal Meridian lying Westerly of the West line of lands conveyed be Nelson C. Rider to Jerry W. Rider by Warranty Deed Dated October 15, 1911 and Recorded in Book 66 as Page 255 and Depicted in Plat Book 1 at Page 62; all in Kendall County, Illinois. Print using Adobe® Reader®'s "Actual size" setting r150 1/1 2/4/2023 11:25:31 PM Application for Special Use Permit | Page 4 APPENDIX B – ZONING SITE PLAN CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE ROW)TPE IL KE106, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 5000' PROJECT LOCATION SOILS DATA TABLE NORTH LEGEND SITE DATA TABLE NOTES IL-251 CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE ROW)8'HEIGHTS SHOWN INDICATE ANTICIPATED SIZE AT MATURITY (5+ YEARS) 15' T Y P 100'-0"8'-0"100'-0" MAINTENANCE ACCESS,TYP. TYPICAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLAN TYPICAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER ELEVATION EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP. LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP. FENCE,TYP. FENCE,TYP. EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP. LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP. EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB SAWARA CYPRESS `SOFT SERVE` JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA JUNIPERUS CHINESIS `MOUNTBATTEN` PICEA PUNGENS `FAT ALBERT` TAXUS CUSPIDATA `CAPITATA` TAXUS X MEDIA `HICKSII` THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `WOODWARDI` - ORNAMENTAL TREE CORNUS X ALTERNIFOLIA CARPINUS CAROLIANA CERCIS CANADENSIS MAGNOLIA VIRGINIANA CRATAEGUS CRESGALLI MALUS SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIES - ORNAMENTAL GRASS MISCANTHUS SINENSIS - LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA CORNUS SERICEA CARDINAL EUONYMUS ALATUS `COMPACTUS` ILEX VERTICILLATA LINDERA BENZOIN PHYSOCARPOS OPULIFOLIUS SAMUCUS CANADENSIS VIBURNUM DENTATUM VIBURNUM LENTAGO `MOHICAN` VIBURNUM PRUNIFOLIUM - ARRAY AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX - OPEN AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX - CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE 8'100'-0"100'-0" 50' TYP. 10' T Y P. TYPICAL ENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLAN TYPICAL ENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER ELEVATION EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP.8'-0"MAINTENANCE ACCESS,TYP. HEIGHTS SHOWN INDICATE ANTICIPATED SIZE AT MATURITY (5+ YEARS)LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE,TYP. ORNAMENTAL GRASS,TYP. FENCE,TYP. FENCE,TYP. EVERGREEN TREE/SHRUB,TYP. LARGE DECIDUOUS SHRUB,TYP. ORNAMENTAL TREE,TYP. ORNAMENTAL GRASS,TYP.TPE IL KE106, LLC©L1.0PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLANENHANCED VEGETATIVE BUFFER VEGETATIVE BUFFER NORTH VEGETATION MANAGEMENT NOTES 1. SOIL PH IS TO BE TESTED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT AND FINAL GRADING. LIME OR SULFUR IS TO BE ADDED IN APPROPRIATE QUANTITY TO BRING PH TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS FOR SEED APPLICATION AS NEEDED. 2. IN AREAS OF SOIL AMENDMENT OR EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND, SOIL IS RECOMMENDED TO BE DISKED, CULTIVATED, AND ROLLED AS NEEDED. 3. SEED TO BE APPLIED WITH NURSE CROP PER SUPPLIER'S RECOMMENDATION. 4. THE INITIAL THREE YEARS WILL REQUIRE MORE FREQUENT MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING TO PROVIDE NATIVE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT INSTEAD OF INVASIVE WEEDS. 5. ANNUALLY, AT THE START OF SPRING, SITE SHOULD BE MOWED WITH A ROTARY MOWER AT A HEIGHT BETWEEN 4 AND 6 INCHES TO KNOCKDOWN STANDING VEGETATION FROM THE PREVIOUS SEASONS. 6. INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS WILL BE USED TO CONTROL NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS. CHEMICAL, CULTURAL, MECHANICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS MAY BE USED BASED ON WEED PRESSURE, TIMING, AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH. 7. FINAL TREE SELECTION WILL BE BASED ON AVAILABILITY DURING INSTALLATION. 8. ALL SITES SHALL BE PREPARED FOR SEEDING BY WEED CONTROL MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED FINAL SEEDING. 9. ALL SITES SHALL BE ACTIVE SEEDED AND SHALL NOT BE PRE-PLANTED, TREATED, OR INCLUDED WITH THE USE OF INSECTICIDES. OPEN AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX 25% SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM 10% BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA SIDEOATS GRAMA 6% SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED 5.5% ELYMUS CANADENSIS CANADA WILDRYE 5.2% ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER 5% DALEA PURPUREA PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER 4.3% COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA LANCELEAF COREOPSIS 3.5% RUDBECKIA HIRTA BLACKEYED SUSAN 3% ALLIUM CERNUUM NODDING WILD ONION 2.2% SOLIDAGO NEMORALIS GRAY GOLDENROD 2.1% SPIRAEA ALBA DU ROI MEADOWSWEET 2% RATIBIDA PINNATA YELLOW PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER 2% ROSA SETIGERA MICHX MICHIGAN ROSE 1.8% SOLIDAGO SPECIOSA SHOWY GOLDENROD 1.8% SYMPHYOTRICHUM LAEVE SMOOTH BLUE ASTER 1.6% CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS NEW JERSEY TEA 1.5% GERANIUM MACULATUM WILD GERANIUM 1.5% LIATRIS ASPERA MICHX ROUGH BLAZING STAR 1.4% SOLIDAGO RIDDELLII RIDDELL'S GOLDENROD 1.4% SYMPHYOTRICHUM ERICOIDES HEATH ASTER 1.3% PENSTEMON HIRSUTUS HAIRY BEARDTONGUE 1.2% LOBELIA SIPHILITICA BLUE LOBELIA 1.2% ASCLEPAIS TUBEROSA BUTTERFLY WEED 1.2% ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA SWAMP MILKWEED 1.2% ZIZIA AUREA GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 1.1% PENSTEMON DIGITALIS TALL WHITE BEARDTONGUE 1% ANEMONE CANADENSIS CANADA ANEMONE 1% AQUILEGIA CANADENSIS COLUMBINE 1% BAPTISIA BRACTEATA VAR LEUCOPHAEA WILD INDIGO 1% LUPINUS PERENNIS V. OCCIDENTALIS WILD LUPINE 1% MONARDA FISTULOSA WILD BERGAMOT 1% MONARDA PUNCTATA HORSE MINT SEEDING RATE: 25 LB PER ACRE SEED WITH COVER CROP OF OATS, JAPANESE MILLET, WINTER PEA, OR ANNUAL RYE DEPENDENT ON SEASON AT A RATE OF 30 LB PER ACRE. SPECIFIED MIX SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY DURING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ARRAY AREA POLLINATOR SEED MIX 26% SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM LITTLE BLUESTEM 10% BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA SIDEOATS GRAMA 8% SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED 5% CAREX BICKNELLII COPPER-SHOULDERED OVAL SEDGE 5.2% COREOPSIS LANCEOLATA SAND COREOPSIS 4.8% SYMPHYOTRICHUM LAEVE SMOOTH BLUE ASTER 4% SYMPHYOTRICHUM ERICOIDES HEATH ASTER 3.5% DALEA PURPUREA PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER 3.5% GERANIUM MACULATUM WILD GERANIUM 3% ALLIUM CERNUUM ROTH NODDING WILD ONION 3% VERONICASTRUM VIRGINICUM CULVER'S ROOT 1.8% DESMODIUM CANADENSES SHOWY TICK TREFOIL 1.7% SPIRAEA ALBA DU ROI MEADOWSWEET 1.6% ZIZIA AUREA GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 1.5% ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER 1.4% SOLIDAGO SPECIOSA SHOWY GOLDENROD 1.2% PYCNANTHEMUM VIRGINIANUM COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 1.2% EUPATORIUM PERFOLIATUM BONESET 1.2% OENOTHERA BIENNIS EVENING PRIMROSE 1.2% SILPHIUM PERFOLIATUM CUP PLANT 1.2% RUDBECKIA HIRTA BLACKEYED SUSAN 1.1% HERACLEUM MAXIMUM COMMON COWPARSNIP 1.1% LUPINUS PERENNIS V. OCCIDENTALIS WILD LUPINE 1% RATIBIDA PINNATA YELLOW PRAIRIE CONEFLOWER 1% LIATRIS ASPERA MICHX ROUGH BLAZING STAR 0.9% ANGELICA ATROPURPUREA ANGELICA 0.8% CACALIA ATRIPLICIFOLIUM PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN 0.8% LOBELIA SIPHILITICA BLUE LOBELIA 0.8% PENSTEMON HIRSUTUS HAIRY BEARDTONGUE 0.8% ASCLEPAIS TUBEROSA BUTTERFLY WEED 0.7% ANEMONE CANADENSIS CANADA ANEMONE 0.6% SOLIDAGO NEMORALIS GRAY GOLDENROD 0.4% CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS NEW JERSEY TEA SEEDING RATE: 25 LB PER ACRE SEED WITH COVER CROP OF OATS, JAPANESE MILLET, WINTER PEA, OR ANNUAL RYE DEPENDENT ON SEASON AT A RATE OF 30 LB PER ACRE. SPECIFIED MIX SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY DURING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, OR APPROVED EQUAL. Illinois Solar Site Pollinator Habitat Planning Form Use this form as a draft before completing the Illinois Planned Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard online In Between and Under Solar Panels 1.PLANNED PLANT DIVERSITY IN ROWS & UNDER SOLAR ARRAY (choose up to 2) 4-6 species +5 pts 7 or More species +8 pts All Native Species (minimum 4 species)+10 pts Perimeter and Buffer Area 2.VEGETATIVE BUFFER PLANNED ADJACENT TO THE SOLAR SITE (choose all that apply) Buffer planned outside of array fencing +5 pts Buffer is 30-49ft wide measured from array fencing +5 pts Buffer is at least 50ft wide measured from array fencing +10 pts Buffer has Native shrubs/trees that provide food for wildlife +5 pts 3.SEEDS USED FOR NATIVE PERIMETER & BUFFER AREAS (choose all that apply) Mixes are seeded using at least 20 seeds per square foot of Pure Live Seed or 40 Seeds per square foot on slopes > 5% +10 pts All seeds are from a source within 150 miles of site +5 pts At least 2% milkweed cover is planned to be established from seeds/plants +5 pts 4.PLANNED # OF NATIVE SPECIES IN SITE PERIMETER & BUFFER AREA (species with more than 1% cover)(choose 1) 5-10 species +2 pts 10-15 species +5 pts 16-20 species +10 pts >20 species +15 pts Exclude invasive and non-native plant species from total 5.PLANNED PERCENT OF PERIMETER & BUFFER AREA DOMINATED BY NATIVE PLANT SPECIES (choose 1) 26- 50 %+2 pts 51-75 %+10 pts More than 75%+15 pts Whole Site 6.PLANNED PERCENT OF SITE VEGETATION COVER TO BE DOMINATED BY DESIRABLE WILDFLOWERS (choose 1) 26- 50 %+2 pts 51-75 %+10 pts More than 75%+15 pts 12/3/2019 7.PLANNED SEASONS WITH AT LEAST THREE BLOOMING NATIVE SPECIES PRESENT (choose all that apply) Spring (April-May)+5 pts Summer (June-August)+5 pts Fall (September-October)+5 pts 8.HABITAT SITE PREPARATION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION (choose all that apply) Soil preparation done to promote germination and reduce erosion as appropriate for the site. +10 pts Measures taken to control weeds prior to seeding +10 pts None -10 pts 9.AVAILABLE HABITAT COMPONENTS WITHIN 0.25 MILES (choose all that apply) Native bunch grass for bee nesting +2 pts Native trees/shrubs for bee nesting +2 pts Clean, perennial water sources +2 pts Created habitat nesting features +2 pts 10.SITE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT(choose all that apply) Detailed establishment and management plan developed +10 pts Signage legible at forty or more feet stating “pollinator friendly solar habitat” +3 pts 11.INSECTICIDE RISK (choose all that apply) Planned on-site use of insecticide or pre-planting seed/plant treatment (excluding buildings/electrical boxes, etc.) -40 pts Communication/registration with local chemical applicators or on www.fieldwatch.com to prevent drift +5 pts Total Points: _____________ Meets Preliminary Pollinator Standards - 85 Provides Exceptional Habitat - 110 and higher Owner:__________________________________ Vegetation Consultant: ____________________ Project Location: ________________________ Project Size: ________________________acres Final Seeding Date: _______________________ This form is designed (with the help of the Solar Site Pollinator Guidelines found on IDNR’s website) to guide owners or managers of solar sites to meet the requirements to be able to claim a site is pollinator friendly according to the “Pollinator Friendly Solar Site Act (525 ILCS 55)”. This form is for company records only and does not grant the title of a Pollinator Friendly Solar Site until the “Illinois Planned Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard” is completed with a score of 85 or higher on IDNR’s website. This preliminary recognition is good for 3yrs, after which the “Established Pollinator Habitat on Solar Sites Scorecard” will need to be completed every 5 years to maintain recognition as a Pollinator Friendly Solar Site. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 5 APPENDIX C – DECOMMISSIONING PLAN TPE IL KE106, LLC Kendall County, IL TPE IL KE106, LLC Community Solar Project Decommissioning Plan TPE IL KE106, LLC has prepared the following plan to fulfill local requirements and assumes that the Project will be constructed in accordance with all permits and approvals. 1.0 Project Description The TPE IL KE106, LLC Community Solar Project is an approximately 5 MW AC solar farm located on parcel 02-10-300-017, at 1700 Cannonball Trail, Bristol IL, 60512 in Kendall County (the “Project”). The Project is to be constructed on approximately 28 acres. The purpose of the Project is the generation of renewable solar electricity. The Project will be interconnected to the Commonwealth Edison (”ComEd”) electric distribution grid at the site entrance, just off Cannonball Trail. The estimated useful Project lifetime is 25-40 years, or more. The following list is a summary of the Project features: ·Approximately 5 MW AC total solar array consisting of silicon solar panels ·Driven post or ground screw foundations and steel and aluminum racking system ·8’ Security fence surrounding the array perimeter ·Inverters and transformers for power conditioning ·Concrete equipment pads for inverter and/or switchgear locations ·Copper and aluminum wire ·Underground conduit at the array location ·Overhead poles and wires from the array location to utility poles ·Gravel access roads ·Metal security gates at array location ·Miscellaneous electrical equipment 2.0 Decommissioning Plan The Project has an anticipated operation life of 25 to 40 years or longer if maintenance is continued. At the end of operational life of the Project, the Project will be safely dismantled using conventional construction equipment, rather than being demolished or otherwise disposed of. Decommissioning shall include stabilization of the site and the removal of all solar collectors, cabling, electrical components, fencing and any other associated equipment. The Project consists of numerous materials that can be resold or recycled for significant scrap value, including steel, aluminum, glass, copper and plastics. Often, current market salvage values of a Project exceed estimated decommissioning and site restoration expenses. TPE IL KE106, LLC Kendall County, IL 2.1 Temporary Erosion Control Temporary erosion and sedimentation control best management practices will be used during the decommissioning phase of the Project. Control features will be regularly inspected during the decommissioning phase and removed at the end at the process. All decommissioning activities will conform with local and state regulations. 2.2 Material Removal Process The decommission process will consist of the following general steps: 2.2.1 Project shall be disconnected safely from the power grid and all equipment shall be switched to off position 2.2.2 PV modules shall be disconnected, packaged, and returned to manufacturer or appropriate facility for recycling or resold for use in other projects 2.2.3 Above and underground cabling shall be removed and sent to an appropriate recycling facility 2.2.4 Inverters will be disconnected from modules and shipped intact to an approved electrical equipment recycler 2.2.5 Racking materials shall be dismantled, removed, and recycled off-site at an approved recycler 2.2.6 Fencing will be dismantled, removed, and recycled off-site at an approved recycler 2.2.7 Grade slabs will be broken and removed and disposed of in compliance with local and state regulations 2.2.8 All remaining electrical and support equipment will be dismantled and recycled or disposed of in compliance with local and state regulations 2.2.9 Site access roads will be removed and recycled. Once the road material is removed, the compacted soil beneath and surrounding the access road shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 18 inches 2.2.10 The stie shall be restabilized once all utilities, equipment, and site features have been removed from the site 2.3 PV Module Removal Solar photovoltaic modules used in the Project are manufactured within regulatory requirements for toxicity based on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The solar panels are not considered hazardous waste. The panels used in the Project will contain silicon, glass, and aluminum, which have value for recycling. Solar panels have a warranty of 20 – 25 years and useful life of 35 – 50 years. The most realistic outcome for solar modules is re-use in other generation TPE IL KE106, LLC Kendall County, IL projects. Modules will be sold for re-use or dismantled and packaged per manufacturer or approved recyclers specifications and shipped to an approved off-site recycler. 2.4 Electric Wire Removal Electric wire made from copper or aluminum has value for recycling. DC wiring can be removed manually from the panels to the inverter. Underground wire in the array will be pulled and removed from the ground. Overhead cabling for the interconnection will be removed from poles. All wire will be sent to an approved off-site recycler. 2.5 Electrical Equipment Removal Inverters, panels, transformers, switchgear and other electrical equipment will be dismantled, packaged, and removed from the site per manufactures specifications for removal, decontamination, disposal or recycling. Any dielectric fluids present in transformer, or other electric equipment will be removed, packaged, and sent to an approved waste facility. 2.6 Racking and Fencing removal All racking and fencing material will be broken down into manageable units and removed from Project and sent to an approved recycler. All racking posts driven into the ground will be pulled and removed. 2.7 Concrete Slab Removal Concrete slabs used as equipment pads will be broken and removed. Clean concrete will be crushed and disposed of off-site and or recycled and reused either on or off-site. 2.8 Access Road Removal Gravel from on-site access roads shall be removed and recycled if requested by the Landowner or Required under an AIMA. Once the gravel is removed, the soil below the gravel and the soil along compacted dirt access roads shall be scarified a depth of 18-inches and blended as noted in the Site Restoration section below. 2.9 Landscaping Unless required to remain in place by the Land Owner or an AIMA agreement, all vegetative landscaping and screening installed as part of the Project will remain in place. Landscape areas will be restored as noted in the Site Stabilizaiton section below. TPE IL KE106, LLC Kendall County, IL 2.10 Final Site Walkthrough A final site walkthrough will be conducted to remove debris and/or trash generated within the site during the decommissioning process and will include removal and proper disposal of any debris that may have been wind-blown to areas outside the immediate footprint of the Project being removed. 2.11 Site Stabilization Once removal of all project equipment is complete, all areas of the project site that were traversed by vehicles and construction and/or decommission equipment that exhibit compaction and rutting shall be restored. All prior agricultural land shall be ripped at least 18 inches deep or the extent practicable and all pasture and woodland shall be ripped at least 12 inches deep or to the extent practicable. The existence of drain tile lines or underground utilities may necessitate less ripping depth. Once this is complete, seed will be planted if desired (in consultation with landowners). 3.0 Future Land Use The site will be restored and reclaimed to approximately the pre-construction condition in conformance with the site lease agreement and the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA). It is assumed that the site will be returned to agricultural use after decommissioning, and appropriate measures will be implemented to achieve said use. 4.0 Decommissioning Terms The Project shall be decommissioned withing six(6) months of the end of the Project’s operational life. At completion of the decommissioning phase as described in this document, and expiration of the site lease, the land will be returned to the owner in a stabilized condition. Decommissioning security financing shall be required by the county in order to assure the proper decommissioning of the site and in no instance shall the financial security be less than $1,000 per acre. This security financing should be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or cash placed in a county escrow account. The county board may, in its sole discretion, agree to accept security, or a portion thereof, in another form such as a bond or corporate guarantee. The Final decommissioning plan and financial security must be presented to and accepted by the Kendall County Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project. An updated decommissioning plan shall be submitted to the county every three years. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 6 APPENDIX D – WETLAND DELINEATION (LEVEL 1) kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 MEMORANDUM To: Michelle Carpenter Turning Point Energy From: Ashley Payne Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 22, 2022 Subject: Bristol Township, Illinois – KE106 Level 1 Wetland Investigation Memorandum INTRODUCTION Kimley -Horn was contracted to review the KE106 project site for potential wetlands. See Figure 1 for project location and Figure 2 for project site boundary. The project site is located in Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. A revie w of available background data was completed to assist in determining if any potential aquatic resources are present within the project site. AVAILABLE B ACKGROUND D ATA: USGS Topographical Map A review of the USGS topographical Map did not identify any wetlands or waterbodies within the project site. The USGS Topographical Map is Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified zero wetlands within the project site. The NWI is included in Attachment A. USGS National Hydrography Data (NHD Data) A review of the USGS National Hydrography Data (NHD data) was completed. No linear waterway features or waterbodies were identified within the project site. The information is included in Attachment A. Kendall County Soil Survey A review of the Kendall County soil survey via Websoil survey identified two soil types that are considered hydric soil. Approximately 2% of the project site is mapped at a hydric rating of 95%. The remainder of the site is mapped at a predominantly non-hydric rating below 5%. The soil survey is included in Attachment B. DNR Public Waters Inventory A review of the Illinois DNR (IL DNR) Public Waters Inventory was completed. No IL DNR Public Waters were identified within the project site. The information is included in Attachment C. Page 2 2-foot Contours Two -foot contours were reviewed to determine if any wetland areas or drainage swales are present on the site. The site is fairly flat and slopes west. Several low areas were identified within the project site along the eastern boundary and in the central portion of the site. The 2-ft contours are included in Attachment D. FEMA 100-Year Floodplain The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer was reviewed to determine if any FEMA 100-year floodplain is located within the project site. Based on the NFHL Viewer, the project site is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain. The FEMA 100-year floodplain is included in Attachment E. Previous Site Disturbance Historic aerials from 1993 to 2021 were reviewed to determine previous land use and disturbance on the site (Attachment F). The site has been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1993. Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 1993 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. 2002 Agricultural Drier than Normal Same comment as above. 2007 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2008 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2010 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2011 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2013 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Cro p stress visible in several low areas throughout site. 2015 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. 2017 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2019 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Cro p stress visible in the northeast corner of site. 2021 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. Page 3 No areas of continued stunted or stressed vegetation or inundation were visible on the reviewed historic aerials. No potential wetlands or aquatic resources are visible within the project site. RECOMMENDATIONS: Mapped hydric soil is present within the project limits; however, no mapped wetlands were identified within the site. Based on the historic review, no continued stunted or stressed vegetation is visible during the growing season within the site. No wetlands are anticipated to be found within the project site. Figures 47 56 DicksonRdB a s e l i n e R d R a y m o n d R d S n o w S t MighellRdP r a i r i e S tSMainSt Galena RdAsheRdDuganRd JerichoRd G r a n a r t Rd B y p a s s 3 0 U S H i g h w a y 3 0 R i c h Har v e s t Farm s S u g a r G r o v e FoxRiver 34BeecherRd E Main StEldamainRd K e n n e d y R dS c h a e f e r R d Faxon R dC o r n e i l s R d V a n E m m o n R d R i v e r R d Cannonball T r lEldamainRd Galena Rd NBridgeStB r i s t o l WalshDrF o x R d SchoolHouse RdSBridgeS tF o x Y o r k v i l l e 83 30 Concord DrGordonRd C a t e r p i l l a r D r Prair i e S t K e n s i n g t o n P l W D owner Pl M a r s e i l l a i s e P lSBarnesRd Bar nesRdG alenaR dA u c u t t R d P r a i r i e S t W Galena Blvd SEdgelawnDrOrchardRdOrchardRdOrchardRdSLakeStB o u l d e r H i l l M o n t g o m e r y Waubonsee Creek 71 MinklerRdDolores St AshlawnAveLight Rd ArborLnGroveRdG a lenaR dOrchardRdS t ate R o u te 71Blac kb er r y Oaks Golf Cour s e Sa w Wee K ee P ark L y n n w o o d O s w e g o 71 MinklerRdReser vation Rd Wa a-Kee-S ha Par kEsri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA ¯0 0.5 1 Miles Figure 1. Project Location Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlB u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e Galena Rd B u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e NRoyalO a k s D r Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, County of Will, Maxar, Microsoft ¯0 250 500 Feet Figure 2. Project Site Boundary Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet Figure 3. USGS Topographical Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site ATTACHMENT A National Wetlands Inventory and NHD Data 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlB u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e Galena Rd B u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e NRoyalO a k s D r PEM1Af PEM1C PEM1C PFO1A R2UBH County of Will, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 250 500 US Feet National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and NHD Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site NWI NHD Waterbody NHD Flowline ATTACHMENT B Hydric Soils Map 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlB u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e Galena Rd B u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e NRoyalO a k s D r 369A W 512B 149A 318C2 318C2 149A 325A 59A 325B 318C2 103A 325B 369A 318C2 369A512A 318C2 206A 791A 318C2 W 219A 152A 149A 149A 318C2 325B 206A 325B 327B 103A W 149A 330A 330A 103A 791B 149A 149A 149A 325B 369A 149A 149A 327C2 325A 330A 206A 206A 327C2 325A 3107A 152A 152A Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, County of Will, Maxar, Microsoft ¯0 250 500 US Feet Hydric Soils Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Hydric Soils Rating by Map Unit Rating Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 - 99%) Hydric (33 - 65%) Hydric (1 - 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Project Site MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Kendall County, Illinois Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 31, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 18, 2020—Jul 3, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Kendall County, Illinois (Project Site) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/11/2022 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 149A Brenton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3 12.7 30.3% 206A Thorp silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 0.8 2.0% 325A Dresden silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 2.6 6.2% 325B Dresden silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes 0 4.9 11.6% 369A Waupecan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 0 20.9 49.9% Totals for Area of Interest 41.8 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Kendall County, Illinois Project Site Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/11/2022 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Kendall County, Illinois Project Site Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/11/2022 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Kendall County, Illinois Project Site Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/11/2022 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT C DNR Public Waters 47 56 Galena RdAsheRdDuganRd Jericho Rd G r a n a r t Rd B y p a s s 3 0 U S H i g h w a y 3 0 Rich Har v e s t Far ms S u g a r G r o v e FoxRiver 34 Cannonball T r lEldamainRd Galena Rd NBridgeStB r i s t o l SchoolHouse RdSBridgeS tF o x Y o r k v i l l e 24 83 30 G alenaR d A u c u t t R d P r a i r i e S t W Galena Blvd OrchardRdOrchardRdOrchardRdSLakeStB o u l d e r H i l l M o n t g o m e r y 31 71 GroveRdG a lenaRdOrchardRdS t ate R o u te 71B l ack be r ry Oak s Golf Cou r s e S aw Wee Kee P ar k L y n n w o o d O s w e g o 71 Waa-K e e-S ha P ar k Illinois Department of Natural Resources - Office of Water Resources, County of Will, Maxar, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA ¯0 0.5 1 Miles IL DNR Public Waters Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Public Water Polygons ATTACHMENT D 2-ft Contours 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlB u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e Galena Rd B u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e NRoyalO a k s D r 654 650 648 658 652 646 658 656 654 648 646 642 640 638 648 646 646 640 654 652 650 648 646 644 642 640 652650 654 652 652 650 650 648 650 648 648 646 644 642 644 642 648 636 644 644 644 654 650 650 652 650 650 650 650 646 646 648 642 638 656 656 656 656 656 656 656 652 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 652 650 650 650 650 650 650 652 650650 648 648 648 648 646 648 648 644646 644 644 642 642 642 642 642 640 640 642 642 638638 636 654 652 646 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, County of Will, Maxar, Microsoft ¯0 250 500 US Feet 2-ft Contours Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site 2-ft Contours ATTACHMENT E FEMA 100 Year Floodplain B e r t r a m Dr BristolBay Dr Galena Rd RagingWaves RosenwinkelStDicksonRdB i g B e n d D r 9 9 P e c o s Ci r F o sterDrDicksonRdC o r n e ils R d BigBendDrNCannonballTrlGalena Rd South St Fairhav e n D rO a k S t K en nedyR dLi l lianLnBristol Ridge Rd SCannonbal l Trl C a n n o n b a l l T r lB r i s t o l M a n c h e s t e r D rSimonDrRileyRd P r o v i d e n c e L nGordon RdGordo n R dHartfieldDrThunderGulchRdPatronLnWhiteRoseDrP a t t e r s o n R d DeerpointDr9 9Will o w Ln EHighlandDrB aileyRdMill Rd J u l i e L n G alenaRdSteven G B ri dge P ark K e n n e dyRdBurrStB ri s t o l R i d g e R d CryderWayP ark vie wA v eVeteransPkwyB l a c kber r y Oak s Golf Cours e Rotar y P ar k PANEL 17093C0035H eff. 1/8/2014 PANEL 17093C0045H eff. 1/8/2014 PANEL 17093C0037H eff. 1/8/2014 PANEL 17093C0030G eff. 2/4/2009 County of Will, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 750 1,500 US Feet FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site FEMA 100 Year Floodplain FIRM Panels ATTACHMENT F Historic Aerials 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (March 1993) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (February 2002) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (October 2007) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2008) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (June 2010) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (September 2011) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2013) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2015) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (September 2017) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (October 2019) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (May 2021) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth Application for Special Use Permit | Page 7 APPENDIX E – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS MEMORANDUM kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 MEMORANDUM To: Michelle Carpenter Turning Point Energy From: Ashley Payne Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 22, 2022 Subject: Bristol Township, Illinois – KE106 Desktop Environmental Review and Limited Wetland Assessment INTRODUCTION Kimley -Horn was contracted to review the KE106 project site for potential environmental constraints. See Figure 1 for project location and Figure 2 for the project site. The project site is located in Bristol Township , Kendall County, Illinois. The site is located in Sections 10 and 15 of Township 37N, Range 7E. Kimley-Horn reviewed available background data to assist in determining if there are any potential environmental constraints for the site. ENVIRONMENTAL C ONSTRAINTS: Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment Kimley -Horn reviewed available topographic mapping, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), LiDAR, soil survey data, public waters, and aerial photography to identify potential wetlands or surface waters within the site vicinity. USGS Topographical Map A review of the USGS topographical Map identified undeveloped land within the site . The USGS topographical map is shown on Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified zero wetlands within the project site. The NWI is included in Figure 4. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD Data) A review of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD data) was completed. No linear waterway features or waterbodies were identified within the site . The information is included in Figure 4. 2-ft LiDAR Contours Two -foot contours were reviewed to determine if any wetland areas or drainage swales are present on the site. The site is fairly flat and slopes west. Several low areas were identified within the project site along the eastern boundary and in the central portion of the site. The 2-ft contours are included in Figure 5. Page 2 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Kendall County Soil Survey A review of the Kendall County soil survey via Websoil survey identified two soil types that are considered hydric soil. Approximately 2% of the project site is mapped at a hydric rating of 95%. The remainder of the site is mapped at a predominantly non-hydric rating below 5%. The soil survey is included in Figure 6. DNR Public Waters Inventory A review of the Illinois DNR (IL DNR) Public Waters Inventory was completed. No IL DNR Public Waters were identified within the project site. The information is included in Figure 7. Previous Site Disturbance Historic aerials from 1993 to 2021 were reviewed to determine previous land use and disturbance on the site (Attachment A). No areas of continued stunted or stressed vegetation or inundation were visible on the reviewed historic aerials. Year Land Use 3-month Antecedent Precipitation Conditions Comments 1993 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. 2002 Agricultural Drier than Normal Same comment as above. 2007 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2008 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2010 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Same comment as above. 2011 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2013 Agricultural Wetter than Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Crop stress visible in several low areas throughout site. 2015 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. 2017 Agricultural Normal Same comment as above. 2019 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. Crop stress visible in the northeast corner of site. 2021 Agricultural Normal Site consists of cropped agricultural field. No areas of stunted or stressed crops visible. Desktop Wetlands Assessment Page 3 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Based on the Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment, Kimley -Horn identified no potential wetlands within the project site. USFWS Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Kimley -Horn conducted a preliminary review of the potential for federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species to occur within the site or be affected by the proposed project for the purposes of due diligence in complying with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A list of the threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and designated critical habitat that could occur in Kendall County was obtained and evaluated from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) online planning tool. Habitat descriptions for the identified species were compared to the habitat within or near the site. An official species list dated July 22, 2022 was generated by IPaC and transmitted to Kimley-Horn on behalf of the Illinois-Iowa Ecological Services Field Office. The official species list is included in Attachment B. Five federally listed species has been identified within the site vicinity. The species are identified below in Table 1. Table 1. USWFS Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Species Status Preferred Habitat Proposed Impacts Myotis sodalis (Indiana Bat) Endangered During summer, Indiana Bats roost under loose bark or in hallows and cavities of mature trees in the floodplain forest or savanna habitats adjacent to riparian corridors. In winter, Indiana bats hibernate in caves. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long -Eared Bat ) (NLEB) Threatened During summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. This bat uses tree species based on suitability to retain bark or provide cavities or crevices. It has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Northern long-eared bats spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Platanthera leucophaea (Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid) Threatened Includes prairies; wetlands, including sedge meadows, marshes, and bogs; grassy environments with optimal sun. No preferred habitat identified within the site; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Danaus plexippus (Monarch butterfly) Candidate The monarch butterfly requires grassland habitats where milkweed and flowers are present. Minimal preferred habitat may appear within the site. The area is primarily active Page 4 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Species Status Preferred Habitat Proposed Impacts farmland. No adverse impacts anticipated. Bombus affinis (Rusty Patched Bumble Bee) (RPBB) Endangered The RPBB prefers grasslands with flowering plants from April through October, underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground as nesting sites, and undisturbed soil for hibernating queens to overwinter. The site is located predominantly within a USFWS low-potential RPBB zone. Approximately 5% of the site is in a RPBB high-potential zone. The site is primarily active farmland providing minimal habitat for the RPBB. No adverse impacts anticipated. Migratory Birds According to the IPaC resource list, thirteen migratory species on the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list have been identified within the site . The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to “take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations by the USFWS”. Typically, if active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA are identified, the USFWS recommends avoiding tree clearing or nest removal until at least the peak of the nesting season (generally March through August) has passed or until the nest is abandoned. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, published a memorandum (M-37050) dated December 22, 2017 regarding the MBTA and how “incidental take” is viewed by the Department. The memorandum analyzes whether the MBTA prohibits the accidental or “incidental” taking or killing of migratory birds. “Incidental take” is take that results from an activity, but is not the purpose of that activity. In this memorandum, the Department of the Interior concluded that “the MBTA’s prohibition on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the sam e applies only to direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by killing or capturing, to human control.” Therefore, according to the Department of the Interior, the MBTA does not prohibit “incidental take.” Courts have different opinions and decisions with respect to including or excluding “incidental take” when considering the prohibitions under the MBTA. In 2015, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. issued an opinion that agreed with the Eighth and Ninth circuits that a taking is limited to deliberate acts done directly and intentionally to migratory birds. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit decided that the MBTA only prohibits intentional take and does not prohibit incidental take. This decision by the Fifth Circuit set precedent within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction. On January 7, 2021, the USFWS published a final rule (“MBTA rule”) defining the scope of the MBTA which excluded incidental take of migratory birds from being unlawful. This interpretation of the MBTA was effective as of March 8, 2021. On May 7, 2021, the USFWS proposed to revoke the January 7, 2021 final regulation and opened a public comment period which closed on June 7, 2021. On September 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Interior announced a series of actions to unwind the most recent rulemaking in an effort “to ensure that the MBTA conserves birds today and into the Page 5 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 future.” On October 4, 2021, t he USFWS published a final rule revoking the m ost recent rule enacted b y t he Trump Administration that limited the scope of t he MBTA. A ccording to the Federal Register, the final MBTA revocation rule will go into effect on December 3, 2021. It is our understanding th at as of D ecember 3, 2021, incidental t ake would be enforceable under t he MBTA; however, c urrently given that t he purpose of t he site is t o develop a solar project, incidental t ake is c urrently not enforceable (as of t he date of t his report). In addition, on October 4, 2021, t he USFWS publ ished an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing t he intent to solicit public c omments and information to help develop proposed regulations t hat would establish a permitting system t o authorize the incidental t ake of migratory birds in certain circumstances. The USFWS issued a Director’s Order es tablishing crit eria for t he types of c onduct t hat will be a priority f or enf orcement activities with respect t o incidental t ake of migratory birds. It s h ould be noted that t he regulatory climate with respect t o the MBTA is c hanging; however, it is our understan ding that as of D ecember 3, 2021 incidental t ake of migratory birds will be liable under t he MBTA. This s h ould be considered until a rulemaking process is complete. Kimley -Horn downloaded the Trust Resources Report M igratory B ird List f rom t he IPaC online planning t ool. The IPaC results are included in Attachment B . Kimley -Horn cond ucted a preliminary desktop review of t he potential f or migratory bird habitat (focusing primarily on trees and shrubs) t o occur on the proposed site or be affected by t he proposed site for t he purposes of due diligence in c omplying with the MBTA. The desktop review revealed the presence of m inimal pot ential migratory bird habitat within the site. It is our understanding that as of December 3, 2021, incid ental t ake would be enforceable under t he MBTA; however, c urrently given th at t he purpose of t he project is t o develop a solar project, incidental take is c urrently not enf orce able (as of t he date of this report). Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern The IDNR identified no state Illinois Natural A rea Inventory sites, dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves, or registered Land and Water Reserves in the vicinity of t he site. The IDNR identified protected res ources t hat may be in the vicinity of t he project l ocation; however, the IDNR determined that adverse effects are unlikely. IDNR Consultation Letter is included in Attachment B . Historic Resources Database Review Kimley -Horn reviewed the Illinois Historic Preservation Division (IHPD) dat abase for k nown historic resources within the project vicinity. According to the IHPD database, the project area contains no previously identified archaeological sites (see Attachment C). There are 18 previously identified archaeological sites and 8 archaeological surveys completed within 0.5 miles of the site. The identified sites are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. According to the Historic & Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS), the site does not contain previously identified historic buildings or sites and no buildings have been previously recorded within 0.5 miles of the site. The results of the IHPD review are sensitive in nature and should not be shared publicly. Correspondence with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing and results are pending. CONCLUSIONS Based on the information reviewed, Kimley-Horn has identified minimal environmental constraints that could require additional planning. Page 6 kimley-horn.com 570 Lake Cook Road, Suite 200, Deerfield, Illinois 847-260-7804 Based on the Level 1 (Desktop) Wetlands Assessment, Kimley -Horn identified no potential wetlands within the project site. Minimal p otential suitable habitat for listed federal species was observed within the site . If tree clearing or structure demolition is anticipated, it is recommended to occur from November 1st – March 31st, which is outside of the active bat season. The IDNR determined that adverse effects to state listed species or protected resources are unlikely. No impacts to known IHPD-listed resources are anticipated. Correspondence with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is ongoing and results are pending. Figures 47 56 DicksonRdB a s e l i n e R d R a y m o n d R d S n o w S t MighellRdP r a i r i e S tSMainSt Galena RdAsheRdDuganRd JerichoRd G r a n a r t Rd B y p a s s 3 0 U S H i g h w a y 3 0 R i c h Har v e s t Farm s S u g a r G r o v e FoxRiver 34BeecherRd E Main StEldamainRd K e n n e d y R dS c h a e f e r R d Faxon R dC o r n e i l s R d V a n E m m o n R d R i v e r R d Cannonball T r lEldamainRd Galena Rd NBridgeStB r i s t o l WalshDrF o x R d SchoolHouse RdSBridgeS tF o x Y o r k v i l l e 83 30 Concord DrGordonRd C a t e r p i l l a r D r Prair i e S t K e n s i n g t o n P l W D owner Pl M a r s e i l l a i s e P lSBarnesRd Bar nesRdG alenaR dA u c u t t R d P r a i r i e S t W Galena Blvd SEdgelawnDrOrchardRdOrchardRdOrchardRdSLakeStB o u l d e r H i l l M o n t g o m e r y Waubonsee Creek 71 MinklerRdDolores St AshlawnAveLight Rd ArborLnGroveRdG a lenaR dOrchardRdS t ate R o u te 71Blac kb er r y Oaks Golf Cour s e Sa w Wee K ee P ark L y n n w o o d O s w e g o 71 MinklerRdReser vation Rd Wa a-Kee-S ha Par kEsri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA ¯0 0.5 1 Miles Figure 1. Project Location Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlB u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e Galena Rd B u r lin g t o n N o r t h e r n &S a n t a F e NRoyalO a k s D r Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, County of Will, Maxar, Microsoft ¯0 250 500 Feet Figure 2. Project Site Boundary Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ¯0 1,000 2,000 Feet Figure 3. USGS Topographical Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlBu r lington Nor th e rn & S a n t a F e Galena R d Bu r lin g ton N o rt hern & S an ta F e NRoyalO a ks D r PEM1Af PEM1C PEM1C PFO1A R2UBH County of Will, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 250 500 US Feet Figure 4. NWI and NHD Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site NWI NHD Waterbody NHD Flowline 10 9 Galena Rd 10 10 Hunt St NCannonballTrlBu r lington Nor th e rn & S a n t a F e Galena R d Bu r lin g ton N o rt hern & S an ta F e NRoyalO a ks D r 654 650 648 658 652 646 658 656 654 648 646 642 640 638 648 646 646 640 654 652 650 648 646 644 642 640 652650 654 652 652 650 650 648 650 648 648 646 644 642 644 642 648 636 644 644 644 654 650 650 652 650 650 650 650 646 646 648 642 638 656 656 656 656 656 656 656 652 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 654 652 650 650 650 650 650 650 652 650650 648 648 648 648 646 648 648 644646 644 644 642 642 642 642 642 640 640 642 642 638638 636 654 652 646 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, County of Will, Maxar, Microsoft ¯0 250 500 US Feet Figure 5. 2-ft Contours Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site 2-ft Contours 47 56 Galena RdAshe RdDuganRdJericho Rd G ra na r t Rd Bypa ss 3 0 US Hig h w a y 3 0 Rich Harvest Farms Sugar Grove FoxRiver 34 Cannonball Tr lEldamain Rd Galena Rd N BridgeStBristol Sc hoolHouse RdSBridge StFox Yorkville 24 83 30 Ga lena R d Aucutt R d Pr a irie St W G alena B lvd OrchardRdOrchardRdOrchardRdS Lake St Boulder Hill Montgomery 31 71 Grove Rd Ga lena RdOrchard Rd S t ate R o u te 71Blackberry Oaks Golf Course Saw Wee Kee Park Lynnwood Oswego 71 Waa-Kee-Sha Park Illinois Department of Natural Resources - Office of Water Resources, County of Will, Maxar, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA ¯0 0.5 1 Miles Figure 7. IL DNR Public Waters Map Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Public Water Polygons ATTACHMENT A Historic Aerials 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (March 1993) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (February 2002) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (October 2007) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2008) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (June 2010) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (September 2011) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2013) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (April 2015) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (September 2017) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (October 2019) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth 10 NCannonballTrl10 Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA ¯0 125 250 US Feet Historic Aerial Map (May 2021) Bristol Township, Kendall County Turning Point Energy Legend Project Site Aerial Image Courtesy of Google Earth ATTACHMENT B Species Resources 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 1/17 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of e ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci c (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-speci c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS o ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de ned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Project information NAME KE106 LOCATION Kendall County, Illinois DESCRIPTION None U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 2/17 Local o ce Illinois-Iowa Ecological Services Field O ce (309) 757-5800 (309) 757-5807 Illinois & Iowa Ecological Services Field O ce 1511 47th Ave Moline, IL 61265-7022 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 3/17 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential e ects to species, additional site-speci c and project-speci c information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o ce and a species list which ful lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld o ce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o cial species list by doing the following: 1. Log in to IPaC. 2. Go to your My Projects list. 3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project. 4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of 1 2 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 4/17 Commerce. The following species are potentially a ected by activities in this location: Mammals Insects Flowering Plants Critical habitats NAME STATUS Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Wherever found There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the critical habitat is not available. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949 Endangered Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Threatened NAME STATUS Monarch Butter y Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus a nis Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383 Endangered NAME STATUS Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera leucophaea Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/601 Threatened 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 5/17 Potential e ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/ les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf 1 2 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 6/17 For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds elsewhere Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 7/17 Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2974 Breeds Apr 21 to Jul 20 Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Aug 20 Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3941 Breeds May 1 to Aug 31 Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa avipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 8/17 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con dence in the presence score. One can have higher con dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e ort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey E ort () Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 9/17 no data survey e ort breeding season probability of presence Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey e ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Golden-plover BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.) 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 10/17 Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Cerulean Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Eastern Whip- poor-will BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 11/17 Henslow's Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Kentucky Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Prothonotary Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 12/17 Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 13/17 Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o shore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 14/17 Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o shore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e orts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially a ected by o shore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also o ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e ort is the key component. If the survey e ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con rmed. To learn 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 15/17 more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Coastal Barrier Resources System Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be subject to the restrictions on federal expenditures and nancial assistance and the consultation requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more information, please contact the local Ecological Services Field O ce or visit the CBRA Consultations website. The CBRA website provides tools such as a ow chart to help determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the consultation process. THERE ARE NO KNOWN COASTAL BARRIERS AT THIS LOCATION. Data limitations The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted on the o cial CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for in/out determinations close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Bu er Zone" that appears as a hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the Service for an o cial determination by following the instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation Data exclusions CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the o shore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, o shore wind energy or oil and gas projects) may be subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact CBRA@fws.gov. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 16/17 THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi cation established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional di erences in polygon boundaries or classi cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber cid worm reefs) have also 7/22/22, 3:02 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/MK4B2NNPXFDONA3FWTCHGCOTIA/resources 17/17 been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de ne and describe wetlands in a di erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to de ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a ect such activities. Applicant:IDNR Project Number: Address: Contact:Scott Osborn 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 Alternate Number: Date: 26817300X Project: Address: Turning Point Energy KE106 1700 Cannonball Drive , Bristol Description: The proposed project includes the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located at 1700 Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL 60512. The project includes land in the Residential 2 and 3 zoning districts. 07/05/2022 2300084Turning Point Energy Natural Resource Review Results Consultation for Endangered Species Protection and Natural Areas Preservation (Part 1075) The Illinois Natural Heritage Database shows the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the project location: Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) An IDNR staff member will evaluate this information and contact you to request additional information or to terminate consultation if adverse effects are unlikely. Location The applicant is responsible for the accuracy of the location submitted for the project. County: Kendall Township, Range, Section: 37N, 7E, 10 37N, 7E, 15 Government Jurisdiction IL Environmental Protection Agency Terri LeMasters 1020 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794 -9276 IL Department of Natural Resources Contact Adam Rawe 217-785-5500 Division of Ecosystems & Environment Disclaimer The Illinois Natural Heritage Database cannot provide a conclusive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of natural resources in Illinois. This review reflects the information existing in the Database at the time of this inquiry, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, compliance with applicable statutes and regulations is required. Page 1 of 2 Terms of Use By using this website, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to these terms. These terms may be revised by IDNR as necessary. If you continue to use the EcoCAT application after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not accept the Terms of Use, you may not continue to use the website. 1. The IDNR EcoCAT website was developed so that units of local government, state agencies and the public could request information or begin natural resource consultations on-line for the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act, Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act, and Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act. EcoCAT uses databases, Geographic Information System mapping, and a set of programmed decision rules to determine if proposed actions are in the vicinity of protected natural resources. By indicating your agreement to the Terms of Use for this application, you warrant that you will not use this web site for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. 3. IDNR reserves the right to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website at any time without notice, or to terminate or restrict access. Security EcoCAT operates on a state of Illinois computer system. We may use software to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information, to cause harm or otherwise to damage this site. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this server is strictly prohibited by law. Unauthorized use, tampering with or modification of this system, including supporting hardware or software, may subject the violator to criminal and civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant information regarding possible violation of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. Privacy EcoCAT generates a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Otherwise, IDNR uses the information submitted to EcoCAT solely for internal tracking purposes. Page 2 of 2 IDNR Project Number: 2300084 Denver, CO 80237 RE: Turning Point Energy KE106 Project Number(s): 2300084 [26817300X] County: Kendall Dear Applicant: Adam Rawe Division of Ecosystems and Environment 217-785-5500 July 05, 2022 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy 3720 S Dahlia St This letter is in reference to the project you recently submitted for consultation. The natural resource review provided by EcoCAT identified protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed action. The Department has evaluated this information and concluded that adverse effects are unlikely. Therefore, consultation under 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 is terminated. This consultation is valid for two years unless new information becomes available that was not previously considered; the proposed action is modified; or additional species, essential habitat, or Natural Areas are identified in the vicinity. If the project has not been implemented within two years of the date of this letter, or any of the above listed conditions develop, a new consultation is necessary. The natural resource review reflects the information existing in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database at the time of the project submittal, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, you must comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. Also, note that termination does not imply IDNR's authorization or endorsement of the proposed action. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this review. JB Pritzker, Governor Colleen Callahan, Director ATTACHMENT C Historic Resources 498 28 1150 1149 588 118 37 35 358 354 353 190034901 14060 12126 99999 15423 15237 13325 12600 12588 12447 12292 99999 9888 5708 15671 15664 13967 12446 14787 14092 12307 13724 13645 13530 13362 12291 10645 10254 Project Site Esri Canada, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, METI/ NASA, EPA, USDA Project Site IHPD Cultural Resources Map 0 0.45 0.90.23 mi 0 0.7 1.40.35 km 1:36,112 ArcGIS Web AppBuilder Turning Point Energy (KE106) Application for Special Use Permit | Page 8 APPENDIX F – IDNR ECOCAT Denver, CO 80237 RE: Turning Point Energy KE106 Project Number(s): 2300084 [26817300X] County: Kendall Dear Applicant: Adam Rawe Division of Ecosystems and Environment 217-785-5500 July 05, 2022 Scott Osborn Turning Point Energy 3720 S Dahlia St This letter is in reference to the project you recently submitted for consultation. The natural resource review provided by EcoCAT identified protected resources that may be in the vicinity of the proposed action. The Department has evaluated this information and concluded that adverse effects are unlikely. Therefore, consultation under 17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075 is terminated. This consultation is valid for two years unless new information becomes available that was not previously considered; the proposed action is modified; or additional species, essential habitat, or Natural Areas are identified in the vicinity. If the project has not been implemented within two years of the date of this letter, or any of the above listed conditions develop, a new consultation is necessary. The natural resource review reflects the information existing in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database at the time of the project submittal, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, you must comply with the applicable statutes and regulations. Also, note that termination does not imply IDNR's authorization or endorsement of the proposed action. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this review. JB Pritzker, Governor Colleen Callahan, Director Applicant:IDNR Project Number: Address: Contact:Scott Osborn 3720 S Dahlia St Denver, CO 80237 Alternate Number: Date: 26817300X Project: Address: Turning Point Energy KE106 1700 Cannonball Drive , Bristol Description: The proposed project includes the development of a 5-megawatt AC solar photovoltaic system on a single parcel of land located at 1700 Cannonball Trail, Bristol, IL 60512. The project includes land in the Residential 2 and 3 zoning districts. 07/05/2022 2300084Turning Point Energy Natural Resource Review Results Consultation for Endangered Species Protection and Natural Areas Preservation (Part 1075) The Illinois Natural Heritage Database shows the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the project location: Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) An IDNR staff member will evaluate this information and contact you to request additional information or to terminate consultation if adverse effects are unlikely. Location The applicant is responsible for the accuracy of the location submitted for the project. County: Kendall Township, Range, Section: 37N, 7E, 10 37N, 7E, 15 Government Jurisdiction IL Environmental Protection Agency Terri LeMasters 1020 North Grand Avenue East Springfield, Illinois 62794 -9276 IL Department of Natural Resources Contact Adam Rawe 217-785-5500 Division of Ecosystems & Environment Disclaimer The Illinois Natural Heritage Database cannot provide a conclusive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of natural resources in Illinois. This review reflects the information existing in the Database at the time of this inquiry, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional protected resources are encountered during the project¶s implementation, compliance with applicable statutes and regulations is required. Page 1 of 2 Terms of Use By using this website, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to these terms. These terms may be revised by IDNR as necessary. If you continue to use the EcoCAT application after we post changes to these terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not accept the Terms of Use, you may not continue to use the website. 1. The IDNR EcoCAT website was developed so that units of local government, state agencies and the public could request information or begin natural resource consultations on-line for the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act, Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act, and Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act. EcoCAT uses databases, Geographic Information System mapping, and a set of programmed decision rules to determine if proposed actions are in the vicinity of protected natural resources. By indicating your agreement to the Terms of Use for this application, you warrant that you will not use this web site for any other purpose. 2. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. 3. IDNR reserves the right to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website at any time without notice, or to terminate or restrict access. Security EcoCAT operates on a state of Illinois computer system. We may use software to monitor traffic and to identify unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information, to cause harm or otherwise to damage this site. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this server is strictly prohibited by law. Unauthorized use, tampering with or modification of this system, including supporting hardware or software, may subject the violator to criminal and civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant information regarding possible violation of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. Privacy EcoCAT generates a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Otherwise, IDNR uses the information submitted to EcoCAT solely for internal tracking purposes. Page 2 of 2 IDNR Project Number: 2300084 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 9 APPENDIX G – SHPO CONCURRENCE kimley-horn.com 4201 Winfield Rd #600, Warrenville, IL 60555 1-630-487-5550 June 6, 2022 Illinois State Historic Preservation Office Illinois Department of Natural Resources Attn: Review & Compliance 1 Old State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62701 RE: Illinois State Historic Preservation Office Project Review Turning Point Energy (KE106) 1700 Cannonball Trail, Bristol County, IL To whom it may concern: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is requesting your review of the completed Illinois State Historic Preservation Office Project Review application for a proposed development. We have been contracted by Turning Point Energy to investigate the site at 1700 Cannonball Trail in Kendall County, IL. The proposed project site is approximately 42 acres and is farmland. The following items are enclosed with this letter: SHPO Permit Application USGS Map Aerial Exhibit In addition to the information listed above, a HARGIS map has been included. The required information to go along with the HARGIS map is as follows: Is this property Listed on the National Register: Yes__ No_X_ Within a Local Historic District: Yes___ No_X_ A Local Landmark: Yes___ No_X_ Survey ranking, if not designated: ____________________ If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me via phone phone (630.487.3449) or email (jason.cooper@kimley-horn.com). Sincerely, Jason Cooper Project Engineer, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ILLINOIS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE PROJECT REVIEW State Agency Historic Resource Preservation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, Ch. 127, Pas 133c21, et seq.) PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Title: Turning Point Energy (KE105) KHA Project Number 268173008 Project Address or Municipality: 15 Cannonball Trail, Bristol IL 60512 County: Kendall USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle: Yorkville Sec: 15 Twp: 37 N Range: 7 E APPLICANT/DEVELOPER TPE IL KE105, LLC Name TPE IL KE105 Company Name 3720 S Dahlia St Address Denver, CO 80237 City, State Zip + four 781-325-2884 Telephone CONSULTING ENGINEER Jason Cooper Name Kimley-Horn and Associates Company Name 4201 Winfield Road, Suite 600. Address Warrenville, IL 60555 City, State Zip + four 630-487-5550 Telephone Project Scope Construction of a solar farm with the associated access roads and utilities. Acreage and or Lineal Foot: Project Type Public Land Private Land Public Undertaking Private Undertaking Extent of Project Ground Disturbance Construction of a new solar farm, access roads, and utilities will occur. Existing buildings/structures within the project limits are to remain and will not be impacted. Previous Disturbance to Project Area: The site currently consists of agricultural land. PERMITTING From which State Agencies or funding sources will permit, license, approvals or funds be obtained or required (check appropriate boxes)? IDOT-Division of Water Resources IEPA Water Pollution Control IEPA Public Water Supplies Other: IDNR Federal Agencies from which permits, licenses, approvals, or funds may be required (i.e., Corps, HUD) US Army Corps of Engineers This review process does not exempt your project from compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Mandatory Enclosures: 1. USGS 7.5’ topographic map or city map clearly indicating project area and street address (if available). 2. Current photographs (no photocopies) of all standing structures; if building is over 40 years old include interior photographs. 3. If this project has been previously reviewed by SHPO, include all pertinent correspondence. 4. Any known historical information, i.e., is structure significant in the community or is it associated with an individual of significance. 5. The names of state and/or federal agencies and entities that are providing funding, licenses, permits, or approvals for your project. 6. Previously assigned SHPO log numbers associated with your project (if any) ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ... . ... . . .... . .... . . . . .. . ..... ..... . .... ......... ... .. .... . . .. . . ..... . . . . . . . .... . .. . . .. . . .. .................................................................................................... ..... .. .. .. . ... ... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. ..... . . .... . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . ... . ... ... ...... . . ... . ... ...... ... ............... ..... ........... ..... . . . . . ....... ........ . ..... ............. ............. ..... ........................... ........ . ....... .. . . ........ . . ......... .. . ....... .. . . . .. . .. ... .. ... . . ... ............. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .... . ... . . ......... .. .. ..... ..... .... ...... . ..... ... .......... .. . . .. ....... ... . ........... ............ ...... . . ... ... .. .... . .. .. . ....................... ......... . ... ............ . . .. ....... .. ... ......... .... ... ......... . .. . . .. . . ..... .. . ... ....... ..... ............. .............. . .. ... .. . ... .. ... ......... ........ .... . . .. ........ ............... .... ..... ....... .. ... . .................. ......................... ........ ............... ... . .. ... .. .... .... . . .. .. .. ... . . ...... . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . ..... ...... ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... ... ............ . ... .. ..... ........... ....... ... ............ . .............. ....... .. .. . .. .. . .... . . ... ... . . ... . ... . .. . . .. .......... .... .. . . . . . ................ ...... .. . . . . . ... .. .. ................ . ... ..... ...... .. ... . .. ............ ... .. . . ... .. ....... ... . . . . ... .. .. ......... ... . ..... ... . .. .. . .. .. . . ... . . . . . ... . . .. . .... . . . .. .. . .. ...... .............. ...... . ........... .. ..... ...................... . . .... ....... .... . . ...... .......... ... .... ........... .............. ... . . ..... .. ... . . .. .............. .. ..... .. ............. . . ................. .... .......... . ...... ............ .. ..................... .... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... ..... . . ........... . .......... . ...... ....................... . .................. ... ....... ... ..... ............... ....... ... ...... ........ ......... ..... .... . .. . .. .... ..... ... . ... .. ............. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. ... . . ... . . .. . ... ... . . ...... ........ . ........ . . ... ......... ... ............... . ... . .................. .. . . . .. ...... . . ....... ................... ...... .. ....... ....... ...... ........ . .............. .. .... . . .... . ..... ....... . . .... . .... . .......... ..... ... ....... . . ............ .. ......... ... .. ........ .. ... ... .... . . .... ........ ................... .. . . ....... . ..... ... ..... .................... . ............ ........... ............... ..... . .. . . ... . ... . . . . . . ... .. .. .. . . . . . . .... ..... . . . .. . .... . . . . . ...... ... . ..... . . .. . ... ... ............ . . . . .... .... .. .... . . . . ... ..... .. ...... ..... .. .............. .. .... .. ...... .. .... .... . ... . . .... .. . ... . ... . ... ... ..... . . . .. .... .... ......... .... .... .. . . ....... .. . . . . ..... . ..... ... . . .. . . ...... . . .. .. ........ .. ..... .. ........ .... ... . ..... .. ......... .. .. ................ ..... . .. .... . ... . .... . . . ..... ...... .. . . ... .. . ...... ............ . ....... .... .. .. ...... ... ..... ............ ......... ........... ... .... .... ... ........... .... ........... ...... ..... ...... . ........ .... . . . .. . . ......... . ......... ............. .. . ... ... .......... .... ..... ... ............ . ...... .... .. . ... .... . ..... ..... ........ . ( ○ ( ○ &PO !" !" !" !" !" !" &PO !" ^ ^ ^ ;!-ııΙI▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n F F F F700700 70 0 700 650700700600650 65060065060065065 0 600650 650600 650600600650650650650650650600650650 6 5 0 650 65065060065 0650 650 65 0 600650 650650 600 650 650 600650650 650 700650 650 650 650600600 7006506 5 0 600650 6506506 5 0 650650650 650 6506506506006 5 0 650650 650650650650 6506506 5 0 600 6506 5 0 650 650 650650650650650 65 0 600 650 65065065065 0 600650650 650 650650 650650 6 50 650 6506 5 0650 650650650650 650650 650 650650700 650 700 6506 5 0 700 6 5 0 650 650 650 650650 700 7 0 0 650650 650 650 700 650650650650650650 65 0650600650 650650650650 650 650 650 700 7507506007007 0 0 700 GnatCatcherTrlSaw Wee Kee TrlVerticalVelocityTr lSTAGECOAC H T RL W A L S HDRCO HWY 1 E MITCHELL DR ANDREW ST S C H A E F E R R D W O O D V I E W S T BASELINE RD H E A T H ER LN FAIRFIELD WAY £¤30 EMILLBROOKCIRS H E T L A ND DR GALENA R D FOSTER DR THUNDER GULCH RDBASELINE RD LAKEWOODCREEKDRSIMPSONPKW Y WILLOW LNGORDON RDS E C R E TA R I AT L N K E N N EDY DR STACY CIRGALENA RD B R I AN LN AVALON LNMILLRA CELN CONCORDDRROSENWI NKE L S T DICKSON RDCANDLELIGHTCIRTROON DR ADAM AVE BRISTOL BAY DR GALENA RD BIGBE N D D R WAVER LY WAYASHE RDREBECCACIRBASELINE RD FOXMOOR DR BERTRAM DR JERICH O R D JENN A C IR W BEECHER RDPA T T E R S O N R D WHIRLAWAY LN PROVIDENCE LN £¤30 BERTRAM RDMANCHESTER DR DEERPOINT DRJERICHO R D HARTFIELD DRVENE T I A N W A YMIGHELLRD PRESCOTTDRRIVARIDGERD¬«47 E BEECHER RDPECOS CIR ¬«71 MINKLER RD¬«47 £¤30 BA RN E S RD JERICHO RD SUNCREST DR SUMMERHILL DRARBORLNMILL RD TUSCANY TRL PINERI D G E D R S ORCHARD RDGRAPEVINETRLSEELEY¬«34 M A Y F I E L D DR ORCHARDRDWILLIAM D R RIVE R W OODDRWILDWOOD DRBUCKTAILDRWOLVERINED R BEECHER RDC O R N E I L S R D JOHN ST FOX GLEN CIRR IV E R R D CHESTNU T LNC O T TONWOO D T R L ELDAMAIN RD£¤34 CO HWY 1ASPE NLNEVERGREENLNKLATTSTELDAMAINRDDEAMES ST FAXON RD KRISTENSTCU M M I NS ST FOLI ST TALLGRASS LNC O U N T R Y R D CARPENTERAVERES E R V A T I O N R D OAK CREEKDR MCLAR E N D RARBOR LNOTTER WAY P L E A S A N T V IE W D R W I L L O W W O O D DRW IL LOWWOOD DR NJETER RDBER G M ANSTMARIEST JOHN ST JETER RD JETTER RDJERICHO RDRAYMONDRDDUGAN RDPRAIRIE ST MCCANNON RDBEECHERRDAL A N DALELNEMERALD L N ERICA LN ¬«34 COHWY20 ¬«47 EDWARDLNWKE ND A LL DR W C O U N T R Y S ID E P K W Y BLACKBERRY SHORE LN WHEATO N A V E¬«47 SUMACDRCENTERPKWYBLUESTEM DR WESTERN LN NROYALOAKSDRMARKETVIEWDRE VETERANS PKWYJOHH ST BOOMERLNFAXONRDKIN G M O O R L NNBRIDGESTIROQUOIS LNCANNONBALL TRLEKENDALLDR KENNEDY RDHIGH RIDGE RDLILLIANLNHAYDENDRFA I R H AVEN DR ISABEL DRRYAN DRBRISTOL RIDGE RD ¬«34 A UTUMNCREEK B L V DW VETERANS PK W YCANNONBALL TRLWINDINGCREEKRDMCLELLANBLVDCRYDERWAYALDENAVEW RICKARD DRRICKARD DRB E R R Y W O O D L N P A R K W A Y D R HILLTO P R D GRAND E T R LOLDGLORYDRSQUIR ECIRA N N A M A R I E L N AUDREY AVEMATLOCKDREL L S WORTHDRSCHMIDT LNFIELDS DRMADELINE DRMINKLER RDLY M A N L OOPSUNDOWN LNJUSTICE DRFREEMONTSTCONO VER LN WHITEOAKWAYRIVERSIDE D ROMAHADR SBRIDGESTQUINSEY LN E PARK ST POPLAR DRHEARTLANDDR TAUS CIRHIDE AWAY LNSPRINGSTSTATE ST¬«126 E ORANGE STHEUSTIS STGAMEFARMRDTUMA R D E VAN EMMON ST E SPRING ST KELLYAVEARROWHEA D D R ¬«71LIBERTY STE MAIN ST MILL STCROOKEDCREEKDRMORGANSTWI NDHAMC I R ¬«47 E SC H O O L H O U S E R D WAL SH D RW BARB E RRYCIR WALNUT STNCARLYCIR VAN EMMON R D NORWAY CI R WACKERDRMCHUGH RDBENJAMINSTW FOX ST QUINSEYRD JACKSON ST H O M E S T E A D D R S MAIN STKENDALL CO KANE CO KENDALL CO KANE CO KANE CO KENDALL CO Jericho LakeDiversion Aurora Chainof Lakes Jericho LakeDiversionBlac k b e rry Cr B lackberryCrWelchCrBigRockCreekFox River RobRoyCrBlackberryCreek BlackberryC r Fox RiverFox RiverRob Roy CrFoxR iv e r Morgan C r Kendall CountyCourthouse Jericho Cem Doud Cem KeckMemorialCem Cowdrey Cem Elmwood Cem SaintPatricksCem Oak Grove Cem Bristol SUGAR GROVE OSWEGO BigRock PLANO AURORA YORKVILLE MONTGOMERY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 4623000mN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4610000mN 22 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8476 385000mE 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84376000mE 85 41.6250° 41.7500° -88.5000°-88.3750°41.7500° 41.6250°-88.3750°-88.5000° 19 27 36 3 21 6 33 1 30 33 34 17 10 26 26 32 29 20 6 23 1 22 35 13 12 29 25 31 9 1 24 11 30 25 8 35 4 2 28 4 34 25 32 18 16 15 27 25 5 35 7 31 14 36 2 28 1 13 36 36 24 12 QUADRANGLE LOCATION YORKVILLE QUADRANGLEILLINOIS7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY × Ø GN MN 0°57´17 MILS 3°16´58 MILS UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET CM Grid Zone Designation 16T U.S. National Grid100,000 - m Square ID ILLINOIS 1 Big Rock 8 Yorkville SE 2 Sugar Grove3 Aurora North4 Plano5 Aurora South6 Newark7 Plattville ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 3 87 1 54 6 2 Imagery.....................................................NAIP, August 2019 - August 2019Roads......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2017Names............................................................................GNIS, 1980 - 2021Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 2003 - 2018Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2019Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2018 - 2019Public Land Survey System................................................BLM, 2020Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory Not Available North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T Produced by the United States Geological Survey This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET YORKVILLE, IL 2021 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./*7643016365942*NSN.7643016365942NGA REF NO.USGSX24K50144 AERIAL MAP (N.T.S) 15 Cannonball TrailBristol IL, 60512SHEET NUMBER1 OF 1.©NORTH HARGIS MAP (N.T.S) 15 Cannonball TrailBristol IL, 60512SHEET NUMBER1 OF 1.©NORTH Application for Special Use Permit | Page 10 APPENDIX H – NRI APPLICATION & REPORT Petitioner: ______________________________________ Contact Person:_____________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ __________________________________________________ City, State, Zip: __________________________________ __________________________________________________ Phone Number: ( ) ______ ( ) _______________________ Email: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Please select: How would you like to receive a copy of the NRI Report? Email Mail Site Location & Proposed Use Township Name __________________________________ Township _______ N, Range ________ E, Section(s) ___________ Parcel Index Number(s) ___________________________________________________________________________________ Project or Subdivision Name ___________________________________________ Number of Acres _____________________ Current Use of Site________________________________ Proposed Use __________________________________________ Proposed Number of Lots __________________________ Proposed Number of Structures ____________________________ Proposed Water Supply ____________________________ Proposed type of Wastewater Treatment ____________________ Proposed type of Storm Water Management _________________________________________________________________ Type of Request Change in Zoning from ___________________ to ___________________ Variance (Please describe fully on separate page) Special Use Permit (Please describe fully on separate page) Name of County or Municipality the request is being filed with: _________________________________________________ In addition to this completed application form, please including the following to ensure proper processing: Plat of Survey/Site Plan – showing location, legal description and property measurements Concept Plan - showing the locations of proposed lots, buildings, roads, stormwater detention, open areas, etc. If available: topography map, field tile map, copy of soil boring and/or wetland studies NRI fee (Please make checks payable to Kendall County SWCD) The NRI fees, as of July 1, 2010, are as follows: Full Report: $375.00 for five acres and under, plus $18.00 per acre for each additional acre or any fraction thereof over five. Executive Summary Report: $300.00 (KCSWCD staff will determine when a summary or full report will be necessary.) Fee for first five acres and under $ 375.00_ ______ Additional Acres at $18.00 each $__________ Total NRI Fee $__________ NOTE: Applications are due by the 1st of each month to be on that month’s SWCD Board Meeting Agenda. Once a completed application is submitted, please allow 30 days for inspection, evaluation and processing of this report. I (We) understand the filing of this application allows the authorized representative of the Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) to visit and conduct an evaluation of the site described above. The completed NRI report expiration date will be 3 years after the date reported. _______________________________________________ __________________ Petitioner or Authorized Agent Date This report will be issued on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, handicap or marital status. 7775A Route 47, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ● (630)553-5821 extension 3 www.kendallswcd.org NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION (NRI) REPORT APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY NRI#________ Date initially rec’d ____________ Date all rec’d ____________ Board Meeting ________________________ Fee Due $___________ Fee Paid $ ___________ Check #_______ Over/Under Payment __________Refund Due_________ CANNONBALL TRAIL(70' WIDE ROW)TPE IL KE106, LLC©EX-1ZONING SITEPLANVICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 5000' PROJECT LOCATION SOILS DATA TABLE NORTH LEGEND SITE DATA TABLE NOTES IL-251 ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ―│―│―│―│ ... . ... . . .... . .... . . . . .. . ..... ..... . .... ......... ... .. .... . . .. . . ..... . . . . . . . .... . .. . . .. . . .. .................................................................................................... ..... .. .. .. . ... ... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. ..... . . .... . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . ... . ... ... ...... . . ... . ... ...... ... ............... ..... ........... ..... . . . . . ....... ........ . ..... ............. ............. ..... ........................... ........ . ....... .. . . ........ . . ......... .. . ....... .. . . . .. . .. ... .. ... . . ... ............. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .... . ... . . ......... .. .. ..... ..... .... ...... . ..... ... .......... .. . . .. ....... ... . ........... ............ ...... . . ... ... .. .... . .. .. . ....................... ......... . ... ............ . . .. ....... .. ... ......... .... ... ......... . .. . . .. . . ..... .. . ... ....... ..... ............. .............. . .. ... .. . ... .. ... ......... ........ .... . . .. ........ ............... .... ..... ....... .. ... . .................. ......................... ........ ............... ... . .. ... .. .... .... . . .. .. .. ... . . ...... . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . ..... ...... ... . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... ... ............ . ... .. ..... ........... ....... ... ............ . .............. ....... .. .. . .. .. . .... . . ... ... . . ... . ... . .. . . .. .......... .... .. . . . . . ................ ...... .. . . . . . ... .. .. ................ . ... ..... ...... .. ... . .. ............ ... .. . . ... .. ....... ... . . . . ... .. .. ......... ... . ..... ... . .. .. . .. .. . . ... . . . . . ... . . .. . .... . . . .. .. . .. ...... .............. ...... . ........... .. ..... ...................... . . .... ....... .... . . ...... .......... ... .... ........... .............. ... . . ..... .. ... . . .. .............. .. ..... .. ............. . . ................. .... .......... . ...... ............ .. ..................... .... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... ..... . . ........... . .......... . ...... ....................... . .................. ... ....... ... ..... ............... ....... ... ...... ........ ......... ..... .... . .. . .. .... ..... ... . ... .. ............. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. ... . . ... . . .. . ... ... . . ...... ........ . ........ . . ... ......... ... ............... . ... . .................. .. . . . .. ...... . . ....... ................... ...... .. ....... ....... ...... ........ . .............. .. .... . . .... . ..... ....... . . .... . .... . .......... ..... ... ....... . . ............ .. ......... ... .. ........ .. ... ... .... . . .... ........ ................... .. . . ....... . ..... ... ..... .................... . ............ ........... ............... ..... . .. . . ... . ... . . . . . . ... .. .. .. . . . . . . .... ..... . . . .. . .... . . . . . ...... ... . ..... . . .. . ... ... ............ . . . . .... .... .. .... . . . . ... ..... .. ...... ..... .. .............. .. .... .. ...... .. .... .... . ... . . .... .. . ... . ... . ... ... ..... . . . .. .... .... ......... .... .... .. . . ....... .. . . . . ..... . ..... ... . . .. . . ...... . . .. .. ........ .. ..... .. ........ .... ... . ..... .. ......... .. .. ................ ..... . .. .... . ... . .... . . . ..... ...... .. . . ... .. . ...... ............ . ....... .... .. .. ...... ... ..... ............ ......... ........... ... .... .... ... ........... .... ........... ...... ..... ...... . ........ .... . . . .. . . ......... . ......... ............. .. . ... ... .......... .... ..... ... ............ . ...... .... .. . ... .... . ..... ..... ........ . ( ○ ( ○ &PO !" !" !" !" !" !" &PO !" ^ ^ ^ ;!-ııΙI▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n F F F F700700 70 0 700 650700700600650 65060065060065065 0 600650 650600 650600600650650650650650650600650650 6 5 0 650 65065060065 0650 650 65 0 600650 650650 600 650 650 600650650 650 700650 650 650 650600600 7006506 5 0 600650 6506506 5 0 650650650 650 6506506506006 5 0 650650 650650650650 6506506 5 0 600 6506 5 0 650 650 650650650650650 65 0 600 650 65065065065 0 600650650 650 650650 650650 650 650 6506 5 0650 650650650650 650650 650 650650700 650 700 6506 5 0 700 6 5 0 650 650 650 650650 700 7 0 0 650650 650 650 700 650650650650650650 65 0650600650 650650650650 650 650 650 700 7507506007007 0 0 700 GnatCatcherTrlSaw Wee Kee TrlVerticalVelocityTr lSTAGECOAC H T RL W A L S HDRCO HWY 1 E MITCHELL DR ANDREW ST S C H A E F E R R D W O O D V I E W S T BASELINE RD H E A T H ER LN FAIRFIELD WAY £¤30 EMILLBROOKCIRS H E T L A ND DR GALENA R D FOSTER DR THUNDER GULCH RDBASELINE RD LAKEWOODCREEKDRSIMPSONPKW Y WILLOW LNGORDON RDS E C R E TA R I AT L N K E N N EDY DR STACY CIRGALENA RD B R I AN LN AVALON LNMILLRA CELN CONCORDDRROSENWI NKE L S T DICKSON RDCANDLELIGHTCIRTROON DR ADAM AVE BRISTOL BAY DR GALENA RD BIGBE N D D R WAVER LY WAYASHE RDREBECCACIRBASELINE RD FOXMOOR DR BERTRAM DR JERICH O R D JENN A C IR W BEECHER RDPA T T E R S O N R D WHIRLAWAY LN PROVIDENCE LN £¤30 BERTRAM RDMANCHESTER DR DEERPOINT DRJERICHO R D HARTFIELD DRVENE T I A N W A YMIGHELLRD PRESCOTTDRRIVARIDGERD¬«47 E BEECHER RDPECOS CIR ¬«71 MINKLER RD¬«47 £¤30 BA RN E S RD JERICHO RD SUNCREST DR SUMMERHILL DRARBORLNMILL RD TUSCANY TRL PINERI D G E D R S ORCHARD RDGRAPEVINETRLSEELEY¬«34 M A Y F I E L D DR ORCHARDRDWILLIAM D R RIVE R W OODDRWILDWOOD DRBUCKTAILDRWOLVERINED R BEECHER RDC O R N E I L S R D JOHN ST FOX GLEN CIRR IV E R R D CHESTNU T LNC O T TONWOO D T R L ELDAMAIN RD£¤34 CO HWY 1ASPE NLNEVERGREENLNKLATTSTELDAMAINRDDEAMES ST FAXON RD KRISTENSTCU M M I NS ST FOLI ST TALLGRASS LNC O U N T R Y R D CARPENTERAVERES E R V A T I O N R D OAK CREEKDR MCLAR E N D RARBOR LNOTTER WAY P L E A S A N T V IE W D R W I L L O W W O O D DRW IL LOWWOOD DR NJETER RDBER G M ANSTMARIEST JOHN ST JETER RD JETTER RDJERICHO RDRAYMONDRDDUGAN RDPRAIRIE ST MCCANNON RDBEECHERRDAL A N DALELNEMERALD L N ERICA LN ¬«34 COHWY20 ¬«47 EDWARDLNWKE ND A LL DR W C O U N T R Y S ID E P K W Y BLACKBERRY SHORE LN WHEATO N A V E¬«47 SUMACDRCENTERPKWYBLUESTEM DR WESTERN LN NROYALOAKSDRMARKETVIEWDRE VETERANS PKWYJOHH ST BOOMERLNFAXONRDKIN G M O O R L NNBRIDGESTIROQUOIS LNCANNONBALL TRLEKENDALLDR KENNEDY RDHIGH RIDGE RDLILLIANLNHAYDENDRFA I R H AVEN DR ISABEL DRRYAN DRBRISTOL RIDGE RD ¬«34 A UTUMNCREEK B L V DW VETERANS PK W YCANNONBALL TRLWINDINGCREEKRDMCLELLANBLVDCRYDERWAYALDENAVEW RICKARD DRRICKARD DRB E R R Y W O O D L N P A R K W A Y D R HILLTO P R D GRAND E T R LOLDGLORYDRSQUIR ECIRA N N A M A R I E L N AUDREY AVEMATLOCKDREL L S WORTHDRSCHMIDT LNFIELDS DRMADELINE DRMINKLER RDLY M A N L OOPSUNDOWN LNJUSTICE DRFREEMONTSTCONO VER LN WHITEOAKWAYRIVERSIDE D ROMAHADR SBRIDGESTQUINSEY LN E PARK ST POPLAR DRHEARTLANDDR TAUS CIRHIDE AWAY LNSPRINGSTSTATE ST¬«126 E ORANGE STHEUSTIS STGAMEFARMRDTUMA R D E VAN EMMON ST E SPRING ST KELLYAVEARROWHEA D D R ¬«71LIBERTY STE MAIN ST MILL STCROOKEDCREEKDRMORGANSTWI NDHAMC I R ¬«47 E SC H O O L H O U S E R D WAL SH D RW BARB E RRYCIR WALNUT STNCARLYCIR VAN EMMON R D NORWAY CI R WACKERDRMCHUGH RDBENJAMINSTW FOX ST QUINSEYRD JACKSON ST H O M E S T E A D D R S MAIN STKENDALL CO KANE CO KENDALL CO KANE CO KANE CO KENDALL CO Jericho LakeDiversion Aurora Chainof Lakes Jericho LakeDiversionBlac k b e rry Cr B lackberryCrWelchCrBigRockCreekFox River RobRoyCrBlackberryCreek BlackberryC r Fox RiverFox RiverRob Roy CrFoxR iv e r Morgan C r Kendall CountyCourthouse Jericho Cem Doud Cem KeckMemorialCem Cowdrey Cem Elmwood Cem SaintPatricksCem Oak Grove Cem Bristol SUGAR GROVE OSWEGO BigRock PLANO AURORA YORKVILLE MONTGOMERY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 4623000mN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4610000mN 22 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8476 385000mE 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84376000mE 85 41.6250° 41.7500° -88.5000°-88.3750°41.7500° 41.6250°-88.3750°-88.5000° 19 27 36 3 21 6 33 1 30 33 34 17 10 26 26 32 29 20 6 23 1 22 35 13 12 29 25 31 9 1 24 11 30 25 8 35 4 2 28 4 34 25 32 18 16 15 27 25 5 35 7 31 14 36 2 28 1 13 36 36 24 12 QUADRANGLE LOCATION YORKVILLE QUADRANGLEILLINOIS7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY × Ø GN MN 0°57´17 MILS 3°16´58 MILS UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET CM Grid Zone Designation 16T U.S. National Grid100,000 - m Square ID ILLINOIS 1 Big Rock 8 Yorkville SE 2 Sugar Grove3 Aurora North4 Plano5 Aurora South6 Newark7 Plattville ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 3 87 1 54 6 2 Imagery.....................................................NAIP, August 2019 - August 2019Roads......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2017Names............................................................................GNIS, 1980 - 2021Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 2003 - 2018Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2019Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2018 - 2019Public Land Survey System................................................BLM, 2020Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory Not Available North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T Produced by the United States Geological Survey This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may begeneralized for this map scale. Private lands within governmentreservations may not be shown. Obtain permission beforeentering private lands. This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEETNORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 1 0.5 0 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET YORKVILLE, IL 2021 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./*7643016365942*NSN.7643016365942NGA REF NO.USGSX24K50144 NATURAL RESOURCE INFORMATION (NRI) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT: #2212 Aug. 2022 Petitioner: TPE IL KE106, LLC Contact: TPE IL KE106, LLC Prepared By: 7775A Route 47 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Phone: (630) 553-5821 x3 Fax: (630) 553-7442 www.kendallswcd.org NRI 2212 August 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 2 SOIL INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................. 2 SOIL LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 5 KENDALL COUNTY LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) .............................................. 10 WETLANDS .......................................................................................................................................... 11 FLOODPLAIN ........................................................................................................................................ 12 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL ................................................................................................... 12 LAND USE FINDINGS................................................................................................................................ 13 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Soil Map ………………………………..……………………..……………………………………………………..………………… 2 FIGURE 2: Soil Limitations …………..……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………. 5 FIGURE 3A-3C: Maps of Building Limitations ……………………………………………..…………………….………..……….. 7-9 FIGURE 4: Wetland Map – USFWS National Wetland Inventory …………………………………..…..….……….………. 11 FIGURE 5: FEMA Floodplain Map …………………………………………………………………………..……………………………… 12 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Soils Information ……………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….. 2 TABLE 2: Water Features …………………………………..…………………………………………….………………………...………….. 3 TABLE 3: Building Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………….. 6 TABLE 4: Land Evaluation Computation ……………………………………………………..……………….…..…………..………. 10 NRI 2212 August 2022 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Natural Resource Information Report Number #2212 Petitioner TPE IL KE106, LLC Contact Person TPE IL KE106, LLC County or Municipality the Petition is Filed With City of Yorkville Location of Parcel SE & SW ¼ of Section 10, Township 37 North, Range 7 East (Bristol Township) of the 3rd Principal Meridian Project or Subdivision Name TPE IL KE106, LLC Solar Development Existing Zoning & Land Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development; Agricultural field Proposed Zoning & Land Use R-2, R-3 PUD Residential Planned Unit Development Special Use; Freestanding Solar Energy System Proposed Water Source N/A Proposed Type of Sewage Disposal System N/A Proposed Type of Storm Water Management Specifics not provided Size of Site (+/-) 41.84 Land Evaluation Site Assessment Score Land Evaluation: 93; Site Assessment: N/A NRI 2212 August 2022 2 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Figure 1: Soil Map SOIL INFORMATION Based on information from the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 2008 Kendall County Soil Survey, this parcel is shown to contain the following soil types (please note this does not replace the need for or results of onsite soil testing; if completed, please refer to onsite soil test results for planning/engineering purposes): Table 1: Soils Information Map Unit Soil Name Drainage Class Hydrologic Group Hydric Designation Farmland Designation 149A Brenton silt loam, 0-2% slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained B/D Non-Hydric, Hydric Inclusions Likely Prime Farmland 206A Thorp silt loam, 0-2% slopes Poorly Drained C/D Hydric Prime Farmland if Drained 325A Dresden silt loam, 0-2% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland 325B Dresden silt loam, 2-4% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland 369A Waupecan silt loam, 0-2% slopes Well Drained B Non-Hydric Prime Farmland NRI 2212 August 2022 3 Hydrologic Soil Groups – Soils have been classified into four (A, B, C, D) hydrologic groups based on runoff characteristics due to rainfall. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second letter is for undrained areas. • Hydrologic group A: Soils have a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. • Hydrologic group B: Soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet, consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have a moderately fine to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Hydrologic group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. • Hydrologic group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Hydric Soils – A hydric soil is one that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile that supports the growth or regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils with hydric inclusions have map units dominantly made up of non-hydric soils that may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landscape. Of the soils found onsite, one is classified as hydric soil (206A Thorp silt loam), three are classified as non-hydric soil (325A & 325B Dresden silt loam and 369A Waupecan silt loam), and one is classified as non-hydric soil with hydric inclusions likely (149A Brenton silt loam). Prime Farmland – Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for agricultural production. Prime farmland soils are an important resource to Kendall County and some of the most productive soils in the United States occur locally. Of the soils found onsite, four are designated as prime farmland (149A Brenton silt loam, 325A & 325B Dresden silt loam, and 369A Waupecan silt loam) and one is designated as prime farmland if drained (206A Thorp silt loam). Soil Water Features – Table 2, below, gives estimates of various soil water features that should be taken into consideration when reviewing engineering for a land use project. Table 2: Water Features Map Unit Hydrologic Group Surface Runoff Water Table Ponding Flooding 149A B/D Low January - May Upper Limit: 1.0’-2.0’ Lower Limit: 6.0’ June – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None NRI 2212 August 2022 4 Map Unit Hydrologic Group Surface Runoff Water Table Ponding Flooding 206A C/D Negligible January - May Upper Limit: 0.0’-1.0’ Lower Limit: 6.0’ June – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – May Surface Water Depth: 0.0’-0.5’ Duration: Brief (2 to 7 days) Frequency: Frequent June – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 325A B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: -- January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 325B B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: None January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None 369A B Low January – December Upper Limit: -- Lower Limit: -- January – December Surface Water Depth: -- Duration: -- Frequency: None January – December Duration: -- Frequency: None Surface Runoff – Refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based upon slope, climate and vegetative cover and indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions (it is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal). The surface runoff classes are identified as: negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. Months – The portion of the year in which a water table, ponding, and/or flooding is most likely to be a concern. Water Table – Water table refers to a saturated zone in the soil and the data indicates, by month, depth to the top (upper limit) and base (lower limit) of the saturated zone in most years. These estimates are based upon observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone (grayish colors or mottles (redoximorphic features)) in the soil. Note: A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table. Ponding – Ponding is standing water in a closed depression. Unless a drainage system is installed, the water is removed only by percolation, transpiration, or evaporation. Duration is expressed as very brief (less than 2 days), brief (2 to 7 days), long (7 to 30 days), very long (more than 30 days). Frequency is expressed as none (ponding is not probable), rare (unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions), occasional (occurs, on average, once or less in 2 years) and frequent (occurs, on average, more than once in 2 years). NRI 2212 August 2022 5 Flooding – Temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding. Duration is expressed as brief (2 to 7 days) and frequent meaning that it is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions. SOIL LIMITATIONS According to the USDA-NRCS, soil properties influence the development of sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction and maintenance. This report gives ratings for proposed uses in terms of limitations and restrictive features. The tables list only the most restrictive features. Ratings are based on the soil in an undisturbed state, that is, no unusual modification occurs other than that which is considered normal practice for the rated use. Even though soils may have limitations, an engineer may alter soil features or adjust building plans for a structure to compensate for most degrees of limitations. The final decision in selecting a site for a particular use generally involves weighing the costs for site preparation and maintenance. • Not Limited: Indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use; good performance and low maintenance can be expected. • Somewhat Limited: Indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation; fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. • Very Limited: Indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures; poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Limitations are listed below for solar arrays (soil-based and ballast anchor systems), shallow excavations, lawns/landscaping, and local roads & streets. Please note this information is based on soils in an undisturbed state as compiled for the USDA-NRCS 2008 Soil Survey of Kendall County, IL and the Kendall County Subdivision Control Ordinance; this does not replace the need for site specific soil testing or results of onsite soil testing. Figure 2: Soil Limitations 0 20 40 60 80 100 Solar Arrays, Soil- Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns & Landscaping Local Roads & Streets % OF SOIL TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT SOIL LIMITATIONS Not Limited Somewhat Limited Very Limited NRI 2212 August 2022 6 Table 3: Building Limitations Soil Type Solar Arrays, Soil-Based Anchor Systems Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems Shallow Excavations Lawns & Landscaping Local Roads & Streets Acres % 149A Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Depth to saturated zone Hillslope position Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Depth to saturated zone Hillslope position Very Limited: Depth to saturated zone Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Depth to saturated zone Dusty Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Depth to saturated zone Shrink-swell 12.7 30.3% 206A Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Slope shape across Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Dusty Unstable excavation walls Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Dusty Very Limited: Ponding Depth to saturated zone Frost action Low strength Shrink-swell 0.8 1.9% 325A Somewhat Limited: Steel corrosion Frost action Hillslope position Shrink-swell Low strength Somewhat Limited: Frost action Hillslope position Low strength Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Somewhat Limited: Frost action Shrink-swell Low strength 2.3 5.6% 325B Somewhat Limited: Steel corrosion Frost action Hillslope position Slope shape across Shrink-swell Somewhat Limited: Frost action Hillslope position Slope shape across Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Somewhat Limited: Frost action Shrink-swell 4.8 11.6% 369A Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Steel corrosion Hillslope position Shrink-swell Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Hillslope position Somewhat Limited: Dusty Unstable excavation walls Somewhat Limited: Dusty Very Limited: Frost action Low strength Shrink-swell 21.1 50.5% % Very Limited 82.7% 82.7% 32.2% 1.9% 82.7% NRI 2212 August 2022 7 NRI Report 2212 Map of Building Limitations: Solar Arrays (Soil-Based & Ballast Anchor Systems) and Local Roads & Streets (Paved & Unpaved) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: SE & SW ¼ Sec. 10, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 3A: Map of Building Limitations – Solar Arrays (Soil-Based & Ballast Anchor Systems) and Lawns & Landscaping NRI 2212 August 2022 8 NRI Report 2212 Map of Building Limitations: Shallow Excavations Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: SE & SW ¼ Sec. 10, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 3B: Map of Building Limitations – Shallow Excavations NRI 2212 August 2022 9 NRI Report 2212 Map of Building Limitations: Lawns/Landscaping Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Location: SE & SW ¼ Sec. 10, T.37N-R.7E (Bristol Township) Legend Figure 3C: Map of Building Limitations – Lawns/Landscaping NRI 2212 August 2022 10 KENDALL COUNTY LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) Decision-makers in Kendall County use the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to determine the suitability of a land use change and/or a zoning request as it relates to agricultural land. The LESA system was developed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) and takes into consideration local conditions such as physical characteristics of the land, compatibility of surrounding land-uses, and urban growth factors. The LESA system is a two-step procedure that includes: • Land Evaluation (LE): The soils of a given area are rated and placed in groups ranging from the best to worst suited for a stated agriculture use, cropland, or forestland. The best group is assigned a value of 100 and all other groups are assigned lower values. The Land Evaluation value accounts for 1/3 of the total score and is based on data from the Kendall County Soil Survey. The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. • Site Assessment (SA): The site is numerically evaluated according to important factors that contribute to the quality of the site. Each factor selected is assigned values in accordance with the local needs and objectives. The Site Assessment value is based on a 200-point scale and accounts for 2/3 of the total score. The Kendall County LESA Committee is responsible for this portion of the LESA system. Please Note: A land evaluation (LE) score will be compiled for every project parcel. However, when a parcel is located within municipal planning boundaries, a site assessment (SA) score is not compiled as the scoring factors are not applicable. As a result, only the LE score is available, and a full LESA score is unavailable for the parcel. Table 4: Land Evaluation Computation Soil Type Value Group Relative Value Acres Product (Relative Value x Acres) 149A 1 100 12.7 1,270.0 206A 3 87 0.8 69.6 325A 4 79 2.3 181.7 325B 4 79 4.8 379.2 369A 2 94 21.1 1,983.4 Totals 41.8 3,883.9 LE Calculation (Product of relative value / Total Acres) 3,883.9 / 41.8 = 92.9 LE Score LE = 93 The Land Evaluation score for this site is 93, indicating that this site is currently designated as land that is well suited for agricultural uses considering the Land Evaluation score is above 80. The full LESA Score is unavailable for the proposed project site since it is within municipal planning boundaries. However, the Land Evaluation score for this site is 93, indicating that the site is well suited for agricultural uses. Note: Selecting the project site with the lowest total points will generally protect the best farmland located in the most viable areas and maintain and promote the agricultural industry in Kendall County. If the project is agricultural in nature, however, a higher score may provide an indication of the suitability of the project as it relates to the compatibility with existing agricultural land use. NRI 2212 August 2022 11 WETLANDS The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory map indicates that mapped wetlands/waters are not present on the proposed project site. To determine if a wetland is present, a wetland delineation specialist, who is recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, should determine the exact boundaries and value of the wetlands. Figure 4: Wetland Map – USFWS National Wetland Inventory NRI 2212 August 2022 12 FLOODPLAIN The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for Kendall County, Community Panel No. 17093C0035H (effective date January 8, 2014) was reviewed to determine the presence of floodplain and floodway areas within the project site. According to the map, the parcel is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. It is mapped as Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. Figure 5: FEMA Floodplain Map SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Development on this site should include an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Soil erosion on construction sites is a resource concern because suspended sediment from areas undergoing development is a primary nonpoint source of water pollution. Please consult the Illinois Urban Manual (https://illinoisurbanmanual.org/) for appropriate best management practices. NRI 2212 August 2022 LAND USE FINDINGS The Kendall County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD} Board has reviewed the proposed site plans for Petitioner TPE IL KE106, LLC. The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Permit on one parcel (Parcel Index Number 02- 10-300-017} to construct a freestanding solar energy system within Bristol Township of Kendall County located in the SE and SW¼ of Section 10, Township 37N, and Rage 7E of the 3rd Principal Meridian. TPE IL submitted this project (TPE IL KE106} for review in conjunction with another solar project (TPE IL KElOS} on a nearby parcel (Parcel Index Number 02-15-126-004). Both projects were reviewed by Kendall County SWCD. A full NRI report was prepared for project TPE IL KElOS (NRI Report 2211}. Since much of the soils and natural resources information for this project were similar to project TPE IL KEl0S, it was determined that an Executive Summary Report was appropriate. Please reference NRI Report 2211 for additional natural resources information. Based on the information provided by the petitioner and a review of natural resource related data available to the Kendall County SWCD, the SWCD Board presents the following information. The Kendall County SWCD has always had the opinion that Prime Farmland should be preserved whenever feasible. Of the soils found onsite, all are designated as prime farmland. A land evaluation (LE}, which is a part of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA}, was conducted on this parcel. The soils on this parcel scored a 93 out of a possible 100 points indicating that the soils are well suited for agricultural uses. A site assessment (SA} was not completed on this parcel. When a parcel is located within municipal planning boundaries, a site assessment score is not compiled as the scoring factors are not applicable. Soils found on the project site are rated for specific uses and can have potential limitations for development. Soil types with severe limitations do not preclude the ability to develop the site for the proposed use, but it is important to note the limitation that may require soil reclamation, special design/engineering, or maintenance to obtain suitable soil conditions to support development with significant limitations. This report indicates that for soils located on the parcel, 83% are very limited for solar arrays (soil-based & ballast anchor systems} and local roads/streets (paved & unpaved}, 32% are very limited for shallow excavations, and 2% are very limited for lawns/landscaping. The remaining land has soils that are considered somewhat limited for these types of developments/uses. This information is based on the soil in an undisturbed state. If the scope of the project may include the use of onsite septic systems, please consult with the Kendall County Health Department. This site is located within the Fox River Watershed and the East Run - Blackberry Creek sub watershed. This development should include a soil erosion and sediment control plan to be implemented during construction. Sediment may become a primary non-point source of pollution; eroded soils during the construction phase can create unsafe conditions on roadways, degrade water quality and destroy aquatic ecosystems lower in the watershed. For intense use it is recommended that a drainage tile survey be completed on the parcel to locate subsurface drainage tile. That survey should be taken into consideration during the land use planning process. Drainage tile expedites drainage and facilitates farming. It is imperative that these drainage tiles remain undisturbed. Impaired tile may affect a few acres or hundreds of acres of drainage. The information that is included in this Natural Resources Information Report is to assure that the Land Developers take into full consideration the limitations of the land that they wish to develop. Guidelines and recommendations are also a part of this report and should be considered in the planning process. The Natural Resource Information Report is required by the Illinois Soil and Water Conservation District Act (Ill. Complied Statues, Ch. 70, Par 405/22.02a}. 13 August 9, 2022 TPE IL KE106, LLC 3720 S. Dahlia St. Denver, CO 80237 Dear Petitioner, The Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) completed a Natural Resource Information (NRI) Executive Summary Report #2212 for a Special Use Permit request with the City of Yorkville, IL to construct a freestanding solar energy system. The proposed solar facility is located on one parcel (Parcel Index Number 02-10-300-017) in the SE and SW ¼ of Section 10, Township 37N, and Range 7E of Bristol Township in Kendall County, IL. This project (TPE IL KE106) was submitted for review in conjunction with solar project TPE IL KE105, which is located on a nearby parcel to the south (Parcel Index Number 02-15-126-004). Both projects were reviewed by Kendall County SWCD. A full NRI report was prepared for project TPE IL KE105 (NRI Report #2211). Since much of the soils and natural resources information for this project were similar to project TPE IL KE105, it was determined that an Executive Summary Report was appropriate. Please reference NRI Report #2211 for additional natural resources information. Copies of NRI Executive Summary Report #2212 have been provided to the City of Yorkville’s Zoning Department and Bristol Township. Attached please find a copy of the NRI Executive Summary Report and payment receipt for $1,041.00. We received your payment by mail. The fee for an Executive Summary Report is $300.00. As a result, a refund payment of $741.00 has been mailed to you at the address provided. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (630) 553-5821 extension 3 or email Alyse.Olson@il.nacdnet.net. Sincerely, Alyse Olson Resource Conservationist Enclosures 7775A Route 47, Yorkville, Illinois 60560 ● (630)553-5821 extension 3 www.kendallswcd.org NRI Receipt Date 8/8/2022 NRI No. 2212 Applicant TPE IL KE106, LLC 3720 S. Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 Contact TPE IL KE106, LLC Attn: Scott Osborn 3720 S. Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 Kendall County Soil & Water Conservation District Check No. 487 Payment Method Check Total 7775A Route 47 Yorkville, IL 60560 Phone: 630.553.5821 ext.3 Fax: 630.553.7442 alyse.olson@il.nacdnet.net Item Project Name Acres Additional Acres Rate Amount NRI Executive Summary NRI Executive Summary Fee TPE IL KE106, LLC (Executive Summary Report Only; Full Fee Paid, Refund Due $741) 300.00 300.00 $300.00 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 11 APPENDIX I – MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS Up to 6% Using TrueCapture Smart Control System Best-in Class Software Ecosystem and Global Services 35 GW Delivered on 5 Continents 5 years in a row Global Market Share Leader (2015-18) Features and Benefits Flexible and Resilient by Design With its self-aligning module rails and vibration-proof fasteners, NX Horizon can be easily and rapidly installed. The self-powered, decentralized architecture allows each row to be commissioned in advance of site power, and is designed to withstand high winds and other adverse weather conditions. On a recent 838 megawatt project in Villanueva, Mexico, these design features allowed for the project to go online nine months ahead of schedule. TrueCapture and Bifacial Enabled Incorporating the most promising innovations in utility scale solar, NX Horizon with TrueCapture™ smart control system can add additional energy production by up to six percent. Further unlocking the advantages of independent-row architecture and the data collected from thousands of sensors across its built-in wireless network, the software continuously optimizes the tracking algorithm of each row in response to site terrain and changing weather conditions. NX Horizon can also be paired with bifacial PV module technology, which can provide even more energy harvest and performance. With bifacial technology, NX Horizon outperforms conventional tracking systems with over 1% more annual energy. Quality and Reliability from Day One Quality and reliability are designed and tested into every NX Horizon component and system across our supply chain and manufacturing operations. Nextracker is the leader in dynamic wind analysis and safety stowing, delivering major benefits in uptime and long-term durability NX Horizon is certified to UL 2703 and UL 3703 standards, underscoring Nextracker’s commitment to safety, reliability and quality. Serving as the backbone on over 35 gigawatts of solar power plants around the world, the NX Horizon™ smart solar tracker system combines best-in-class hardware and software to help EPCs and asset owners maximize performance and minimize operational costs. NX Horizon Smart Solar Tracking System nextracker.com INSTALLATION, OPERATIONS AND SERVICE PE stamped structural calculations and drawings Included Onsite training and system commissioning Included Installation requirements Simple assembly using swaged fasteners and bolted connections. No field cutting, drilling or welding. Monitoring NX Data Hub™ centralized data aggregation and monitoring Module cleaning compatibility Compatible with NX qualified cleaning systems Warranty 10-year structural, 5-year drive and control components. Codes and standards UL 3703 / UL 2703 / IEC 62817 ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS Solar tracking method Astronomical algorithm with backtracking. TrueCapture™ upgrades available for terrain adaptive backtracking and diffuse tracking mode Control electronics NX tracker controller with inbuilt inclinometer and backup battery Communications Zigbee wireless communications to all tracker rows and weather stations via network control units (NCUs) Nighttime stow Yes Power supply SELF POWERED: NX provided 30 or 60W Smart Panel AC POWERED: Customer-provided 120-240 VAC circut GENERAL AND MECHANICAL Tracking type Horizontal single-axis, independent row. String voltage 1,500 VDC or 1,000 VDC Typical row size 78-90 modules, depending on module string length. Drive type Non-backdriving, high accuracy slew gear. Motor type 24 V brushless DC motor Array height Rotation axis elevation 1.3 to 1.8 m / 4'3" to 5'10" Ground coverage ratio (GCR)Configurable. Typical range 28-50%. Modules supported Mounting options available for virtually all utility-scale crystalline modules, First Solar Series 6 and First Solar Series 4. Bifacial features High-rise mounting rails, bearing + driveline gaps and round torque tube. Tracking range of motion Options for ±60° or ±50° Operating temperature range SELF POWERED: -30°C to 55°C (-22°F to 131°F) AC POWERED: -40°C to 55°C (-40°F to 131°F) Module configuration 1 in portrait. 3 x 1,500 V or 4 x 1,000 V strings per standard tracker. Partial length trackers available. Module attachment Self-grounding, electric tool-actuated fasteners. Materials Galvanized steel Allowable wind speed Configurable up to 225 kph (140 mph) 3-second gust Wind protection Intelligent wind stowing with symmetric dampers for maximum array stability in all wind conditions Foundations Standard W6 section foundation posts © Nextracker Inc. Contents subject to change without notice. 6200 Paseo Padre Parkway | Fremont, CA 94555 | USA | +1 510 270 2500 | nextracker.com Nextracker NX Horizon MKT-000060-C Technical Data 100/125kW, 1500Vdc String Inverters for North America The 100 & 125kW high power CPS three phase string inverters are designed for ground mount applications. The units are high performance, advanced and reliable inverters designed specifically for the North American environment and grid. High efficiency at 99.1% peak and 98.5% CEC, wide operating voltages, broad temperature ranges and a NEMA Type 4X enclosure enable this inverter platform to operate at high performance across many applications. The CPS 100/125kW products ship with the Standard or Centralized Wire-box, each fully integrated and separable with AC and DC disconnect switches. The Standard Wire-box includes touch safe fusing for up to 20 strings. The CPS FlexOM Gateway enables communication, controls and remote product upgrades. NFPA 70, NEC 2014 and 2017 compliant Touch safe DC Fuse holders adds convenience and safety CPS FlexOM Gateway enables remote FW upgrades Integrated AC & DC disconnect switches 1 MPPT with 20 fused inputs for maximum flexibility Copper and Aluminum compatible AC connections Key Features Datasheet CPS SCH100/125KTL-DO/US-600 100/125KTL Centralized Wire-box CHINT POWER SYSTEMS AMERICA 2021/10-MKT NA Chint Power Systems America 6800 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 235 Pleasanton, CA 94566Tel: 855-584-7168 Mail: AmericaSales@chintpower.com Web: www.chintpowersystems.com NEMA Type 4X outdoor rated, tough tested enclosure Advanced Smart-Grid features (CA Rule 21 certified) kVA Headroom yields 100kW @ 0.9PF and 125kW @ 0.95PF Generous 1.87 and 1.5 DC/AC Inverter Load Ratios Separable wire-box design for fast service Standard 5 year warranty with extensions to 20 years 100/125KTL Standard Wire-box Technical Data Model Name CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 CPS SCH125KTL-DO/US-600 Max. PV Power Max. DC Input Voltage Operating DC Input Voltage Range Start-up DC Input Voltage / Power Number of MPP Trackers MPPT Voltage Range1 Max. PV Input Current (Isc x1.25) Number of DC Inputs DC Disconnection Type DC Surge Protection Rated AC Output Power 100kW 125kW Max. AC Output Power2 100kVA (111KVA @ PF>0.9)125kVA (132KVA @ PF>0.95) Rated Output Voltage Output Voltage Range3 Grid Connection Type4 Max. AC Output Current @600Vac 96.2/106.8A 120.3/127.0A Rated Output Frequency Output Frequency Range3 Power Factor >0.99 (±0.8 adjustable)>0.99 (±0.8 adjustable) Current THD Max. Fault Current Contribution (1-cycle RMS) Max. OCPD Rating AC Disconnection Type AC Surge Protection Topology Max. Efficiency CEC Efficiency Stand-by / Night Consumption Enclosure Protection Degree Cooling Method Operating Temperature Range Non-Operating Temperature Range 5 Operating Humidity Operating Altitude Audible Noise User Interface and Display Inverter Monitoring Site Level Monitoring Modbus Data Mapping Remote Diagnostics / FW Upgrade Functions Dimensions (WxHxD) Weight Mounting / Installation Angle AC Termination DC Termination Fused String Inputs Safety and EMC Standard Selectable Grid Standard Smart-Grid Features Standard6 Extended Terms 1) See user manual for further information regarding MPPT Voltage Range when operating at non-unity PF 2) "Max. AC Apparent Power" rating valid within MPPT voltage range and temperature range of -30°C to +40°C (-22°F to +104°F) for 100KW PF >0.9 and 125KW PF >0.95 3) The "Output Voltage Range" and "Output Frequency Range" may differ according to the specific grid standard. 4) Wye neutral-grounded, Delta may not be corner-grounded. 5) See user manual for further requirements regarding non-operating conditions. 6) 5 year warranty effective for units purchased after October 1st, 2019. 187.5kW 275A UL1741-SA-2016, CSA-C22.2 NO.107.1-01, IEEE1547a-2014; FCC PART15 Warranty 45.28x24.25x9.84in (1150x616x250mm) with Standard Wire-box 39.37x24.25x9.84in (1000x616x250mm) with Centralized Wire-box Inverter: 121lbs / 55kg; Wire-box: 55lbs / 25kg (Standard Wire-box); 33lbs / 15kg (Centralized Wire-box) Screw Clamp Fuse Holder (Wire range: #12 - #6AWG CU) - Standard Wire-box Busbar, M10 Bolts (Wire range: #1AWG - 500kcmil CU/AL [1 termination per pole], #1AWG - 300kcmil CU/AL [2 terminations per pole], Lugs not supplied) - Centralized Wire-box 20A fuses provided (Fuse values up to 30A acceptable) Display and Communication Mechanical M10 Stud Type Terminal [3Φ] (Wire range:1/0AWG - 500kcmil CU/AL, Lugs not supplied) Screw Clamp Terminal Block [N] (#12 - 1/0AWG CU/AL) -40°F to +158°F / -40°C to +70°C maximum <3% Load-rated AC switch Transformerless 99.1% Load-rated DC switch Type II MOV (with indicator/remote signaling), Up=2.5kV, In=20kA (8/20uS) 10, 15 and 20 years 5 years Safety IEEE 1547a-2014, CA Rule 21, ISO-NE Volt-RideThru, Freq-RideThru, Ramp-Rate, Specified-PF, Volt-VAr, Freq-Watt, Volt-Watt -22°F to +140°F / -30°C to +60°C (derating from +108°F / +42°C) AC Output System Environment <4W 60Hz 57-63Hz Type II MOV (with indicator/remote signaling), Up=2.5kV, In=20kA (8/20uS) 600Vac 528-660Vac 3Φ / PE / N (Neutral optional) 98.5% NEMA Type 4X Variable speed cooling fans 41.47A 200A 20 PV source circuits, pos. & neg. fused (Standard Wire-box) 1 PV output circuit, 1-2 terminations per pole, non-fused (Centralized Wire-box) DC Input 15 - 90 degrees from horizontal (vertical or angled) 1500V 860-1450Vdc 900V / 250W 1 LED Indicators, WiFi + APP 870-1300Vdc <65dBA@1m and 25°C CPS FlexOM Gateway (1 per 32 inverters) SunSpec/CPS Standard / (with FlexOM Gateway) Modbus RS485 8202ft / 2500m (no derating) 0-100% Application for Special Use Permit | Page 12 APPENDIX J – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Operations & Maintenance ("O&M") Plan [TPE IL KE106 LLC] O&M Plan / O&M Practices and Services The O&M plan is structured to both maximize system performance and meet all permitting requirements. Regional O&M staff and seasonal staff will be assigned to perform: 1. Preventative maintenance, 2. Corrective maintenance, and 3. Support of monitoring and asset management services. A summary scope of work for each is as follows: Preventative Maintenance ·Industry standard of care to ensure and maintain solar production levels ·Regular maintenance on project components per manufacturer recommendations and industry best practices and standards of care ·Module cleanings are not expected given the average monthly rainfall in the area. If cleaning is required, modules will be cleaned to ensure project performance. ·Vegetation abatement as required to ensure project performance ·Primary component inspection on an annual basis (panels, inverter, high voltage equipment) o Array & balance of system inspection o Module visual inspection o Data Acquisition System (DAS) & Meteorological (MET) station inspection o Inverter full inspection o High voltage equipment inspections ·Mechanical & electrical maintenance on an annual basis including inverter maintenance per manufacturer warranty requirements and standards of care ·Yearly inspection and maintenance as needed for roads, storm water, and other site civil features Corrective Maintenance ·Remote problem diagnosis & qualification via the project SCADA system ·On-site technician dispatch: Trained, qualified and insured service techs utilized for rapid response ·Warranty submittal/claims notification, tracking of replacement parts’ arrival/storage/ installation, etc. ·Maintenance ticket updates and closure identifying root cause/problem resolution reporting to owner Monitoring ·Remote equipment monitoring (24x7x365) via SCADA system ·Remote dispatch per customer/owner requirements ·Ticketing: Create and dispatch automated ticketing with issue resolution notifications and root cause reporting ·Problem tracking and ensured resolution reporting included within monthly report ·Identify potential and actual underperformance issues; recommend remedies ·Customized data analysis and alerts for customer: o Collection and hosting of system monitoring data o Owner access to online portal monitoring and production with weather data o Operator to host site communication and fees for monitoring Monitoring and asset management services are provided by the late-stage development company’s remote operation center and central services staff. Plan and Timeline for Responding to Loss of Major Plant Components O&M personnel will be notified of any loss of major plant component or related failures by the 7x24 remote operations center. This center will dispatch onsite technicians for system critical failures (inverter, transformer, or tracker motor failure). The plan for such losses is to: ·Remove and replace the failed equipment with spare parts, nearby parts in inventory or emergency delivery of parts from manufacturer as rapidly as possible. ·Diagnose reason for failure. ·Work with general contractor and/or manufacturers for any warranty or related claims. Compliance with Prudent Utility Practices All O&M practices follow Prudent Utility Practices with the utmost focus on safety. As a part of all O&M contracts with vendors, contractors, and sub-contractors, our team will ensure that these companies are responsible for the safe performance of work and for the safety of its, and its subcontractors’, employees, representatives, agents and invitees of contractor or its subcontractors at and around the project site, or any other person who enters the project site for any purpose. To facilitate this, all contractors must provide a safety plan whereby contractor maintains responsibility for maintaining all safety precautions and measures for areas on and around the project site. As part of this safety plan, contractor must provide a safe working environment at the project site during the performance of the work, and shall, among other requirements, seek to minimize the number of safety-related incidents during the performance of the work (with both TPE’s and contractor’s mutual objective of zero lost time accidents). Such safety plan shall include requirements for the safety prequalification of each subcontractor and a drug and alcohol program (which shall include a drug testing policy). Furthermore, the safety plan shall meet the requirements of applicable laws and applicable standards. After the commencement of work, TPE and contractor shall periodically review safety compliance, particularly in light of any injuries or near-miss incidents that may arise through the performance of the work and cooperate jointly to develop necessary changes to the safety plan in light of such circumstances, if any. The safety plan shall apply to all individuals accessing the project site and performing work on the project. As part of the safety plan, a safety representative will be identified with the necessary qualifications and experience to supervise the implementation of, and monitoring of compliance with, the safety plan. The safety representative shall make routine inspections of the project site and shall hold regular safety meetings with contractor’s personnel, subcontractors and others. Each staff member undergoes personal background checks, qualifies as possessing safety and related solar skills training required, or shall gain this training from an approved O&M training program prior to starting work on the job site. The contractor shall make the site safety plan available to local authorities having jurisdiction/permitting authorities (AHJs) during the construction process, upon request. The safety plan should include provisions for the management of site access, traffic management, road maintenance, and site security. Emergency Response The site owner shall provide an emergency response plan to the AHJs prior to commercial operation of the facility, if required by the local AHJs. The site owner shall provide an education training session to county representatives and first responders prior to commercial operation of the facility, if required by the local AHJs. The site owner shall provide a means and procedure for site access in coordination with the local AHJs. Equipment Manufacturer Recommendations The O&M plan referenced above complies with or exceeds all standard utility-scale PV equipment manufacturer recommendations. We can provide copies of all major equipment O&M recommendations prior to formal procurement as needed. Mowing and Weed Management A comprehensive vegetation management plan shall be implemented and followed for the duration of the project life. A mowing schedule shall be established based on the plant species in the seed mix that is properly timed to balance avoiding the disturbance of wildlife and native vegetation with the need to avoid the establishment of weeds. Vegetation underneath and between the solar panels should be well maintained in the defined lease area to keep vegetation below the low edge of the solar panels at maximum tilt angle. Management should comply with any local ordinances or conditions of approval. Mowing and weed whacking schedules will be adjusted from time to time to allow for flexibility based on rainfall and vegetation growth. Chemical control shall be used in accordance with the Illinois noxious weed regulations. Buffer Management Vegetative Buffers should be inspected during maintenance visits to ensure compliance with local ordinances or conditions of approval. Tree health and growth should be assessed and promoted to ensure compliance with local ordinances. Warranties All warranties are managed and handled at the project company level and are the responsibility of the late-stage development company that will operate and own the project over its useful life. Manufacturers of major equipment including modules, inverters, racking and transformers provide equipment warranties for the life of their products. Outage Schedules All planned shutdown of equipment for routine maintenance will be planned and coordinated with the local utility. When possible, these outages will occur in non-solar producing hours (nighttime). As such, no planned outages are scheduled. Spare Parts As part of the installation of the project, spare parts may be procured and stored with the O&M service provider for faster access to parts when necessary. This may include spare modules, inverters, parts, tracker components, fuses, wire and related inventory. Additionally, along with the warranty of the equipment, we expect to gain committed response intervals from manufacturers to address equipment replacement requirements. Spare parts will not be stored on site, rather, they will be stored off site in the O&M provider’s facilities. Start-up / Ramp-up Requirements / Times The PV solar plant starts up as the sun rises in the morning and ramps down as the sun sets in the evening. We can provide specific historical times for the location of our solar array as a means of working to optimize this generation asset. Application for Special Use Permit | Page 13 APPENDIX K – TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS PLAN TPE IL KE106, LLC©TRANSPORTATIONAND ACCESS PLANNORTH Application for Special Use Permit | Page 14 APPENDIX L – INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT Project Number: 1 STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR INTERCONNECTION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION FACILITIES WITH A CAPACITY LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10 MVA This agreement (together with all attachments, the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 7th day of October, 2022, by and between TPE IL KE106, LLC (“interconnection customer”), as a Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and Commonwealth Edison Company, (“Electric Distribution Company” or “EDC”), a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. Interconnection customer and EDC each may be referred to as a “Party”, or collectively as the “Parties”. Recitals: Whereas, interconnection customer is proposing to install or direct the installation of a distributed generation facility or is proposing a generating capacity addition to an existing distributed generation facility, consistent with the interconnection request application form completed by interconnection customer on 6/24/2022; and Whereas, the interconnection customer will operate and maintain, or cause the operation and maintenance of, the distributed generation facility; and Whereas, interconnection customer desires to interconnect the distributed generation facility with EDC's electric distribution system. Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties covenant and agree as follows: Article 1. Scope and Limitations of Agreement 1.1 This Agreement shall be used for all approved interconnection requests for distributed generation facilities that fall under Levels 2, 3 and 4 according to the procedures set forth in Part 466 of the Commission's rules (83 Ill. Adm. Code 466) (referred to as the Illinois Distributed Generation Interconnection Standard). 1.2 This Agreement governs the terms and conditions under which the distributed generation facility will interconnect to, and operate in parallel with, the EDC's electric distribution system. 1.3 This Agreement does not constitute an agreement to purchase or deliver the interconnection customer's power. Project Number: 2 1.4 Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect any other agreement between the EDC and the interconnection customer. 1.5 Terms used in this agreement are defined as in Section 466.30 of the Illinois Distributed Generation Interconnection Standard unless otherwise noted. 1.6 Responsibilities of the Parties 1.6.1 The Parties shall perform all obligations of this Agreement in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 1.6.2 The EDC shall construct, own, operate, and maintain its interconnection facilities in accordance with this Agreement. 1.6.3 The interconnection customer shall construct, own, operate, and maintain its distributed generation facility and interconnection facilities in accordance with this Agreement. 1.6.4 Each Party shall operate, maintain, repair, and inspect, and shall be fully responsible for, the facilities that it now or subsequently may own unless otherwise specified in the attachments to this Agreement. Each Party shall be responsible for the safe installation, maintenance, repair and condition of its respective lines and appurtenances on its respective sides of the point of interconnection. 1.6.5 The interconnection customer agrees to design, install, maintain and operate its distributed generation facility so as to minimize the likelihood of causing an adverse system impact on the electric distribution system or any other electric system that is not owned or operated by the EDC. 1.7 Parallel Operation Obligations Once the distributed generation facility has been authorized to commence parallel operation, the interconnection customer shall abide by all operating procedures established in IEEE Standard 1547 and any other applicable laws, statutes or guidelines, including those specified in Attachment 4 of this Agreement. 1.8 Metering The interconnection customer shall be responsible for the cost to purchase, install, operate, maintain, test, repair, and replace metering and data acquisition equipment specified in Attachments 5 and 6 of this Agreement. 1.9 Reactive Power 1.9.1 Interconnection customers with a distributed generation facility larger than or equal to 1 MVA shall design their distributed generation facilities to maintain a power factor at the point of interconnection between .95 lagging and .95 leading Project Number: 3 at all times. Interconnection customers with a distributed generation facility smaller than 1 MVA shall design their distributed generation facility to maintain a power factor at the point of interconnection between .90 lagging and .90 leading at all times. 1.9.2 Any EDC requirements for meeting a specific voltage or specific reactive power schedule as a condition for interconnection shall be clearly specified in Attachment 4. Under no circumstance shall the EDC's additional requirements for voltage or reactive power schedules exceed the normal operating capabilities of the distributed generation facility. 1.9.3 If the interconnection customer does not operate the distributed generation facility within the power factor range specified in Attachment 4, or does not operate the distribute generation facility in accordance with a voltage or reactive power schedule specified in Attachment 4, the interconnection customer is in default, and the terms of Article 6.5 apply. 1.10 Standards of Operations The interconnection customer must obtain all certifications, permits, licenses and approvals necessary to construct, operate and maintain the facility and to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The interconnection customer is responsible for coordinating and synchronizing the distributed generation facility with the EDC's system. The interconnection customer is responsible for any damage that is caused by the interconnection customer's failure to coordinate or synchronize the distributed generation facility with the electric distribution system. The interconnection customer agrees to be primarily liable for any damages resulting from the continued operation of the distributed generation facility after the EDC ceases to energize the line section to which the distributed generation facility is connected. In Attachment 4, the EDC shall specify the shortest reclose time setting for its protection equipment that could affect the distributed generation facility. The EDC shall notify the interconnection customer at least 10 business days prior to adopting a faster reclose time on any automatic protective equipment, such as a circuit breaker or line recloser, that might affect the distributed generation facility. Article 2. Inspection, Testing, Authorization, and Right of Access 2.1 Equipment Testing and Inspection The interconnection customer shall test and inspect its distributed generation facility including the interconnection equipment prior to interconnection in accordance with IEEE Standard 1547 (2003) and IEEE Standard 1547.1 (2005). The interconnection customer shall not operate its distributed generation facility in parallel with the EDC's electric distribution system without prior written authorization by the EDC as provided for in Articles 2.1.1-2.1.3. 2.1.1 The EDC shall perform a witness test after construction of the distributed generation facility is completed, but before parallel operation, unless the EDC Project Number: 4 specifically waives the witness test. The interconnection customer shall provide the EDC at least 15 business days notice of the planned commissioning test for the distributed generation facility. If the EDC performs a witness test at a time that is not concurrent with the commissioning test, it shall contact the interconnection customer to schedule the witness test at a mutually agreeable time within 10 business days after the scheduled commissioning test designated on the application. If the EDC does not perform the witness test within 10 business days after the commissioning test, the witness test is deemed waived unless the Parties mutually agree to extend the date for scheduling the witness test, or unless the EDC cannot do so for good cause, in which case, the Parties shall agree to another date for scheduling the test within 10 business days after the original scheduled date. If the witness test is not acceptable to the EDC, the interconnection customer has 30 business days to address and resolve any deficiencies. This time period may be extended upon agreement between the EDC and the interconnection customer. If the interconnection customer fails to address and resolve the deficiencies to the satisfaction of the EDC, the applicable cure provisions of Article 6.5 shall apply. The interconnection customer shall, if requested by the EDC, provide a copy of all documentation in its possession regarding testing conducted pursuant to IEEE Standard 1547.1. 2.1.2 If the interconnection customer conducts interim testing of the distributed generation facility prior to the witness test, the interconnection customer shall obtain permission from the EDC before each occurrence of operating the distributed generation facility in parallel with the electric distribution system. The EDC may, at its own expense, send qualified personnel to the distributed generation facility to observe such interim testing, but it cannot mandate that these tests be considered in the final witness test. The EDC is not required to observe the interim testing or precluded from requiring the tests be repeated at the final witness test. 2.1.3 After the distributed generation facility passes the witness test, the EDC shall affix an authorized signature to the certificate of completion and return it to the interconnection customer approving the interconnection and authorizing parallel operation. The authorization shall not be conditioned or delayed. 2.2 Commercial Operation The interconnection customer shall not operate the distributed generation facility, except for interim testing as provided in Article 2.1, until such time as the certificate of completion is signed by all Parties. 2.3 Right of Access The EDC must have access to the disconnect switch and metering equipment of the distributed generation facility at all times. When practical, the EDC shall provide notice to the interconnection customer prior to using its right of access. Project Number: 5 Article 3. Effective Date, Term, Termination, and Disconnection 3.1 Effective Date This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by all Parties. 3.2 Term of Agreement This Agreement shall become effective on the effective date and shall remain in effect unless terminated in accordance with Article 3.3 of this Agreement. 3.3 Termination 3.3.1 The interconnection customer may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the EDC 30 calendar days prior written notice. 3.3.2 Either Party may terminate this Agreement after default pursuant to Article 6.5. 3.3.3 The EDC may terminate, upon 60 calendar days' prior written notice, for failure of the interconnection customer to complete construction of the distributed generation facility within 12 months after the in-service date as specified by the Parties in Attachment 2, which may be extended by agreement between the Parties. 3.3.4 The EDC may terminate this Agreement, upon 60 calendar days' prior written notice, if the interconnection customer has abandoned, cancelled, permanently disconnected or stopped development, construction, or operation of the distributed generation facility, or if the interconnection customer fails to operate the distributed generation facility in parallel with the EDC's electric system for three consecutive years. 3.3.5 Upon termination of this Agreement, the distributed generation facility will be disconnected from the EDC's electric distribution system. Terminating this Agreement does not relieve either Party of its liabilities and obligations that are owed or continuing when the Agreement is terminated. 3.3.6 If the Agreement is terminated, the interconnection customer loses its position in the interconnection queue. 3.4 Temporary Disconnection A Party may temporarily disconnect the distributed generation facility from the electric distribution system in the event one or more of the following conditions or events occurs: 3.4.1 Emergency conditions – shall mean any condition or situation: (1) that in the judgment of the Party making the claim is likely to endanger life or property; or (2) that the EDC determines is likely to cause an adverse system impact, or is likely to have a material adverse effect on the EDC's electric distribution system, interconnection facilities or other facilities, or is likely to interrupt or materially Project Number: 7 the distributed generation facility, other than a minor equipment modification. If the interconnection customer modifies its facility without the EDC's prior written authorization, the EDC has the right to disconnect the distributed generation facility until such time as the EDC concludes the modification poses no threat to the safety or reliability of its electric distribution system. 3.4.6 The EDC is not responsible for any lost opportunity or other costs incurred by the interconnection customer as a result of an interruption of service under Article 3. Article 4. Cost Responsibility for Interconnection Facilities and Distribution Upgrades 4.1 Interconnection Facilities 4.1.1 The interconnection customer shall pay for the cost of the interconnection facilities itemized in Attachment 3. The EDC shall identify the additional interconnection facilities necessary to interconnect the distributed generation facility with the EDC's electric distribution system, the cost of those facilities, and the time required to build and install those facilities, as well as an estimated date of completion of the building or installation of those facilities. 4.1.2 The interconnection customer is responsible for its expenses, including overheads, associated with owning, operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing its interconnection equipment. 4.2 Distribution Upgrades The EDC shall design, procure, construct, install, and own any distribution upgrades. The actual cost of the distribution upgrades, including overheads, shall be directly assigned to the interconnection customer whose distributed generation facility caused the need for the distribution upgrades. Article 5. Billing, Payment, Milestones, and Financial Security 5.1 Billing and Payment Procedures and Final Accounting (Applies to additional reviews conducted under a Level 2 review and Level 4 reviews) 5.1.1 The EDC shall bill the interconnection customer for the design, engineering, construction, and procurement costs of EDC-provided interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades contemplated by this Agreement as set forth in Attachment 3. The billing shall occur on a monthly basis, or as otherwise agreed to between the Parties. The interconnection customer shall pay each bill within 30 calendar days after receipt, or as otherwise agreed to between the Parties. 5.1.2 Within 90 calendar days after completing the construction and installation of the EDC's interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades described in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Agreement, the EDC shall provide the interconnection customer with a final accounting report of any difference between Project Number: 8 (1) the actual cost incurred to complete the construction and installation of the EDC's interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades; and (2) the interconnection customer's previous deposit and aggregate payments to the EDC for the interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades. If the interconnection customer's cost responsibility exceeds its previous deposit and aggregate payments, the EDC shall invoice the interconnection customer for the amount due and the interconnection customer shall make payment to the EDC within 30 calendar days. If the interconnection customer's previous deposit and aggregate payments exceed its cost responsibility under this Agreement, the EDC shall refund to the interconnection customer an amount equal to the difference within 30 calendar days after the final accounting report. Upon request from the interconnection customer, if the difference between the budget estimate and the actual cost exceeds 20%, the EDC will provide a written explanation for the difference. 5.1.3 If a Party disputes any portion of its payment obligation pursuant to this Article 5, the Party shall pay in a timely manner all non-disputed portions of its invoice, and the disputed amount shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions contained in Article 8. A Party disputing a portion of an Article 5 payment shall not be considered to be in default of its obligations under this Article. 5.2 Interconnection Customer Deposit At least 20 business days prior to the commencement of the design, procurement, installation, or construction of the EDC's interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades, the interconnection customer shall provide the EDC with a deposit equal to 100% of the estimated, non-binding cost to procure, install, or construct any such facilities (the “Security Deposit”). However, when the estimated date of completion of the building or installation of facilities exceeds three months from the date of notification, pursuant to Article 4.1.1 of this Agreement, this deposit may be held in escrow by a mutually agreed-upon third-party, with any interest to inure to the benefit of the interconnection customer. Article 6. Assignment, Limitation on Damages, Indemnity, Force Majeure, and Default 6.1 Assignment This Agreement may be assigned by either Party. If the interconnection customer attempts to assign this Agreement, the assignee must agree to the terms of this Agreement in writing and such writing must be provided to the EDC. Any attempted assignment that violates this Article is void and ineffective. Assignment shall not relieve a Party of its obligations, nor shall a Party's obligations be enlarged, in whole or in part, by reason of the assignment. An assignee is responsible for meeting the same obligations as the assignor. 6.1.1 Either Party may assign this Agreement without the consent of the other Party to any affiliate (including mergers, consolidations, or transfers, or a sale of a Project Number: 9 substantial portion of the Party's assets, between the Party and another entity), of the assigning Party that has an equal or greater credit rating and the legal authority and operational ability to satisfy the obligations of the assigning Party under this Agreement. 6.1.2 The interconnection customer can assign this Agreement, without the consent of the EDC, for collateral security purposes to aid in providing financing for the distributed generation facility. 6.2 Limitation on Damages Except for cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the liability of any Party to this Agreement shall be limited to direct actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees, and all other damages at law are waived. Under no circumstances, except for cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, shall any Party or its directors, officers, employees and agents, or any of them, be liable to another Party, whether in tort, contract or other basis in law or equity for any special, indirect, punitive, exemplary or consequential damages, including lost profits, lost revenues, replacement power, cost of capital or replacement equipment. This limitation on damages shall not affect any Party's rights to obtain equitable relief, including specific performance, as otherwise provided in this Agreement. The provisions of this Article 6.2 shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. 6.3 Indemnity 6.3.1 This provision protects each Party from liability incurred to third parties as a result of carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Liability under this provision is exempt from the general limitations on liability found in Article 6.2. 6.3.2 The interconnection customer shall indemnify and defend the EDC and the EDC's directors, officers, employees, and agents, from all damages and expenses resulting from a third party claim arising out of or based upon the interconnection customer's (a) negligence or willful misconduct or (b) breach of this Agreement. 6.3.3 The EDC shall indemnify and defend the interconnection customer and the interconnection customer's directors, officers, employees, and agents from all damages and expenses resulting from a third party claim arising out of or based upon the EDC's (a) negligence or willful misconduct or (b) breach of this Agreement. 6.3.4 Within 5 business days after receipt by an indemnified Party of any claim or notice that an action or administrative or legal proceeding or investigation as to which the indemnity provided for in this Article may apply has commenced, the indemnified Party shall notify the indemnifying Party of such fact. The failure to notify, or a delay in notification, shall not affect a Party's indemnification obligation unless that failure or delay is materially prejudicial to the indemnifying Party. Project Number: 10 6.3.5 If an indemnified Party is entitled to indemnification under this Article as a result of a claim by a third party, and the indemnifying Party fails, after notice and reasonable opportunity to proceed under this Article, to assume the defense of such claim, that indemnified Party may, at the expense of the indemnifying Party, contest, settle or consent to the entry of any judgment with respect to, or pay in full, the claim. 6.3.6 If an indemnifying Party is obligated to indemnify and hold any indemnified Party harmless under this Article, the amount owing to the indemnified person shall be the amount of the indemnified Party's actual loss, net of any insurance or other recovery. 6.4 Force Majeure 6.4.1 As used in this Article, a force majeure event shall mean any act of God, labor disturbance, act of the public enemy, war, acts of terrorism, insurrection, riot, fire, storm or flood, explosion, breakage or accident to machinery or equipment through no direct, indirect, or contributory act of a Party, any order, regulation or restriction imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian authorities, or any other cause beyond a Party's control. A force majeure event does not include an act of gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing by the Party claiming force majeure. 6.4.2 If a force majeure event prevents a Party from fulfilling any obligations under this Agreement, the Party affected by the force majeure event ("Affected Party") shall notify the other Party of the existence of the force majeure event within one business day. The notification must specify the circumstances of the force majeure event, its expected duration, and the steps that the Affected Party is taking and will take to mitigate the effects of the event on its performance. If the initial notification is verbal, it must be followed up with a written notification within one business day. The Affected Party shall keep the other Party informed on a continuing basis of developments relating to the force majeure event until the event ends. The Affected Party may suspend or modify its obligations under this Agreement (other than the obligation to make payments) only to the extent that the effect of the force majeure event cannot be otherwise mitigated. 6.5 Default 6.5.1 No default shall exist when the failure to discharge an obligation (other than the payment of money) results from a force majeure event as defined in this Agreement, or the result of an act or omission of the other Party. 6.5.2 A Party shall be in default ("Default") of this Agreement if it fails in any material respect to comply with, observe or perform, or defaults in the performance of, any covenant or obligation under this Agreement and fails to cure the failure within 60 Project Number: 11 calendar days after receiving written notice from the other Party. Upon a default of this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall give written notice of the default to the defaulting Party. Except as provided in Article 6.5.3, the defaulting Party has 60 calendar days after receipt of the default notice to cure the default; provided, however, if the default cannot be cured within 60 calendar days, the defaulting Party shall commence the cure within 20 calendar days after original notice and complete the cure within six months from receipt of the default notice; and, if cured within that time, the default specified in the notice shall cease to exist. 6.5.3 If a Party has assigned this Agreement in a manner that is not specifically authorized by Article 6.1, fails to provide reasonable access pursuant to Article 2.3, and is in default of its obligations pursuant to Article 7, or if a Party is in default of its payment obligations pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement, the defaulting Party has 30 days from receipt of the default notice to cure the default. 6.5.4 If a default is not cured as provided for in this Article, or if a default is not capable of being cured within the period provided for in this Article, the non- defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice, and be relieved of any further obligation under this Agreement and, whether or not that Party terminates this Agreement, to recover from the defaulting Party all amounts due under this Agreement, plus all other damages and remedies to which it is entitled at law or in equity. The provisions of this Article shall survive termination of this Agreement. Article 7. Insurance For distributed generation facilities with a nameplate capacity of 1 MVA or above, the interconnection customer shall carry sufficient insurance coverage so that the maximum comprehensive/general liability coverage that is continuously maintained by the interconnection customer during the term shall be not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence, and an aggregate, if any, of at least $4,000,000. The EDC, its officers, employees and agents shall be added as an additional insured on this policy. The interconnection customer agrees to provide the EDC with at least 30 calendar days advance written notice of cancellation, reduction in limits, or non-renewal of any insurance policy required by this Article. Article 8. Dispute Resolution 8.1 Parties shall attempt to resolve all disputes regarding interconnection as provided in this Article in a good faith manner. 8.2 If there is a dispute between the Parties about an interpretation of the Agreement, the aggrieved Party shall issue a written notice to the other Party to the agreement that specifies the dispute and the Agreement articles that are disputed. Project Number: 12 8.3 A meeting between the Parties shall be held within ten days after receipt of the written notice. Persons with decision-making authority from each Party shall attend the meeting. If the dispute involves technical issues, persons with sufficient technical expertise and familiarity with the issue in dispute from each Party shall also attend the meeting. The meeting may be conducted by teleconference. 8.4 After the first meeting, each Party may seek resolution through complaint or mediation procedures available at the Commission. The Commission may designate an engineer from the Commission's Energy Division to assist in resolving the dispute. Dispute resolution shall be conducted in a manner designed to minimize costs and delay. Dispute resolution may be conducted by phone. 8.5 Pursuit of dispute resolution may not affect an interconnection request or an interconnection applicant's position in the EDC's interconnection queue. 8.6 If the Parties fail to resolve their dispute under the dispute resolution provisions of this Article, nothing in this Article shall affect any Party's rights to obtain equitable relief, including specific performance, as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Article 9. Miscellaneous 9.1 Governing Law, Regulatory Authority, and Rules The validity, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement and each of its provisions shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to its conflicts of law principles. This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. Each Party expressly reserves the right to seek change in, appeal, or otherwise contest any laws, orders or regulations of a governmental authority. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against the EDC or interconnection customer, regardless of the involvement of either Party in drafting this Agreement. 9.2 Amendment Modification of this Agreement shall be only by a written instrument duly executed by both Parties. 9.3 No Third-Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is not intended to and does not create rights, remedies, or benefits of any character whatsoever in favor of any persons, corporations, associations, or entities other than the Parties, and the obligations in this Agreement assumed are solely for the use and benefit of the Parties, their successors in interest and, where permitted, their assigns. 9.4 Waiver 9.4.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Party's compliance with any obligation, covenant, agreement, or condition in this Agreement may be waived by the Party entitled to the benefits thereof only by a written instrument signed by Project Number: 13 the Party granting the waiver, but the waiver or failure to insist upon strict compliance with the obligation, covenant, agreement, or condition shall not operate as a waiver of, or estoppel with respect to, any subsequent or other failure. 9.4.2. Failure of any Party to enforce or insist upon compliance with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or to give notice or declare this Agreement or the rights under this Agreement terminated, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any rights set out in this Agreement, but the same shall be and remain at all times in full force and effect, unless and only to the extent expressly set forth in a written document signed by that Party granting the waiver or relinquishing any such rights. Any waiver granted, or relinquishment of any right, by a Party shall not operate as a relinquishment of any other rights or a waiver of any other failure of the Party granted the waiver to comply with any obligation, covenant, agreement, or condition of this Agreement. 9.5 Entire Agreement Except as provided in Article 9.1, this Agreement, including all attachments, constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties with reference to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings or agreements, oral or written, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. There are no other agreements, representations, warranties, or covenants that constitute any part of the consideration for, or any condition to, either Party's compliance with its obligations under this Agreement. 9.6 Multiple Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed an original, but all constitute one and the same instrument. 9.7 No Partnership This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint venture, agency relationship, or partnership between the Parties, or to impose any partnership obligation or partnership liability upon either Party. Neither Party shall have any right, power or authority to enter into any agreement or undertaking for, or act on behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind, the other Party. 9.8 Severability If any provision or portion of this Agreement shall for any reason be held or adjudged to be invalid or illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or other governmental authority, (1) that portion or provision shall be deemed separate and independent, (2) the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to restore insofar as practicable the benefits to each Party that were affected by the ruling, and (3) the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9.9 Project Number: 14 Environmental Releases Each Party shall notify the other Party of the release of any hazardous substances, any asbestos or lead abatement activities, or any type of remediation activities related to the distributed generation facility or the interconnection facilities, each of which may reasonably be expected to affect the other Party. The notifying Party shall (1) provide the notice as soon as practicable, provided that Party makes a good faith effort to provide the notice no later than 24 hours after that Party becomes aware of the occurrence, and (2) promptly furnish to the other Party copies of any publicly available reports filed with any governmental authorities addressing such events. 9.10 Subcontractors Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from using the services of any subcontractor it deems appropriate to perform its obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that each Party shall require its subcontractors to comply with all applicable terms and conditions of this Agreement in providing services and each Party shall remain primarily liable to the other Party for the performance of the subcontractor. 9.10.1 A subcontract relationship does not relieve any Party of any of its obligations under this Agreement. The hiring Party remains responsible to the other Party for the acts or omissions of its subcontractor. Any applicable obligation imposed by this Agreement upon the hiring Party shall be equally binding upon, and shall be construed as having application to, any subcontractor of the hiring Party. 9.10.2 The obligations under this Article cannot be limited in any way by any limitation of subcontractor's insurance. Project Number: 15 Article 10. Notices 10.1 General Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, any written notice, demand, or request required or authorized in connection with this Agreement ("Notice") shall be deemed properly given if delivered in person, delivered by recognized national courier service, or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person specified below: If to Interconnection Customer: Interconnection Customer: TPE IL KE106, LLC Attention: James Marshall Address: 3720 S. Dahlia St City: Denver State: Colorado Zip: 80237 Phone: Fax: E-Mail: If to EDC: EDC: Commonwealth Edison Company Attention: DER Interconnection Address: 2 Lincoln Center City: Oakbrook Terrace State: IL Zip: 60181 Phone: E-Mail: Alternative Forms of Notice Any notice or request required or permitted to be given by either Party to the other Party and not required by this Agreement to be in writing may be given by telephone, facsimile or e-mail to the telephone numbers and e-mail addresses set out above. 10.2 Billing and Payment Billings and payments shall be sent to the addresses set out below: If to Interconnection Customer Interconnection Customer: TPE IL KE106, LLC Attention: James Marshall Address: 3720 S. Dahlia St City: Denver State: Colorado Zip: 80237 Phone Fax Email Project Number: 16 If to EDC: EDC: Commonwealth Edison Attention: DER Interconnection Address: 2 Lincoln Center City: Oakbrook Terrace State: IL Zip: 60181 10.3 Designated Operating Representative The Parties may also designate operating representatives to conduct the communications that may be necessary or convenient for the administration of this Agreement. This person will also serve as the point of contact with respect to operations and maintenance of the Party's facilities. Interconnection Customer's Operating Representative: Attention: James Marshall Address: 3720 S. Dahlia St City: Denver State: CO 80237 Phone: Fax: Email: EDC's Operating Representative: Commonwealth Edison Company Attention: Customer Operations Address: ComEd - 2 Lincoln Center – Call Center City: Oakbrook State: IL Zip: 60181 Phone: 10.4 Changes to the Notice Information Either Party may change this notice information by giving five business days written notice before the effective date of the change. Project Number: 17 Article 11. Signatures IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives. Project Name: CEF-IL KE106 For the Interconnection Customer: Name: James Marshall Title: Executive Vice President Date: 10/7/2022 For EDC: Name: Title: Date: Principal Contract Specialist Project Number: 18 Attachment 1 Definitions Adverse system impact – A negative effect that compromises the safety or reliability of the electric distribution system or materially affects the quality of electric service provided by the electric distribution company (EDC) to other customers. Applicable laws and regulations – All duly promulgated applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations, rules, ordinances, codes, decrees, judgments, directives, or judicial or administrative orders, permits and other duly authorized actions of any governmental authority, having jurisdiction over the Parties. Commissioning test – Tests applied to a distributed generation facility by the applicant after construction is completed to verify that the facility does not create adverse system impacts. At a minimum, the scope of the commissioning tests performed shall include the commissioning test specified IEEE Standard 1547 Section 5.4 "Commissioning tests." Distributed generation facility – The equipment used by an interconnection customer to generate or store electricity that operates in parallel with the electric distribution system. A distributed generation facility typically includes an electric generator, prime mover, and the interconnection equipment required to safely interconnect with the electric distribution system or a local electric power system. Distribution upgrades – A required addition or modification to the EDC's electric distribution system at or beyond the point of interconnection to accommodate the interconnection of a distributed generation facility. Distribution upgrades do not include interconnection facilities. Electric distribution company or EDC – Any electric utility entity subject to the jurisdiction of the Illinois Commerce Commission. Electric distribution system – The facilities and equipment used to transmit electricity to ultimate usage points such as homes and industries from interchanges with higher voltage transmission networks that transport bulk power over longer distances. The voltage levels at which electric distribution systems operate differ among areas but generally carry less than 100 kilovolts of electricity. Electric distribution system has the same meaning as the term Area EPS, as defined in 3.1.6.1 of IEEE Standard 1547. Facilities study – An engineering study conducted by the EDC to determine the required modifications to the EDC's electric distribution system, including the cost and the time required to build and install the modifications, as necessary to accommodate an interconnection request. Force majeure event – Any act of God, labor disturbance, act of the public enemy, war, acts of terrorism, insurrection, riot, fire, storm or flood, explosion, breakage or accident to machinery or equipment through no direct, indirect, or contributory act of a Party, any order, regulation or restriction imposed by governmental, military or lawfully established civilian authorities, or any Project Number: 19 other cause beyond a Party's control. A force majeure event does not include an act of gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Governmental authority – Any federal, State, local or other governmental regulatory or administrative agency, court, commission, department, board, other governmental subdivision, legislature, rulemaking board, tribunal, or other governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Parties, their respective facilities, or the respective services they provide, and exercising or entitled to exercise any administrative, executive, police, or taxing authority or power; provided, however, that this term does not include the interconnection customer, EDC or any affiliate of either. IEEE Standard 1547 – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), 3 Park Avenue, New York NY 10016-5997, Standard 1547 (2003), "Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems." IEEE Standard 1547.1 – The IEEE Standard 1547.1 (2005), "Conformance Test Procedures for Equipment Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems." Interconnection agreement or Agreement – The agreement between the interconnection customer and the EDC. The interconnection agreement governs the connection of the distributed generation facility to the EDC's electric distribution system and the ongoing operation of the distributed generation facility after it is connected to the EDC's electric distribution system. Interconnection customer – The entity entering into this Agreement for the purpose of interconnecting a distributed generation facility to the EDC's electric distribution system. Interconnection equipment – A group of components or an integrated system connecting an electric generator with a local electric power system or an electric distribution system that includes all interface equipment, including switchgear, protective devices, inverters or other interface devices. Interconnection equipment may be installed as part of an integrated equipment package that includes a generator or other electric source. Interconnection facilities – Facilities and equipment required by the EDC to accommodate the interconnection of a distributed generation facility. Collectively, interconnection facilities include all facilities, and equipment between the distributed generation facility and the point of interconnection, including modification, additions, or upgrades that are necessary to physically and electrically interconnect the distributed generation facility to the electric distribution system. Interconnection facilities are sole use facilities and do not include distribution upgrades. Interconnection request – An interconnection customer's request, on the required form, for the interconnection of a new distributed generation facility, or to increase the capacity or change the operating characteristics of an existing distributed generation facility that is interconnected with the EDC's electric distribution system. Project Number: 20 Interconnection study – Any of the following studies, as determined to be appropriate by the EDC: the interconnection feasibility study, the interconnection system impact study, and the interconnection facilities study. Illinois standard distributed generation interconnection rules – The most current version of the procedures for interconnecting distributed generation facilities adopted by the Illinois Commerce Commission. See 83 Ill. Adm. Code 466. Parallel operation or Parallel – The state of operation that occurs when a distributed generation facility is connected electrically to the electric distribution system. Point of interconnection – The point where the distributed generation facility is electrically connected to the electric distribution system. Point of interconnection has the same meaning as the term "point of common coupling" defined in 3.1.13 of IEEE Standard 1547. Witness test – For lab-certified equipment, verification (either by an on-site observation or review of documents) by the EDC that the interconnection installation evaluation required by IEEE Standard 1547 Section 5.3 and the commissioning test required by IEEE Standard 1547 Section 5.4 have been adequately performed. For interconnection equipment that has not been lab-certified, the witness test shall also include verification by the EDC of the on-site design tests required by IEEE Standard 1547 Section 5.1 and verification by the EDC of production tests required by IEEE Standard 1547 Section 5.2. All tests verified by the EDC are to be performed in accordance with the test procedures specified by IEEE Standard 1547.1. Project Number: 24 Attachment 4 Operating Requirements for Distributed Generation Facilities Operating in Parallel The EDC shall list specific operating practices that apply to this distributed generation interconnection and the conditions under which each listed specific operating practice applies. See Articles 1,7 Parallel Operation Obligations 1.9, Reactive Power, 1.10, Standards of Operation and as identified in the prior studies. Any additional operational practices listed below: 1) Customer Transformer(s) Connection(s) at PCC (12kV) – ComEd requires a Delta H.S. transformer winding for all customer connected transformers. 2) Customer Photovoltaic System Inverter Modules – Transient Overvoltage (TOV) Limits: Customer inverters shall not by their design or application while interconnected to the ComEd system cause transient overvoltages (TOV) which exceed ComEd 12kV line or equipment ratings during fault or switching operations. If the customer inverters cause objectionable overvoltages which exceed the ratings of the ComEd lines and equipment, then ComEd may require that the customer at their expense mitigate these issues to a level below the equipment design ratings. 3) Customer Equipment Short-Circuit Ratings - Customer equipment shall be rated for ultimate fault current levels: Ultimate 3 Phase - 6,700 Amps and Ultimate 1 Phase - 6,700 Amps. 4) Interconnections ≤ 2.0MW using lab certified UL 1741 Inverters do not require any additional relay protection 5) All transformers require a high side protective operating device to operate under fault conditions. 6) ComEd Testing Group resources will be required to verify settings for required system protection prior to customer equipment being placed into service. 7) This photovoltaic installation shall only operate when it is connected to 12kV feeder , and when feeder is fed from its normal breaker at . 8) Customer will be responsible to complete all subgrade and civil work on their property, if required for the interconnection facilities. 9) Customer will be responsible to purchase real estate or obtain the necessary right-of - way/ easements, to install the interconnection facilities. Project Number: 25 Attachment 5 Monitoring and Control Requirements This attachment is to be completed by the EDC and shall include the following: 1. The EDC's monitoring and control requirements must be specified, along with a reference to the EDC's written requirements documents from which these requirements are derived. 2. An internet link to the requirements documents. https://www.comed.com/MyAccount/MyService/Pages/DistributionLess10k.aspx http://standards.ieee.org Project Number: 26 Attachment 6 Metering Requirements This attachment is to be completed by the EDC and shall include the following: 1. The metering requirements for the distributed generation facility. The specific metering requirements and equipment will be specified as part of the Detailed Engineering. 2. Identification of the appropriate tariffs that establish these requirements. 3. An internet link to these tariffs. https://www.comed.com/MyAccount/MyService/Pages/DistributionLess10k.aspx https://www.comed.com/MyAccount/MyBillUsage/Pages/CurrentRatesTariffs.aspx Project Number: 27 Attachment 7 As Built Documents This attachment is to be completed by the interconnection customer and shall include the following: When it returns the certificate of completion to the EDC, the interconnection customer shall provide the EDC with documents detailing the as-built status of the following: 1. A one-line diagram indicating the distributed generation facility, interconnection equipment, interconnection facilities, and metering equipment. 2. Component specifications for equipment identified in the one-line diagram. 3. Component settings. 4. Proposed sequence of operations. 5. A three-line diagram showing current potential circuits for protective relays. 6. Relay tripping and control schematic diagram. Project Number: 28 Attachment 8 Other Provisions The Parties agree to the following terms and conditions in connection with the distributed generation facility. 1.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an express or implied representation or warranty on the part of EDC with respect to the current or future availability of transmission service or create any obligation on the part of EDC to accept deliveries of energy unless the interconnection customer or a third party taking delivery of such energy has arranged for transmission service with PJM Interconnection LLC, or its successor in interest, the organization that operates the EDC’s transmission system (“PJM”) in accordance with the PJM tariff and applicable laws and regulations. EDC may charge for service over its electric distribution system to deliver energy or power from the distributed generation facility to or from the facilities controlled or operated by PJM that are used to provide transmission service pursuant to the PJM tariff. 1.2 This Agreement does not constitute an agreement to interconnect the interconnection customer to a PJM point of interconnection. 1.3 The interconnection customer shall not be allowed to construct any facilities or install any equipment which will be owned or operated by the EDC, without the prior written consent of the EDC, which consent may be conditioned on the Parties negotiating and agreeing upon provisions to govern such construction or installation. 1.4 Tax Status. Based on information provided by the interconnection customer, EDC will make the determination as to whether all costs and other amounts payable, and property to be transferred, by interconnection customer to EDC under this Agreement (collectively, the “Paid Amounts”) satisfy the tax law provisions for non-taxable status, as referenced in this Section 1.4. For any amounts that EDC determines do not qualify for non-taxable status, the interconnection customer shall comply with this Section 1.4, including without limitation paying the applicable income tax gross-up as set forth herein. 1.4.1 Tax Status A. To qualify for non-taxable treatment with respect to the Paid Amounts, the interconnection customer must meet all qualifications and requirements as set forth in the tax laws (“Non-Taxable Treatment”). The determination of whether the Paid Amounts qualify for Non-Taxable Treatment shall be made by EDC, based on the information furnished by interconnection customer to determine tax treatment under the relevant tax law provisions. B. To the extent EDC reasonably determines that all or a portion of the Paid Amounts qualify for Non-Taxable Treatment, both Parties intend to treat such Project Number: 29 amounts as non-taxable contributions from interconnection customer to EDC for federal and state income tax purposes. With respect to any such Paid Amounts, interconnection customer agrees to maintain Non-Taxable Treatment for such amounts, and interconnection customer shall remain subject to the terms of this Section 1.4, in any subsequent or interim agreement related to this Agreement. To the extent EDC determines that all or a portion of the Paid Amounts are taxable, interconnection customer agrees to pay the income tax gross-up amount referenced in this Section 1.4. 1.4.2 Tax Indemnity For any amounts the Parties treat as non-taxable pursuant to Section 1.4.1, interconnection customer shall indemnify and hold harmless EDC for any costs or taxes, penalties, and interest that EDC incurs in the event that the IRS and/or a state taxing authority determines that the Paid Amounts are taxable income to EDC. In such an event, interconnection customer shall pay to EDC, on demand, the amount of any income taxes that the IRS or a state taxing authority assesses EDC in connection with the Paid Amounts, plus any applicable interest and/or penalties assessed EDC. In the event that EDC in its sole discretion chooses to contest such assessment and prevails in reducing or eliminating the tax, interest and/or penalties assessed against it, EDC shall refund to interconnection customer the excess of the amount paid to EDC pursuant to this Section 1.4 over the amount of the tax, interest and penalties for which EDC is finally determined to be liable. Interconnection customer’s tax indemnification obligation under this section shall survive any termination of this Agreement or of any subsequent or interim agreement related to this Agreement. 1.4.3 Income Tax Gross-Up A. In the event that interconnection customer does not establish to EDC’s satisfaction within 15 days of the execution of this Agreement (the “Specified Date”) that the Paid Amounts are or will be non-taxable, interconnection customer shall increase the amount of the Security Deposit to include any amounts described under this Section 1.4 regarding income tax gross-up. B. The required increase in the Security Deposit shall equal the amount necessary to permit EDC to pay all applicable income taxes (“Current Taxes”) on the amounts to be paid by interconnection customer under this Agreement after taking into account the present value of future tax deductions for depreciation that would be available as a result of the anticipated payments or property transfers (the “Present Value Depreciation Amount”), with respect to such amounts. For this purpose, Current Taxes shall be computed based on the composite federal and state income Project Number: 30 tax rates applicable to EDC at the time the Security Deposit is increased, determined using the highest marginal rates in effect at that time (the “Current Tax Rate”), and (ii) the Present Value Depreciation Amount shall be computed by discounting EDC’s anticipated tax depreciation deductions associated with such payments or property transfers by its current weighted average cost of capital. EDC may draw on the Security Deposit on a quarterly basis based on the Paid Amounts received by EDC. C. Interconnection customer must provide the increase in the Security Deposit, in a form and with terms as acceptable to EDC, within 15 days of the Specified Date unless EDC notifies interconnection customer otherwise. The requirement for the increase in the Security Deposit under this Paragraph shall be treated as a milestone for purposes of Attachment 3 of this Agreement. D. Each Party shall cooperate with the other to maintain the other Party’s tax status. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to adversely affect any entity’s tax exempt status with respect to the issuance of bonds including, but not limited to, local furnishing bonds. E. In the event, and to the extent, (i) EDC subsequently determines that amounts for which interconnection customer has paid EDC are non-taxable, and (ii) EDC successfully obtains a refund of federal and/or state income tax originally paid with respect to such amounts, EDC shall timely return such amounts to the interconnection customer. For purposes hereof, EDC may make such a determination in light of subsequent IRS guidance, or other relevant authority. In the event of a successful refund claim by EDC, EDC shall return the remaining Security Deposit attributable to this Section 1.4, but no more than it obtains from the relevant taxing authority, less any reasonable fees incurred to secure such tax refund, to interconnection customer. 1.5 If any of EDC’s facilities, in addition to those described in Section 2.3, are or will be located on interconnection customer’s property, EDC shall have access to such facilities at all times and when practical, the EDC shall provide notice to the interconnection customer prior to using its right of access. Upon EDC’s completion of final, detailed engineering, if EDC identifies any facilities which will be located on interconnection customer’s property and requests written property rights in order to have such access, the interconnection customer shall provide such rights. 1.6 Interconnection customer shall also be responsible for paying in full to EDC all approved FERC and ICC rates and charges applicable to interconnection customer’s connection to and usage of the electric distribution system, if any. Project Number: 31 1.7 Interconnection customer shall not disclose any information labeled “CEII” or “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information” or other information labeled “Confidential” obtained pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement to any third party without the express written consent of the EDC, provided that interconnection customer may produce such information in response to a subpoena, discovery request or other compulsory process issued by a judicial body or governmental agency upon reasonable notice to the interconnection customer. 1.8 Each of the Parties shall provide the other party access to areas under its control as reasonably necessary to permit the other Party to perform its obligations under this Agreement, including operation and maintenance obligations. A Party that obtains such access shall comply with all safety rules applicable to the area to which access is obtained. Each Party agrees to inform the other Party’s representatives of safety rules applicable to an area. 1.9 If project authorization has not been granted by the Interconnection Customer per Attachment 3, Description, Costs and Time Required to Build and Install the EDC's Interconnection Facilities within one (1) year after the execution of this agreement, this agreement will no longer be effective. 1.10 Article 5.1.2 of the Interconnection Agreement shall be modified as followed; The parties agree Article 5 Section 1.2 is stricken in its entirety and replaced with, “Within 120 calendar days after completing the construction and installation of the EDC's interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades described in Attachments 2 and 3 to this Agreement, the EDC shall provide the interconnection customer with a final accounting report of any difference between (1) the actual cost incurred to complete the construction and installation of the EDC's interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades; and (2) the interconnection customer's previous deposit and aggregate payments to the EDC for the interconnection facilities and distribution upgrades. If the interconnection customer's cost responsibility exceeds its previous deposit and aggregate payments, the EDC shall invoice the interconnection customer for the amount due and the interconnection customer shall make payment to the EDC within 30 calendar days. If the interconnection customer's previous deposit and aggregate payments exceed its cost responsibility under this Agreement, the EDC shall refund to the interconnection customer an amount equal to the difference within 30 calendar days after the final accounting report. Upon request from the interconnection customer, if the difference between the budget estimate and the actual cost exceeds 25%, the EDC will provide a written explanation for the difference.” Application for Special Use Permit | Page 15 APPENDIX M – GLARE STUDY AND FAA NOTICE CRITERIA FILING GLARE STUDY ANALYSIS TPE IL KE106, LLC (SOLAR FARM) 1/31/2023 Introduction: A glare study was performed by TPE Development, LLC (“TPE”) using ForgeSolar software to assess the possible effects of reflectivity created by the proposed solar project located in Yorkville, near Bristol, Kendall County, IL (the “Project”). This report interprets and explains the inputs, assumptions and results of the study. ForgeSolar software incorporates GlareGauge, the leading solar glare analysis tool which meets Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) standards and is used globally for glare analysis. It is based on the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool licensed from Sandia National Laboratories. The tool assesses the possible effects of reflectivity, both glint and glare, from a proposed solar photovoltaic installation. The tool can take topography into account; however, the tool is not able to take existing vegetation (trees, shrubs, etc) or structures (fences, buildings, etc) into account. If there is a tree line or fence obstructing visibility of the array, the tool may incorrectly report glare for which the user must adjust based on site specific vegetation or structures. A model of the Project was input into the software along with a number of user defined observation points or paths (“Receptors”). The software calculates the sun’s position relative to the Project for every minute of the year. Results are charted displaying annual glare duration and potential ocular impact type and duration for each Receptor. Sun reflection is most noticeable when the sun is low on the horizon and sunlight reflects off the panels at a very low angle along the horizon where it can be seen by an observer standing next to the solar farm, driving along a road, or a neighboring dwelling. The assessment will capture all the possible reflection coming from the solar farm. Reflectivity Summary: The term ‘reflectivity’ is used in this report to refer to both reflection types (i.e. glint and glare). The definition of glint and glare can vary; however, the definitions used in this report is aligned with the FAA and are detailed below: • Glint: A momentary flash of bright light typically received by moving receptors or from moving reflectors. Example: a momentary solar reflection from a moving car. • Glare: A continuous source of bright light typically received by static Receptors or from large reflective surfaces. Glare is generally associated with stationary objects, which, due to the slow relative movement of the sun, reflect sunlight for a longer duration. The primary difference between glint and glare is duration. The Forge Solar GlareGauge tool captures both types of reflection on the surrounding roads and dwellings. To limit reflection and maximize conversion to electricity, solar PV panels are constructed of dark silicon wafers/cells with light-absorbing materials and the glass is covered with an anti-reflective coating (ARC) as shown in Figure 1 below. These design features limit sunlight reflectance and maximize sunlight absorption. Figure 1: Deconstructed Solar Panel To calculate diffuse and specular reflectance of solar modules, TUV Rheinland (NRTL) performed a test using the ISO 9050 (External Light Reflectance) standards and the results are shown in Figure 2 below. The reflectivity of a typical mono-crystalline photovoltaic solar panel is approximately 5.7%, which is well below the other control samples included in the test. Figure 2: Reflectivity of Solar Cells ForgeSolar GlareGauge Analysis: Inputs and Modeling Assumptions: As input to the software, Route Receptors were created along roadways in vicinity of the site. Height was measured at 5’ above ground to emulate passengers in cars. Further, Observation Receptors were modeled at specific dwellings located around the perimeter of the solar array. Heights were modeled at 5’ above ground to emulate residents on the 1st floor of dwellings and evaluate the glare impact or at 15’ above ground to emulate residents on any 2nd floor of dwellings. The model assumes the sun is shining 100% of the time it is above the horizon (during laylight hours). That is, it does not account for cloudy or overcast conditions when the sun is not shining, therefore the results presented would be the maximum expected glint and glare during any single year. Existing topography is taken into account in the simulation based on LIDAR (“Light Detection and Ranging”) data. Existing and planned vegetation are not considered in the simulation. The model assumed zero vegetation that may screen the Project, so this must be considered when interpreting the study results. A direct line of sight between the Project and the designated Route Receptors and Observation Receptors is required to produce any discernible glint/glare, so if there is existing or proposed vegetation between the receptor and the project, any glint/glare would be eliminated. Solar panels will be mounted on single axis trackers with a southern azimuth and the panels will track the sun to capture as much sunlight as possible. Therefore, glare is typically not experienced during normal operational hours since any reflection would be back toward the location of the sun. Potential glare is most noticeable when the sun is low on the horizon, early in the morning or late in the afternoon, when sunlight reflects off the panels in a horizontal position (stow mode) at the opposite low angle along the horizon to the east or the west. To reduce glare in the east and west directions during these low sun periods, a 5-degree tracker resting angle was implemented during these times which avoids the main source of glare for solar projects. Results: Based on the project-specific location, sun position throughout the year, and the above inputs and assumptions, some potential for glint or glare was identified in the analysis at the Route Receptors (located south and east of the solar farm) and at some of the neighboring Observation Receptors located near the solar farm. The model includes conservative assumptions and does not consider any existing and planned vegetation, buildings, or topographical features that may exist between the solar farm and the observation points and route receptors and that will further shield the view of the project from nearby properties and roadways. As noted above, the ForgeSolar GlareGauge study results do not account for any existing vegetation, structures, or topography that may shield Observation points from glare. The mitigation plan is to, (1) assess the effectiveness of existing and planned vegetation, and (2) consider additional screening vegetation, and (3) program the array’s tilt function such that glare-inducing reflective angles are avoided and their durations minimized. The planned vegetative screening is expected to resolve the identified glare occurrences. If additional information is needed, contact Luis Sanchez, TPE Development, LLC at lsanchez@tpoint- e.com. FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Summary of Results Glare with potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 5 0.1 2,447 40.8 20,870,000.0 Total annual glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 12 0.2 Route 3 4 0.1 12 0.2 Route 4 0 0.0 726 12.1 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 45 0.8 OP 3 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 1,005 16.8 OP 6 0 0.0 9 0.1 OP 7 0 0.0 13 0.2 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 290 4.8 OP 12 0 0.0 8 0.1 Project: ILKE106 Site configuration: 5DEG RESTING ANGLE 5FT OP Created 20 Jul, 2022 Updated 09 Dec, 2022 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-6 Site ID 72834.12819 Category 1 MW to 5 MW DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad Methodology V2 Page 1 of 23 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 13 1 0.0 322 5.4 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 1 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 2 of 23 Component Data PV Arrays Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: Shade-slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 0.0° Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.32 Rated power: 7500.0 kW Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.695770 -88.422617 651.52 5.00 656.52 2 41.695786 -88.418454 650.35 5.00 655.35 3 41.692277 -88.418282 652.80 5.00 657.80 4 41.692037 -88.422510 651.71 5.00 656.71 5 41.692694 -88.423582 651.21 5.00 656.21 6 41.693655 -88.423003 651.64 5.00 656.64 7 41.694056 -88.422810 652.70 5.00 657.70 Page 3 of 23 Route Receptors Name: Route 1 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.705479 -88.446370 648.59 5.00 653.59 2 41.702787 -88.432552 656.03 5.00 661.03 3 41.701698 -88.428003 653.42 5.00 658.42 4 41.697597 -88.414098 648.55 5.00 653.55 5 41.697340 -88.412811 650.34 5.00 655.34 6 41.697276 -88.411781 650.63 5.00 655.63 7 41.698173 -88.408262 649.98 5.00 654.98 8 41.699135 -88.406631 651.10 5.00 656.10 9 41.700224 -88.404914 653.63 5.00 658.63 10 41.701954 -88.402425 654.89 5.00 659.89 Name: Route 3 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.698228 -88.408028 650.75 5.00 655.75 2 41.691829 -88.406147 654.40 5.00 659.40 3 41.684691 -88.405407 651.57 5.00 656.57 Page 4 of 23 Name: Route 4 Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 41.699726 -88.421491 654.79 5.00 659.79 2 41.697515 -88.422285 649.64 5.00 654.64 3 41.694295 -88.423165 653.41 5.00 658.41 4 41.693445 -88.423337 653.43 5.00 658.43 5 41.692708 -88.423916 651.65 5.00 656.65 6 41.690524 -88.426336 652.46 5.00 657.46 7 41.690091 -88.426830 651.60 5.00 656.60 8 41.689578 -88.427173 651.29 5.00 656.29 9 41.689154 -88.427377 651.21 5.00 656.21 10 41.686833 -88.427901 645.44 5.00 650.44 11 41.685672 -88.428073 641.45 5.00 646.45 Page 5 of 23 Discrete Observation Point Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 41.700932 -88.422182 657.54 5.00 OP 2 2 41.698812 -88.416327 655.69 5.00 OP 3 3 41.698632 -88.414943 651.78 5.00 OP 4 4 41.696138 -88.410528 649.33 5.00 OP 5 5 41.693097 -88.413342 651.67 5.00 OP 6 6 41.692597 -88.412597 648.92 5.00 OP 7 7 41.691270 -88.406592 649.49 5.00 OP 8 8 41.687777 -88.413809 646.95 5.00 OP 9 9 41.687521 -88.414061 647.82 5.00 OP 10 10 41.686972 -88.414684 647.48 5.00 OP 11 11 41.688301 -88.411563 649.67 5.00 OP 12 12 41.688186 -88.412033 649.15 5.00 OP 13 13 41.688413 -88.411102 649.87 5.00 OP 14 14 41.684823 -88.417582 648.05 5.00 OP 15 15 41.685304 -88.421173 641.73 5.00 OP 16 16 41.688254 -88.423818 645.41 5.00 OP 17 17 41.687777 -88.422986 648.41 5.00 OP 18 18 41.687762 -88.427398 648.13 5.00 OP 19 19 41.688136 -88.427299 650.38 5.00 OP 20 20 41.688336 -88.427280 650.50 5.00 OP 21 21 41.688497 -88.427251 650.93 5.00 OP 22 22 41.696180 -88.423846 653.29 5.00 OP 23 23 41.696036 -88.421094 651.27 5.00 OP 24 24 41.692207 -88.423862 654.74 0.00 Page 6 of 23 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results Glare with potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh PV array 1 SA tracking SA tracking 5 0.1 2,447 40.8 20,870,000.0 Total annual glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 12 0.2 Route 3 4 0.1 12 0.2 Route 4 0 0.0 726 12.1 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 45 0.8 OP 3 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 1,005 16.8 OP 6 0 0.0 9 0.1 OP 7 0 0.0 13 0.2 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 290 4.8 OP 12 0 0.0 8 0.1 OP 13 1 0.0 322 5.4 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 1 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 7 of 23 PV: PV array 1 potential temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr Route 1 0 0.0 12 0.2 Route 3 4 0.1 12 0.2 Route 4 0 0.0 726 12.1 OP 2 0 0.0 45 0.8 OP 3 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 1,005 16.8 OP 6 0 0.0 9 0.1 OP 7 0 0.0 13 0.2 OP 11 0 0.0 290 4.8 OP 12 0 0.0 8 0.1 OP 13 1 0.0 322 5.4 OP 21 0 0.0 2 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 1 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 8 of 23 PV array 1 and Route 1 Receptor type: Route 12 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 9 of 23 PV array 1 and Route 3 Receptor type: Route 12 minutes of yellow glare 4 minutes of green glare Page 10 of 23 PV array 1 and Route 4 Receptor type: Route 726 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 11 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 2 Receptor type: Observation Point 45 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 12 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 3 Receptor type: Observation Point 2 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 13 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 5 Receptor type: Observation Point 1,005 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 14 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 6 Receptor type: Observation Point 9 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 15 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 7 Receptor type: Observation Point 13 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 16 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 11 Receptor type: Observation Point 290 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 17 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 12 Receptor type: Observation Point 8 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 18 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 13 Receptor type: Observation Point 322 minutes of yellow glare 1 minutes of green glare Page 19 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 21 Receptor type: Observation Point 2 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Page 20 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 22 Receptor type: Observation Point 1 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare PV array 1 and OP 1 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 4 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 8 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 9 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 10 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 14 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found Page 21 of 23 PV array 1 and OP 15 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 16 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 17 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 18 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 19 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 20 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 23 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found PV array 1 and OP 24 Receptor type: Observation Point No glare found Page 22 of 23 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians 2016 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. Page 23 of 23 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2022-AGL-15657-OE Page 1 of 4 Issued Date: 08/12/2022 Scott Osborn TPE IL KE106, LLC 3720 S. Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure:Solar Panel KE106 Location:Bristol, IL Latitude:41-41-44.16N NAD 83 Longitude:88-25-20.98W Heights:650 feet site elevation (SE) 15 feet above ground level (AGL) 665 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M. This determination expires on 02/12/2024 unless: (a)the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b)extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c)the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO Page 2 of 4 SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (816) 329-2525, or natalie.schmalbeck@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022- AGL-15657-OE. Signature Control No: 542230381-547794923 ( DNE ) Natalie Schmalbeck Technician Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2022-AGL-15657-OE As part of an FAA determination, we do not evaluate the following structures: . Security fencing . Security light poles . Any utility poles used to tie into the National Grid/power company . Anything taller than the proposed height of 15 ft. AGL to include any associated construction equipment that may exceed the AMSL height. If any of these are pertinent, please check if "NOTICE IS REQUIRED" and submit studies if applicable. Page 4 of 4 Verified Map for ASN 2022-AGL-15657-OE Application for Special Use Permit | Page 16 APPENDIX N – CONTAMINANT AND WATER STUDIES WHITE PAPER Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics By Tommy Cleveland May 2017 Contents 1.1 • Project Installation / Construction...................................................................4 1.2 • System Components | 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability........5 1.2.2 • Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies...................................................................7 1.2.3. • Panel End-of-Life Management...............................................................10 1.2.4 • Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer)..12 1.4 • Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control....13 2 • Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)........................................................................14 3 • Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards ...........................................................16 4 • Fire Safety.......................................................................................................16 Summary..............................................................................................................17 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics May 2017 | Version 1 3 The increasing presence of utility-scale solar pho- tovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina’s landscape. Due to the new and un- known nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be con- cerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortu- nately, the quick emergence of utility-scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half- truths about the health impacts of this technology, which can lead to unnecessary fear and conflict. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters are not known to pose any significant health dan- gers to their neighbors. The most important dan- gers posed are increased highway traffic during the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil-fu- el-fired electric generators, the overall impact of solar development on human health is overwhelm- ingly positive. This pollution reduction results from a partial replacement of fossil-fuel fired generation by emission-free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen ox- ides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, both affiliates of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the health-related air quali- ty benefits to the southeast region from solar PV generators to be worth 8.0 ¢ per kilowatt-hour of solar generation.1 This is in addition to the value of the electricity and suggests that the air quality benefits of solar are worth more than the electricity itself. Even though we have only recently seen large- scale installation of PV technologies, the technol- ogy and its potential impacts have been studied since the 1950s. A combination of this solar-spe- cific research and general scientific research has led to the scientific community having a good un- derstanding of the science behind potential health and safety impacts of solar energy. This paper uti- lizes the latest scientific literature and knowledge of solar practices in N.C. to address the health and safety risks associated with solar PV technol- ogy. These risks are extremely small, far less than those associated with common activities such as driving a car, and vastly outweighed by health ben- efits of the generation of clean electricity. This paper addresses the potential health and safety impacts of solar PV development in North Carolina, organized into the following four catego- ries: (1) Hazardous Materials (2) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash (4) Fire Safety 1 • Hazardous Materials One of the more common concerns towards solar is that the panels (referred to as “modules” in the solar industry) consist of toxic materials that en- danger public health. However, as shown in this section, solar energy systems may contain small amounts of toxic materials, but these materials do not endanger public health. To understand poten- tial toxic hazards coming from a solar project, one must understand system installation, materials used, the panel end-of-life protocols, and system operation. This section will examine these aspects of a solar farm and the potential for toxicity im- pacts in the following subsections: (1.2) Project Installation/Construction (1.2) System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability 1.2.2 Photovoltaic technologies (a) Crystalline Silicon (b) Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) (c) CIS/CIGS 1.2.3 Panel End of Life Management 1.2.4 Non-panel System Components (1.3) Operations and Maintenance 1.1 Project Installation/ Construction The system installation, or construction, process does not require toxic chemicals or processes. The site is mechanically cleared of large vegetation, fences are constructed, and the land is surveyed to layout exact installation locations. Trenches for underground wiring are dug and support posts are driven into the ground. The solar panels are bolt- ed to steel and aluminum support structures and wired together. Inverter pads are installed, and an inverter and transformer are installed on each pad. Once everything is connected, the system is tested, and only then turned on. May 2017 | Version 1 4 Figure 1: Utility-scale solar facility (5 MWAC) located in Catawba County. Source: Strata Solar Solar PV panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life.2 Today there are two PV technol- ogies used in PV panels at utility-scale solar facil- ities, silicon, and thin film. As of 2016, all thin film used in North Carolina solar facilities are cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels from the US manufacturer First Solar, but there are other thin film PV panels available on the market, such as Solar Frontier’s CIGS panels. Crystalline silicon technology con- sists of silicon wafers which are made into cells and assembled into panels, thin film technologies consist of thin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass, polymer or metal substrates. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of so- lar technologies, many aspects of their PV panel construction are very similar. Specifics about each type of PV chemistry as it relates to toxicity are covered in subsections a, b, and c in section 1.2.2; on crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, and CIS/ CIGS respectively. The rest of this section applies equally to both silicon and thin film panels. 1.2 • System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability May 2017 | Version 1 5 To provide decades of corrosion-free operation, PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Frameless modules include a protective layer of glass on the rear of the pan- el, which may also be tempered. The plastic eth- ylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) commonly provides the cell encapsulation. For decades, this same mate- rial has been used between layers of tempered glass to give car windshields and hurricane win- dows their great strength. In the same way that a car windshield cracks but stays intact, the EVA layers in PV panels keep broken panels intact (see Figure 4). Thus, a damaged module does not generally create small pieces of debris; instead, it largely remains together as one piece. May 2017 | Version 1 6 Figure 4: The mangled PV panels in this picture illustrate the nature of broken solar panels; the glass cracks but the panel is still in one piece. Image Source: http://img.alibaba.com/pho- to/115259576/broken_solar_panel.jpg PV panels constructed with the same basic com- ponents as modern panels have been installed across the globe for well over thirty years.3 The long-term durability and performance demonstrat- ed over these decades, as well as the results of accelerated lifetime testing, helped lead to an in- dustrystandard 25-year power production warran- ty for PV panels. These power warranties warrant a PV panel to produce at least 80% of their origi- nal nameplate production after 25 years of use. A recent SolarCity and DNV GL study reported that today’s quality PV panels should be expected to reliably and efficiently produce power for thirty-five years.4 Local building codes require all structures, includ- ing ground mounted solar arrays, to be engineered to withstand anticipated wind speeds, as defined by the local wind speed requirements. Many rack- ing products are available in versions engineered for wind speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, which is significantly higher than the wind speed require- ment anywhere in North Carolina. The strength of PV mounting structures were demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again during Hurri- cane Matthew in 2016. During Hurricane Sandy, the many large-scale solar facilities in New Jer- sey and New York at that time suffered only minor damage.5 In the fall of 2016, the US and Carib- bean experienced destructive winds and torrential rains from Hurricane Matthew, yet one leading so- lar tracker manufacturer reported that their numer- ous systems in the impacted area received zero damage from wind or flooding.6 In the event of a catastrophic event capable of dam- aging solar equipment, such as a tornado, the sys- tem will almost certainly have property insurance May 2017 | Version 1 7 that will cover the cost to cleanup and repair the project. It is in the best interest of the system own- er to protect their investment against such risks. It is also in their interest to get the project repaired and producing full power as soon as possible. Therefore, the investment in adequate insurance is a wise business practice for the system owner. For the same reasons, adequate insurance cover- age is also generally a requirement of the bank or firm providing financing for the project. 1.2.2 Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies a. Crystalline Silicon This subsection explores the toxicity of sili- con-based PV panels and concludes that they do not pose a material risk of toxicity to public health and safety. Modern crystalline silicon PV panels, which account for over 90% of solar PV panels installed today, are, more or less, a commodity product. The overwhelming majority of panels installed in North Carolina are crystalline silicon panels that are informally classified as Tier I pan- els. Tier I panels are from well-respected manu- facturers that have a good chance of being able to honor warranty claims. Tier I panels are under- stood to be of high quality, with predictable perfor- mance, durability, and content. Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tem- pered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them togeth- er, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth’s crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of bo- ron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. The other minor components of the PV cell are also generally benign; however, some contain lead, which is a human toxicant that is particularly harmful to young children. The minor components include an extremely thin antireflective coating (silicon nitride or titanium dioxide), a thin layer of aluminum on the rear, and thin strips of silver alloy that are screen-printed on the front and rear of cell.7 In order for the front and rear electrodes to make effective electrical contact with the proper layer of the PV cell, other materials (called glass frit) are mixed with the silver alloy and then heated to etch the metals into the cell. This glass frit historically contains a small amount of lead (Pb) in the form of lead oxide. The 60 or 72 PV cells in a PV panel are connected by soldering thin solder-covered cop- per tabs from the back of one cell to the front of the next cell. Traditionally a tin-based solder contain- ing some lead (Pb) is used, but some manufactur- ers have switched to lead-free solder. The glass frit and/or the solder may contain trace amounts of other metals, potentially including some with hu- man toxicity such as cadmium. However, testing to simulate the potential for leaching from broken panels, which is discussed in more detail below, did not find a potential toxicity threat from these trace elements. Therefore, the tiny amount of lead in the grass frit and the solder is the only part of silicon PV panels with a potential to create a neg- ative health impact. However, as described below, the very limited amount of lead involved and its strong physical and chemical attachment to other components of the PV panel means that even in worst-case scenarios the health hazard it poses is insignificant. May 2017 | Version 1 8 As with many electronic industries, the solder in sil- icon PV panels has historically been a leadbased solder, often 36% lead, due to the superior prop- erties of such solder. However, recent advances in lead-free solders have spurred a trend among PV panel manufacturers to reduce or remove the lead in their panels. According to the 2015 Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a group that tracks environmental responsibili- ty of photovoltaic panel manufacturers, fourteen companies (increased from twelve companies in 2014) manufacture PV panels certified to meet the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard. This means that the amount of cadmium and lead in the panels they manufacture fall below the RoHS thresholds, which are set by the European Union and serve as the world’s de facto standard for hazardous substances in man- ufactured goods.8 The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard requires that the maximum concentration found in any homog- enous material in a produce is less than 0.01% cadmium and less than 0.10% lead, therefore, any solder can be no more than 0.10% lead.9 While some manufacturers are producing PV panels that meet the RoHS standard, there is no requirement that they do so because the RoHS Directive explicitly states that the directive does not apply to photovoltaic panels.10 The justification for this is provided in item 17 of the current RoHS Directive: “The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (4) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union envi- ronmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sus- tainable and economically viable.” The use of lead is common in our modern econo- my. However, only about 0.5% of the annual lead consumption in the U.S. is for electronic solder for all uses; PV solder makes up only a tiny portion of this 0.5%. Close to 90% of lead consumption in the US is in batteries, which do not encapsu- late the pounds of lead contained in each typical automotive battery. This puts the lead in batteries at great risk of leaching into the environment. Es- timates for the lead in a single PV panel with lead- based solder range from 1.6 to 24 grams of lead, with 13g (less than half of an ounce) per panel seen most often in the literature.11 At 13 g/panel12, each panel contains one-half of the lead in a typi- cal 12-gauge shotgun shell. This amount equates to roughly 1/750th of the lead in a single car bat- tery. In a panel, it is all durably encapsulated from air or water for the full life of the panel.14 As indicated by their 20 to 30-year power warran- ty, PV modules are designed for a long service life, generally over 25 years. For a panel to comply with its 25-year power warranty, its internal components, including lead, must be sealed from any moisture. Otherwise, they would corrode and the panel’s out- put would fall below power warranty levels. Thus, the lead in operating PV modules is not at risk of release to the environment during their service life- time. In extreme experiments, researchers have shown that lead can leach from crushed or pulver- ized panels.15, 16 However, more real-world tests designed to represent typical trash compaction that are used to classify waste as hazardous or non- hazardous show no danger from leaching.17,18 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. As illustrated throughout this section, silicon-based PV panels do not pose a material threat to public health and safety. The only aspect of the panels with potential toxicity concerns is the very small amount of lead in some panels. However, any lead in a panel is well sealed from environmental expo- sure for the operating lifetime of the solar panel and thus not at risk of release into the environment. May 2017 | Version 1 9 b. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) PV Panels This subsection examines the components of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV panel. Research demonstrates that they pose negligible toxicity risk to public health and safety while significant- ly reducing the public’s exposure to cadmium by reducing coal emissions. As of mid-2016, a few hundred MWs of cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, all manufactured by the U.S. company First Solar, have been installed in North Carolina. Questions about the potential health and environ- mental impacts from the use of this PV technology are related to the concern that these panels con- tain cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. However, sci- entific studies have shown that cadmium telluride differs from cadmium due to its high chemical and thermal stability.19 Research has shown that the tiny amount of cadmium in these panels does not pose a health or safety risk.20 Further, there are very compelling reasons to welcome its adoption due to reductions in unhealthy pollution associat- ed with burning coal. Every GWh of electricity gen- erated by burning coal produces about 4 grams of cadmium air emissions.21 Even though North Car- olina produces a significant fraction of our elec- tricity from coal, electricity from solar offsets much more natural gas than coal due to natural gas plants being able to adjust their rate of production more easily and quickly. If solar electricity offsets 90% natural gas and 10% coal, each 5-megawatt (5 MWAC, which is generally 7 MWDC) CdTe solar facility in North Carolina keeps about 157 grams, or about a third of a pound, of cadmium out of our environment.22, 23 Cadmium is toxic, but all the approximately 7 grams of cadmium in one CdTe panel is in the form of a chemical compound cadmium telluride,24 which has 1/100th the toxicity of free cadmium.25 Cadmium telluride is a very stable compound that is non-volatile and non-soluble in water. Even in the case of a fire, research shows that less than 0.1% of the cadmium is released when a CdTe panel is exposed to fire. The fire melts the glass and encapsulates over 99.9% of the cadmium in the molten glass.27 It is important to understand the source of the cad- mium used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. The cadmium is a byproduct of zinc and lead refining. The element is collected from emissions and waste streams during the production of these metals and combined with tellurium to create the CdTe used in PV panels. If the cadmium were not collected for use in the PV panels or other products, it would otherwise either be stockpiled for future use, ce- mented and buried, or disposed of.28 Nearly all the cadmium in old or broken panels can be recycled which can eventually serve as the primary source of cadmium for new PV panels.29 Similar to silicon-based PV panels, CdTe panels are constructed of a tempered glass front, one instead of two clear plastic encapsulation layers, and a rear heat strengthened glass backing (to- gether >98% by weight). The final product is built to withstand exposure to the elements without significant damage for over 25 years. While not representative of damage that may occur in the field or even at a landfill, laboratory evidence has illustrated that when panels are ground into a fine powder, very acidic water is able to leach portions of the cadmium and tellurium,30 similar to the pro- cess used to recycle CdTe panels. Like many sil- icon-based panels, CdTe panels are reported (as far back ask 199831 to pass the EPA’s Toxic Char- acteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, which tests the potential for crushed panels in a landfill to leach hazardous substances into groundwater.32 Passing this test means that they are classified as non-hazardous waste and can be deposited in landfills.33,34 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. There is also concern of environmental impact re- sulting from potential catastrophic events involv- ing CdTe PV panels. An analysis of worst-case scenarios for environmental impact from CdTe PV May 2017 | Version 1 10 panels, including earthquakes, fires, and floods, was conducted by the University of Tokyo in 2013. After reviewing the extensive international body of research on CdTe PV technology, their report concluded, “Even in the worst-case scenarios, it is unlikely that the Cd concentrations in air and sea water will exceed the environmental regulation values.”35 In a worst-case scenario of damaged panels abandoned on the ground, insignificant amounts of cadmium will leach from the panels. This is because this scenario is much less condu- cive (larger module pieces, less acidity) to leach- ing than the conditions of the EPA’s TCLP test used to simulate landfill conditions, which CdTe panels pass.36 First Solar, a U.S. company, and the only signifi- cant supplier of CdTe panels, has a robust panel take-back and recycling program that has been operating commercially since 2005.37 The compa- ny states that it is “committed to providing a com- mercially attractive recycling solution for photovol- taic (PV) power plant and module owners to help them meet their module (end of life) EOL obliga- tion simply, costeffectively and responsibly.” First Solar global recycling services to their custom- ers to collect and recycle panels once they reach the end of productive life whether due to age or damage. These recycling service agreements are structured to be financially attractive to both First Solar and the solar panel owner. For First Solar, the contract provides the company with an afford- able source of raw materials needed for new pan- els and presumably a diminished risk of undesired release of Cd. The contract also benefits the solar panel owner by allowing them to avoid tipping fees at a waste disposal site. The legal contract helps provide peace of mind by ensuring compliance by both parties when considering the continuing trend of rising disposal costs and increasing regulatory requirements. c. CIS/CIGS and other PV technologies Copper indium gallium selenide PV technology, of- ten referred to as CIGS, is the second most com- mon type of thin-film PV panel but a distant second behind CdTe. CIGS cells are composed of a thin layer of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium on a glass or plastic backing. None of these elements are very toxic, although selenium is a regulated metal under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).38 The cells often also have an extremely thin layer of cadmium sulfide that contains a tiny amount of cadmium, which is toxic. The promise of high efficiency CIGS pan- els drove heavy investment in this technology in the past. However, researchers have struggled to transfer high efficiency success in the lab to low-cost full-scale panels in the field.39 Recently, a CIGS manufacturer based in Japan, Solar Fron- tier, has achieved some market success with a rig- id, glass-faced CIGS module that competes with silicon panels. Solar Frontier produces the major- ity of CIS panels on the market today.40 Notably, these panels are RoHS compliant,41 thus meeting the rigorous toxicity standard adopted by the Eu- ropean Union even thought this directive exempts PV panels. The authors are unaware of any com- pleted or proposed utility-scale system in North Carolina using CIS/CIGS panels. 1.2.3 Panel End-of-Life Management Concerns about the volume, disposal, toxicity, and recycling of PV panels are addressed in this sub- section. To put the volume of PV waste into per- spective, consider that by 2050, when PV systems installed in 2020 will reach the end of their lives, it is estimated that the global annual PV panel waste tonnage will be 10% of the 2014 global e-waste tonnage.42 In the U.S., end-of-life disposal of so- lar products is governed by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state policies in some situations. RCRA sepa- rates waste into hazardous (not accepted at ordi- nary landfill) and solid waste (generally accepted May 2017 | Version 1 11 at ordinary landfill) based on a series of rules. Ac- cording to RCRA, the way to determine if a PV panel is classified as hazardous waste is the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. This EPA test is designed to simulate landfill dis- posal and determine the risk of hazardous sub- stances leaching out of the landfill.43,44,45 Multiple sources report that most modern PV panels (both crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride) pass the TCLP test.46,47 Some studies found that some older (1990s) crystalline silicon panels, and perhaps some newer crystalline silicon panels (specifics are not given about vintage of panels tested), do not pass the lead (Pb) leachate limits in the TCLP test.48,49 The test begins with the crushing of a panel into centimeter-sized pieces. The pieces are then mixed in an acid bath. After tumbling for eighteen hours, the fluid is tested for forty hazardous sub- stances that all must be below specific threshold levels to pass the test. Research comparing TCLP conditions to conditions of damaged panels in the field found that simulated landfill conditions pro- vide overly conservative estimates of leaching for field-damaged panels.50 Additionally, research in Japan has found no detectable Cd leaching from cracked CdTe panels when exposed to simulated acid rain.51 Although modern panels can generally be land- filled, they can also be recycled. Even though recent waste volume has not been adequate to support significant PV-specific recycling in- frastructure, the existing recycling industry in North Carolina reports that it recycles much of the current small volume of broken PV panels. In an informal survey conducted by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center survey in early 2016, seven of the eight large active North Carolina utility-scale solar developers surveyed report- ed that they send damaged panels back to the manufacturer and/or to a local recycler. Only one developer reported sending damaged panels to the landfill. The developers reported at that time that they are usually paid a small amount per panel by local re- cycling firms. In early 2017, a PV developer re- ported that a local recycler was charging a small fee per panel to recycle damaged PV panels. The local recycling firm known to authors to accept PV panels described their current PV panel recycling practice as of early 2016 as removing the alumi- num frame for local recycling and removing the wire leads for local copper recycling. The remain- der of the panel is sent to a facility for processing the non-metallic portions of crushed vehicles, re- ferred to as “fluff” in the recycling industry.52 This processing within existing general recycling plants allows for significant material recovery of major components, including glass which is 80% of the module weight, but at lower yields than PV-spe- cific recycling plants. Notably almost half of the material value in a PV panel is in the few grams of silver contained in almost every PV panel pro- duced today. In the long-term, dedicated PV panel recycling plants can increase treatment capacities and maximize revenues resulting in better output quality and the ability to recover a greater fraction of the useful materials.53 PV-specific panel recy- cling technologies have been researched and im- plemented to some extent for the past decade, and have been shown to be able to recover over 95% of PV material (semiconductor) and over 90% of the glass in a PV panel.54 A look at global PV recycling trends hints at the future possibilities of the practice in our country. Europe installed MW-scale volumes of PV years before the U.S. In 2007, a public-private partner- ship between the European Union and the solar industry set up a voluntary collection and recycling system called PV CYCLE. This arrangement was later made mandatory under the EU’s WEEE di- rective, a program for waste electrical and elec- tronic equipment.55 Its member companies (PV panel producers) fully finance the association. This makes it possible for end-users to return the member companies’ defective panels for recycling at any of the over 300 collection points around May 2017 | Version 1 12 Europe without added costs. Additionally, PV CYCLE will pick up batches of 40 or more used panels at no cost to the user. This arrangement has been very successful, collecting and recycling over 13,000 tons by the end of 2015.56 In 2012, the WEEE Directive added the end-of-life collection and recycling of PV panels to its scope.57 This directive is based on the principle of extend- ed-producer-responsibility. It has a global impact be- cause producers that want to sell into the EU market are legally responsible for end-of-life management. Starting in 2018, this directive targets that 85% of PV products “put in the market” in Europe are recovered and 80% is prepared for reuse and recycling. The success of the PV panel collection and recycling practices in Europe provides promise for the future of recycling in the U.S. In mid-2016, the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) announced that they are starting a national solar panel recycling pro- gram with the guidance and support of many leading PV panel producers.58 The program will aggregate the services offered by recycling vendors and PV manufacturers, which will make it easier for consum- ers to select a cost-effective and environmentally re- sponsible end-of-life management solution for their PV products. According to SEIA, they are planning the program in an effort to make the entire industry landfill-free. In addition to the national recycling net- work program, the program will provide a portal for system owners and consumers with information on how to responsibly recycle their PV systems. While a cautious approach toward the potential for negative environmental and/or health impacts from retired PV panels is fully warranted, this sec- tion has shown that the positive health impacts of reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion from PV systems more than outweighs any poten- tial risk. Testing shows that silicon and CdTe pan- els are both safe to dispose of in landfills, and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster. Additionally, analysis by local engineers has found that the current salvage value of the equipment in a utility scale PV facili- ty generally exceeds general contractor estimates for the cost to remove the entire PV system.59,60,61 1.2.4 Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer) While previous toxicity subsections discussed PV panels, this subsection describes the non-panel components of utility-scale PV systems and inves- tigates any potential public health and safety con- cerns. The most significant non-panel component of a ground-mounted PV system is the mounting structure of the rows of panels, commonly referred to as “racking”. The vertical post portion of the rack- ing is galvanized steel and the remaining above- ground racking components are either galvanized steel or aluminum, which are both extremely com- mon and benign building materials. The inverters that make the solar generated electricity ready to send to the grid have weather-proof steel enclo- sures that protect the working components from the elements. The only fluids that they might con- tain are associated with their cooling systems, which are not unlike the cooling system in a com- puter. Many inverters today are RoHS compliant. The electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connec- tion point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, the fluid used for that function is either a nontoxic mineral oil or a biodegradable non-toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of being much less flammable than traditional min- eral oils. Significant health hazards are associ- ated with old transformers containing cooling oil with toxic PCBs. Transfers with PCB-containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979. PCBs still exist in older transformers in the field across the country. May 2017 | Version 1 13 Other than a few utility research sites, there are no batteries on- or off-site associated with utility-scale solar energy facilities in North Carolina, avoiding any potential health or safety concerns related to battery technologies. However, as battery technol- ogies continue to improve and prices continue to decline we are likely to start seeing some batter- ies at solar facilities. Lithium ion batteries current- ly dominate the world utility-scale battery market, which are not very toxic. No non-panel system components were found to pose any health or en- vironmental dangers. 1.4 Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control Throughout the eastern U.S., the climate provides frequent and heavy enough rain to keep panels adequately clean. This dependable weather pat- tern eliminates the need to wash the panels on a regular basis. Some system owners may choose to wash panels as often as once a year to increase production, but most in N.C. do not regularly wash any PV panels. Dirt build up over time may justify panel washing a few times over the panels’ life- time; however, nothing more than soap and water are required for this activity. The maintenance of ground-mounted PV facili- ties requires that vegetation be kept low, both for aesthetics and to avoid shading of the PV panels. Several approaches are used to maintain vegeta- tion at NC solar facilities, including planting of lim- ited-height species, mowing, weed-eating, herbi- cides, and grazing livestock (sheep). The following descriptions of vegetation maintenance practices are based on interviews with several solar devel- opers as well as with three maintenance firms that together are contracted to maintain well over 100 of the solar facilities in N.C. The majority of solar facilities in North Carolina maintain vegetation pri- marily by mowing. Each row of panels has a single row of supports, allowing sickle mowers to mow under the panels. The sites usually require mow- ing about once a month during the growing sea- son. Some sites employ sheep to graze the site, which greatly reduces the human effort required to maintain the vegetation and produces high quality lamb meat.62 In addition to mowing and weed eating, solar fa- cilities often use some herbicides. Solar facilities generally do not spray herbicides over the entire acreage; rather they apply them only in strategic locations such as at the base of the perimeter fence, around exterior vegetative buffer, on interior dirt roads, and near the panel support posts. Also unlike many row crop operations, solar facilities generally use only general use herbicides, which are available over the counter, as opposed to re- stricted use herbicides commonly used in com- mercial agriculture that require a special restricted use license. The herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-D and glyphosate (Round-up®), which are two of the most common herbicides used in lawns, parks, and agriculture across the country. One maintenance firm that was inter- viewed sprays the grass with a class of herbicide known as a growth regulator in order to slow the growth of grass so that mowing is only required twice a year. Growth regulators are commonly used on highway roadsides and golf courses for the same purpose. A commercial pesticide appli- cator license is required for anyone other than the landowner to apply herbicides, which helps ensure that all applicators are adequately educated about proper herbicide use and application. The license must be renewed annually and requires passing of a certification exam appropriate to the area in which the applicator wishes to work. Based on the limited data available, it appears that solar facili- ties in N.C. generally use significantly less herbi- cides per acre than most commercial agriculture or lawn maintenance services. May 2017 | Version 1 14 2. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) PV systems do not emit any material during their operation; however, they do generate electromag- netic fields (EMF), sometimes referred to as radi- ation. EMF produced by electricity is non-ionizing radiation, meaning the radiation has enough en- ergy to move atoms in a molecule around (experi- enced as heat), but not enough energy to remove electrons from an atom or molecule (ionize) or to damage DNA. As shown below, modern humans are all exposed to EMF throughout our daily lives without negative health impact. Someone outside of the fenced perimeter of a solar facility is not exposed to significant EMF from the solar facility. Therefore, there is no negative health impact from the EMF produced in a solar farm. The following paragraphs provide some additional background and detail to support this conclusion. Since the 1970s, some have expressed concern over potential health consequences of EMF from electricity, but no studies have ever shown this EMF to cause health problems.63 These concerns are based on some epidemiological studies that found a slight increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic fields above 0.3 to 0.4 µT (microteslas) (equal to 3.0 to 4.0 mG (milli- gauss)). µT and mG are both units used to mea- sure magnetic field strength. For comparison, the average exposure for people in the U.S. is one mG or 0.1 µT, with about 1% of the population with an average exposure in excess of 0.4 µT (or 4 mG).64 These epidemiological studies, which found an association but not a causal relation- ship, led the World Health Organization’s Interna- tional Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcino- genic to humans”. Coffee also has this classifi- cation. This classification means there is limited evidence but not enough evidence to designate as either a “probable carcinogen” or “human carcinogen”. Overall, there is very little concern that ELF EMF damages public health. The only concern that does exist is for long-term exposure above 0.4 µT (4 mG) that may have some con- nection to increased cases of childhood leuke- mia. In 1997, the National Academies of Science were directed by Congress to examine this con- cern and concluded: “Based on a comprehensive evaluation of pub- lished studies relating to the effects of power-fre- quency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tis- sues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evi- dence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neu- robehavioral effects, or reproductive and develop- mental effects.”65 There are two aspects to electromagnetic fields, an electric field and a magnetic field. The elec- tric field is generated by voltage and the mag- netic field is generated by electric current, i.e., moving electrons. A task group of scientific ex- perts convened by the World Health Organiza- tion (WHO) in 2005 concluded that there were no substantive health issues related to electric fields (0 to 100,000 Hz) at levels generally encoun- tered by members of the public.66 The relatively low voltages in a solar facility and the fact that electric fields are easily shielded (i.e., blocked) by common materials, such as plastic, metal, or soil means that there is no concern of negative health impacts from the electric fields generated by a solar facility. Thus, the remainder of this sec- tion addresses magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are not shielded by most common materials and thus can easily pass through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source of elec- tric generation and weaken quickly with distance from the source. May 2017 | Version 1 15 The direct current (DC) electricity produced by PV panels produce stationary (0 Hz) electric and mag- netic fields. Because of minimal concern about po- tential risks of stationary fields, little scientific re- search has examined stationary fields’ impact on human health.67 In even the largest PV facilities, the DC voltages and currents are not very high. One can illustrate the weakness of the EMF gen- erated by a PV panel by placing a compass on an operating solar panel and observing that the nee- dle still points north. While the electricity throughout the majority of a solar site is DC electricity, the inverters convert this DC electricity to alternating current (AC) elec- tricity matching the 60 Hz frequency of the grid. Therefore, the inverters and the wires delivering this power to the grid are producing non-station- ary EMF, known as extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF, normally oscillating with a frequency of 60 Hz. This frequency is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, it has less energy than other commonly encountered types of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves, infrared radiation, and visible light. The wide use of electricity results in background levels of ELF EMFs in nearly all locations where people spend time – homes, workplaces, schools, cars, the supermarket, etc. A person’s average ex- posure depends upon the sources they encounter, how close they are to them, and the amount of time they spend there.68 As stated above, the av- erage exposure to magnetic fields in the U.S. is estimated to be around one mG or 0.1 µT, but can vary considerably depending on a person’s expo- sure to EMF from electrical devices and wiring.69 At times we are often exposed to much higher ELF magnetic fields, for example when standing three feet from a refrigerator the ELF magnetic field is 6 mG and when standing three feet from a micro- wave oven the field is about 50 mG.70 The strength of these fields diminish quickly with distance from the source, but when surrounded by electricity in our homes and other buildings moving away from one source moves you closer to another. However, unless you are inside of the fence at a utility-scale solar facility or electrical substation it is impossible to get very close to the EMF sources. Because of this, EMF levels at the fence of electrical sub- stations containing high voltages and currents are considered “generally negligible”.71,72 The strength of ELF-EMF present at the perimeter of a solar facility or near a PV system in a commer- cial or residential building is significantly lower than the typical American’s average EMF exposure.73,74 Researchers in Massachusetts measured mag- netic fields at PV projects and found the magnetic fields dropped to very low levels of 0.5 mG or less, and in many cases to less than background levels (0.2 mG), at distances of no more than nine feet from the residential inverters and 150 feet from the utility-scale inverters.75 Even when measured within a few feet of the utility-scale inverter, the ELF magnetic fields were well below the Interna- tional Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Pro- tection’s recommended magnetic field level ex- posure limit for the general public of 2,000 mG.76 It is typical that utility scale designs locate large inverters central to the PV panels that feed them because this minimizes the length of wire required and shields neighbors from the sound of the in- verter’s cooling fans. Thus, it is rare for a large PV inverter to be within 150 feet of the project’s security fence. Anyone relying on a medical device such as pacemaker or other implanted device to maintain proper heart rhythm may have concern about the potential for a solar project to interfere with the operation of his or her device. However, there is no reason for concern because the EMF outside of the solar facility’s fence is less than 1/1000 of the level at which manufacturers test for ELF EMF interference, which is 1,000 mG.77 Manufacturers of potentially affected implanted devices often pro- vide advice on electromagnetic interference that includes avoiding letting the implanted device get too close to certain sources of fields such as some May 2017 | Version 1 16 household appliances, some walkie-talkies, and similar transmitting devices. Some manufactur- ers’ literature does not mention high-voltage pow- er lines, some say that exposure in public areas should not give interference, and some advise not spending extended periods of time close to power lines.78 3. Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards There is a real danger of electric shock to any- one entering any of the electrical cabinets such as combiner boxes, disconnect switches, inverters, or transformers; or otherwise coming in contact with voltages over 50 Volts.79 Another electrical hazard is an arc flash, which is an explosion of en- ergy that can occur in a short circuit situation. This explosive release of energy causes a flash of heat and a shockwave, both of which can cause seri- ous injury or death. Properly trained and equipped technicians and electricians know how to safely install, test, and repair PV systems, but there is al- ways some risk of injury when hazardous voltages and/or currents are present. Untrained individuals should not attempt to inspect, test, or repair any aspect of a PV system due to the potential for inju- ry or death due to electric shock and arc flash, The National Electric Code (NEC) requires appropriate levels of warning signs on all electrical compo- nents based on the level of danger determined by the voltages and current potentials. The national electric code also requires the site to be secured from unauthorized visitors with either a six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire or an eight-foot fence, both with adequate hazard warning signs. 4. Fire Safety The possibility of fires resulting from or intensified by PV systems may trigger concern among the general public as well as among firefighters. How- ever, concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer backsheets (framed panels only), plas- tic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. Heat from a small flame is not adequate to ignite a PV panel, but heat from a more intense fire or en- ergy from an electrical fault can ignite a PV panel.80 One real-world example of this occurred during July 2015 in an arid area of California. Three acres of grass under a thin film PV facility burned without igniting the panels mounted on fixed-tilt racks just above the grass.81 While it is possible for electri- cal faults in PV systems on homes or commercial buildings to start a fire, this is extremely rare.82 Improving understanding of the PV-specific risks, safer system designs, and updated fire-related codes and standards will continue to reduce the risk of fire caused by PV systems. PV systems on buildings can affect firefighters in two primary ways, 1) impact their methods of fighting the fire, and 2) pose safety hazard to the firefighters. One of the most important techniques that firefighters use to suppress fire is ventilation of a building’s roof. This technique allows super- heated toxic gases to quickly exit the building. By doing so, the firefighters gain easier and safer access to the building, Ventilation of the roof also makes the challenge of putting out the fire easier. However, the placement of rooftop PV panels may interfere with ventilating the roof by limiting access to desired venting locations. New solar-specific building code requirements are working to minimize these concerns. Also, the May 2017 | Version 1 17 latest National Electric Code has added require- ments that make it easier for first responders to safely and effectively turn off a PV system. Con- cern for firefighting a building with PV can be re- duced with proper fire fighter training, system design, and installation. Numerous organizations have studied fire fighter safety related to PV. Many organizations have published valuable guides and training programs. Some notable examples are listed below. • The International Association of Fire Fight- ers (IAFF) and International Renewable Energy Council (IREC) partnered to create an online training course that is far beyond the PowerPoint click-andview model. The self-paced online course, “Solar PV Safety for Fire Fighters,” features rich video con- tent and simulated environments so fire fighters can practice the knowledge they’ve learned. www.iaff.org/pvsafetytraining • Photovoltaic Systems and the Fire Code: Office of NC Fire Marshal • Fire Service Training, Underwriter’s Labo- ratory • Firefighter Safety and Response for Solar Power Systems, National Fire Protection Research Foundation • Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety & Green Buildings, National Association of State Fire Marshalls • Guidelines for Fire Safety Elements of So- lar Photovoltaic Systems, Orange County Fire Chiefs Association • Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall • PV Safety & Firefighting, Matthew Paiss, Homepower Magazine • PV Safety and Code Development: Mat- thew Paiss, Cooperative Research Network Summary The purpose of this paper is to address and al- leviate concerns of public health and safety for utility-scale solar PV projects. Concerns of public health and safety were divided and discussed in the four following sections: (1) Toxicity, (2) Electro- magnetic Fields, (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash, and (4) Fire. In each of these sections, the nega- tive health and safety impacts of utility-scale PV development were shown to be negligible, while the public health and safety benefits of installing these facilities are significant and far outweigh any negative impacts. 1 Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin A. Heath. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States. Golden, CO: Na- tional Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65628.pdf 2 IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), “End-of-Life Man- agement: Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overview of Field Experience – Degradation Rates & Lifetimes. September 14, 2015. Solar Power International Con- ference. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/65040.pdf 4 Miesel et al. SolarCity Photovoltaic Modules with 35 Year Useful Life. June 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://www.solarcity.com/newsroom/reports/solarci- ty-photovoltaic-modules-35-year-useful-life 5 David Unger. Are Renewables Stormproof? Hur- ricane Sandy Tests Solar, Wind. November 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voic- es/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurri- cane-Sandy-tests-solarwind & http://www.csmonitor. com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-re- newables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandytests-solar-wind 6 NEXTracker and 365 Pronto, Tracking Your Solar Investment: Best Practices for Solar Tracker O&M. May 2017 | Version 1 18 Accessed March 2017. www.nextracker.com/content/uploads/2017/03/NEX- Tracker_OandM-WhitePaper_FINAL_March-2017.pdf 7 Christiana Honsberg, Stuart Bowden. Overview of Screen Printed Solar Cells. Accessed January 2017. www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/ screen-printed 8 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2015 Solar Score- card. Accessed August 2016. www.solarscorecard.com/2015/2015-SVTC-Solar- Scorecard.pdf 9 European Commission. Recast of Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. September 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/in- dex_en.htm 10 Official Journal of the European Union, DIREC- TIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA- MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. June 2011. Accessed May 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PD- F/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065&from=en 11 Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of New High Value Process for the Management of the End of Life of Thin Film Photovoltaic Modules. July 2013. Accessed August 2016. www.researchgate.net/publication/257408804_Evalu- ation_of_the_environmental_benefits_of_new_high_ value_process_for_the_management_of_the_end_ of_life_of_thin_film_photovoltaic_modules 12 European Commission. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing The Impact Assessment for a Recast of the Weee Directive. April 2011. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/ Study%20on%20PVs%20Bio%20final.pdf 14 The amount of lead in a typical car battery is 21.4 pounds. Waste 360. Chaz Miller. Lead Acid Batteries. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://waste360.com/mag/waste_leadacid_batteries_3 15 Okkenhaug G. Leaching from CdTe PV module material results from batch, column and availability tests. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI report No. 20092155-00-6-R; 2010 16 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/arti- cle/download/485/298 17 ibid 18 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 19 Bonnet, D. and P. Meyers. 1998. Cadmium-tellu- ride—Material for thin film solar cells. J. Mater. Res., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 2740-2753 20 V. Fthenakis, K. Zweibel. CdTe PV: Real and Per- ceived EHS Risks. National Center ofr Photovoltaics and Solar Program Review Meeting, March 24-26, 2003. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33561.pdf. Ac- cessed May 2017 21 International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. March 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=315 22 Data not available on fraction of various genera- tion sources offset by solar generation in NC, but this is believed to be a reasonable rough estimate. The SunShot report entitled The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States analysis contributes significant (% not provided) offsetting of coal-fired generation by solar PV energy in the southeast. 23 7 MWDC * 1.5 GWh/MWDC * 25 years * 0.93 degradation factor * (0.1 *4.65 grams/GWh + 0.9*0.2 grams/GWh) 24 Vasilis Fthenakis. CdTe PV: Facts and Handy Comparisons. January 2003. Accessed March 2017. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_165.pdf 25 Kaczmar, S., Evaluating the Read-Across Ap- proach on CdTe Toxicity for CdTe Photovoltaics, SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 2011. Available at: ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/campo-verdesolar/ final/evaluating-toxicity.pdf, Accessed May 2017 27 V. M. Fthenakis et al, Emissions and Encapsula- tion of Cadmium in CdTe PV Modules During Fires Renewable Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:1–11, Accessed March 2017, www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/abs_179.pdf 28 Fthenakis V.M., Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cad- mium in CdTe Photovoltaic Production, Renewable May 2017 | Version 1 19 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 303-334, 2004. www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Life_Cycle_Impact_ Analysis_Cadmium_CdTe_Photovoltaic_production. pdf, Accessed May 2017 29 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. 30 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/arti- cle/download/485/298 31 Cunningham D., Discussion about TCLP protocols, Photovoltaics and the Environment Workshop, July 23-24, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL- 52557 32 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 33 Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamen- tals and Applications. T. Markvart and L. Castaner. Chapter VII-2: Overview of Potential Hazards. Decem- ber 2003. Accessed August 2016. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf 34 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Environmental Risks Regarding the Use and End-of-Life Disposal of CdTe PV Modules. April 2010. Accessed August 2016. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/ Norwegian-Geotechnical-InstituteStudy.pdf 35 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. August 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Cata- strophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tainability/PeerReviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsu- no_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 36 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. 2015 IEEE 37 See p. 22 of First Solar, Sustainability Report. Available at: www.firstsolar.com/-/media/FirstSolar/Sustainabili- ty-Documents/03801_FirstSolar_SustainabilityRe- port_08MAR16_Web.ashx, Accessed May 2017 38 40 CFR §261.24. Toxicity Characteristic. May 2017. Accessed May 2017. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx- ?node=se40.26.261_124&rgn=div8 39 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide. Accessed March 2017. https://www.energy.gov/eere/sunshot/copper-indi- um-gallium-diselenide 40 Mathias Maehlum. Best Thin Film Solar Panels – Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride or CIGS? April 2015. Accessed March 2017. http://energyinformative.org/best-thin-film-solar-pan- els-amorphous-cadmium-telluride-cigs/ 41 RoHS tested certificate for Solar Frontier PV mod- ules. TUVRheinland, signed 11.11.2013 42 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 43 40 C.F.R. §261.10. Identifying the Characteris- tics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing Hazardous Waste. November 2016. Accessed November 2016 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=ce0006d- 66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261&rgn=div5#sp40.28.261.b 44 40 C.F.R. §261.24 Toxicity Characteristic. Novem- ber 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=ce0006d- 66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261&rgn=div5#se40.28.261_124 45 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 46 TLCP test results from third-party laboratories for REC, Jinko, and Canadian Solar silicon-based pan- els. Provided by PV panel manufacturers directly or indirectly to authors 47 Sinovoltaics, Introduction to Solar Panel Recycling, March 2014. Accessed October 2016. http://sinovoltaics.com/solarbasics/introduction-to-so- lar-panel-recycling/ 48 Brookhaven National Laboratory. Vasilis Fthenakis, May 2017 | Version 1 20 Regulations on Photovoltaic Module Disposal and Recycling. January 29, 2001. 49 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. 50 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. October 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tainability/PVSC42-Manuscript-20150912--Assess- ment-of-Leaching-Tests-for-Evaluating-PotentialEnvi- ronmental-Impa.ashx 51 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tainability/PeerReviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsu- no_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 52 Phone interview, February 3, 2016, TT&E Iron & Metal, Garner, NC www.ncscrapmetal.com 53 Wen-His Huang, et al. Strategy and Technology To Recycle Water-silicon Solar Modules. Solar Energy, Volume 144, March 2017, Pages 22-31 54 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Pan- els_2016.pdf 55 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Elec- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 56 PV CYCLE. Annual Report 2015. Accessed No- vember 2016. https://pvcyclepublications.cld.bz/Annual-Report-PV- CYCLE-2015/6-7 57 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Elec- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 58 SEIA National PV Recycling Program: www.seia.org/seia-national-pv-recycling-program 59 RBI Solar, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in June 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2015-05_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 60 Birdseye Renewables, Decommissioning Plan sub- mitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in May 2015. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2015-04_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 61 Cypress Creek Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in September 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2016-06decommission.pdf 62 Sun Raised Farms: http://sunraisedfarms.com/index.html 63 National Institute of Environmental Health Scienc- es and National Institutes of Health, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with Electric Power: Questions and Answers, June 2002 64 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/ en/ 65 Committee on the Possible Effects of Electro- magnetic Fields on Biologic Systems, National Re- search Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, ISBN: 0-309-55671-6, 384 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5155.html 66 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 67 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Static Electric and Magnetic Fields. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs299/ en/ 68 Asher Sheppard, Health Issues Related to the Static and Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) of the Soitec Solar Energy Farms, April May 2017 | Version 1 21 30, 2014. Accessed March 2017: www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/ Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/Appendix_9.0-1_ EMF.pdf 69 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. December 2012. Accessed August 2016. 70 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequent- ly_asked_questions.asp 71 National Institute of Environmental Health Sci- ences, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associate with the use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers, 2002. Accessed November 2016 www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/electric_and_ magnetic_fields 72 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequent- ly_asked_questions.asp 73 R.A. Tell et al, Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Electric Power Generating Facilities, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 12, 2015,- Issue 11. Abstract Accessed March 2016: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1545962 4.2015.1047021 74 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro- tection, and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Questions & Answers: Ground-Mounted Solar Photo- voltaic Systems. June 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/so- lar/solar-pv-guide.pdf 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 EMFs and medical devices, Accessed March 2017. www.emfs.info/effects/medical-devices/ 78 ibid. 79 Damon McCluer. Electrical Construction & Main- tenance: NFPA 70E’s Approach to Considering DC Hazards. September 2013. Accessed October 2016. http://ecmweb.com/safety/nfpa-70e-s-approach-con- sidering-dc-hazards 80 Hong-Yun Yang, et. al. Experimental Studies on the Flammability and Fire Hazards of Photovoltaic Modules, Materials. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4210/pdf 81 Matt Fountain. The Tribune. Fire breaks out at To- paz Solar Farm. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39055539. html 82 Cooperative Research Network. Matthew Paiss. Tech Surveillance: PV Safety & Code Developments. October 2014. Accessed August 2016. http://www.nreca.coop/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ ts_pv_fire_safety_oct_2014.pdf “Clean Energy in Michigan” Series, Number 12 Solar Panels. Photo by Mariana Proenca on UnsplashQ: Do solar panels contribute to PFAS contamination? Multiple states have raised concerns about PFAS contamination from solar farms, largely citing academic research on how PFAS could potentially be used in photovoltaic (PV) solar panels.1 The fact is that PFAS is not customarily used in solar panels because safer, effective alternatives have already been developed and commercialized. Moreover, no studies have shown the presence or leaching of PFAS from PV panels—either while they are in active use or at the end of their life (e.g., in a landfill). Anatomy of a solar panel These three parts of a solar panel cause confusion about the presence of PFAS. Self-Cleaning Coat A self-cleaning coating on the top of a solar panel helps reduce dust, pollen, and snow adhesion, extending both the power output and the lifetime of the panel.2 Multiple self-cleaning coating options are available on the market, many of which make use of non-hazardous silicon-based chemistry.3 Confusion comes from the fact that some other commercialized self-cleaning coating options do make use of PFAS-based chemicals, although even those do not degrade under normal use. Adhesives PV panels are sealed from the elements to maximize power output and lifetime. While PFAS chemicals are found in certain adhesives, such as carpentry glues, they are not typically used in sealant adhesives for solar panels.4 Instead, solar adhesives are based on silicone polymers, which are well known for their lack of negative health impacts and remarkable stability.5 Substrate PV modules are housed in a weather-resistant substrate that offers additional protection from the elements. Thin-film PV units use glass as the substrate, while crystalline silicon PV units use a polymer substrate, which has led to the rumors of Acknowledgement This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy and the Michigan Energy Office (MEO) under Award Number EE00007478. The Clean Energy in Michigan series provides case studies and fact sheets answering common questions about clean energy projects in Michigan. Find this document and more about the project online at graham.umich.edu/climate-energy/energy-futures. Facts about solar panels: PFAS contamination By Dr. Annick Anctil, Michigan State University potential PFAS use in solar panels. The most common polymer used in silicon PV units is Tedlar, a weather resistant polymer that is not a PFAS compound itself and makes no use of PFAS during its manufacturing process.6 Far more common materials, like those used in construction projects and weather resistant fabrics, present a higher risk of PFAS exposure than PV. In fact, a recent study found that these more common materials release PFAS under conditions where solar panels do not, indicating that PFAS exposure risk may be higher sitting on outdoor furniture, for example, than living next to a solar farm.7 What is PFAS anyway? Per/Poly Fluoro-Alkyl Substances, PFAS for short, are a class of chemical compounds. PFAS are used in several industries for their unique properties, notably their ability to create coatings that are highly water repellent. PFAS are extremely persistent within the environment, not breaking down over time. Certain PFAS compounds have been linked to human health issues–notably low infant birth weights, increased risk of certain cancers, and thyroid issues. As a result of their persistence and toxicity, those PFAS compounds that pose a significant risk have been banned from use and production, and subsequently replaced with safer alternatives. It’s important to note that not all PFAS compounds are dangerous. Some PFAS compounds, such as Teflon, are much more stable and present no risk to human health under normal conditions of use.8 47485-OCT-20 1 S. Maharjan et al., “Self-cleaning hydrophobic nanocoating on glass: A scalable manufacturing process,” Mater. Chem. Phys., vol. 239, Jan. 2020.; . Son et al., “A practical superhydrophilic self cleaning and antireflective surface for outdoor photovoltaic applications,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2012.; H. C. Han et al., “Enhancing efficiency with fluorinated interlayers in small molecule organic solar cells,” J. Mater. Chem., vol. 22, no. 43, 2012. 2 “How a solar cell works – American Chemical Society.” [Online]; H. C. Han et al., “Enhancing efficiency with fluorinated interlayers in small molecule organic solar cells,” J. Mater. Chem., vol. 22, no. 43, 2012.; M. Simon and E. L. Meyer, “Detection and analysis of hot-spot formation in solar cells,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells. pp. 106–113, 2010. 3 “Say Goodbye To Solar Panel Cleaning | Ultimate Efficiency | Solar Sharc®.” [Online]. 4 “Electronics Product Catalog | Dow Inc.” [Online]; B. J. Henry et al., “A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 14, no. 3. pp. 316–334, May-2018. 5 “Electronics Product Catalog | Dow Inc.”; “Properties of Silicones.” [Online]; A. M. Bueche, “The curing of silicone rubber with benzoyl peroxide,” J. Polym. Sci., vol. 15, no. 79, pp. 105–120, Jan. 1955. 6 M. H. Alaaeddin, S. M. Sapuan, M. Y. . Zuhri, E. . Zainudin, and F. M. AL-Oqla, “Polyvinyl fluoride (PVF); Its Properties, Applications, and Manufacturing Prospects,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 538, p. 012010, Jun. 2019. 7 R. M. Janousek, S. Lebertz, and T. P. Knepper, “Previously unidentified sources of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances from building materials and industrial fabrics,” Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1936–1945, Nov. 2019. 8 “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA.” [Online].; B. J. Henry et al., “A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers” Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics: A California-Focused Forward to the Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics white paper published by the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University in May 2017 By: Thomas H. Cleveland, P.E., lead author of the North Carolina white paper RE: Soscol Ferry Road Solar, a proposed 1.98 MWAC PV facility in Napa, CA Date: July 31, 2019 For the last several years North Carolina (NC) has trailed only California in the capacity of annual solar photovoltaic (PV) installed. For most of that time North Carolina’s PV development was nearly entirely distribution-connected ground-mounted solar facilities, most commonly 5 MWAC projects. More recently, North Carolina is developing a mixture of transmission-connected PV facilities between 20 and 75 MWAC and distribution-connected facilities of 1 to 5 MWAC, but still has relatively few commercial or residential PV projects. As the state quickly transitioned from zero utility-scale solar facilities to over 400 utility-scale solar facilities concerns about the health and safety impacts of photovoltaics were raised at countless public hearings across the state and in many meetings of state officials and regulators, including several NC general assembly committee meetings. These concerns led to several years of engagement on this topic by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center at North Carolina State University that resulted in a detailed, peer-reviewed university white paper on the latest scientific understanding regarding PV health and safety impacts, with a focus on North Carolina. Naturally, there is also interest in the potential health and safety impacts of PV in California, where there is significantly more installed solar capacity than in North Carolina, in a mixture of residential, commercial, and small- and large-scale ground-mounted utility-scale solar projects. While there are massive similarities between the PV installations and their potential health and safety impacts in each state, there are some differences in policy, climate, industry practices, electricity regulation, and more that are worth highlighting. This forward is an attempt by the lead researcher and author of the North Carolina white paper to provide a supplement to the original paper that clearly demonstrates the applicability of the paper to PV in California and to offer California-specific supplements or modifications where the original paper had a North Carolina focus. Most importantly, all the white paper’s conclusions about the negligible negative health and safety impacts of photovoltaics apply fully in California, as well as anywhere in the United States. Similarly, there is nothing unique about the 1.98 MWAC Soscol Ferry Road Solar project that would cause any health or safety impacts different than those discussed in the N.C. white paper. Throughout the white paper there are instances of North Carolina-specific information, or issues where the situation in California is different than it is in North Carolina. The following is a list of the significant instances of either situation, in the order they appear in the white paper, along with the relevant California-specific information. • Type of PV Technology Used: Crystalline silicon, Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), and CIGS are all being installed in California as they are in N.C. Since the publication of the N.C. report the author has confirmed the recent installation of utility-scale projects using CIGS modules, but these are still not common. Like in NC, the majority of the current PV installation capacity in California is crystalline silicon, also like NC these are generally Tier I modules. The Soscol Ferry Rd. project will use Tier I crystalline silicon modules. • Design Wind Speed: The ASCE 7-2016 design wind speed in the vast majority of California, including in Napa County where the Soscol Ferry Road Solar project is located, is 90-95 MPH, which is much lower than the design wind speeds of hurricane-prone eastern N.C. where most PV development in the state is located. A few mountainous regions of California have design wind speeds over 100 MPG, however these extreme terrains are unlikely to install ground-mounted PV systems. • Offset Electricity Fuel Mix: The white paper includes a rough estimation that the fuel mix of the generators offset by PV energy production in N.C. is 90% natural gas and 10% coal. From this mix an estimate of the reduction in cadmium emissions due to PV was calculated. The 10% coal estimate is certainly too high for California. An offset fuel mix for California could be reasonably estimated as 100% natural gas, resulting in about 75% of the cadmium emissions savings calculated for NC. • PV Module Recycling: The white paper included local reports from PV developers in North Carolina of recycling damaged PV modules. It is quite possible that the same is occurring in California, but the author does not have data on the current common waste management practices for damaged PV modules in California. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published two extensive reports on the Photovoltaic Module Recycling in the United States (April 2018) and Insights in Photovoltaic Recycling Processes in Europe (December 2017), which are great sources for current information on PV module recycling. The EPRI report on recycling in the U.S. states that there are commercial recyclers in the U.S. accepting and recycling PV modules, using processes not unlike those described in the white paper. • PV Module Washing: Unlike North Carolina, many regions of California regularly experience long periods of time with little to no rain, which can result in enough accumulation of dirt on the PV modules that it justifies occasionally washing the modules to renew their performance. In North Carolina there is generally a heavy rain often enough to keep the panels clean enough to not require manual panel washing. This difference does not have an impact on the health or safety impact of the photovoltaic modules other than perhaps some increased risk of electric shock when washing the modules. Proper installation, maintenance, and washing techniques should reduce this risk to near zero. • Vegetation Maintenance: The climate in many regions of California, including Napa County where the Soscol Ferry Road Solar project is located, cause the growth of vegetation requiring maintenance to be less vigorous than the vegetation in moist North Carolina. Thus, PV sites in California use similar vegetation maintenance techniques to North Carolina however they need to spend less time and make fewer trips to adequately maintain vegetation on site. • California Hazardous Waste Policy: o As explained in the white paper, in the United States a waste material is considered hazardous waste if the results of a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test find concentrations of any of 40 hazardous chemicals above the allowed EPA concentration limit for that chemical. However, in California, materials must additionally meet the more stringent Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), which is like the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) directive, adopted in February 2003 by the European Union (EU).i o In 2015, California passed SB-489 directing the CA DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control) to write rules to reclassify PV modules as universal waste, even if they fail TCLP. These rules exclude physically damaged, fractured, or fragmented PV modules that are no longer recognizable as PV modules.ii A primary goal of the legislation is to allow producers of waste PV modules to avoid difficult and costly waste determination procedures. In April 2019 the CA DTSC proposed rules to implement SB- 489. After the public comment period that ended in June 2019 DTSC may adjust and adopt the rules.iii i Program on Technology Innovation: Feasibility Study on Photovoltaic Module Recycling in the United States, Technical Update, April 2018; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); April 2018. ii ibid iii (webpage) Beveridge & Diamond law firm; News alert: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Proposes Regulation Classifying Discarded Solar Panels as Universal Waste ; https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/california-department- of-toxic-substances-control-proposes-regulation-classifying-discarded-solar-panels-as-universal-waste/ (last accessed 7/22/2019) )FBMUIBOE4BGFUZ*NQBDUTPG4PMBS 1IPUPWPMUBJDT .": 2017 1 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics The increasing presence of utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina’s landscape. Due to the new and unknown nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be concerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortunately, the quick emergence of utility-scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half-truths about the health impacts of this technology, which can lead to unnecessary fear and conflict. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters are not known to pose any significant health dangers to their neighbors. The most important dangers posed are increased highway traffic during the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil-fuel-fired electric generators, the overall impact of solar development on human health is overwhelmingly positive. This pollution reduction results from a partial replacement of fossil-fuel fired generation by emission-free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, both affiliates of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the health-related air quality benefits to the southeast region from solar PV generators to be worth 8.0 ¢ per kilowatt-hour of solar generation.0F 1 This is in addition to the value of the electricity and suggests that the air quality benefits of solar are worth more than the electricity itself. Even though we have only recently seen large-scale installation of PV technologies, the technology and its potential impacts have been studied since the 1950s. A combination of this solar-specific research and general scientific research has led to the scientific community having a good understanding of the science behind potential health and safety impacts of solar energy. This paper utilizes the latest scientific literature and knowledge of solar practices in N.C. to address the health and safety risks associated with solar PV technology. These risks are extremely small, far less than those associated with common activities such as driving a car, and vastly outweighed by health benefits of the generation of clean electricity. This paper addresses the potential health and safety impacts of solar PV development in North Carolina, organized into the following four categories: (1) Hazardous Materials (2) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash (4) Fire Safety 2 1. Hazardous Materials One of the more common concerns towards solar is that the panels (referred to as “modules” in the solar industry) consist of toxic materials that endanger public health. However, as shown in this section, solar energy systems may contain small amounts of toxic materials, but these materials do not endanger public health. To understand potential toxic hazards coming from a solar project, one must understand system installation, materials used, the panel end-of-life protocols, and system operation. This section will examine these aspects of a solar farm and the potential for toxicity impacts in the following subsections: (1.2) Project Installation/Construction (1.2) System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability 1.2.2 Photovoltaic technologies (a) Crystalline Silicon (b) Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) (c) CIS/CIGS 1.2.3 Panel End of Life Management 1.2.4 Non-panel System Components (1.3) Operations and Maintenance 1.1 Project Installation/Construction The system installation, or construction, process does not require toxic chemicals or processes. The site is mechanically cleared of large vegetation, fences are constructed, and the land is surveyed to layout exact installation locations. Trenches for underground wiring are dug and support posts are driven into the ground. The solar panels are bolted to steel and aluminum support structures and wired together. Inverter pads are installed, and an inverter and transformer are installed on each pad. Once everything is connected, the system is tested, and only then turned on. Figure 1: Utility-scale solar facility (5 MWAC) located in Catawba County. Source: Strata Solar 3 1.2 System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability Solar PV panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life. 1F 2 Today there are two PV technologies used in PV panels at utility-scale solar facilities, silicon, and thin film. As of 2016, all thin film used in North Carolina solar facilities are cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels from the US manufacturer First Solar, but there are other thin film PV panels available on the market, such as Solar Frontier’s CIGS panels. Crystalline silicon technology consists of silicon wafers which are made into cells and assembled into panels, thin film technologies consist of thin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass, polymer or metal substrates. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of solar technologies, many aspects of their PV panel construction are very similar. Specifics about each type of PV chemistry as it relates to toxicity are covered in subsections a, b, and c in section 1.2.2; on crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, and CIS/CIGS respectively. The rest of this section applies equally to both silicon and thin film panels. Figure 2: Components of crystalline silicon panels. The vast majority of silicon panels consist of a glass sheet on the topside with an aluminum frame providing structural support. Image Source: www.riteksolar.com.tw Figure 3: Layers of a common frameless thin-film panel (CdTe). Many thin film panels are frameless, including the most common thin-film panels, First Solar’s CdTe. Frameless panels have protective glass on both the front and back of the panel. Layer thicknesses not to scale. Image Source: www.homepower.com To provide decades of corrosion-free operation, PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Frameless modules include a protective layer of glass on the rear of the panel, which may also be tempered. The plastic ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) commonly provides the cell encapsulation. For decades, this same material has been used between layers of tempered glass to give car windshields and hurricane windows their great strength. In the same way that a car windshield cracks but stays intact, the EVA layers in PV panels keep broken panels intact (see Figure 4). Thus, a damaged module does not generally create small pieces of debris; instead, it largely remains together as one piece. 4 Figure 4: The mangled PV panels in this picture illustrate the nature of broken solar panels; the glass cracks but the panel is still in one piece. Image Source: http://img.alibaba.com/photo/115259576/broken_solar_panel.jpg PV panels constructed with the same basic components as modern panels have been installed across the globe for well over thirty years.2F 3 The long-term durability and performance demonstrated over these decades, as well as the results of accelerated lifetime testing, helped lead to an industry- standard 25-year power production warranty for PV panels. These power warranties warrant a PV panel to produce at least 80% of their original nameplate production after 25 years of use. A recent SolarCity and DNV GL study reported that today’s quality PV panels should be expected to reliably and efficiently produce power for thirty-five years.3F 4 Local building codes require all structures, including ground mounted solar arrays, to be engineered to withstand anticipated wind speeds, as defined by the local wind speed requirements. Many racking products are available in versions engineered for wind speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, which is significantly higher than the wind speed requirement anywhere in North Carolina. The strength of PV mounting structures were demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again during Hurricane Matthew in 2016. During Hurricane Sandy, the many large-scale solar facilities in New Jersey and New York at that time suffered only minor damage.4F 5 In the fall of 2016, the US and Caribbean experienced destructive winds and torrential rains from Hurricane Matthew, yet one leading solar tracker manufacturer reported that their numerous systems in the impacted area received zero damage from wind or flooding.5F 6 In the event of a catastrophic event capable of damaging solar equipment, such as a tornado, the system will almost certainly have property insurance that will cover the cost to cleanup and repair the project. It is in the best interest of the system owner to protect their investment against such risks. It is also in their interest to get the project repaired and producing full power as soon as possible. Therefore, the investment in adequate insurance is a wise business practice for the system owner. For the same 5 reasons, adequate insurance coverage is also generally a requirement of the bank or firm providing financing for the project. 1.2.2 Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies a. Crystalline Silicon This subsection explores the toxicity of silicon-based PV panels and concludes that they do not pose a material risk of toxicity to public health and safety. Modern crystalline silicon PV panels, which account for over 90% of solar PV panels installed today, are, more or less, a commodity product. The overwhelming majority of panels installed in North Carolina are crystalline silicon panels that are informally classified as Tier I panels. Tier I panels are from well-respected manufacturers that have a good chance of being able to honor warranty claims. Tier I panels are understood to be of high quality, with predictable performance, durability, and content. Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tempered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them together, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth's crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high-temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of boron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. The other minor components of the PV cell are also generally benign; however, some contain lead, which is a human toxicant that is particularly harmful to young children. The minor components include an extremely thin antireflective coating (silicon nitride or titanium dioxide), a thin layer of aluminum on the rear, and thin strips of silver alloy that are screen-printed on the front and rear of cell.6F 7 In order for the front and rear electrodes to make effective electrical contact with the proper layer of the PV cell, other materials (called glass frit) are mixed with the silver alloy and then heated to etch the metals into the cell. This glass frit historically contains a small amount of lead (Pb) in the form of lead oxide. The 60 or 72 PV cells in a PV panel are connected by soldering thin solder-covered copper tabs from the back of one cell to the front of the next cell. Traditionally a tin-based solder containing some lead (Pb) is used, but some manufacturers have switched to lead-free solder. The glass frit and/or the solder may contain trace amounts of other metals, potentially including some with human toxicity such as cadmium. However, testing to simulate the potential for leaching from broken panels, which is discussed in more detail below, did not find a potential toxicity threat from these trace elements. Therefore, the tiny amount of lead in the grass frit and the solder is the only part of silicon PV panels with a potential to create a negative health impact. However, as described below, the very limited amount of lead involved and its strong physical and chemical attachment to other components of the PV panel means that even in worst-case scenarios the health hazard it poses is insignificant. As with many electronic industries, the solder in silicon PV panels has historically been a lead- based solder, often 36% lead, due to the superior properties of such solder. However, recent advances in lead-free solders have spurred a trend among PV panel manufacturers to reduce or remove the lead in their panels. According to the 2015 Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a group that tracks environmental responsibility of photovoltaic panel manufacturers, fourteen companies (increased from twelve companies in 2014) manufacture PV panels certified to meet the European Restriction of 6 Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard. This means that the amount of cadmium and lead in the panels they manufacture fall below the RoHS thresholds, which are set by the European Union and serve as the world’s de facto standard for hazardous substances in manufactured goods.7F 8 The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard requires that the maximum concentration found in any homogenous material in a produce is less than 0.01% cadmium and less than 0.10% lead, therefore, any solder can be no more than 0.10% lead.8F 9 While some manufacturers are producing PV panels that meet the RoHS standard, there is no requirement that they do so because the RoHS Directive explicitly states that the directive does not apply to photovoltaic panels.9F 10 The justification for this is provided in item 17 of the current RoHS Directive: “The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (4) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union environmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sustainable and economically viable.” The use of lead is common in our modern economy. However, only about 0.5% of the annual lead consumption in the U.S. is for electronic solder for all uses; PV solder makes up only a tiny portion of this 0.5%. Close to 90% of lead consumption in the US is in batteries, which do not encapsulate the pounds of lead contained in each typical automotive battery. This puts the lead in batteries at great risk of leaching into the environment. Estimates for the lead in a single PV panel with lead-based solder range from 1.6 to 24 grams of lead, with 13g (less than half of an ounce) per panel seen most often in the literature.10F 11 At 13 g/panel11F 12, each panel contains one-half of the lead in a typical 12-gauge shotgun shell.12F This amount equates to roughly 1/750th of the lead in a single car battery. In a panel, it is all durably encapsulated from air or water for the full life of the panel.13F 14 As indicated by their 20 to 30-year power warranty, PV modules are designed for a long service life, generally over 25 years. For a panel to comply with its 25-year power warranty, its internal components, including lead, must be sealed from any moisture. Otherwise, they would corrode and the panel’s output would fall below power warranty levels. Thus, the lead in operating PV modules is not at risk of release to the environment during their service lifetime. In extreme experiments, researchers have shown that lead can leach from crushed or pulverized panels.14F 15, 15F 16 However, more real-world tests designed to represent typical trash compaction that are used to classify waste as hazardous or non- hazardous show no danger from leaching.16F 17, 17F 18 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. As illustrated throughout this section, silicon-based PV panels do not pose a material threat to public health and safety. The only aspect of the panels with potential toxicity concerns is the very small amount of lead in some panels. However, any lead in a panel is well sealed from environmental exposure for the operating lifetime of the solar panel and thus not at risk of release into the environment. b. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) PV Panels This subsection examines the components of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV panel. Research demonstrates that they pose negligible toxicity risk to public health and safety while significantly reducing the public’s exposure to cadmium by reducing coal emissions. As of mid-2016, a few hundred MWs of 7 cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, all manufactured by the U.S. company First Solar, have been installed in North Carolina. Questions about the potential health and environmental impacts from the use of this PV technology are related to the concern that these panels contain cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. However, scientific studies have shown that cadmium telluride differs from cadmium due to its high chemical and thermal stability.18F 19 Research has shown that the tiny amount of cadmium in these panels does not pose a health or safety risk.19F 20 Further, there are very compelling reasons to welcome its adoption due to reductions in unhealthy pollution associated with burning coal. Every GWh of electricity generated by burning coal produces about 4 grams of cadmium air emissions.20F 21 Even though North Carolina produces a significant fraction of our electricity from coal, electricity from solar offsets much more natural gas than coal due to natural gas plants being able to adjust their rate of production more easily and quickly. If solar electricity offsets 90% natural gas and 10% coal, each 5-megawatt (5 MWAC, which is generally 7 MWDC) CdTe solar facility in North Carolina keeps about 157 grams, or about a third of a pound, of cadmium out of our environment.21F 22, 22F 23 Cadmium is toxic, but all the approximately 7 grams of cadmium in one CdTe panel is in the form of a chemical compound cadmium telluride, 23F 24 which has 1/100th the toxicity of free cadmium.24F 25 25F Cadmium telluride is a very stable compound that is non-volatile and non-soluble in water. Even in the case of a fire, research shows that less than 0.1% of the cadmium is released when a CdTe panel is exposed to fire. The fire melts the glass and encapsulates over 99.9% of the cadmium in the molten glass.26F 27 It is important to understand the source of the cadmium used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. The cadmium is a byproduct of zinc and lead refining. The element is collected from emissions and waste streams during the production of these metals and combined with tellurium to create the CdTe used in PV panels. If the cadmium were not collected for use in the PV panels or other products, it would otherwise either be stockpiled for future use, cemented and buried, or disposed of.27F 28 Nearly all the cadmium in old or broken panels can be recycled which can eventually serve as the primary source of cadmium for new PV panels.28F 29 Similar to silicon-based PV panels, CdTe panels are constructed of a tempered glass front, one instead of two clear plastic encapsulation layers, and a rear heat strengthened glass backing (together >98% by weight). The final product is built to withstand exposure to the elements without significant damage for over 25 years. While not representative of damage that may occur in the field or even at a landfill, laboratory evidence has illustrated that when panels are ground into a fine powder, very acidic water is able to leach portions of the cadmium and tellurium,29F 30 similar to the process used to recycle CdTe panels. Like many silicon-based panels, CdTe panels are reported (as far back ask 199830F 31) to pass the EPA’s Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, which tests the potential for crushed panels in a landfill to leach hazardous substances into groundwater.31F 32 Passing this test means that they are classified as non-hazardous waste and can be deposited in landfills.32F 33, 33F 34 For more information about PV panel end-of-life, see the Panel Disposal section. There is also concern of environmental impact resulting from potential catastrophic events involving CdTe PV panels. An analysis of worst-case scenarios for environmental impact from CdTe PV panels, including earthquakes, fires, and floods, was conducted by the University of Tokyo in 2013. After reviewing the extensive international body of research on CdTe PV technology, their report concluded, “Even in the worst-case scenarios, it is unlikely that the Cd concentrations in air and sea water will exceed the environmental regulation values.”34F 35 In a worst-case scenario of damaged panels abandoned on the ground, insignificant amounts of cadmium will leach from the panels. This is because this scenario is 8 much less conducive (larger module pieces, less acidity) to leaching than the conditions of the EPA’s TCLP test used to simulate landfill conditions, which CdTe panels pass.35F 36 First Solar, a U.S. company, and the only significant supplier of CdTe panels, has a robust panel take-back and recycling program that has been operating commercially since 2005.36F 37 The company states that it is “committed to providing a commercially attractive recycling solution for photovoltaic (PV) power plant and module owners to help them meet their module (end of life) EOL obligation simply, cost- effectively and responsibly.” First Solar global recycling services to their customers to collect and recycle panels once they reach the end of productive life whether due to age or damage. These recycling service agreements are structured to be financially attractive to both First Solar and the solar panel owner. For First Solar, the contract provides the company with an affordable source of raw materials needed for new panels and presumably a diminished risk of undesired release of Cd. The contract also benefits the solar panel owner by allowing them to avoid tipping fees at a waste disposal site. The legal contract helps provide peace of mind by ensuring compliance by both parties when considering the continuing trend of rising disposal costs and increasing regulatory requirements. c. CIS/CIGS and other PV technologies Copper indium gallium selenide PV technology, often referred to as CIGS, is the second most common type of thin-film PV panel but a distant second behind CdTe. CIGS cells are composed of a thin layer of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium on a glass or plastic backing. None of these elements are very toxic, although selenium is a regulated metal under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).37F 38 The cells often also have an extremely thin layer of cadmium sulfide that contains a tiny amount of cadmium, which is toxic. The promise of high efficiency CIGS panels drove heavy investment in this technology in the past. However, researchers have struggled to transfer high efficiency success in the lab to low-cost full-scale panels in the field.38F 39 Recently, a CIGS manufacturer based in Japan, Solar Frontier, has achieved some market success with a rigid, glass-faced CIGS module that competes with silicon panels. Solar Frontier produces the majority of CIS panels on the market today.39F 40 Notably, these panels are RoHS compliant,40F 41 thus meeting the rigorous toxicity standard adopted by the European Union even thought this directive exempts PV panels. The authors are unaware of any completed or proposed utility-scale system in North Carolina using CIS/CIGS panels. 1.2.3 Panel End-of-Life Management Concerns about the volume, disposal, toxicity, and recycling of PV panels are addressed in this subsection. To put the volume of PV waste into perspective, consider that by 2050, when PV systems installed in 2020 will reach the end of their lives, it is estimated that the global annual PV panel waste tonnage will be 10% of the 2014 global e-waste tonnage.41F 42 In the U.S., end-of-life disposal of solar products is governed by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state policies in some situations. RCRA separates waste into hazardous (not accepted at ordinary landfill) and solid waste (generally accepted at ordinary landfill) based on a series of rules. According to RCRA, the way to determine if a PV panel is classified as hazardous waste is the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. This EPA test is designed to simulate landfill disposal and determine the risk of hazardous substances leaching out of the landfill.42F 43, 43F 44, 44F 45 Multiple sources report that most modern PV panels (both crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride) pass the TCLP test.45F 46, 46F 47 Some studies found that some older (1990s) crystalline silicon panels, and perhaps some newer crystalline silicon panels (specifics are not given about vintage of panels tested), do not pass the lead (Pb) leachate limits in the TCLP test.47F 48, 48F 49 9 The test begins with the crushing of a panel into centimeter-sized pieces. The pieces are then mixed in an acid bath. After tumbling for eighteen hours, the fluid is tested for forty hazardous substances that all must be below specific threshold levels to pass the test. Research comparing TCLP conditions to conditions of damaged panels in the field found that simulated landfill conditions provide overly conservative estimates of leaching for field-damaged panels.49F 50 Additionally, research in Japan has found no detectable Cd leaching from cracked CdTe panels when exposed to simulated acid rain.50F 51 Although modern panels can generally be landfilled, they can also be recycled. Even though recent waste volume has not been adequate to support significant PV-specific recycling infrastructure, the existing recycling industry in North Carolina reports that it recycles much of the current small volume of broken PV panels. In an informal survey conducted by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center survey in early 2016, seven of the eight large active North Carolina utility-scale solar developers surveyed reported that they send damaged panels back to the manufacturer and/or to a local recycler. Only one developer reported sending damaged panels to the landfill. The developers reported at that time that they are usually paid a small amount per panel by local recycling firms. In early 2017, a PV developer reported that a local recycler was charging a small fee per panel to recycle damaged PV panels. The local recycling firm known to authors to accept PV panels described their current PV panel recycling practice as of early 2016 as removing the aluminum frame for local recycling and removing the wire leads for local copper recycling. The remainder of the panel is sent to a facility for processing the non-metallic portions of crushed vehicles, referred to as “fluff” in the recycling industry.51F 52 This processing within existing general recycling plants allows for significant material recovery of major components, including glass which is 80% of the module weight, but at lower yields than PV-specific recycling plants. Notably almost half of the material value in a PV panel is in the few grams of silver contained in almost every PV panel produced today. In the long-term, dedicated PV panel recycling plants can increase treatment capacities and maximize revenues resulting in better output quality and the ability to recover a greater fraction of the useful materials.52F 53 PV-specific panel recycling technologies have been researched and implemented to some extent for the past decade, and have been shown to be able to recover over 95% of PV material (semiconductor) and over 90% of the glass in a PV panel. 53F 54 A look at global PV recycling trends hints at the future possibilities of the practice in our country. Europe installed MW-scale volumes of PV years before the U.S. In 2007, a public-private partnership between the European Union and the solar industry set up a voluntary collection and recycling system called PV CYCLE. This arrangement was later made mandatory under the EU’s WEEE directive, a program for waste electrical and electronic equipment.54F 55 Its member companies (PV panel producers) fully finance the association. This makes it possible for end-users to return the member companies’ defective panels for recycling at any of the over 300 collection points around Europe without added costs. Additionally, PV CYCLE will pick up batches of 40 or more used panels at no cost to the user. This arrangement has been very successful, collecting and recycling over 13,000 tons by the end of 2015.55F 56 In 2012, the WEEE Directive added the end-of-life collection and recycling of PV panels to its scope.56F 57 This directive is based on the principle of extended-producer-responsibility. It has a global impact because producers that want to sell into the EU market are legally responsible for end-of-life management. Starting in 2018, this directive targets that 85% of PV products “put in the market” in Europe are recovered and 80% is prepared for reuse and recycling. The success of the PV panel collection and recycling practices in Europe provides promise for the future of recycling in the U.S. In mid-2016, the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) announced that they are starting a national solar panel recycling program with the guidance and support of many 10 leading PV panel producers.57F 58 The program will aggregate the services offered by recycling vendors and PV manufacturers, which will make it easier for consumers to select a cost-effective and environmentally responsible end-of-life management solution for their PV products. According to SEIA, they are planning the program in an effort to make the entire industry landfill-free. In addition to the national recycling network program, the program will provide a portal for system owners and consumers with information on how to responsibly recycle their PV systems. While a cautious approach toward the potential for negative environmental and/or health impacts from retired PV panels is fully warranted, this section has shown that the positive health impacts of reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion from PV systems more than outweighs any potential risk. Testing shows that silicon and CdTe panels are both safe to dispose of in landfills, and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster. Additionally, analysis by local engineers has found that the current salvage value of the equipment in a utility scale PV facility generally exceeds general contractor estimates for the cost to remove the entire PV system.58F 59, 59F 60, 60F 61 1.2.4 Non-Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer) While previous toxicity subsections discussed PV panels, this subsection describes the non-panel components of utility-scale PV systems and investigates any potential public health and safety concerns. The most significant non-panel component of a ground-mounted PV system is the mounting structure of the rows of panels, commonly referred to as “racking”. The vertical post portion of the racking is galvanized steel and the remaining above-ground racking components are either galvanized steel or aluminum, which are both extremely common and benign building materials. The inverters that make the solar generated electricity ready to send to the grid have weather-proof steel enclosures that protect the working components from the elements. The only fluids that they might contain are associated with their cooling systems, which are not unlike the cooling system in a computer. Many inverters today are RoHS compliant. The electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connection point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, the fluid used for that function is either a non- toxic mineral oil or a biodegradable non-toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of being much less flammable than traditional mineral oils. Significant health hazards are associated with old transformers containing cooling oil with toxic PCBs. Transfers with PCB-containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979. PCBs still exist in older transformers in the field across the country. Other than a few utility research sites, there are no batteries on- or off-site associated with utility- scale solar energy facilities in North Carolina, avoiding any potential health or safety concerns related to battery technologies. However, as battery technologies continue to improve and prices continue to decline we are likely to start seeing some batteries at solar facilities. Lithium ion batteries currently dominate the world utility-scale battery market, which are not very toxic. No non-panel system components were found to pose any health or environmental dangers. 1.4 Operations and Maintenance – Panel Washing and Vegetation Control 11 Throughout the eastern U.S., the climate provides frequent and heavy enough rain to keep panels adequately clean. This dependable weather pattern eliminates the need to wash the panels on a regular basis. Some system owners may choose to wash panels as often as once a year to increase production, but most in N.C. do not regularly wash any PV panels. Dirt build up over time may justify panel washing a few times over the panels’ lifetime; however, nothing more than soap and water are required for this activity. The maintenance of ground-mounted PV facilities requires that vegetation be kept low, both for aesthetics and to avoid shading of the PV panels. Several approaches are used to maintain vegetation at NC solar facilities, including planting of limited-height species, mowing, weed-eating, herbicides, and grazing livestock (sheep). The following descriptions of vegetation maintenance practices are based on interviews with several solar developers as well as with three maintenance firms that together are contracted to maintain well over 100 of the solar facilities in N.C. The majority of solar facilities in North Carolina maintain vegetation primarily by mowing. Each row of panels has a single row of supports, allowing sickle mowers to mow under the panels. The sites usually require mowing about once a month during the growing season. Some sites employ sheep to graze the site, which greatly reduces the human effort required to maintain the vegetation and produces high quality lamb meat.61F 62 In addition to mowing and weed eating, solar facilities often use some herbicides. Solar facilities generally do not spray herbicides over the entire acreage; rather they apply them only in strategic locations such as at the base of the perimeter fence, around exterior vegetative buffer, on interior dirt roads, and near the panel support posts. Also unlike many row crop operations, solar facilities generally use only general use herbicides, which are available over the counter, as opposed to restricted use herbicides commonly used in commercial agriculture that require a special restricted use license. The herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-D and glyphosate (Round-up®), which are two of the most common herbicides used in lawns, parks, and agriculture across the country. One maintenance firm that was interviewed sprays the grass with a class of herbicide known as a growth regulator in order to slow the growth of grass so that mowing is only required twice a year. Growth regulators are commonly used on highway roadsides and golf courses for the same purpose. A commercial pesticide applicator license is required for anyone other than the landowner to apply herbicides, which helps ensure that all applicators are adequately educated about proper herbicide use and application. The license must be renewed annually and requires passing of a certification exam appropriate to the area in which the applicator wishes to work. Based on the limited data available, it appears that solar facilities in N.C. generally use significantly less herbicides per acre than most commercial agriculture or lawn maintenance services. 2. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) PV systems do not emit any material during their operation; however, they do generate electromagnetic fields (EMF), sometimes referred to as radiation. EMF produced by electricity is non- ionizing radiation, meaning the radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around (experienced as heat), but not enough energy to remove electrons from an atom or molecule (ionize) or to damage DNA. As shown below, modern humans are all exposed to EMF throughout our daily lives without negative health impact. Someone outside of the fenced perimeter of a solar facility is not exposed to significant EMF from the solar facility. Therefore, there is no negative health impact from the EMF 12 produced in a solar farm. The following paragraphs provide some additional background and detail to support this conclusion. Since the 1970s, some have expressed concern over potential health consequences of EMF from electricity, but no studies have ever shown this EMF to cause health problems.62F 63 These concerns are based on some epidemiological studies that found a slight increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power-frequency magnetic fields above 0.3 to 0.4 µT (microteslas) (equal to 3.0 to 4.0 mG (milligauss)). µT and mG are both units used to measure magnetic field strength. For comparison, the average exposure for people in the U.S. is one mG or 0.1 µT, with about 1% of the population with an average exposure in excess of 0.4 µT (or 4 mG).63F 64 These epidemiological studies, which found an association but not a causal relationship, led the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify ELF magnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Coffee also has this classification. This classification means there is limited evidence but not enough evidence to designate as either a “probable carcinogen” or “human carcinogen”. Overall, there is very little concern that ELF EMF damages public health. The only concern that does exist is for long-term exposure above 0.4 µT (4 mG) that may have some connection to increased cases of childhood leukemia. In 1997, the National Academies of Science were directed by Congress to examine this concern and concluded: “Based on a comprehensive evaluation of published studies relating to the effects of power-frequency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tissues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human-health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neurobehavioral effects, or reproductive and developmental effects.”64F 65 There are two aspects to electromagnetic fields, an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is generated by voltage and the magnetic field is generated by electric current, i.e., moving electrons. A task group of scientific experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 concluded that there were no substantive health issues related to electric fields (0 to 100,000 Hz) at levels generally encountered by members of the public.65F 66 The relatively low voltages in a solar facility and the fact that electric fields are easily shielded (i.e., blocked) by common materials, such as plastic, metal, or soil means that there is no concern of negative health impacts from the electric fields generated by a solar facility. Thus, the remainder of this section addresses magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are not shielded by most common materials and thus can easily pass through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source of electric generation and weaken quickly with distance from the source. The direct current (DC) electricity produced by PV panels produce stationary (0 Hz) electric and magnetic fields. Because of minimal concern about potential risks of stationary fields, little scientific research has examined stationary fields’ impact on human health.66F 67 In even the largest PV facilities, the DC voltages and currents are not very high. One can illustrate the weakness of the EMF generated by a PV panel by placing a compass on an operating solar panel and observing that the needle still points north. While the electricity throughout the majority of a solar site is DC electricity, the inverters convert this DC electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity matching the 60 Hz frequency of the grid. Therefore, the inverters and the wires delivering this power to the grid are producing non-stationary EMF, known as extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF, normally oscillating with a frequency of 60 Hz. This frequency is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, it has less energy than 13 other commonly encountered types of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves, infrared radiation, and visible light. The wide use of electricity results in background levels of ELF EMFs in nearly all locations where people spend time – homes, workplaces, schools, cars, the supermarket, etc. A person’s average exposure depends upon the sources they encounter, how close they are to them, and the amount of time they spend there.67F 68 As stated above, the average exposure to magnetic fields in the U.S. is estimated to be around one mG or 0.1 µT, but can vary considerably depending on a person’s exposure to EMF from electrical devices and wiring.68F 69 At times we are often exposed to much higher ELF magnetic fields, for example when standing three feet from a refrigerator the ELF magnetic field is 6 mG and when standing three feet from a microwave oven the field is about 50 mG.69F 70 The strength of these fields diminish quickly with distance from the source, but when surrounded by electricity in our homes and other buildings moving away from one source moves you closer to another. However, unless you are inside of the fence at a utility-scale solar facility or electrical substation it is impossible to get very close to the EMF sources. Because of this, EMF levels at the fence of electrical substations containing high voltages and currents are considered “generally negligible”.70F 71, 71F 72 The strength of ELF-EMF present at the perimeter of a solar facility or near a PV system in a commercial or residential building is significantly lower than the typical American’s average EMF exposure.72F 73, 73F 74 Researchers in Massachusetts measured magnetic fields at PV projects and found the magnetic fields dropped to very low levels of 0.5 mG or less, and in many cases to less than background levels (0.2 mG), at distances of no more than nine feet from the residential inverters and 150 feet from the utility-scale inverters.74F 75 Even when measured within a few feet of the utility-scale inverter, the ELF magnetic fields were well below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s recommended magnetic field level exposure limit for the general public of 2,000 mG.75F 76 It is typical that utility scale designs locate large inverters central to the PV panels that feed them because this minimizes the length of wire required and shields neighbors from the sound of the inverter’s cooling fans. Thus, it is rare for a large PV inverter to be within 150 feet of the project’s security fence. Anyone relying on a medical device such as pacemaker or other implanted device to maintain proper heart rhythm may have concern about the potential for a solar project to interfere with the operation of his or her device. However, there is no reason for concern because the EMF outside of the solar facility’s fence is less than 1/1000 of the level at which manufacturers test for ELF EMF interference, which is 1,000 mG.76F 77 Manufacturers of potentially affected implanted devices often provide advice on electromagnetic interference that includes avoiding letting the implanted device get too close to certain sources of fields such as some household appliances, some walkie-talkies, and similar transmitting devices. Some manufacturers’ literature does not mention high-voltage power lines, some say that exposure in public areas should not give interference, and some advise not spending extended periods of time close to power lines.77F 78 3. Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards There is a real danger of electric shock to anyone entering any of the electrical cabinets such as combiner boxes, disconnect switches, inverters, or transformers; or otherwise coming in contact with voltages over 50 Volts.78F 79 Another electrical hazard is an arc flash, which is an explosion of energy that can occur in a short circuit situation. This explosive release of energy causes a flash of heat and a shockwave, both of which can cause serious injury or death. Properly trained and equipped technicians and electricians know how to safely install, test, and repair PV systems, but there is always some risk of 14 injury when hazardous voltages and/or currents are present. Untrained individuals should not attempt to inspect, test, or repair any aspect of a PV system due to the potential for injury or death due to electric shock and arc flash, The National Electric Code (NEC) requires appropriate levels of warning signs on all electrical components based on the level of danger determined by the voltages and current potentials. The national electric code also requires the site to be secured from unauthorized visitors with either a six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire or an eight-foot fence, both with adequate hazard warning signs. 4. Fire Safety The possibility of fires resulting from or intensified by PV systems may trigger concern among the general public as well as among firefighters. However, concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer backsheets (framed panels only), plastic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel’s weight. Heat from a small flame is not adequate to ignite a PV panel, but heat from a more intense fire or energy from an electrical fault can ignite a PV panel.79F 80 One real-world example of this occurred during July 2015 in an arid area of California. Three acres of grass under a thin film PV facility burned without igniting the panels mounted on fixed-tilt racks just above the grass.80F 81 While it is possible for electrical faults in PV systems on homes or commercial buildings to start a fire, this is extremely rare.81F 82 Improving understanding of the PV-specific risks, safer system designs, and updated fire-related codes and standards will continue to reduce the risk of fire caused by PV systems. PV systems on buildings can affect firefighters in two primary ways, 1) impact their methods of fighting the fire, and 2) pose safety hazard to the firefighters. One of the most important techniques that firefighters use to suppress fire is ventilation of a building’s roof. This technique allows superheated toxic gases to quickly exit the building. By doing so, the firefighters gain easier and safer access to the building, Ventilation of the roof also makes the challenge of putting out the fire easier. However, the placement of rooftop PV panels may interfere with ventilating the roof by limiting access to desired venting locations. New solar-specific building code requirements are working to minimize these concerns. Also, the latest National Electric Code has added requirements that make it easier for first responders to safely and effectively turn off a PV system. Concern for firefighting a building with PV can be reduced with proper fire fighter training, system design, and installation. Numerous organizations have studied fire fighter safety related to PV. Many organizations have published valuable guides and training programs. Some notable examples are listed below. • The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and International Renewable Energy Council (IREC) partnered to create an online training course that is far beyond the PowerPoint click-and- view model. The self-paced online course, “Solar PV Safety for Fire Fighters,” features rich video content and simulated environments so fire fighters can practice the knowledge they’ve learned. www.iaff.org/pvsafetytraining • Photovoltaic Systems and the Fire Code: Office of NC Fire Marshal • Fire Service Training, Underwriter's Laboratory 15 • Firefighter Safety and Response for Solar Power Systems, National Fire Protection Research Foundation • Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety & Green Buildings, National Association of State Fire Marshalls • Guidelines for Fire Safety Elements of Solar Photovoltaic Systems, Orange County Fire Chiefs Association • Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall • PV Safety & Firefighting, Matthew Paiss, Homepower Magazine • PV Safety and Code Development: Matthew Paiss, Cooperative Research Network Summary The purpose of this paper is to address and alleviate concerns of public health and safety for utility-scale solar PV projects. Concerns of public health and safety were divided and discussed in the four following sections: (1) Toxicity, (2) Electromagnetic Fields, (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash, and (4) Fire. In each of these sections, the negative health and safety impacts of utility-scale PV development were shown to be negligible, while the public health and safety benefits of installing these facilities are significant and far outweigh any negative impacts. 1 Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin A. Heath. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65628.pdf 2 IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), “End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels,” International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overview of Field Experience – Degradation Rates & Lifetimes. September 14, 2015. Solar Power International Conference. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/65040.pdf 4 Miesel et al. SolarCity Photovoltaic Modules with 35 Year Useful Life. June 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://www.solarcity.com/newsroom/reports/solarcity-photovoltaic-modules-35-year-useful-life 5 David Unger. Are Renewables Stormproof? Hurricane Sandy Tests Solar, Wind. November 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandy-tests-solar- wind & http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurricane-Sandy- tests-solar-wind 6 NEXTracker and 365 Pronto, Tracking Your Solar Investment: Best Practices for Solar Tracker O&M. Accessed March 2017. www.nextracker.com/content/uploads/2017/03/NEXTracker_OandM-WhitePaper_FINAL_March-2017.pdf 7 Christiana Honsberg, Stuart Bowden. Overview of Screen Printed Solar Cells. Accessed January 2017. www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/screen-printed 8 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2015 Solar Scorecard. Accessed August 2016. www.solarscorecard.com/2015/2015- SVTC-Solar-Scorecard.pdf 9 European Commission. Recast of Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. September 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/index_en.htm 10 Official Journal of the European Union, DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. June 2011. Accessed May 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065&from=en 11 Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of New High Value Process for the Management of the End of Life of Thin Film Photovoltaic Modules. July 2013. Accessed August 2016. www.researchgate.net/publication/257408804_Evaluation_of_the_environmental_benefits_of_new_high_value_process_for_ the_management_of_the_end_of_life_of_thin_film_photovoltaic_modules 16 12 European Commission. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing The Impact Assessment for a Recast of the Weee Directive. April 2011. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Study%20on%20PVs%20Bio%20final.pdf 14 The amount of lead in a typical car battery is 21.4 pounds. Waste 360. Chaz Miller. Lead Acid Batteries. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://waste360.com/mag/waste_leadacid_batteries_3 15 Okkenhaug G. Leaching from CdTe PV module material results from batch, column and availability tests. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI report No. 20092155-00-6-R; 2010 16 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/article/download/485/298 17 ibid 18 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 19 Bonnet, D. and P. Meyers. 1998. Cadmium-telluride—Material for thin film solar cells. J. Mater. Res., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 2740-2753 20 V. Fthenakis, K. Zweibel. CdTe PV: Real and Perceived EHS Risks. National Center ofr Photovoltaics and Solar Program Review Meeting, March 24-26, 2003. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33561.pdf. Accessed May 2017 21 International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. March 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=315 22 Data not available on fraction of various generation sources offset by solar generation in NC, but this is believed to be a reasonable rough estimate. The SunShot report entitled The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States analysis contributes significant (% not provided) offsetting of coal-fired generation by solar PV energy in the southeast. 23 7 MWDC * 1.5 GWh/MWDC * 25 years * 0.93 degradation factor * (0.1 *4.65 grams/GWh + 0.9*0.2 grams/GWh) 24 Vasilis Fthenakis. CdTe PV: Facts and Handy Comparisons. January 2003. Accessed March 2017. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_165.pdf 25 Kaczmar, S., Evaluating the Read-Across Approach on CdTe Toxicity for CdTe Photovoltaics, SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 2011. Available at: ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/campo-verde- solar/final/evaluating-toxicity.pdf, Accessed May 2017 27 V. M. Fthenakis et al, Emissions and Encapsulation of Cadmium in CdTe PV Modules During Fires Renewable Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:1–11, Accessed March 2017, www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/abs_179.pdf 28 Fthenakis V.M., Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadmium in CdTe Photovoltaic Production, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 303-334, 2004. www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Life_Cycle_Impact_Analysis_Cadmium_CdTe_Photovoltaic_productio n.pdf, Accessed May 2017 29 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. 30 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwick1, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/ijaapr/article/download/485/298 31 Cunningham D., Discussion about TCLP protocols, Photovoltaics and the Environment Workshop, July 23-24, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-52557 32 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 33 Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamentals and Applications. T. Markvart and L. Castaner. Chapter VII-2: Overview of Potential Hazards. December 2003. Accessed August 2016. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/art_170.pdf 34 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Environmental Risks Regarding the Use and End-of-Life Disposal of CdTe PV Modules. April 2010. Accessed August 2016. https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/upload/Norwegian-Geotechnical-Institute- Study.pdf 35 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. August 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sustainability/Peer- Reviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsuno_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 36 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. Assessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. 2015 IEEE 37 See p. 22 of First Solar, Sustainability Report. Available at: www.firstsolar.com/-/media/First- Solar/Sustainability-Documents/03801_FirstSolar_SustainabilityReport_08MAR16_Web.ashx, Accessed May 2017 17 38 40 CFR §261.24. Toxicity Characteristic. May 2017. Accessed May 2017. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?node=se40.26.261_124&rgn=div8 39 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide. Accessed March 2017. https://www.energy.gov/eere/sunshot/copper-indium-gallium-diselenide 40 Mathias Maehlum. Best Thin Film Solar Panels – Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride or CIGS? April 2015. Accessed March 2017. http://energyinformative.org/best-thin-film-solar-panels-amorphous-cadmium-telluride-cigs/ 41 RoHS tested certificate for Solar Frontier PV modules. TUVRheinland, signed 11.11.2013 42 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 43 40 C.F.R. §261.10. Identifying the Characteristics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing Hazardous Waste. November 2016. Accessed November 2016 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=ce0006d66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40.26.261&rgn=div5#sp40.28.261.b 44 40 C.F.R. §261.24 Toxicity Characteristic. November 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=ce0006d66da40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40.26.261&rgn=div5#se40.28.261_124 45 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 46 TLCP test results from third-party laboratories for REC, Jinko, and Canadian Solar silicon-based panels. Provided by PV panel manufacturers directly or indirectly to authors 47 Sinovoltaics, Introduction to Solar Panel Recycling, March 2014. Accessed October 2016. http://sinovoltaics.com/solar- basics/introduction-to-solar-panel-recycling/ 48 Brookhaven National Laboratory. Vasilis Fthenakis, Regulations on Photovoltaic Module Disposal and Recycling. January 29, 2001. 49 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End-Of-Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. 50 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. Assessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. October 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.firstsolar.com/- /media/Documents/Sustainability/PVSC42-Manuscript-20150912--Assessment-of-Leaching-Tests-for-Evaluating-Potential- Environmental-Impa.ashx 51 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.firstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sustainability/Peer- Reviews/Japan_Peer-Review_Matsuno_CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 52 Phone interview, February 3, 2016, TT&E Iron & Metal, Garner, NC www.ncscrapmetal.com/ 53 Wen-His Huang, et al. Strategy and Technology To Recycle Water-silicon Solar Modules. Solar Energy, Volume 144, March 2017, Pages 22-31 54 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf 55 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0019 56 PV CYCLE. Annual Report 2015. Accessed November 2016. https://pvcyclepublications.cld.bz/Annual-Report-PV- CYCLE-2015/6-7 57 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0019 58 SEIA National PV Recycling Program: www.seia.org/seia-national-pv-recycling-program 59 RBI Solar, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in June 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2015-05_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 60 Birdseye Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in May 2015. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2015- 04_DecommissioningPlan.pdf 61 Cypress Creek Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in September 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacountync.gov/Planning/Projects/Rezonings/RZ2016- 06decommission.pdf 62 Sun Raised Farms: http://sunraisedfarms.com/index.html 63 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with Electric Power: Questions and Answers, June 2002 18 64 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 65 Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems, Natio nal Research Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, ISBN: 0-309-55671-6, 384 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5155.html 66 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/en/ 67 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Static Electric and Magnetic Fields. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs299/en/ 68 Asher Sheppard, Health Issues Related to the Static and Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) of the Soitec Solar Energy Farms, April 30, 2014. Accessed March 2017: www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/Appendix_9.0-1_EMF.pdf 69 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. December 2012. Accessed August 2016. 70 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequently_asked_questions.asp 71 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associate with the use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers, 2002. Accessed November 2016 www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields 72 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/frequently_asked_questions.asp 73 R.A. Tell et al, Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Electric Power Generating Facilities, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 12, 2015,- Issue 11. Abstract Accessed March 2016: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2015.1047021 74 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Questions & Answers: Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems. June 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/solar/solar-pv-guide.pdf 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 EMFs and medical devices, Accessed March 2017. www.emfs.info/effects/medical-devices/ 78 ibid. 79 Damon McCluer. Electrical Construction & Maintenance: NFPA 70E’s Approach to Considering DC Hazards. September 2013. Accessed October 2016. http://ecmweb.com/safety/nfpa-70e-s-approach-considering-dc-hazards, 80 Hong-Yun Yang, et. al. Experimental Studies on the Flammability and Fire Hazards of Photovoltaic Modules, Materials. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4210/pdf 81 Matt Fountain. The Tribune. Fire breaks out at Topaz Solar Farm. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39055539.html 82 Cooperative Research Network. Matthew Paiss. Tech Surveillance: PV Safety & Code Developments. October 2014. Accessed August 2016. http://www.nreca.coop/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ts_pv_fire_safety_oct_2014.pdf Published by the N.C. Clean Energy Technology Center at N.C. State University Application for Special Use Permit | Page 17 APPENDIX O – VIEWSHED TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 1 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 1, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 2 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 2, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 3 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 3, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 4 TPE IL KE106, LLC Aerial 4, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Behind Velazquez Home TPE IL KE106, LLC Behind Velazquez Home, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Cannonball Trail, North of Project Access TPE IL KE106, LLC Cannonball Trail, North of Projet Acess, Year 5 TPE IL KE106, LLC Church Entrance TPE IL KE106, LLC Church Entrance, Year 5 Application for Special Use Permit | Page 18 APPENDIX P – FEMA FIRM MAP 655.8 FE E T 644.1 FEET 658.2 FEET 659.3 FEET 652.1FEET656.2 FEET 654 FEET650.5 FEET 64 9 F E E T 645.3 FEET 648.2 FEET %,AE %,X %,AG%,AH %,AC%,AF %,AD%,AB%,AA%,Y %,Z%,X %,AG%,AC%,AF %,AD%,AB%,A A %,Y %,Z 642 FEET 658 FEET644 FEET 645 FEET 659 FEET 64 8 F E E T 657 FEET643 FEET 647 FEET 6 5 5 FEE T 646 FEET 652 FEET651 FEET656 FEET 6 4 9 F E E T 653 FEET650 FEET"# N NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates, refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Basemap information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The basemap shown is the USGS National Map: Orthoimagery. Last refreshed October, 2020. SCALE Map Projection: GCS, Geodetic Reference System 1980; Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Panel Contains: MAP NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL PANEL 35 OF 225 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet 0 210 420 630 840105 Meters This map was exported from FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) on 6/30/2022 11:31 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. For additional information, please see the Flood Hazard Mapping Updates Overview Fact Sheet at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/118418 This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. CITY OF YORKVILLE KANE COUNTY KENDALL COUNTY VILLAGE OF MONTGOMERY VILLAGE OF OSWEGO 170347 170896 170341 170328 170345 0035 0035 0035 0035 0035 17093C0035H January 08, 2014 For information about the specific vertical datum for elevation features, datum conversions, or vertical monuments used to create this map, please see the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report for your community at https://msc.fema.gov SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR DRAFT FIRM PANEL LAYOUT OTHER FEATURES FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee See NotesZone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood HazardZone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary 8 Effective LOMRs GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER AREAS OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS B 20.2 1 inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000 88°26'15.88"W 41°44'24.01"N 88°22'29.16"W 41°40'12.65"N Application for Special Use Permit | Page 19 APPENDIX Q – PROPERTY IMPACT STUDY www.cohnreznick.com REAL ESTATE ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT REPORT: Academic and Peer Authored Property Value Impact Studies, Research and Analysis of Existing Solar Facilities, and Market Participant and Assessor Interviews Prepared For: TPE Development, LLC Submitted By: CohnReznick LLP Valuation Advisory Services 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 508-5900 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS Andrew R. Lines, MAI Erin C. Bowen, MAI June 29, 2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 2 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL June 29, 2022 Adam Beal Executive Vice President of Development TPE Development, LLC 3720 South Dahlia Street Denver, CO 80237 SUBJECT: Property Value Impact Report An Analysis of Existing Solar Farms To Whom it May Concern: CohnReznick is pleased to submit the accompanying property values impact report for proposed solar energy uses in Illinois. Per the client’s request, CohnReznick researched property transactions adjacent to existing solar farms, researched and analyzed articles and other published studies, and interviewed real estate professionals and Township/County Assessors active in the market where solar farms are located, to gain an understanding of actual market transactions in the presence of solar energy uses. The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to a renewable energy use (solar farm) has an impact adjacent property values. The intended use of our opinions and conclusions is to assist the client in addressing local concerns and to provide information that local bodies are required to consider in their evaluation of solar project use applications. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The client and intended user for the assignment is TPE Development, LLC (“Turning Point”). Additional intended users of our findings include Turning Point’s designated project companies, all relevant permitting authorities for Turning Point’s proposed solar projects in Illinois. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP (“CohnReznick”). This consulting assignment is intended to conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, as well as applicable state appraisal regulations. Based on the analysis in the accompanying report, and subject to the definitions, assumptions, and limiting conditions expressed in the report, our findings are: Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 3 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. FINDINGS I. Academic Studies (pages 19-21): CohnReznick reviewed and analyzed published academic studies that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies include multiple regression analyses of hundreds and thousands of sales transactions, and opinion surveys, for both residential homes and farmland properties in rural communities, which concluded existing solar facilities have had no negative impact on adjacent property values. Peer Authored Studies: CohnReznick also reviewed studies prepared by other real estate valuation experts that specifically analyzed the impact of solar facilities on nearby property values. These studies found little to no measurable or consistent difference in value between the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales attributed to the proximity to existing solar farms and noted that solar energy uses are generally considered a compatible use. II. CohnReznick Studies (pages 22-92): Further, CohnReznick has performed 26 studies in over 15 states, of both residential and agricultural properties, in which we have determined that the existing solar facilities have not caused any consistent and measurable negative impact on property values. For this Project, we have included 10 of these studies which are most similar to the subject in terms of general location and size, summarized as follows: It is noted that proximity to the solar farms has not deterred sales of nearby agricultural land and residential single-family homes nor has it deterred the development of new single-family homes on adjacent land. This report also includes two “Before and After” analysis, in which sales that occurred prior to the announcement and construction of the solar farm project were compared with sales that occurred after completion of the solar farm project, for both adjoining and non-adjoining properties. No measurable impact on property values was demonstrated. Solar Farm Location Site Area (Acres) Power Output (MW AC) Date Project Completed Impact on Surrounding Property Values 1 Portage Solar Porter County, IN 56 2.0 Sep-12 No Impact 2Lapeer (Demille & Turrill Solar)Lapeer County, MI 270 48.0 May-17 No Impact 3 Grand Ridge Solar LaSalle County, IL 158 20.0 Dec-10 No Impact 4 Woodland Solar Isle of Wight County, VA 204 19.0 Dec-16 No Impact 5 Dominion Indy Solar III Marion County, IN 134 8.6 Dec-13 No Impact 6 Sunfish Farm Solar Wake County, NC 50 5.0 Dec-15 No Impact 7 Call Farms 3 Solar Genesee County, NY 82 2.0 Jul-18 No Impact 8 IMPA Frankton Madison County, IN 13 1.4 Jun-14 No Impact 9Jefferson County CommunityJefferson County, CO 13 1.2 May-16 No Impact 10 Valparaiso Solar, LLC Porter County, IN 28 1.0 Dec-12 No Impact CohnReznick - Existing Solar Farms Studied Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 4 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. III. Market Participant Interviews (pages 93-95): Our conclusions also consider interviews with over 45 County and Township Assessors, who have at least one solar farm in their jurisdiction, and in which they have determined that solar farms have not negatively affected adjacent property values. With regards to the Project, we specifically interviewed Assessors in Illinois: In Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois, we spoke with Viki Crouch, the Township Assessor, who she said that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the Grand Ridge Solar Farm. We spoke with Ken Crowley, Rockford Township Assessor in Winnebago County, Illinois, who stated that he has seen no impact on property values in his township as an effect of proximity to the Rockford Solar Farm. We spoke with James Weisiger, the Champaign Township Assessor in Champaign County, where the University of Illinois Solar Farm is located, and he noted there appears to have been no impact on property values as a result of proximity to the solar farm. To give us additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of solar farms, we interviewed numerous real estate brokers and other market participants who were party to actual sales of property adjacent to solar; these professionals also confirmed that solar farms did not diminish property values or marketability in the areas they conducted their business. IV. Solar Farm Factors on Harmony of Use (pages 98-103): In the course of our research and studies, we have recorded information regarding the compatibility of these existing solar facilities and their adjoining uses, including the continuing development of land adjoining these facilities. CONCLUSION Considering all of the preceding, the data indicates that solar facilities do not have a negative impact on adjacent property values. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 5 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Very truly yours, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 6 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 INTENDED USE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 DEFINITION OF VALUE ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT .................................................................................................................................... 9 PRIOR SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 INSPECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 OVERVIEW OF SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ......................................................................................................... 10 NATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 13 SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS ............................................................................................................................. 14 APPRAISAL THEORY – ADAJCENT PROPERTY’S IMPACT ON VALUE .................................................................................................. 15 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................... 16 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................................................................................. 17 TECHNIQUE 1: REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES .............................................................................................................................. 19 ACADEMIC REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS ............................................................................................................................................. 20 REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS .............................................................................................................. 21 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21 TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 22 SOLAR FARM 1: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN ...................................................................................... 22 SOLAR FARM 2: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS ............................................................................. 45 SOLAR FARM 3: WOODLAND SOLAR FARM, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA ....................................................................... 50 SOLAR FARM 4: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA .................................................................................. 55 SOLAR FARM 5: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ........................................................................... 67 SOLAR FARM 6: CALL FARMS 3 SOLAR, BATAVIA, GENESSEE COUNTY, NEW YORK ................................................................ 74 SOLAR FARM 7: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA .................................................................... 22 SOLAR FARM 8: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA ................................................................................... 78 SOLAR FARM 9: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO ................................... 84 SOLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA ................................................................... 89 TECHNIQUE 3: MARKET COMMENTARY .......................................................................................................................................... 94 SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF USE ................................................................................................................................ 97 SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 104 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 7 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 108 ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 112 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 8 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SCOPE OF WORK CLIENT AND INTENDED USERS The client and intended user of this report is TPE Development, LLC and it's designated project companies; other intended users may include the client’s legal and site development professionals. Additional intended users of our findings include all relevant permitting authorities for Turning Point’s proposed solar projects in Illinois. INTENDED USE The intended use of our findings and conclusions is to address certain criteria required for the granting of approvals for proposed solar energy uses. We have not been asked to value any specific property, and we have not done so. The report may be used only for the aforementioned purpose and may not be distributed without the written consent of CohnReznick LLP (“CohnReznick”). PURPOSE The purpose of this consulting assignment is to determine whether proximity to the proposed solar facility will result in an impact on adjacent property values. DEFINITION OF VALUE This report utilizes Market Value as the appropriate premise of value. Market value is defined as: “The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”1 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 12, Chapter I, Part 34.42[h] Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 9 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. EFFECTIVE DATE & DATE OF REPORT June 29, 2022 (Paired sale analyses contained within each study are periodically updated.) PRIOR SERVICES USPAP requires appraisers to disclose to the client any services they have provided in connection with the subject property in the prior three years, including valuation, consulting, property management, brokerage, or any other services. This report is a compilation of the Existing Solar Farms which we have studied over the past year, and is not evaluating a specific subject site. In this instance, there is no “subject property” to disclose. INSPECTION Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 10 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. OVERVIEW OF SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Solar development increased almost exponentially since 2010 in the United States as technology and the economic incentives (Solar Investment Tax Credits or ITC) made the installation of solar farms economically reasonable. The cost to install solar panels has dropped nationally by 70 percent from 2010 to 2020, a major reason leading to the increase in installations. A majority of these solar farm installations are attributed to larger- scale solar farm developments for utility purposes. The chart below portrays the historical increase on an annual basis of solar installations in the U.S. as a whole, as well as the base case projections through 2026, courtesy of research by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie. The United States installed a record of 23.6 Gigawatts (GW) DC of solar photovoltaic capacity for all the sectors, residential, commercial, community solar and utility-scale solar projects in 2021, an increase of 19 percent over 2020. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 11 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Overall, solar power generation accounted for 46 percent of all new electricity-generating capacity additions from in 2021 and continues to make up the largest share of new generating capacity in the U.S. The US solar industry had the weakest quarter in two years for solar installation, with 3.9 gigawatts-direct current (GWdc) of capacity installed, a 24 percent decrease from the first quarter 2021. Supply chain constraints and shipment delays have slowed the installation process and as a result, the US solar industry is expected to have 15.6 GWdc installed in 2022. Despite continued installation growth, 2022 is predicted to be challenging for the solar industry. Thanks to ongoing supply chain constraints and price increases, Wood Mackenzie has lowered the 2022 outlook by 25 percent, a decrease of 7.4 GWdc. However, the 2022 outlook for community solar segments have only been lowered by 0.3 percent. The beginning dates for operation of multiple gigawatts of projects have been pushed from 2022 into 2023 or later. The projects likely to come online in 2022 already have secured equipment, as of the end of 2021. The ITC extension scenario would result in an additional 43.5 GWdc of solar capacity over the next five years, most of which would come from utility-scale solar. The chart below presents the base case forecast for solar installations and projections for an ITC extension scenario.2 Recent articles show that over the past decade, the solar industry has experienced unprecedented growth. Among the factors contributing to its growth were government incentives, significant capacity additions from existing and new entrants and continual innovation. Solar farms offer a wide array of economic and environmental benefits to surrounding properties. Unlike other energy sources, solar energy does not produce emissions that may cause negative health effects or environmental damage. Solar farms produce a lower 2 U.S. Solar Market Insight, Executive Summary, Q4 2021, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 12 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. electromagnetic field exposure than most household appliances, such as TV and refrigerators, and studies have confirmed there are no health issues related to solar farms.3 Solar farm construction in rural areas has also dramatically increased the tax value of the land on which they are built, which has provided a financial boost to some counties. CohnReznick has studied real estate tax increases due to the installation of solar, which can range up to 10-12 times the rate for farmland. A majority of tax revenue is funneled back into the local area, and as much as 50 percent of increased tax revenue can typically be allocated to the local school district. By converting farmland to a passive solar use for the duration of the system’s life, the solar energy use does not burden school systems, utilities, traffic, nor infrastructure as it is a passive use that does not increase population as say a residential subdivision would. In the state of Illinois, the fair cash value for a commercial solar energy system is based on its nameplate capacity per megawatt. Beginning assessment year 2018, in counties with fewer than 3,000,000 inhabitants, the fair cash value of a commercial solar energy system is $218,000 per megawatt of nameplate capacity. This includes the owner of the commercial solar energy system’s interest in the land within the project boundaries and real property improvements. The chief county assessment officer (CCAO) will add an inflationary increase, called a “trending factor” to the 2018 value. The result is called the “trended real property cost basis.” An amount for depreciation is then subtracted from the trended real property cost basis to determine the taxable value for the current assessment year. Beyond creating jobs, solar farms are also benefiting the overall long-term agricultural health of the community. The unused land, and also all the land beneath the solar panels, will be left to rejuvenate naturally. In the long run this is a better use of land since the soil is allowed to recuperate instead of being ploughed and fertilized year after year. A solar farm can offer some financial security for the property owner over 20 to 25 years. Once solar panel racking systems are removed, the land can revert to its original use.4 3 “Electromagnetic Field and Public Health.” Media Centre (2013): 1-4. World Health Organization. 4 NC State Extension. (May 2016). Landowner Solar Leasing: Contract Terms Explained. Retrieved from: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/landowner-solar-leasing-contract-terms-explained Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 13 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. NATIONAL COMMUNITY SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION Community solar projects (facilities that generate 5 MW AC or less of power) account for 4,900 MWdc of installed power in the U.S. as of the second quarter 2022, according to SEIA data. The community solar industry had a record setting year in 2021 with 957 MWdc installed, according to SEIA data. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) through March 2022, there are over 4,033 community solar facilities in operation across the country. Community solar installations significantly grew year-over-year as of first quarter 2022, however, installations are down 59 percent from the fourth quarter 2021. Due to uncertainty around the anti-circumvention investigation, supply chain issues, and long timelines for new community solar policies, community solar installations are expected to contract in 2022. The growth of community solar installations from 2014 to 2021 is presented in the chart below. Illinois community solar installations rank in the top eight states. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 14 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Reductions in some states are offset by increases in other markets, particularly in Illinois. The Illinois Energy Transition Act revives funding for the Adjustable Block Program, laying out a pathway for completing waitlisted projects. If an ITC extension is passed as part of the BBB Act, community solar would see a small 3 percent uplift from 2022 to 2027 compared to the base case, as shown in the chart below. While early growth for community solar installations was led primarily by three key markets - New York, Minnesota, and Massachusetts - a growing list of states with community solar programs have helped diversify the market, creating large pipelines set to come to fruition over the next several years. SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ILLINOIS As of the end of the first two quarters of 2022, Illinois had 641.3 MW AC of power installed in 112 facilities overall, ranking seventeenth in the U.S. for the capacity of solar installed. The vast majority of solar farms in Illinois are community solar facilities (105) generating 194.4 MW AC, of power as of March 2022, according to the EIA. Illinois has 1,678.2 MW AC of solar power planned for installation through December 2022 in 12 facilities across the state. Nine of the planned solar installations in Illinois are utility scale and total 1,672.2 MW AC, or 99 percent of all planned installations. Additionally, there is a total of 3,712 MW planned over the next five years. The largest new solar facility in Illinois will be a 600 MW AC utility scale installation projected to become operational in December 2024 in Lee County, that is being developed by Steward Creek Solar. The total planned solar facilities will increase solar power generation in the state by approximately 262 percent. There are 3 community solar projects planned for the state of Illinois before the end of 2022, generating a total of 6.0 MW AC of power. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 15 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. APPRAISAL THEORY – ADJACENT PROPERTY’S IMPACT ON VALUE According to Randall Bell, PhD, MAI, author of text Real Estate Damages, published by the Appraisal Institute in 2016, understanding the market’s perceptions on all factors that may have an influence on a property’s desirability (and therefore its value) is essential in determining if a diminution or enhancement of value has occurred.5 According to Dr. Bell: “There is often a predisposition to believe that detrimental conditions automatically have a negative impact on property values. However, it is important to keep in mind that if a property’s value is to be affected by a negative condition, whether internal or external to the property, that condition must be given enough weight in the decision-making process of buyers and sellers to have a material effect on pricing relative to all the other positive and negative attributes that influence the value of that particular property.”6 Market data and empirical research through the application of the three traditional approaches to value should be utilized to estimate the market value to determine if there is a material effect on pricing due, to the influence of a particular characteristic of or on a property. A credible impact analysis is one that is logical, innate, testable and repeatable, prepared in conformity with approved valuation techniques. In order to produce credible assignment results, more than one valuation technique should be utilized for support for the primary method, or a check of reasonableness, such as utilization of more than one approach to value, conducting a literature review, or having discussions (testimony) with market participants.7 CohnReznick implemented the scientific method 8 to determine if a detrimental condition of proximity to a solar farm exists, further described in the next section. 5 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 1-2) 6 Ibid, Page 314 7 Ibid, Pages 7-8 8 The scientific method is a process that involves observation, development of a theory, establishment of a hypothesis, and testing. The valuation process applies principles of the scientific method as a model, based upon economic principles (primarily substitution) as the hypothesis. The steps for the scientific method are outlined as follows: 1. Identify the problem. 2. Collect relevant data. 3. Propose a hypothesis. 4. Test the hypothesis. 5. Assess the validity of the hypothesis. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Pages 314-316) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 16 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. METHODOLOGY The purpose of this report is to determine whether proximity to the solar facility resulted in any measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. To test this hypothesis, CohnReznick identified three relevant techniques to test if a detrimental condition exists. (1) A review of published studies; (2) Paired sale analysis of properties adjacent to existing solar generating facilities, which may include repeat sale analyses or “Before and After” analyses; and, (3) Interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors. The paired sales analysis is an effective method of determining if there is a detrimental impact on surrounding properties. “One of the most useful applications of the sales comparison approach is paired sale analysis. This type of analysis may compare the subject property or similarly impacted properties called Test Areas (at Points B, C, D, E, or F) with unimpaired properties called Control Areas (Point A). A comparison may also be made between the unimpaired value of the subject property before and after the discovery of a detrimental condition. If a legitimate detrimental condition exists, there will likely be a measurable and consistent difference between the two sets of market data; if not, there will likely be no significant difference between the two sets of data. This process involves the study of a group of sales with a detrimental condition, which are then compared to a group of otherwise similar sales without the detrimental condition.”9 As an approved method, paired sales analysis can be utilized to extract the effect of a single characteristic on value. By definition, paired data analysis is “a quantitative technique used to identify and measure adjustments to the sale prices or rents of comparable properties; to apply this technique, sales or rental data on nearly identical properties is analyzed to isolate a single characteristic’s effect on value or rent.”10 The text further describes that this method is theoretically sound when an abundance of market data, or sale transactions, is available for analysis. Where data is available, CohnReznick has also prepared “Before and After” analyses or a Repeat Sale Analysis,11 to determine if a detrimental impact has occurred. 9 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 33) 10 The Appraisal of Real Estate 14 th Edition. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2013. 11 Another type of paired sales analysis involves studying the sale and subsequent resale of the same property. This method is used to determine the influence of time on market values or to determine the impact of a detrimental condition by comparing values before and after the discovery of the condition. Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 35) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 17 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work utilized to test the hypothesis stated on the prior page is as follows: 1. Review published studies, assess credibility, and validity of conclusions; 2. Prepare paired sale analyses for existing solar farms as follows: 2.1. Identify existing solar farms comparable to the proposed project to analyze; 2.2. Define Test Area Sales and Control Areas Sales; 2.3. Collect market data (sale transactions) for both Test Area and Control Area Sales; 2.4. Analyze and confirm sales, including omission of sales that are not reflective of market value; 2.5. Prepare comparative analysis of Test Area and Control Area sales, adjusting for market conditions; 2.6. Interpret calculations; and 3. Conduct interviews with real estate professionals and local real estate assessors who have evaluated real property adjacent to existing solar farms. It should be noted that our impact report data and methodology have been previously reviewed by our peer in the field – Kirkland Appraisals, LLC – as well as by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The following bullet points summarize important elements to consider in our scope of work: Due to the limited number of community solar projects that qualified for study in the state of Illinois, we have incorporated some regional utility scale projects and community solar projects in other states. Test Area Sales consists of sales that are adjacent to an existing solar facility. Ownership and sales history for each adjoining property to an existing solar farm through the effective date of this report is maintained within our workfile. Adjoining properties with no sales data or that sold prior to the announcement of the solar farm were excluded from further analysis. Control Area Sales are generally located in the same market area, although varies based on the general location of the existing solar farm under analysis. In rural areas, sales are identified first within the township, and expands radially outward through the county until a reliable set of data points is obtained. Control Area Sales are generally between 12 and 18 months before or after the date of the Test Area Sale(s), and are comparable in physical characteristics such as age, condition, style, and size. Sales of properties that sold in a non-arm’s length transaction (such as a transaction between related parties, bank-owned transaction, or between adjacent owners) were excluded from analysis as these are not considered to be reflective of market value, as defined earlier in this report. The sales that remained after exclusions were considered for a paired sale analysis. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 18 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The methodology employed in this report for paired sale analysis does not rely on multiple subjective adjustments that are typical in many appraisals and single-paired sales analyses. Rather, the methodology remains objective, and the only adjustment required is for market conditions ;12 the analysis relies upon market conditions trends tracked by credible agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), who maintains a House Price Index (“HPI”)13 for macro and micro regions in the United States. A market conditions adjustment is a variable that affects all properties similarly and can be adjusted for in an objective manner. To make direct comparisons, the sale price of the Control Area Sales was adjusted for market conditions to a common date. In this analysis, the common date is the date of the Test Area Sale(s). After adjustment, any measurable difference between the sale prices would be indicative of a possible price impact by the solar facility. If there is more than one Test Area Sale to evaluate, the sales are grouped if they exhibit similar transactional and physical characteristics; otherwise, they are evaluated separately with their own respective Control Area Sale groups. 12 Adjusting for market conditions is necessary as described in The Appraisal of Real Estate 14th Edition as follows: “Comparable sales that occurred under market conditions different from those applicable to the subject on the effective date of appraisal require adjustment for any differences that affect their values. An adjustment for market conditions is made if general property values have increased or decreased since the transaction dates.” 13 The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. This information is obtained by reviewing repeat mortgage transactions on single-family properties whose mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels. Because of the breadth of the sample, it provides more information than is available in other house price indexes. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 19 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 1: REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES The following is a discussion of various studies that consider the impact of solar farms on surrounding property values. The studies range from quantitative analysis to survey-based formal research to less formal analyses . ACADEMIC REPORTS There have been three academic reports that attempt to quantify the effect on property values due to proximity to solar. i. The first report is a study completed by The University of Texas at Austin, published in May 2018.14 The portion of the study focusing on property impact was an Opinion Survey of Assessors with no sales data or evidence included in the survey. The opinion survey was sent to 400 accessors nationwide and received only 37 responses. Of those 37 assessors, only 18 had assessed a home near a utility-scale solar installation, the remainder had not. Of the 18 assessors with experience in valuing homes near solar farms, 17 had not found any impact on home values near solar. Those are the actual facts in the study. A small number of those assessor respondents hypothetically surmised an impact, but none had evidence to support such statements. The paper admits that there is no actual sales data analyzed, and further denotes its own areas of weakness, including “This study did not differentiate between ground-mounted and rooftop installations.” The author states on the last line of page 22: “Finally, to shift from perceived to actual property value impacts, future research can conduct analyses on home sales data to collect empirical evidence of actual property value impacts.” The paper concludes with a suggestion that a statistic hedonic regression model may better identify impacts. It should be noted that the type of statistical analysis that the author states is required to determine “actual property value impacts’ was completed two years later by the following Academic Studies. ii. The second report is a study prepared by a team at the University of Rhode Island, published in September 2020, “Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.”15 The study utilized a hedonic pricing model, or multiple regression analysis, to quantify the effect of proximity on property values due to solar by studying existing solar installations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The study evaluated 208 solar facilities, 71,373 housing sales occurring within one-mile of the solar facilities (Test Group), and 343,921 sales between one-to-three 14 Al-Hamoodah, Leila, et al. An Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations. Policy Research Project (PRP), LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2018, emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/property- value_impacts_near_utility-scale_solar_installations.pdf. 15 Gaur, V. and C. Lang. (2020). Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Submitted to University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension on September 29, 2020. Accessed at https://web.uri.edu/coopext/valuing-sitingoptions-for-commercial-scale-solar-energy-in-rhode-island/. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 20 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. miles (Control Group). Because it is a hedonic regression model, it allowed them to isolate specific variables that could impact value, including isolating rural and non-rural locations. The study defines “Rural,” as an area having a “population density of 850 people per square mile or fewer.” The study provides data which found no negative impact to residential homes near solar arrays in rural areas: “these results suggest that [the Test Area] in rural areas is effectively zero (a statistically insignificant 0.1%), and that the negative externalities of solar arrays are only occurring in non-rural areas.“16 Further, the study tested to determine if the size of the installation impacted values, and found no evidence of differential property values impacts by the solar installation’s size. Thus, not only are there no impacts to homes in similar areas as the proposed Project, but any differences in the size of a solar farm are similarly not demonstrating an impact. iii. The third report is a published study prepared by Dr. Nino Abashidze, School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, dated October 20, 2020, entitled “Utility Scale Solar Farms and Agricultural Land Values.” Abashidze examined 451 solar farms in North Carolina. “Across many samples and specifications, we find no direct negative or positive spillover effect of a solar farm construction on nearby agricultural land values. Although there are no direct effects of solar farms on nearby agricultural land values, we do find evidence that suggests construction of a solar farm may create a small, positive, option-value for land owners that is capitalized into land prices. Specifically, after construction of a nearby solar farm, we find that agricultural land that is also located near transmission infrastructure may increase modestly in value.” VALUATION EXPERT REPORTS We have similarly considered property value impact studies prepared by other experts, which have also noted that the installation of utility-scale solar on a property has no measurable or consistent impact on adjoining property value. According to a report titled “Mapleton Solar Impact Study” from Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, conducted in Murfreesboro, North Carolina in September 2017, which studied 13 existing solar farms in the state, found that the solar farms had no impact on adjacent vacant residential, agricultural land, or residential homes. The paired sales data analysis in the report primarily consisted of low density residential and agricultural land uses and included one case where the solar farm adjoined to two dense subdivisions of homes. Donald Fisher, ARA who has served six years as Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, and has prepared several market studies examining the impact of solar on residential values was quoted in a press release dated February 15, 2021 stating, “Most of the locations were in either suburban or 16 The University of Rhode Island study’s conclusion that there may be an impact to non-rural communities is surmised is that “land is abundant in rural areas, so the development of some land into solar does little to impact scarcity, whereas in non-rural areas it makes a noticeable impact. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 21 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. rural areas, and all of these studies found either a neutral impact or, ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after the installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends.” REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR SOLAR IMPACT REPORTS The Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor’s Office conducted their own study on property prices adjacent to and in the close vicinity of the North Star solar farm in Chisago County, Minnesota. At the November 2017 Chisago County Board meeting, John Keefe, the Chisago County Assessor, presented data from his study. He concluded that the North Star solar farm had, “no adverse impact” on property values. His study encompassed 15 parcels that sold and were adjacent or in the close vicinity to the solar farm between January 2016 and October 2017; the control group used for comparison comprised of over 700 sales within the county. Almost all of the [Test Area] properties sold were at a price above the assessed value. He further stated that, “It seems conclusive that valuation has not suffered.”17 Furthermore, Grant County, Kentucky Property Value Administrator, Elliott Anderson, stated that Duke Energy built a solar farm near Crittenden, adjacent to existing homes on Claiborne Drive in December 2017. At the time of the interview, there have been nine arm’s length homes sales on that street since the solar farm commenced operations. Each of those nine homes sold higher than its assessed value, and one over 32 percent higher. At the time, Anderson noted that several more lots were for sale by the developer and four more homes were currently under construction. Anderson said that the solar farm had no impact either on adjoining home values or on marketability or desirability of those homes adjacent to the solar farm. CONCLUSION These published studies and other valuation expert opinions conclude that there is no impact to property adjacent to established solar farms. These conclusions have been confirmed by academic studies utilizing large sales databases and regression analysis investigating this uses’ potential impact on property values. Further, the conclusion has been confirmed by county assessors who have also investigated this adjacent land use’ potential impact on property values. 17 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No “Solar Effects” (11/03/2017) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 22 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 2: PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS SOLAR FARM 1: PORTAGE SOLAR FARM, PORTAGE, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.333263, Longitude -87.093015 PIN: 64-06-19-176-001.000-015 Total Land Size: 56 AC Date Project Announced: February 2012 Date Project Completed: September 2012 Output: 1.96 MW AC (1.5 MW DC) The solar farm was developed by Ecos Energy, a subsidiary of Allco Renewable Energy Limited, and is currently owned by PLH, Inc. This solar panels are ground-mounted the facility has the capacity for 1.96 Megawatts (MW) AC of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. This solar farm consists of 7,128 solar modules which are of a fixed tilt installation and it contains three inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Portage Solar Farm is located outside the City of Portage, in Portage Township, approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the city center. The solar farm is also approximately two miles northwest of South Haven, a neighboring residential community. Portage Township is in the northern portion of Porter County, which is in the northwestern corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 45 miles southeast of downtown Chicago. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the south side of Robbins Road, and is surrounded to the west, south, and east by agricultural land. Just beyond the agricultural land buffer, uses to the west and east area single family homes, and to the south is an apartment complex and a commercial development with an IMAX movie theater and restaurants. To the north of the solar farm, across Robbins Road uses consist of a residential subdivision and vacant land. The solar farm and surrounding properties have a Valparaiso mailing address. The solar farm is fenced from adjacent properties by a fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Natural vegetation borders the northern, and eastern sides of the larger agricultural parcel the solar farm is nestled within. Real Estate Tax Information: The taxes on the 56 acres of farmland were $1,400 per year prior to the solar farm development. After the solar farm was developed, only 13 acres (23 percent of the site) were re-assessed and the remaining 43 acres continued to be farmed. The total real estate tax bill increased to $16,350 after the solar farm was built, including both uses on the site. This indicates that the real estate taxes for the solar farm increased from $25 per acre to $1,175 per acre after the solar farm was developed. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 23 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 24 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the solar farm parcel shaded in blue, and the adjoining properties (outlined in red). Adjoining Properties to the solar farm are numbered for subsequent analysis. Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 25 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Portage Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 26 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 1 and 7 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Adjoining Property 1 was analyzed as homestead-small farmland tract since at the time of purchase the site was used only as agricultural land. The buyer bought it as vacant land and subsequently built a home on the site. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. GROUP 1 For Adjoining Property 1 (Group 1), the property line is approximtately 836 feet from the closest solar panel and the residential home that was eventually built is approximately 1,228 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. In Group 1, we analyzed nine Control Area Sales of homesteads-small farmland tracts that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 1. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The result of our analysis for Group 1 is presented below. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) PI Index (Corn)Year Built Vacant at the Time of Sale Sale Price per Acre Sale Date 1 442 W 875 N, Valparaiso $149,600 18.70 139.30 2017 (After Purchase)Yes $8,000 Feb-14 Portage Solar Test Area Sale Group 1 No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per Acre 4.25% CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Portage Solar Group 1 Adjoining solar farm $8,000 Control Area Sales (9) No: Not adjoining solar farm $7,674 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (1) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 27 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 For Adjoining Property 7 (Group 2), the residential home is approximately 1,227 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 7. For Adjoining Property 7, we analyzed seven Control Area Sales of similar single family homes that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 7. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Portage Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Sale Price per SF Sale Date 7 836 N 450 W Valparaiso $149,800 1.00 3.0 1.5 1964 1,776 $84.35 Sep-13 Group 2 Portage Solar Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 28 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The result of our analysis for Group 2 is presented below. Noting the relatively small price differentials between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales, with both Test Area Sales (Adjoining Property 1 and 7) having higher unit sale prices than the respective Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Portage Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.10% Control Area Sales (7) No: Not adjoining solar farm $84.27 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Portage Solar Group 2 Test Area Sales (1) Adjoining solar farm $84.35 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 29 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 2: DTE LAPEER SOLAR PROJECT, LAPEER, MICHIGAN Coordinates: Latitude 43.0368219316, Longitude -83.3369986251 PINs: L20-95-705-050-00, L20-98-008-003-00 Total Land Size: ±365 Acres Date Project Announced: 2016 Date Project Completed: May 2017 Output: 48.28 MW AC Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 30 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Surrounding Area: The DTE Lapeer solar farm is located just south of the City of Lapeer, in Lapeer County, Michigan and is a joint project between the City of Lapeer and DTE Electric Company. The solar farm was developed with Inovateus Solar MI, LLC to meet Michigan renewable energy standards. The solar farm features over 200,000 panels, a power output of 48.28 MW AC, and produces enough energy to power 14,000 homes. The Lapeer solar project was developed in two phases: the Demille Solar installation and the Turrill Solar installation. For purposes of our study, taken together, both installations are considered one solar farm. DTE’s Lapeer Solar Projects Demille and Turrill Solar installations Lapeer is considered to be in the Tri-Cities area of central Michigan and is approximately 21 miles east of the City of Flint. Interstate-69 serves Lapeer and runs east-west just south of the solar farm. The two phases of the solar installation are on the east and west sides of Michigan State Route 24 from each other. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 31 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Immediate Area: Land uses surrounding the Demille installation include a correctional facility and industrial uses to the west, buffered by a mature stand of trees, a retail center to the northeast, other commercial uses to the east along MI-24/South Lapeer Road, and residential homes to the southeast. Interstate-69 runs south of the Demille solar installation. The Turrill installation is surrounded to the north by a residential subdivision, to the north and east by industrial uses, to the south by vacant land and residential homes, and to the west by light commercial and professional uses along MI-24/South Lapeer Road. Hunter’s Creek divides two sets of solar arrays in the Turrill installation. The Demille installation adjoins Interstate-69 to the South; while a residential subdivision adjoins the solar farm to the east. To the northeast corner of the solar panels is a senior living facility, Stonegate Health Campus, developed before the solar facility. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to the development of the solar farm, the land under the Demille and Turrill solar installations were municipal-owned and were not subject to property tax. After development, in 2017, the land became taxable and taxes were $82,889 total, as shown below. PIN Acres 2016 Taxes Paid 2017 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2016 Assessed Value 2017 Assessed Value Value Increase Lapeer County, MI L20-98-008-003-00*110.84 -$ 34,294$ N/A $ - 726,700$ N/A L20-95-705-050-00*254.84 -$ 48,595$ N/A $ - 1,029,750$ N/A TOTAL 365.68 -$ 82,889$ N/A -$ 1,756,450$ N/A * Prior to development as a solar farm, the parcels were municpal property without a taxable value. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 32 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS The maps, below, and on the following pages display properties adjoining the solar sites that are numbered in red for subsequent analysis. Demille Solar Farm . DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 33 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Demille Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 34 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Turrill Solar Farm DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 35 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. DTE Lapeer Solar Projects - Turrill Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 36 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sale Analysis, several properties and sales were considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. We identified eight Adjoining Properties that sold since the solar farm started operations in May of 2017: Adjoining Properties 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 16 for the Demille Solar Farm, and Adjoining Properties 3 and 4 for the Turrill Solar Farm. Of these properties, three were considered atypical for the area. Adjoining Property 7 adjacent to the Demille Solar farm is a split-level home with a finished walk out basement with a pool. The typical home in the area has a traditional basement and pools are atypical. The unusual nature of this sale was confirmed with the selling broker, Renee Voss (see comments below). We note that this home sold twice after the construction of the solar farm, once in September 2018 and again in August 2019. The appreciate rate between the two sale dates are analyzed further later in this section. Adjoining Property 16 just south of the Demille Solar Farm is a 10.1-acre lot that is buffered by trees. The home is atypical for the area, as most homes are situated on lots between 1-acre and 1.5-acres in size and were built before 1980; this home was built in 2008. We interviewed the broker Josh Holbrook (see comments below) who confirmed the atypical nature of this property. Adjoining Property 3, just west of the Turrill Solar Farm, was a ranch home with 1,348 square feet on a lot that was just over one acre. Comparables for homes of this size, type, and lot size were not available in the immediate market area. It should be noted that the price per square foot for this home ($108.01) is significantly higher than median price per square foot of either data set we studied. As a part of our research, we interviewed three local real estate brokers that sold homes adjacent to the Lapeer Solar farm. According to the brokers, there was no impact on the home prices or marketability due to the homes’ proximity to the solar arrays. Renee Voss of Coldwell Banker, selling broker of the raised ranch at 1138 Don Wayne Drive (Adjoining Property 7), which is adjacent to the Demille solar farm at the southeast corner, noted that there was no impact on this sale from the solar farm located to the rear. The home, which has a pool in the backyard, sold quickly with multiple offers, Voss stated. Josh Holbrook, the selling broker of 1408 Turrill Road (known as Adjoining Property 16), located just south of the Demille Solar Farm, said the solar farm had no impact on the sale and that the community takes pride in the solar farm. Anne Pence of National Realty Centers, the selling broker for 1126 Don Wayne Drive, a single-family home adjacent to the Demille solar farm (known as Test Area Sale 9), reported that "the solar farm did not have any effect on the sale of this home. The buyers did not care one bit about the solar field in the back yard. The fact is that you know no one is going to be behind you when they develop a solar farm in your back yard. And [sometimes the developer] put up trees to block the view. My in-laws also actually live at end of that street, even though they haven't sold or put their house on market, they don't mind the solar panels either. It's not an eyesore. And another house sold on that block, a raised ranch home, and it sold with no problems." Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 37 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 1 – DEMILLE Adjoining Properties 3, 4, and 9 to the Demille Solar Farm were considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed these properties as single-family home uses in Group 1. The improvements on these properties are located between 275 to 305 feet to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales in Group 1. The Control Area Sales for Group 1 are ranch homes with three bedrooms and one and a half to two bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties. Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 3, 4, 9 1174 Alice Dr, 1168 Alice Dr, 1126 Don Wayne Drive $165,000 0.50 3 2.0 1973 1,672 Jan-19 $105.26 Group 1 - Demille Solar Test Area Sales Lapeer Solar-Demille - Group 1: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 38 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 1-Demille is presented on the below. The days on market for the three Test Area Sales had a median of 29 days on market (ranging from 5 to 48 days), while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 21 days (ranging from 5 to 224 days), and we note no significant marketing time differential. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 5.65% Test Area Sales (3) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Group 1 - Demille Solar Adjoining solar farm $105.26 Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $99.64 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 39 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 – DEMILLE Adjoining Property 10 to the Demille Solar Farm was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use in Group 2. The improvements on this property are located approximately 315 to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed five Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are similarly sized homes in Lapeer County with three to four bedrooms and one and half to three bathrooms, with an above-ground pool, and an attached garage. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties . Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Bedrooms Bathrooms Year Built/Renovated Square Feet Other Features Sale Date Price PSF 10 1120 Don Wayne Drive, Lapeer $194,000 0.47 3 2.5 1976/2006 1,700 Above Ground Pool, Two Car Garage Nov-19 $114.12 Test Area Sale Group 2 - Demille Solar DTE Lapeer Solar-Demille - Group 2: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 40 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project - Group 2 is presented below. The marketing time for the Test Area Sales was 90 days on market, while the median marketing time for the Control Area Sales was 34 days (ranging from 3 to 73 days). We note the Test Area Sale was initially listed above its market value, as there was a listing price decline after a month on the market. We also note that after the final decrease of the list price, the Test Area Sale home was only on the market 51 more days, which is within the range exhibited by the Control Area Sales. GROUP 3 – TURRILL Adjoining Property 4 to the Turrill Solar Farm was analyzed separately since it is a two-story home on a larger lot than the Test Area Sale in Group 2. The home on Adjoining Property 4 is 290 feet from the property line to the nearest solar panel. We analyzed four single-family homes as Control Area Sales with similar construction that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 4. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.98% Group 2 - Demille Solar CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Test Area Sales (1)Adjoining solar farm $114.12 Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $113.01 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 4 1060 Cliff Drive $200,500 1.30 4 2.5 1970 2,114 Sep-18 $94.84 Test Area Sale Group 3 - Turrill Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 41 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Control Area Sales for Group 3 are two-story homes with two to four bedrooms and 2.5 to 3 bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, and those between related parties. Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index (HPI), a weighted, repeat-sales index measuring average price changes in repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The result of our analysis for DTE Lapeer Solar Project-Turrill – Group 3 is presented on the following page. DTE Lapeer Solar-Turrill - Group 3: Test Area Sales Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 42 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The marketing time for the Test Area Sale was two days on market, while the median days on market for the Control Area Sales was 35 days (ranging from 11 to 177 days), and we note no negative marketing time differential. Noting no significant price differential in any of the three groups, it does not appear that the DTE Lapeer Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF -1.53% $96.32 Group 3 - Turrill Solar Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sale (1)Adjoining solar farm $94.84 Control Area Sales (4) No: Not adjoining solar farm CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis DTE Lapeer Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 43 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC, and it's designated project companies and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. BEFORE & AFTER ANALYSIS – DEMILLE SOLAR PROJECT We note two of the Test Area Sales in Group 1 of the Demille Solar project (Adjoining Properties 4 and 9), one sale in Group 2 of the Demille Solar farm (Adjoining Property 10), as well as Adjoining Property 7 have sold at least twice over the past 15 years. To determine if any of the rates of appreciation for these identified home sales were affected by the proximity to the Demille Solar farm, we prepared a Repeat-Sales Analysis on each identified adjoining property. First, we calculated the total appreciation between each sale of the same property, the number of months that elapsed between each sale, and determined the monthly appreciation rate. Then, we compared extracted appreciation rates reflected in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Home Price Index for Michigan’s 48446 zip code (where the identified homes are located) over the same period. The index for zip codes is measured on a yearly basis and is presented below. We have presented the full repeat sales analysis on the following page. Five-Digit ZIP Code Year Annual Change (%) HPI HPI with 1990 base HPI with 2000 base 48446 2004 2.02 438.38 206.29 111.35 48446 2005 3.68 454.53 213.89 115.45 48446 2006 -1.76 446.53 210.12 113.42 48446 2007 -6.35 418.17 196.78 106.22 48446 2008 -8.37 383.17 180.31 97.33 48446 2009 -10.62 342.49 161.16 86.99 48446 2010 -8.94 311.86 146.75 79.21 48446 2011 -6.89 290.37 136.64 73.75 48446 2012 0.29 291.22 137.04 73.97 48446 2013 7.27 312.39 147.00 79.35 48446 2014 7.10 334.56 157.43 84.98 48446 2015 5.10 351.63 165.47 89.32 48446 2016 6.10 373.08 175.56 94.76 48446 2017 6.74 398.23 187.39 101.15 48446 2018 5.96 421.96 198.56 107.18 48446 2019 5.74 446.17 209.95 113.33 48446 2020 4.99 468.43 220.43 118.98 48446 Zip Code - Housing Price Index Change (Year over Year) Not Seasonally Adjusted Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 44 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Conclusion When compared to the FHFA home price index for the local zip code, the median monthly appreciation rate of the sales of properties adjoining the Demille Solar Farm that sold before construction of the solar farm and again after construction of the solar farm outperformed the median for the zip code, as depicted in the far-right column in the table above (and highlighted in orange). Additionally, the extracted appreciation rate for the resales of Adjoining Properties 4 and 7, that sold twice after the solar farm was constructed, exhibited higher rates of appreciation than the Home Price Index for the zip code (highlighted in white). As such, we have concluded that there does not appear to be a consistent detrimental impact on the value of properties adjacent to the DTE Lapeer-Demille Solar Farm. Property ID Address Land Area (Acres) Total Finished Living Area (SF) Most Recent Sale Date Most Recent Sale Price Prior Sale Date Prior Sale Price Total Appreciation Months Elapsed Between Sales Monthly Appreciation Rate Index Level During Year of Most Recent Sale Prior Sale Year Index Level Total Appreciation Monthly Appreciation Rate 41168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 10/9/2019 $176,000 12/8/2017 $144,000 22.22% 22 0.92% 446.17 398.23 12.04% 0.52% 41168 Alice Drive 0.46 1,672 12/8/2017 $144,000 10/1/1993 $100,000 44.00% 290 0.13% 398.23 238.05 67.29% 0.18% 91126 Don Wayne Drive 0.50 1,9005/21/2018$160,00012/21/2007$119,000 34.45% 125 0.24% 446.17 418.17 6.70% 0.05% 10 1120 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 1,700 11/8/2019 $194,000 10/15/2014 $173,200 12.01% 61 0.19% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.47% 71138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,1289/7/2018$179,9008/22/2014$148,500 21.14% 49 0.40% 446.17 334.56 33.36% 0.60% 71138 Don Wayne Drive 0.47 2,1288/28/2019$191,000 9/7/2018$179,900 6.17% 12 0.51% 446.17 446.17 0.00% 0.00% Median - Test Area Sales 0.47 1,800 0.32%0.33% Median - Before/After 0.49 2,019 0.21%0.11% Repeat Sales Analysis 48446 Zip Code - FHFA House Price Index Change Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 45 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 3: GRAND RIDGE SOLAR FARM, LASALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS Coordinates: Latitude 41.143421, Longitude -88.758340 PINs: 34-22-100-000, 34-22-101-000 Total Land Size: 158 acres Date Project Announced: December 31, 2010 Date Project Completed: July 2012 Output: 20 MW AC This solar farm is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of E. 21st and N. 15th Roads, near Streator, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm was developed by Invenergy and is part of a renewable energy center known as Grand Ridge. The Energy Center includes the 20 MW AC solar facility, a 210 MW wind farm, and a 36 MW advanced-energy storage facility, all in one local vicinity. The solar site is located adjacent to the south and west of Invenergy's wind farm. The solar facility consists of 20 individual 1-MW solar inverters and over 155,000 photovoltaic solar panels manufactured by General Electric. The Surrounding Area: The Grand Ridge Solar Farm is situated just outside of the City of Streator, in Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois. The solar farm is located in a primarily rural part of Illinois, with the nearest interstate, Interstate-55, located approximately 14 miles southeast of the site. The Immediate Area: Within a one-mile radius of the solar farm, surrounding uses mainly consist of agricultural land, with some single-family homes to the west. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural and/or residential purposes. The solar site is surrounded by row crops to the north adjoining N. 15th Road. Row crops also adjoin the solar arrays to the east. Scrub shrubbery exists on the western border of the solar site, along E. 21st Road. On the west side of E. 21st Road is the 28-acre private Sandy Ford Sportsmans Club that includes a 12-acre fishing lake. The private Lazy Acres Fishing Club adjoins the solar site to the south and is surrounded by mature trees. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the owner of this 158-acre site paid real estate taxes of $3,000 annually. In the year following the solar farm development, 2012, real estate taxes increased to approximately $240,000, a 7,791 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 46 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the parcels in the solar farm site (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Grand Ridge Solar - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2011 Taxes Paid 2012 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2011 Assessed Value 2012 Assessed Value Value Increase LaSalle County, IL 34-22-100-000 78.99 1,580$ 120,064$ 7501% $ 23,830 $ 1,812,357 7505% 34-22-101-000 78.80 1,457$ 119,539$ 8106% $ 21,975 $ 1,804,433 8111% TOTAL 157.79 3,036$ 239,602$ 7791%45,805$ 3,616,790$ 7796% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 47 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The surrounding area is primarily populated with agricultural uses. Some of these agricultural parcels contain homesteads on the site and others are fully unimproved. Adjoining Properties 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 have no sales data, therefore, those properties djoining Properties have been excluded from further analysis. Recall, the solar farm was announced on December 31, 2010 and began operations in July 2012. Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were sold in 1997 and 1996, respectively. These sales did not occur within a reasonable time period prior to announcement/completion. Therefore, Adjoining Properties 8 and 9 were excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 4 sold in March 2011 while construction was ongoing. However, we have not considered this property for a paired sales analysis because the impact of being proximate to the solar farm could not be differentiated from the impact of the construction. Therefore, Adjoining Property 4 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Property 2 transferred in September of 2018 with no consideration amount on a Trustee’s deed from Gemini Farms LLC to the Bedeker Family Gift Trust. John and Susan Bedeker are owners of the Adjoining Property 1. This is not considered an arm’s length transaction, therefore, Adjoining Property 2 was excluded from further analysis. Adjoining Properties 11 and 12 were initially one parcel of 37.07 acres. Adjoining Property 12 sold in October 2016, which is a reasonable time period after completion of the solar farm. When Adjoining Property 12 was sold, the parcel was split into the two-acre homesite now known as Adjoining Propeprty 12, and the 35.07 acre farm, that was retained by the seller. Therefore, we have excluded Adjoining Property 11 and only considered Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) for paired sales analysis. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, we have compared sales of similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of the adjoining property (Test Area Sale), after the completion of the solar farm project. Adjoining Property 12 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use, a 2,328 square foot home located on a 2.0- acre parcel that sold in October 2016. This parcel is approximately 366 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 479 feet from the closest solar panel. The table on the following page outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 48 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. We have found five Control Area Sales using data from the Northern Illinois Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor’s office. We excluded sales that were not arm’s length, such as REO sales or those between related parties. We have excluded any home sites under one acre and included only sales with a similar quantity of bedrooms, bathrooms, and living area. The Control Area Sales are comparable in most physical characteristics and bracket Adjoining Property 12 reasonably. Grand Ridge Solar: Test Area Sale Map Property # Address Sale Price Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Site Size (AC) Sale Price/SF Sale Date Adjoining Property 12 2098 N 15th Rd, Streator, IL $186,000 3 4.0 1997 2,328 Single Family Home and Garage and Farm Acreage 2.0 $79.90 Oct-16 Grand Ridge Solar Farm Test Area Sale - Adjoining Property 12 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 49 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It is important to note that the Control Area Sales are not adjoining to any solar farm, nor do they have a view of one from the property. Therefore, neither the announcement nor the completion of the solar farm use could have impacted the sales price of these properties. It is informative to note that the average marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales of 171 days is consistent with the marketing time for the Test Area Sale which was on the market for 169 days. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. We analyzed the five Control Area Sales and adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identity the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The results of the paired sales analysis for the Grand Ridge Solar Farm are presented below. The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was somewhat higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales. We contacted the selling broker of the Test Area Sale home, Tina Sergenti with Coldwell Banker, who said that the proximity of the solar farm had no impact on the marketing time or selling price of the home. The Test Area Sale sold with 169 days on market (5 – 6 months) compared to the Control Area Sales, which sold between 10 471 days on market (0 and 16 months). Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Grand Ridge Solar Farm impacted the sales price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 12. This was confirmed by the real estate agent who marketed and sold this home. No. of Sales Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $74.35 Adjoining Property 12 7.46% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (5) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $79.90Test Area Sale (1) Grand Ridge Solar Farm CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 50 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 4: WOODLAND SOLAR FARM, ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINIA Coordinates: Latitude 36.890000, Longitude -76.611000 PINs: 41-02-004, 41-02-001, 41-02-001A, 41-02-005 Total Land Size: 211.12 acres Date Project Announced: August 4, 2015 Date Project Completed: December 2016 Output: 19.0 MW AC Aerial imagery retrieved from Google Earth The Woodland Solar Farm is located in unincorporated Isle of Wight County, Virginia, and was developed by Dominion Virginia Power in 2016. This solar farm has a capacity of 19.0 Megawatts (MW) AC of power, which is enough to power 4,700 homes. The solar farm sits on 204 acres, part of Oliver Farms, a 1,000-acre site that was Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 51 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. chosen for its flat land and proximity to power lines. The land under the solar arrays was previously farmed and used to grow broccoli, collards, peas, strawberries, and butter beans. The solar installation includes 79,648 solar panels and was one of the largest of its kind at the time of construction. The Surrounding Area: Isle of Wight County is in the southeast part of Virginia and has shoreline along the James River on its eastern border. The county is predominantly rural and has two incorporated towns, Smithfield and Windsor. The Woodland Solar facility is approximately 27 miles northwest of Norfolk, Virginia, across the Elizabeth River and the Nansemond River. The solar site is also approximately 21 miles southwest of Newport News, Virginia. The town of Smithfield is approximately nine miles northeast of the solar facility and the town of Windsor is approximately 12 miles southwest. The solar facility is near the intersection of State Route 600 (Oliver Drive) and State Route 602 (Longview Drive). The Immediate Area: Land uses surrounding the Woodland Solar facility include forests and agricultural land to the north, west, and south, and residential and farmland to the east. Landscaping around the solar site consists of the naturally occurring vegetation and forests. It should be noted that the landowner that leases the land to the solar owner has agricultural buildings and other structures along Longview Drive and the nearest solar panels are approximately 220 feet from the property line. Real Estate Tax Information: In 2015, prior to the property being assessed as a solar farm, the assessed value of the property was approximately $542,200 and ownership paid $4,609 in real estate taxes (see below). In 2016, the assessed value increased to $3,021,600 and the real estate tax increased to $27,844. PIN Acres 2015 Taxes Paid 2016 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2015 Assessed Value 2016 Assessed Value Value Increase Isle of Wight County, VA 41-02-004 107.32 2,250$ 15,985$ 610% $ 264,700 $ 1,728,100 553% 41-02-001 62.66 1,369$ 8,601$ 529% $ 161,000 $ 939,900 484% 41-02-001A 8.08 230$ 1,193$ 420% $ 27,000 $ 110,700 310% 41-02-005 33.06 761$ 2,065$ 171%89,500$ 242,900$ 171% TOTAL 211.12 4,609$ 27,844$ 504%542,200$ 3,021,600$ 457% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 52 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALE ANALYSIS: The map below displays the Adjoining Properties to the solar farm (outlined in red). Properties adjoining the solar farm parcels are numbered for subsequent analysis. Woodland Solar - Adjoining Properties In reviewing Adjoining Properties to study in a Paired Sale Analysis, several properties and sales were considered but eliminated from further consideration as discussed below. We identified three Adjoining Properties that sold since the solar farm started operations in December 2016: Adjoining Property 3, and two parcels included in Adjoining Property 5. The two properties that were considered part of Adjoining Property 5, sold between related parties, and were sales between family members of the land lessor for the solar site. These two sales were excluded from further analysis as they were not arms’ length transactions. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 53 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Adjoining Property 3 was considered for a paired sales analysis and we analyzed this property as single-family home use. The improvements on this property are located approximately 600 feet from the nearest solar panel. We analyzed five Control Area Sales of single-family homes with similar construction and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm, that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale. The Control Area Sales are one-story homes with three bedrooms and either one or two bathrooms. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, REO sales, and those between related parties. Woodland Solar – Test Area Sale Map The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The result of our analysis for Woodland Solar Farm is presented on the following page. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC)Beds Baths Year Built Home Size GLA (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 3 18146 Longview Drive $175,000 1.00 3 1 1978 1,210 Jun-16 $144.63 Woodland Solar Farm Test Area Sale - Adjoining Property 3 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 54 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The difference between the unit price of the Test Area Sale and the Adjusted Median Unit Price of the Control Area Sales is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative marketing time differential, the Test Area Sale sold in 33 days (1-2 months), while the Control Area Sales sold between 17 and 37 days (0-2 months), with a median time on market of 28 days. Noting no negative price differential, with the Test Area Sale having a higher unit sale price than the Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Woodland Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $137.76 Adjoining Property 3 4.99% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (5) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $144.63Test Area Sale (1) Woodland Solar Farm CohnReznick Paired Sales Anaysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 55 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 5: DOMINION INDY SOLAR III, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 39°39'14.16"N, Longitude 86°15'35.06"W PIN: 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 Total Land Size: 129 acres Date Project Announced: August 2012 Date Project Completed: December 2013 Output: 8.6 MW AC (11.9 MW DC) The Dominion Indy III solar farm was developed by Dominion Renewable Energy and became operable in December 2013. This solar farm has ground-mounted solar panels and has the capacity for 8.6 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion with 12 inverters. The Surrounding Area: The Dominion Indy III solar farm is located in Decatur Township, in the southwest portion of Marion County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles southeast of the Indianapolis International Airport and approximately eight and a half miles from the center of Indianapolis. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is on the southern side of West Southport Road. Adjoining parcels to the west, south, and east are agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops and large areas of mature trees. There is one single family home on 4.78 acres of land at the northwest corner of the solar site, with frontage on West Southport Road, identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 9. To the north, across West Southport Road from the solar site, is the single-family residential subdivision known as Crossfield. Originally developed with over 81 acres of land by the Key Life Insurance Company, the one- and two-story homes in the subdivision were built between approximately 1998 and 2011. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural or residential purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence around all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are some natural shrubs and trees on all sides of the property; this vegetation was in place before the solar farm was developed. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 56 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2013, the owner of this 129-acre site paid real estate taxes of $1,788 annually. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, real estate taxes increased to approximately $16,405, an 818 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. The map below, and the maps on the following pages, display the parcels within the solar farm is located (outlined in blue). Properties adjoining this site are numbered for subsequent analysis. Dominion Indy III - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value 2015 Assessed Value Value Increase Marion County, IN 49-13-13-113-001.000-200 129.04 1,788$ 16,405$ 818% $ 89,400 $ 109,900 23% TOTAL 129.04 1,788$ 16,405$ 818%89,400$ 109,900$ 23% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 57 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered two types of paired sales analysis with regards to the Dominion Indy III solar farm. The first compares sales of Adjoining Properties (Test Area Sales) to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for all three groups of Adjoining Properties under study. The second type of paired sale analysis is known as a Before and After analysis which compares sales of Adjoining Properties that occurred prior to the announcement of the solar farm with the sales of the same Adjoining Properties after the completion of the solar farm development. We were able to use home sale data from the Crossfield subdivision that is located to the north of the solar site, across West Southport Road, for this analysis. GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 2 is a vacant 86.96-acre agricultural parcel located to the east of the solar site. Adjoining Property 2 sold in October 2017 and was considered for a paired sale analysis, known as a Test Area Sale, in Group 1. The property line of this unimproved parcel is approximately 166 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 12. Soil Productivity and Land Value Trends and the NCCPI Productivity Index Crop yields have been the basis for establishing a soil productivity index, and are used by county assessors, farmers, and market participants in assessing agricultural land. While crop yields are an integral part in assessing soil qualities, it is not an appropriate metric to rely on because “yields fluctuate from year to year, and absolute yields mean little when comparing different crops. Productivity indices provide a single scale on which soils may be rated according to their suitability for several major crops under specified levels of management such as an average level.”1 The productivity index, therefore, not crop yields, is best suited for applications in land appraisal and land-use planning. Adjoining Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) NCCPI Index Wetlands Floodplain Sale Price/AC Sale Date Adjoining Property 2 5755 W Southport Rd, Indianapolis, IN $738,584 89.96 63.4 1% Zone X $8,210 Oct-17 Group 1 - Agricultural Land Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 58 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) developed and utilizes the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) as a national soil interpreter and is used in the National Soil Information System (NASIS), but it is not intended to replace other crop production models developed by individual states.18 The focus of the model is on identifying the best soils for the growth of commodity crops, as the best soils for the growth of these crops are generally the best soils for the growth of other crops.19 The NCCPI model describes relative productivity ranking over a period of years and not for a single year where external influences such as extreme weather or change in management practices may have affected production. At the moment, the index only describes non-irrigated crops, and will later be expanded to include irrigated crops, rangeland, and forestland productivity.20 Yields are influenced by a variety of different factors including environmental traits and management inputs. Tracked climate and soil qualities have been proven by researchers to directly explain fluctuations in crop yields, especially those qualities that relate to moisture-holding capacity. Some states such as Illinois have developed a soil productivity model that considers these factors to describe “optimal” productivity of farmed land. Except for these factors, “inherent soil quality or inherent soil productivity varies little over time or from place to place for a specific soil (map unit component) identified by the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS).”21 The NRCS Web Soil Survey website has additional information on how the ratings are determined. The State of Indiana does not have its own crop production model and utilizes the NCCPI. In analyzing agricultural land sales for Control Area Sales with similar characteristics to Adjoining Property 2, we have excluded any parcels with NCCPI soil indices less than 50.0 and greater than 85.0. We identified and analyzed four Control Area Sales that were comparable in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. The Control Area Sales for Adjoining Property 2 are land tracts that were larger than 20 acres and utilized specifically as farmland. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, those between related parties, split transactions, and land with significant improvements. The Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. 18 Agricultural land rental payments are typically tied to crop production of the leased agricultural land and is one of the primary reasons the NCCPI was developed, especially since the model needed to be consistent across political boundaries. 19 Per the User Guide for the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index, the NCCPI uses natural relationships of soil, landscape and climate factors to model the response of commodity crops in soil map units. The present use of the land is not considered in the ratings. 20 AgriData Inc. Docs: http://support.agridatainc.com/NationalCommodityCropProductivityIndex(NCCPI).ashx 21 USDA NRCS’s User Guide National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 59 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Dominion Indy III - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using a regression and trend analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. Using the agricultural land sale data published in the Land Sales Bulletin,22 from January 2016 through December 2017, which includes reliable and credible data for analysis, we extracted a monthly rate of change of 0.50 percent. The results of our analysis for Adjoining Property 2, in Group 1 are presented on the following page. 22 https://www.landsalesbulletin.com/ Test 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 60 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Noting the relatively low price differential, in which the Test Area Sale was higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on the adjoining agricultural property value. Dominion Indy III Solar - Adjoining Properties We idenitified a total of nine Adjoining Properties that sold after the develoment of the solar farm as single-family home uses. Adjoining Properties 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26 were analyzed in two paired sales analyses (Group 2 and Group 3). These nine properties were analyzed as single-family homes and they are located in the Crossfield subdivision, across West Southport Road from the solar site, as seen in the map above. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per Acre 1.47%Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Group 1 - Agricultural Land $8,091 $8,210 Control Area Sales (4)No: Not adjoining solar farm Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 2) Yes: Solar Farm was completed by the sale date Indy III Solar Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 61 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It should be noted that Adjoining Properties 11 and 24 have sold more than once since the solar farm was constructed, and each sale is included in the analysis. Adjoining Property 11 sold first in December 2015 and later in July 2018, approximately two and a half years later. Adjoining Property 24 sold first in February 2014 and later in April 2019, approximately five years later. Our research indicated that these were arm’s-length sales. The nine Adjoining Properties that were included in our paired sales analysis were divided into two groups, based on the sale dates of the Test Area Sales. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 62 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 For Group 2 (sales in 2014 – 2016), we analyzed four Control Area Sales with similar location, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 2 Test Area Sales. The Test Area Sales in Group 2 are located between 230 feet and 404 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales for Group 2 are located beyond this area in other areas of the Crossfield Division and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III – Group 2: Test Area Sales Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 11, 20, 22, 24 5933 Sable Dr, 5829 Sable Dr, 5813 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr $129,375 0.23 4 2.0 2008 2,163 Jul-15 $60.61 Test Area Sales Group 2 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 63 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 3 For Group 3 (sales occurring in 2017 - 2019), we analyzed a set of seven Control Area Sales with similar locations, square footages, lot sizes, and ages that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Group 3 Test Area Sales. The Test Area Sales in Group 3 are located between 227 feet and 419 feet from the house to the solar panels. The Control Area Sales are located beyond this area, in other areas of the Crossfield Division, and in other nearby subdivisions. Dominion Indy III – Group 3: Test Area Sales Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 26 5933 Sable Dr, 5921 Sable Dr, 5915 Sable Dr, 5909 Sable Dr, 5841 Sable Dr, 5737 Sable Dr, 5731 Sable Dr $169,900 0.23 3 2.5 2006 2,412 Jul-18 $72.15 Dominion Indy III Solar Test Area Sales Group 3 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 64 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales in Groups 2 and 3 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. The Test Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 18 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 2 sold between 2 and 649 days on market (0-23 months). The Test Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 3 and 75 days on market (0-3 months), while the Control Area Sales in Group 3 sold between 2 and 89 days on market (0-3 months). Noting the relatively low price differentials, it does not appear that the Dominion Indy III solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining residential property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 4.78% Test Area Sales (4) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Group 2 Adjoining solar farm $60.61 Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $57.84 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.65% Group 3 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Dominion Indy III Solar Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (7)Adjoining solar farm $72.15 Control Area Sales (11) No: Not adjoining solar farm $71.69 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 65 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR FARM ANALYSIS Due to the number of sales over time in the Crossfield subdivision, we were able to conduct an analysis on the prices of single-family homes before the solar farm announcement date in comparison to the prices of single- family homes after the construction of the Dominion Indy III solar farm. This analysis shows the appreciation rates of homes in the subdivision over the period before the solar farm was announced to after construction was complete. If there were a difference in the appreciation rates of homes within the Test Area (homes adjoining the solar farm) from the homes within the Control Areas (homes not adjoining the solar farm), we would expect to see it in the results of this analysis. We have provided our conclusions from the analysis below, and the following page displays an explanatory chart. The Before the Announcement of the solar farm period is from 2006 to July 2012. The After Construction of the solar farm period is from December 2013 to 2019. 25 Test Area Sales were sold from 2006 to 2019 and 46 Control Area Sales sold from 2008 to 2019. The Test Area Sales are homes located adjoining the Dominion Indy III Solar Farm in the Crossfield subdivision. The Control Area Sales are homes located in the remainder of the Crossfield subdivision, not adjoining the solar farm. In both the Test Area Sales (ORANGE) and Control Area Sales (BLUE) plotted on the chart on the following page, new construction homes sold through 2011, prior to announcement of the solar farm. The dotted lines are polynomial trend lines plotted by Microsoft Excel in order to illustrate and approximate the “average” trend of each set of data. After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate (as depicted by the Red lines representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana), it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. The economic climate improved in the period from 2013 to 2019, as shown by the Red line representing the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index for the East North Central region that includes Indiana. After construction of the solar farm, in parallel with the improving economic climate, it appears that unit prices for both the Test Area Sales and the Control Area Sales appreciated at a similar rate over the period from 2013 to 2019. A difference in appreciation rates does not appear to exist between Test Area Sale homes versus the Control Area Sale homes. Sale prices of single-family homes after the construction of the solar farm exhibit a similar appreciation trend as sales prior to the solar farm announcement. Overall, our findings indicate that there is not a consistent and measurable difference in prices that exists in association with homes proximate to the Dominion Indy III solar farm Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 66 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ANALYSIS OF BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOMINION INDY III SOLAR FAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 67 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 6: SUNFISH FARM SOLAR, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Coordinates: Latitude 35 33.457, Longitude 78 44.190 PIN: 675874971 Total Land Size: Approximately 49.6 acres Date Project Completed: December 2015 Output: 5 MW AC This Sunfish Farm solar facility is located in the southern portion of Wake County, North Carolina, approximately 16 miles south of Raleigh. The solar facility was placed into service in December 2015 and has a power generating capacity of 5 MW AC. The solar facility was developed by Cypress Creek Renewables, which has built several community-scale solar farms in North Carolina. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 68 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Surrounding Area: The Sunfish Farm solar facility is surrounding by single family homes, some of which are in subdivisions, as well as agricultural and forest land. The local area is accessible from Raleigh via Fayetteville Road (US Hwy 401) and Interstate 40. The Sunfish Farm solar farm is located southwest of the town of Fuquay-Varina, which has experienced considerable population growth over the past 10 years due to the area’s proximity to Research Triangle Park (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill). The Immediate Area: The solar farm is buffered from residences and road frontages by trees and is surrounded by fencing. The solar farm is clearly visible from the roadways. Immediate land uses surrounding the solar farm include residential homes to the north, some residential homes (some that also contain commercial uses) to the west, agricultural land to the south, and agricultural land and residential homes to the east. There is an 11.25-acre carve-out of land in the original, larger farmland parcel that was split from the parent parcel in 2014, as pictured below. Both the carved out parcel and the solar farm parcel are owned by an individual who leases the land for the solar farm use. Real Estate Tax Information: Solar farms in North Carolina are assessed as personal property, separate from the land assessment. After the solar farm was placed into service, there was an increase of 180 percent in total assessed value, and 203 percent increase in total taxes paid. PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid (Per Acre) 2016 Taxes Paid (Per Acre) Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value (Per Acre) 2016 Assessed Value (Per Acre) Value Increase Wake County, NC 675874971 (Post 2015 Split) 49.60 119.52$ 105.33$ $ 18,589 $ 15,123 Personal Property Tax -$ 256.81$ $ - $ 36,871 TOTAL 49.60 119.52$ 362.14$ 203% 18,588.83$ 51,994.82$ 180% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 69 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The map below displays the properties adjoining the solar arrays and are numbered for subsequent analysis (outlined in yellow). Sunfish Farm Solar - Adjoining Properties PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have considered only one type of paired sales analysis, comparing sales of properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales) to the sales of adjoining properties (Test Area Sales) after the completion of the solar farm project. We were able to identify two Adjoining Properties to the Sunfish Farm solar facility that sold after the solar installation was placed into service (Adjoining Properties 10 and 15). These sales were analyzed in separate Test Area Sale groups based on home type (conventional single-family home and manufactured single-family home) and sale dates. We collected Control Area Sale data from the Wake County Real Estate database which summarizes data directly from the Real Estate Assessor website for the county. We have also reviewed other public records and verified marketing information through online sources such as Zillow.com, Redfin.com, Realtor.com and Estately.com. We have verified these sales through county records, conversations with brokers, and the County Assessor’s Office. We excluded sales that were not arm’s length, such as REO sales or bank-owned properties, or those between related parties. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 70 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 1 Adjoining Property 10 (Test Area Sale 1) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single-family home use. The property is a single-story 1,470 square foot home located on a 0.79- acre lot that sold in September 2017. This property line is approximately 50 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 200 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. We have identified 14 single-family home sales in the Control Area Sale group that are located within Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. They were built generally from 1989 to 1999 and are each similar in square footage and layout, as well as quality of construction, to the Test Area Sale and they sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale. Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Sale Price/SF Sale Date Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 10 7513 Glen Willow Court $188,000 0.79 3 2 1989 1,470 One-Story, No Basement $127.89 Sep-17 GROUP 1 TEST AREA SALE SUNFISH FARM SOLAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 71 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It is informative to note that the marketing time (from list date to closing date) for Control Area Sales ranged from 30 to 127 days on market, and the marketing time for Adjoining Property 10 was 98 days, which is within the range of the Control Area Sales. This is an indication that the marketability of the Test Area Sale was not negatively influenced by proximity to the solar farm. We adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2015 to the end of December 2018 (36 months). When adjusting sales prices for market conditions (time between date of Test Area Sale and Control Area Sales date) throughout this analysis we have used regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. We utilized the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index (FHFA HPI) for the 27592 zip code to determine the average monthly rate of appreciation. The FHFA HPI is a broad measure of the movement of single-family house prices. The FHFA HPI is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or re-financings on the same properties. The FHFA HPI serves as a timely, accurate indicator of house price trends at various geographic levels.23 The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 10 are presented below. The difference between the unit price of the Test Area Sale and the Adjusted Median Unit Price of the Control Area Sales is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 10. 23 https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-Index.aspx No. of Sales Sunfish Farm Solar CohnReznick Paired Sales Analysis Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales $124.86 GROUP 1 - Adjoining Property 10 2.43% Adjusted Median Price Per SF Control Area Sales (14) Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm No: Not adjoining solar farm Yes: Adjoining solar farm $127.89Test Area Sale (1) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 72 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 Adjoining Property 15 (Test Area Sale) was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a manufactuerd single-family home use, with 1,860 square feet of improvements, on a parcel of 1.24-acres, that sold in October 2019. The property line for this property is approximately 665 feet from the closest solar panel, and the improvements are approximately 760 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 15. In Group 2, we have studied only homes on lots between 0.50 and 1.60 acres and homes that are greater than 1,750 square feet, built between 1990 and 2003, so as to be comparable to the Test Area Sale home. The Control Area Sales sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics, that is they are one-story manufactured homes with no basements, that are located in Wake County, either in Middle Creek Township or Panther Branch Township. Sunfish Farm Solar - Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Improvements Sale Price/SF Sale Date Test Sale 1 Adjoining Property 15 7608 Maude Stewart Road $125,000 1.24 2 2 1990 1,860 One-Story, Manufactured, No Basement $67.20 Oct-19 TEST AREA SALE GROUP 2 SUNFISH FARM SOLAR Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 73 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. We analyzed the eight Control Area Sales and adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using the compounded monthly growth rate exhibited in the FHFA House Price Index, for the period from December 2018 to December 2020 (24 months). The results of the paired sales analysis for Adjoining Property 15 are presented below. The unit sale price of the Test Area Sale was slightly higher than the median adjusted unit sale price of the Control Area Sales and is considered within the range for a typical market area. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Sunfish Farm solar installation impacted the sale price of the Test Area Sale, Adjoining Property 15. No. of Sales Control Area Sales (8) No: Not adjoining solar farm $66.23 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales 1.47% GROUP 2 - Adjoining Property 15 Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF Test Area Sale (1)Yes: Adjoining solar farm $67.20 Sunfish Farm Solar CohnReznick Paired Sales Analysis Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 74 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 7: CALL FARMS 3 SOLAR, BATAVIA, GENESSEE COUNTY, NEW YORK Coordinates: Latitude 43.02305, Longitude -78.1812 PIN: 1824004-1-26.111/A Total Land Size: ± 81.6 Acres Date Project Announced: May 2017 Date Project Completed: July 2018 Output: 2 MW AC This solar facility was put into operation in July 2018 and has a power output capacity of 2 MW AC, enough to power 300 homes. The solar fam is currently owned by AES Distributed Energy. The project was initially being developed by Forefront, and was known as Spring Sun South, until AES acquired it in August 2017 just prior to construction. The facility was built by Expy Energy and features two inverters, fixed tilt ground racking and over 8,700 solar panels. The Surrounding Area: The Call Farms 3 solar farm is located in the town of Batavia, that surrounds the outskirts of the City of Batavia, in Genesee County, New York. Roughly equidistant from Buffalo to the west and Rochester to the east, the solar farm is centrally located in the county, and the county is in the northwestern tip of the state of New York. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 75 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Immediate Area: The solar farm is located along State Street Road, near the interchange of the New York State Thruway (I-90) and Oak Orchard Road. The solar farm is immediately surrounded by agricultural land to the north, west, and south. To the northeast of the solar farm are two commercial properties, Battery Systems of Batavia and an Ashley Home Furniture distribution center. To the south there is a landscape company with a parcel that houses equipment storage and parking. To the east there a few residential properties on the east side of State Street Road, across the road from the solar parcel. Real Estate Tax Information: After development of the solar farm, a sub-parcel number was created for the solar farm and a parent parcel number retained that was taxable at the agricultural land rate. By 2019 the solar parcel started being assessed and taxed separately in addition to the parent land parcel. The addition of the solar farm increased the taxes collected on the land by 18 percent. The map below displays the parcels containing the solar farm and adjoining properties (outlined in yellow). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis (boxed in red). PIN Acres 2017 Taxes Paid 2019 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2017 Assessed Value 2019 Assessed Value Value Increase Genesee, NY 1824004-1-26.111 (Parent)11,646$ 11,540$ $ 327,900 $ 327,300 1824004-1-26.111/A (Solar Parcel)81.60 2,106$ 900,000$ TOTAL 81.60 11,540$ 13,647$ 18% 327,300$ 1,227,300$ 275% Call Farms 3 Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 76 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. One adjoining residential property, Adjoining Property 4, (300 feet from the house to the nearest solar panel) was sold on April 5, 2018, which was after the solar farm was built and just before the solar farm became operational. We spoke to the selling broker, John Gerace of Gerace Realty, who was under the impression that the solar farm was operational prior to closing because the construction appeared complete prior to the closing date. We note this to illustrate that the market reacted as if the solar farm were operational at the time of sale. Gerace said that interested buyers, including the eventual buyer, expressed relief that the home would no longer face agricultural land with unknown development potential, and that there was no glare from the panels. In addition to being an active broker in the community, Mr. Gerace previously sat on the zoning board, and he frequently attends town hall meetings. He said that typically a portion of the community expresses concerns about potential solar farms, but he never noticed a decrease in value or marketability for solar farm proximity. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Property 4 was considered for a paired sales analysis, and we analyzed this property as a single family home use. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 4. We analyzed five Control Area Sales with similar construction and characteristics that sold within a reasonable time frame relative to the sale date of Adjoining Property 4. We adjusted the Control Area Sales for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Sale Price per SF Sale Date 4 8053 State St Rd, Batavia $155,000 1.00 5 2.0 1967 2,636 $58.80 Apr-18 Call Farms 3 Solar Test Area Sale Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 77 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The result of our analysis for the Call Farms 3 solar farm is presented below. Noting no negative price differential, with the Test Area Sale having a higher unit sale price than the Control Area Sales, it does not appear that the Call Farms 3 Solar Farm had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.31% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $58.62 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Call Farms 3 Solar Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining solar farm $58.80 Call Farms 3 Solar Farm – Test Area Sale Map Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 78 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 8: IMPA FRANKTON SOLAR FARM, FRANKTON, INDIANA Location: Frankton, Madison County, Indiana Coordinates: Latitude 40.125701; Longitude -85.4626.88 PIN: 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 Total Land Size: 13 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: June 2014 Output: 1.0 MW AC (1.426 MW DC) IMPA Frankton Solar Farm is located on the west side of South Lafayette Street, in the Town of Frankton. The solar farm was built in 2014 in joint effort by Inovateus Solar and Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA). This solar farm has the capacity for 1 MW AC and its expected annual output is 1,426 MWh (megawatt hours). The solar farm is separated off from the adjacent properties by a 6 foot fence that surrounds the entirety of the solar panels. From our inspection of the site, we noted that the driveway to access the panels slopes downward and allows some views of the site. The Surrounding Area: The IMPA Frankton solar farm is located in Lafayette Township, in the central portion of Madison County, Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 50 miles northeast of the center of Indianapolis and 65 miles northeast of the Indianapolis International Airport. The Immediate Area: The solar installation is relatively centrally located in an undeveloped pocket of the town of Frankton, on the western side of South Lafayette Street. Adjoining parcels to the west include park land featuring baseball fields. Land further to the west is agricultural in nature, actively farmed primarily with row crops. Adjoining parcels to the north are residential with large estate homes. Adjoining the solar farm to the southeast is a single-family home identified in our analysis as Adjoining Property 7, and a baseball field. More farmland is directly south of the solar site. The solar site is adjoining a number of homes located east of the panels, along Lafayette Street. Mature trees at the rear of residential properties act as vegetative buffers. Across Lafayette Street, to the east, are single-family residential homes forming the southeast quadrant of homes in Frankton. All of the adjacent land parcels to the solar farm are used for agricultural, residential, or recreational purposes. The solar farm is surrounded by a chain link fence that contains all the solar panels. Additionally, vegetative buffers along sides facing residential properties were planted as part of the solar farm development. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 79 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm in 2014, the original owner held one parcel of 15.667 acres with a home, pole barn and a utility shed, and no personal property was assessed on this parcel. In 2014 the parcel was split into two parcels and 13 acres was sold to IMPA for development of the solar farm. The owner of the parent parcel of 15.667 acres paid real estate taxes of $1,799 annually, prior to the split. After development of the solar farm, real estate taxes for both parcels, plus personal property tax revenue generated from the solar parcel, caused an increase $8,275, or a 360 percent increase in tax revenue for the entire site. The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2013 Taxes Paid 2017 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2013 Assessed Value 2017 Assessed Value Value Increase Madison County, IN 48-08-06-500-012.000-020 (parent)15.667 (2013) 1,799$ 1,402$ $ 138,700 $ 127,000 Personal Property -$ -$ $ - $ - 48-08-06-500-012.001-020 (2014 solar parcel split) 13.00 (2017)-$ 4 , 0 6 3$ $ - $ 137,400 Personal Property -$ 2 , 8 1 0$ $ - $ 440,380 TOTAL 0.00 1,799$ 8,275$ 360% 138,700$ 704,780$ 408% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 80 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We have performed a paired sales analysis with regards to the IMPA Frankton solar farm. The analysis compares sales of Adjoining Properties to the solar farm after the completion of the solar farm site (Test Area Sales) to similar properties not proximate to the solar farm (Control Area Sales). We utilized this type of paired sale analysis for both groups of Adjoining Properties under study. GROUP 1 In Group 1, we identified and analyzed six Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, or otherwise non arms’-length transactions. Adjoining Property 2 was manufactured single-family home use. We identified six Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 2) and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. Adj. Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 2 607 S. Lafayette St Frankton, IN $41,900 0.37 2 2 1991 1,466 Jun-15 $28.58 IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Test Area Sales Group 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 81 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm – Group 1: Test Area Sale Map Control Area Sales in Group 1 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price per SF 0.56%Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Group 1 CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Test Area Sale (1) Control Area Sales (6) No: Not adjoining solar farm $28.42 Adjoining Solar Farm $28.58 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 82 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. GROUP 2 In Group 2, we identified and analyzed five Control Area Sales that were comparable to the Test Area Sale (Adjoining Property 7) in location, size, and use that were not located in close proximity to the solar farm. We excluded sales that were bank-owned, or otherwise non arms’-length transactions. Adjoining Property 7 was analyzed as a single-family home use. We identified five Control Area Sales that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of the Test Area Sale and are similar to the Test Area Sale in physical characteristics. IMPA Frankton Solar Farm – Group 2: Test Area Sale Map Adj. Property # Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Home Size (SF) Sale Date Price PSF 7 713 S. Lafeytte St Frankton, IN $131,000 3.04 4 2 2003 2,500 Oct-16 $52.40 Group 2 IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Test Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 83 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Control Area Sales in Group 2 were adjusted for market conditions using a regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market condition adjustment. The results of our study are presented below. Noting the relatively small price differential, in which the Test Area Sales were higher than the median for the Control Areas Sales, in both Groups 1 and 2, it does not appear that the IMPA Frankton solar farm had any negative impact on adjoining property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price per SF 1.81% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $51.47 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis IMPA Frankton Solar Farm Group 2 Test Area Sale (1) Adjoining Solar Farm $52.40 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 84 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 9: JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO Coordinates: Latitude 39.859564, Longitude -105.1497 PIN: 29-194-01-037 Total Land Size: 13.63 acres Date Project Announced: November 2013 Date Project Completed: May 2016 Output: 1.2 MW AC The Jefferson County Community Solar Garden is adjacent to the Whisper Creek residential subdivision, just outside the City of Arvada, and was developed by SunShare Management. This solar farm has the capacity for 1.2 Megawatts (AC) of power, which is enough to power 300 homes. After two months of operation, the solar farm was 100 percent subscribed and its three largest customers are the cities of Arvada and Northglenn, as well as the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District. The Surrounding Area: The Whisper Creek subdivision is located between the Welton Reservoir to the west and Standley Lake to the east. To the northwest of the subdivision lies the Colorado Hills Open Space and the Rocky Flats national Wildlife Refuge. The subdivision is primarily in the City of Arvada city limits, but the municipal boundary splits the street the Test Area Sales are located on, West 89 th Loop, some are in Arvada and some are in unincorporated Jefferson County. Arvada is a northwestern suburb of the City of Denver and is accessible via Interstate-25 and Interstate-70 and Interstate-76. The Immediate Area: The immediate area has uses that consist of vacant land to the north and east, a horse and alpaca farm to the south, known as Evening Star Farms, and single-family homes and a municipal police station and vacant land to the west. Real Estate Tax Information: In 2017, real estate taxes totaled $79.10 for the entire parcel for the year, which is slightly less than taxes billed in 2016 and 2015. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 85 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS We found three Adjoining Properties that qualified for a paired sales analysis. The map below displays the solar farm parcel (outlined in yellow) and the Adjoining Properties (outlined in red) are numbered for subsequent analysis Jefferson County Community Solar Garden - Adjoining Properties (Q2 2016 imagery date) (Green Arrow – Direction of Photos on Following Page) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 86 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. View from 89th Loop towards Solar Farm at rear of home View from the rear of a Test Area Sale, towards Solar Farm Solar Farm Solar Farm Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 87 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Adjoining Properties 9, 10, and 13 (Test Area Sales 1, 2, and 3, respectively), were considered for a paired sales analysis. The Test Area Sales are two-story, single-family residential homes with four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms, between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet of gross living area, on less than 0.30 acre of land, and each sold in 2016 as new construction homes. The Test Area Sales are located between 595 feet and 720 feet from the house to the solar panels. We analyzed six Control Area Sales of single-family homes that are included in this analysis that sold within a reasonable time frame from the median sale date of the Test Area Sales and are similar to the Test Area Sales in physical characteristics. The Control Area Sales are removed from the solar panels in other areas of the Whisper Creek subdivision. Jefferson County Community Solar Garden – Test Area Sales Map Adj. Property #Address Median Sale Price Median Site Size (AC) Median Beds Median Baths Median Year Built Median Square Feet Median Sale Date Median Price PSF 9, 10, 13 13929 W 89TH LOOP, 13919 W 89TH LOOP, 13889 W 89TH LOOP $635,500 0.23 4 3.5 2016 3,848 Jun-16 $165.15 Jefferson County Community Solar Garden Test Area Sales Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 88 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. The results of our analyses for the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden are presented below. Noting no negative price differential, it does not appear that the Jefferson County Community Solar Garden had any negative impact on adjacent property values. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 0.48% No: Not Adjoining solar farm $164.36 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sales and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Jefferson County Community Solar Garden Test Area Sales (3)Adjoining solar farm $165.15 Control Area Sales (6) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 89 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM 10: VALPARAISO SOLAR, VALPARAISO, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA Coordinates: Latitude 41.301180, Longitude –87.094055 PINs: 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 and 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 Total Land Size: 27.9 Acres Date Project Announced: March 2012 Date Project Completed: December 20, 2012 Output: 1 MW AC (1.3 MW DC) The Valparaiso solar farm was developed by Sustainable Power Group, LLC and became operational in December 2012. The solar facility has ground mounted capacity for 1.0 Megawatts (MW) AC of power. The panels are mounted in a fixed tilt fashion and there are two inverters in this solar farm. The Surrounding Area: The Valparaiso solar farm is located in Union Township, in the northwest portion of Porter County, Indiana. Porter County is located in the very northwest corner of the state of Indiana. The solar farm is approximately 10 miles northwest of the Porter County Regional Airport and approximately six and a half miles northwest of the center of the city of Valparaiso. The Immediate Area: This solar farm is located on the southern side of Indiana Route 130 (Railroad Avenue) in Valparaiso, Porter County, Indiana and is located approximately 35 miles southwest of downtown Chicago. Adjoining parcels to the solar farm to the east and south are residential homes and to the west and north are agricultural in nature. The solar farm is lined by a chain link fence that surrounds all of the solar panels. Additionally, there are bushes and trees to the north and west of the solar panels; this vegetation has been in place since before development of the solar farm. Other small trees were planted and spaced out around the perimeter of the solar farm after development. From our inspection, the solar panels cannot be seen from Indiana State Route 130 from the north, nor on N 475 W Road to the east as this is a raised roadway. The adjacent properties to the east of the solar panels have full view of the panels from the backyards of the homes. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 90 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Real Estate Tax Information: Prior to development of the solar farm, in 2011, the original parent parcel contained a home, a homesite, excess land, and agricultural land. In 2012, Valparaiso Solar, LLC bought the entire property to develop the solar farm on. Subsequently when Valparaiso Solar, LLC sold the project to PLH, LLC, they split the parcels so that the home and homesite were one parcel of 3.25 acres and the remaining 24.65 acres were the solar panel site. After development of the solar farm development, in 2015, total real estate taxes for both parcels had increased to approximately $2,587, a 25 percent increase in tax revenue for the site. The maps below and on the following page display the solar farm parcels (outlined in red). Properties adjoining this parcel are numbered for subsequent analysis. Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties PIN Acres 2011 Taxes Paid 2015 Taxes Paid Tax Increase 2011 Assessed Value 2015 Assessed Value Value Increase Porter County, IN 64-09-07-151-001.000-019 (parent parcel)2,072$ $ 203,800 64-09-07-152-001.000-019 (split parcel)24.65 2,587$ $ 156,800 64-09-07-152-002.000-019 (split parcel)3.25 1,741$ 187,900$ TOTAL 27.90 2,072$ 2,587$ 25% 203,800$ 344,700$ 69% Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 91 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Valparaiso Solar Farm - Adjoining Properties Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 92 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. PAIRED SALES ANALYSIS Adjoining Properties 10 and 14 (Test Area Sales) were each considered for a paired sales analysis. Both were analyzed as single-family home uses. GROUP 1 For Adjoining Property 10 (Group 1), the residential home is approximately 514 feet from the closest solar panel. The following table outlines the other important characteristics of Adjoining Property 10. We analyzed five Control Area Sales that sold within a reasonable time frame from the sale date of Adjoining Property 10. All Control Area Sales were adjusted for market conditions using regression analysis to identify the appropriate monthly market conditions adjustment. Adj. Property #Address Sale Price Site Size (AC) Beds Baths Year Built Square Feet Price PSF Sale Date 10 489 W 450 N, Valparaiso, IN $105,000 1.45 3 2 1993 1,274 82.42$ Jul-15 Valparaiso Solar Test Area Sale Group 1 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 93 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Valparaiso Solar - Group 1: Test Area Sale Map The result of our analyses for Group 1 is presented below. No. of Sales Potentially Impacted by Solar Farm Adjusted Median Price Per SF 3.09% Control Area Sales (5) No: Not adjoining solar farm $79.95 Difference between Unit Price of Test Area Sale and Adjusted Median Unit Price of Control Area Sales Test Area Sales (1) CohnReznick Paired Sale Analysis Valparaiso Solar Group 1 Adjoining solar farm $82.42 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 94 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. TECHNIQUE 3: MARKET COMMENTARY Additionally, we have contacted market participants such as appraisers, brokers, and developers familiar with property values around solar farms. Commentary from our conversations with these market participants is recorded below. In Otter Creek Township, in LaSalle County, Illinois, we spoke with Viki Crouch, the Township Assessor, who she said that there has been no impact on property values due to their proximity to the Grand Ridge Solar Farm. We spoke with Ken Crowley, Rockford Township Assessor in Winnebago County, Illinois, who stated that he has seen no impact on property values in his township as an effect of proximity to the Rockford Solar Farm. We spoke with James Weisiger, the Champaign Township Assessor in Champaign County, where the University of Illinois Solar Farm is located, and he noted that no one has petitioned to have their property assessments lowered and there appears to have been no impact on property values as a result of proximity to the solar farm. We spoke with Ken Surface, a Senior Vice President of Nexus Group. Nexus Group is a large valuation group in Indiana and has been hired by 20 counties in Indiana regarding property assessments. Mr. Surface is familiar with the solar farm sites in Harrison County (Lanesville Solar Farm) and Monroe County (Ellettsville Solar Farm) and stated he has noticed no impact on property values from proximity to these sites. We interviewed Missy Tetrick, a Commercial Valuation Analyst for the Marion County Indiana Assessor. She mentioned the Indy Solar III sites and stated that she saw no impact on land or property prices from proximity to this solar farm. We spoke with Dorene Greiwe, Decatur County Indiana Assessor, and she stated that solar farms have only been in the county a couple of years, but she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to this solar farm. Connie Gardner, First Deputy Assessor for Madison County Indiana, stated that there are three solar farms in her county, and she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to these solar farms. We spoke with Tara Shaver, Director of Administration for Marion County, Indiana Assessor/Certified Assessor, and she stated that she has seen no impact on land or property prices due to proximity to solar farms . Candace Rindahl of ReMax Results, a real estate broker with 16 years of experience in the North Branch, Minnesota area, said that she has been in most of the homes surrounding the North Star Solar Farm and personally sold two of them. She reported that the neighboring homes sold at market rates comparable to other homes in the area not influenced by the solar farm, and they sold within 45 days of offering, at the end of 2017, which was in line with the market. Dan Squires, Chisago County Tax Assessor (Minnesota), confirmed that the Chisago County Assessor’s Office completed their own study on property values adjacent to and in close vicinity to the solar farm from January Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 95 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 2016 to October 2017. From the study, the assessor determined the residential homes adjacent to the North Star Solar Farm (Minnesota) were in-line with the market and were appreciating at the same rate as the market.24 Renee Davis, Tax Administrator for Bladen County, North Carolina, stated that she has not seen any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Jim Brown, an appraiser for Scotland County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Gary Rose, a tax assessor for Duplin County, North Carolina, who stated that he has seen no effect on property values in regards to proximity to a solar farm. Kathy Renn, a property Valuation Manager for Vance County, North Carolina, stated that she has not noticed any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. Larry Newton, a Tax Assessor for Anson County, North Carolina, stated that there are six solar farms in the county ranging from 20 to 40 acres and he has not seen any evidence that solar farms have had any effect on property values due to proximity to a solar farm. We spoke with Patrice Stewart, a Tax Administrator for Pasquotank County, North Carolina, and she has seen no effect on land or residential property values due to proximity to the solar farms in Pasquotank County. We spoke with the selling broker of the Adjoining Property for Elm City Solar, in North Carolina, Selby Brewer, who said the solar farm did not impact the buyer’s motivation. We spoke with Amy Carr, Commissioner of Revenue in Southampton County, Virginia, who stated that most of the solar farms are in rural areas, but she has not seen any effect or made any adjustments on property values. They have evaluated the solar farmland considering a more intense use, which increased the assessed value. The Interim Assessor for the town of Whitestown in Oneida County, New York, Frank Donato, stated that he has seen no impact on property values of properties nearby solar farms. Steve Lehr at the Department of Assessment for Tompkins County, New York, mentioned that the appraisal staff has made no adjustments regarding assessed values of properties surrounding solar farms. Marketing times for properties have also stayed consistent. Lehr noted that a few of the solar farms in Thompkins County are on land owned by colleges and universities and a few are in rural areas. At this point in time, Al Fiorille, Senior Valuation Specialist in the Tompkins County Assessment department in New York, reported that he cannot measure any negativity from the solar farms and arrays that have been installed within the county. 24 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No “Solar Effects” (11/03/2017) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 96 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. In the Assessor’s office in the town of Seneca, Ontario County, New York, Shana Jo Hamilton stated that she has seen no impact on property values of properties adjacent to solar farms . Michael Zazzara, Assessor of the City of Rochester in Monroe County, New York commented that the City has a couple of solar farms, and they have seen no impact on nearby property values and have received no complaints from property owners. While there are one or two homes nearby to existing solar farms in the town of Lisbon in St. Lawrence County, New York, Assessor Stephen Teele has not seen any impact on property values in his town. The solar farms in the area are in rural or agricultural areas in and around Lisbon. The Assessor for the Village of Whitehall in Washington County, New York, Bruce Caza, noted that there are solar farms located in both rural and residential areas in the village and he has seen no impact on adjacent properties, including any concerns related to glare form solar panels. Laurie Lambertson, the Town Assessor for Bethlehem, in Albany County, New York noted that the solar farms in her area are tucked away in rural or industrial areas. Lambertson has seen no impact on property values in properties adjacent to solar farms. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 97 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SOLAR FARM FACTORS ON HARMONY OF USE Zoning changes and conditional use permits often require that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. The following section analyzes specific physical characteristics of solar farms and is based on research and CohnReznick’s personal solar farm site visits and indicate that solar farms are generally harmonious with surrounding property and compliant with most zoning standards. Appearance: Most solar panels have a similar appearance to a greenhouse or single-story residence can range from 8 to 20 feet but are usually not more than 15 feet high. As previously mentioned, developers generally surround a solar farm with a fence and often leave existing perimeter foliage, which minimizes the visibility of the solar farm. The physical characteristics of solar farms are compatible with adjoining agricultural and residential uses. Sound: Solar panels in general are effectively silent and sound levels are minimal, like ambient sound. There are limited sound-emitting pieces of equipment on-site, which only produce a quiet hum (e.g., inverters). However, these sources are not typically heard outside the solar farm perimeter fence. Odor: Solar panels do not produce any byproduct or odor. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: Much of the GHG produced in the United States is linked to the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, for energy use. Generating renewable energy from operating solar panels for energy use does not have significant GHG emissions, promoting cleaner air and reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to fight climate change. Traffic: The solar farm requires minimal daily onsite monitoring by operational employees and thus minimal operational traffic. Hazardous Material: Modern solar panel arrays are constructed to U.S. government standards. Testing shows that modern solar modules are both safe to dispose of in landfills and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster.25 Reuse or recycling of materials would be prioritized over disposal. Recycling is an area of significant focus in the solar industry, and programs for both batteries and solar panels are advancing every year. While the exact method of recycling may not be known yet as it is dependent on specific design and manufacturer protocol, the equipment is designed with recyclability of its components in mind, and it is likely that solar panel and battery energy storage recycling and reuse programs will only improve in 25 years’ time. Examples of homes built adjoining to solar farms are presented on the following pages. 25 Virginia Solar Initiative - Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service – University of Virginia (https://solar.coopercenter.org/taxonomy/term/5311) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 98 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. For the Dominion Indy III solar farm, the adjacent land to the west was acquired and subsequently developed with a large estate home – after the solar panels had been in operation for years. Dominion Indy III Solar Farm September 2014 Dominion Indy III Solar Farm October 2016 Estate home adjacent to Dominion Indy III Solar Farm In ground pool and attached garage (home cost estimated at $450,000 - October 2015 ) ~150 ft Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 99 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Single Family Home Development (1) - End-user built -2,933 SF -Completed on 3/1/2019 -Cost estimate: $170,300 Single Family Home Development (2) -Developer built -4 Bedroom -3 Bathroom -2,401 SF -Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Innovative Solar 42 (2017) Cumberland County, NC Innovative Solar 42 (2019) Cumberland County, NC Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 100 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Developer Built Home Sold 6/18/19 for $265,900 ($110.75/sf) Cumberland County, NC (adjacent to Innovative 42 solar farm) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 101 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2015 Portage Solar Farm, IN October 2016 4,255 square foot estate home under construction, adjacent to Portage Solar Farm located in Indiana On-site pond and attached garage (cost estimated at $465,000) April 2018 4,255 SF Estate Home Under Construction, 4BR 5Ba + Pond Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 102 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. The Brighton PV Solar farm became operational in December 2012. Located in Adams County, north of Denver, CO, this solar farm has a capacity of 1.8 MW AC and is located on a triangular parcel of land east of an area of existing custom-built estate homes. A photo of one home (15880 Jackson Street) located directly north of the circled area below, is presented to the right. In December 2012, the 2.55-acre lot circled in red below (15840 Jackson Street) was purchased for future development of a single-family home. This home was built in 2017, and per the county assessor, the two-story home is 3,725 square feet above ground with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms. According to the building permit issued in August 2016, the construction cost was budgeted at $410,000. Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2016 Brighton PV Solar, Adams County, CO June 2017 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 103 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SUMMARY OF ADJOINING USES The table below summarizes each Existing Solar Farm’s adjoining uses. Overall, the vast majority of the surrounding acreage for each comparable solar farm is made up of agricultural land, some of which have homesteads. There are also smaller single-family home sites that adjoin the solar farms analyzed in this report. Generally, these solar farms are sound comparables to Cypress Creek Renewables’ proposed solar project in terms of adjoining uses, location, and size. Solar Farm #Solar Farm Acreage % of Surrounding Agricultural Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Residential Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Industrial Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Office Uses Acreage % of Surrounding Other Uses Avg. Distance from Panels to Improvements (Feet) 1DTE Lapeer Solar 60.00%35.00%0.00%0.00%5.00%260 2Grand Ridge Solar 97.60%1.40%0.00%0.00%1.00%553 3Woodland Solar 25.00%5.00%0.00%0.00%60.00%615 4 Dominion Indy Solar III 97.70%2.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%474 5Sunfish Farm Solar 87.70%18.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%380 6Call Farms 3 Solar 44.40%5.50%3.30%0.00%9.40%328 7Portage Solar 65.50%34.50%0.00%0.00%0.00%991 8 IMPA Frankton Solar 76.30%5.70%0.00%0.00%18.00%236 9 Jefferson Community Solar Garden 73.00%10.00%0.00%0.00%16.67%790 10 Valparaiso Solar 81.60%18.40%0.00%0.00%0.00%659 Composition of Surrounding Uses (% of Surrounding Acreage) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 104 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. SUMMARY AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this property value impact report is to determine whether the presence of a solar farm has caused a measurable and consistent impact on adjacent property values. Under the identified methodology and scope of work, CohnReznick reviewed published methodology for measuring impact on property values as well as published reports that analyzed the impact of solar farms on property values. These studies found little to no measurable and consistent difference between Test Area Sales and Control Area Sales attributed to the solar farms. A summary of the chosen CohnReznick impact studies prepared is presented below. As summarized above, we evaluated 30 property sales adjoining existing solar facilities (Test Area Sales) and 115 Control Area Sales. In addition, we studied a total of 37 Test Area Sales and 46 Control Area Sales in two Before and After analyses. In total, we have studied over 1,430 sale transactions across the United States. The solar farms analyzed reflected sales of property adjoining an existing solar farm (Test Area Sales) in which the unit sale prices were effectively the same or higher than the comparable Control Area Sales that were not near a solar farm. The conclusions support that there is no negative impact for improved residential homes adjacent to solar, nor agricultural acreage. This was confirmed with market participants interviews, which provided additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of the solar farm. Solar Farm #Solar Farm Number of Test Area Sales Number of Control Area Sales Median Adjoining Property (Test Area Sales) Sales Price per Unit Control Area Sales Median Price per Unit Difference (%) Avg. Feet from Panel to Lot Avg. Feet from Panel to House Impact Found? Single-Family Residential 1 Portage Solar Group 2 1 7 $84.35 $84.27 +0.09% 1,070 1,233 No Impact 2 DTE Lapeer Solar Group 1 3 6 $105.26 $99.64 +5.64% 205 285 No Impact DTE Lapeer Solar Group 2 1 5 $114.12 $113.01 +0.98% 225 315 No Impact DTE Lapeer Solar Group 3 1 4 $94.84 $96.32 -1.54%160 290 No Impact 3 Grand Ridge Solar 1 5 $79.90 $74.35 +7.46% 366 479 No Impact 4 Woodland Solar 1 5 $144.63 $137.76 +4.99% 420 615 No Impact 5Dominion Indy Solar III Group 2 4 8 $59.10 $57.84 +2.18% 240 350 No Impact Dominion Indy Solar III Group 3 7 11 $72.15 $71.69 +0.64% 165 300 No Impact 6 Sunfish Farm Solar Group 1 1 14 $127.89 $124.86 +2.43%50 200 No Impact Sunfish Farm Solar Group 2 1 10 $67.20 $66.23 +1.47% 665 760 No Impact 7 Call Farms 3 Solar 1 5 $58.80 $58.62 +0.31% 200 297 No Impact 8 IMPA Frankton Solar Group 1 1 6 $28.58 $28.42 +0.56% 120 153 No Impact IMPA Frankton Solar Group 2 1 5 $52.40 $51.47 +1.81% 163 415 No Impact 9Jefferson Community Solar Garden 3 6 $165.15 $164.36 +0.48% 609 658 No Impact 10 Valparaiso Solar Group 1 1 5 $82.42 $79.95 +3.09% 323 516 No Impact Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test to Control Areas +1.47% 28 Adjoining Test Sales studied and compared to 102 Control Sales Land (Agricultural/Single Family Lots) 1 Portage Solar Group 1 1 9 $8,000 $7,674 +4.25% 845 -No Impact 5 Indy Solar III Group 1 1 4 $8,210 $8,091 +1.47% 280 -No Impact Median Variance in Sale Prices for Test to Control Areas +1.47% 2 Adjoining Test Sales studied and compared to 13 Control Sales CohnReznick Solar Analysis Conclusions Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 105 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. It can be concluded that since the Adjoining Property Sales (Test Area Sales) were not adversely affected by their proximity to the solar farm, that properties surrounding other proposed solar farms operating in compliance with all regulatory standards will similarly not be adversely affected, in either the short or long term periods. Based upon the examination, research, and analyses of the existing solar farm uses, the surrounding areas, and an extensive market database, we have concluded that no consistent negative impact has occurred to adjacent property values that could be attributed to proximity to the adjacent solar farm , with regard to unit sale prices or other influential market indicators. Additionally, in our workfile we have retained analyses of additional existing solar farms, each with their own set of matched control sales, which had consistent results, indicating no consistent and measurable impact on adjacent property values. This conclusion has been confirmed by numerous county assessors who have also investigated this use’s potential impact on property values. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 106 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact and data reported are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, findings, and conclusions in this consulting report are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, findings, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. 5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this assignment. 6. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 7. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value finding, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this report. 8. Our analyses, findings, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which includes the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 10. Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have viewed the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report in person, via photographs, or aerial imagery. 11. We have not relied on unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, familial status, age, and receipt of public assistance income, handicap, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value. 12. Joseph P. B. Ficenec provided significant appraisal consulting assistance to the persons signing this certification, including data verification, research, and administrative work all under the appropriate supervision. 13. We have experience in reviewing properties similar to the subject and are in compliance with the Competency Rule of USPAP. 14. As of the date of this report, Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, Andrew R. Lines, MAI, and Erin C. Bowen, MAI have completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 107 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, CohnReznick LLP Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. 553.001841 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. CG41500037 Expires 6/30/2022 Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS National Director - Valuation Advisory Services Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois License No. #553.000621 Expires 9/30/2023 Indiana License No. #CG49600131 Expires 6/30/2022 Michigan License No. 1201072979 Expires 7/31/2022 Erin C. Bowen, MAI Senior Manager Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Arizona License No. 32052 Expires 12/31/2022 Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 108 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The fact witness services will be subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matter pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. The legal description used in this report is assumed to be correct. 2. The property is evaluated free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent management are assumed. 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct and reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering studies are assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local and environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the evaluation report. 8. It is assumed that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless nonconformity has been identified, described and considered in the evaluation report. 9. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 10. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in this report. 11. The date of value to which the findings are expressed in this report apply is set forth in the letter of transmittal. The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some later date which may affect the opinions herein stated. 12. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraisers. The appraisers have no knowledge of the existence of such substances on or in the property. The appraisers, however, are not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, lead or lead-based products, toxic waste contaminants, and other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 109 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 13. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates included in this report were utilized to assist in the evaluation process and are based on reasonable estimates of market conditions, anticipated supply and demand, and the state of the economy. Therefore, the projections are subject to changes in future conditions that cannot be accurately predicated by the appraisers and which could affect the future income or value projections. 14. Fundamental to the appraisal analysis is the assumption that no change in zoning is either proposed or imminent, unless otherwise stipulated. Should a change in zoning status occur from the property's present classification, the appraisers reserve the right to alter or amend the value accordingly. 15. It is assumed that the property does not contain within its confined any unmarked burial grounds which would prevent or hamper the development process. 16. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective on January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the property to determine if it is in conformance with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Unless otherwise noted in this report, we have not been provided with a compliance survey of the property. Any information regarding compliance surveys or estimates of costs to conform to the requirements of the ADA are provided for information purposes. No responsibility is assumed for the accuracy or completeness of the compliance survey cited in this report, or for the eventual cost to comply with the requirements of the ADA. 17. Any value estimates provided in this report apply to the entire property, and any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such proration or division of interests has been set forth in this report. 18. Any proposed improvements are assumed to have been completed unless otherwise stipulated; any construction is assumed to conform with the building plans referenced in this report. 19. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this evaluation assumes that the subject does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. 20. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, we have not completed nor are we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non-tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. 21. This report should not be used as a basis to determine the structural adequacy/inadequacy of the property described herein, but for evaluation purposes only. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 110 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 22. It is assumed that the subject structure meets the applicable building codes for its respective jurisdiction. We assume no responsibility/liability for the inclusion/exclusion of any structural component item which may have an impact on value. It is further assumed that the subject property will meet code requirements as they relate to proper soil compaction, grading, and drainage. 23. The appraisers are not engineers, and any references to physical property characteristics in terms of quality, condition, cost, suitability, soil conditions, flood risk, obsolescence, etc., are strictly related to their economic impact on the property. No liability is assumed for any engineering-related issues. The evaluation services will be subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. The findings reported herein are only applicable to the properties studied in conjunction with the Purpose of the Evaluation and the Function of the Evaluation as herein set forth; the evaluation is not to be used for any other purposes or functions. 2. Any allocation of the total value estimated in this report between the land and the improvements applies only to the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are not valid if so used. 3. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights, if any, and we have assumed that the property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, unless otherwise noted in the evaluation. 4. This report has been prepared by CohnReznick under the terms and conditions outlined by the enclosed engagement letter. Therefore, the contents of this report and the use of this report are governed by the client confidentiality rules of the Appraisal Institute. Specifically, this report is not for use by a third party and CohnReznick is not responsible or liable, legally or otherwise, to other parties using this report unless agreed to in writing, in advance, by both CohnReznick and/or the client or third party. 5. Disclosure of the contents of this evaluation report is governed by the by-laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute has been prepared to conform with the reporting standards of any concerned government agencies. 6. The forecasts, projections, and/or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future conditions. This evaluation is based on the condition of local and national economies, purchasing power of money, and financing rates prevailing at the effective date of value. 7. This evaluation shall be considered only in its entirety, and no part of this evaluation shall be utilized separately or out of context. Any separation of the signature pages from the balance of the evaluation report invalidates the conclusions established herein. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 111 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. 8. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purposes by anyone other than the client without the prior written consent of the appraisers, and in any event, only with property qualification. 9. The appraisers, by reason of this study, are not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 10. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to any person or entity, other than the appraiser's client, through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the authors, particularly as to evaluation conclusions, the identity of the appraisers or CohnReznick, LLC, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or the MAI designation. Further, the appraisers and CohnReznick, LLC assume no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, client shall make such party aware of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment. 11. This evaluation is not intended to be used, and may not be used, on behalf of or in connection with a real estate syndicate or syndicates. A real estate syndicate means a general or limited partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association or similar organization formed for the purpose of, and engaged in, an investment or gain from an interest in real property, including, but not limited to a sale or exchange, trade or development of such real property, on behalf of others, or which is required to be registered with the United States Securities and Exchange commissions or any state regulatory agency which regulates investments made as a public offering. It is agreed that any user of this evaluation who uses it contrary to the prohibitions in this section indemnifies the appraisers and the appraisers' firm and holds them harmless from all claims, including attorney fees, arising from said use. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 112 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. ADDENDUM A: APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 113 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA Principal and CohnReznick Group – Valuation Advisory National Director 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-508-5802 patricia.mcgarr@cohnreznick.com Patricia L. McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA, is a principal and National Director of CohnReznick Advisory Group’s Valuation Advisory Services practice. Pat’s experience includes market value appraisals of varied property types for acquisition, condemnation, mortgage, estate, ad valorem tax, litigation, zoning, and other purposes. Pat has been involved in the real estate business since 1980. From June 1980 to January 1984, she was involved with the sales and brokerage of residential and commercial properties. Her responsibilities during this time included the formation, management, and training of sales staff in addition to her sales, marketing, and analytical functions. Of special note was her development of a commercial division for a major Chicago-area brokerage firm. Since January 1984, Pat has been exclusively involved in the valuation of real estate. Her experience includes the valuation of a wide variety of property types including residential (SF/MF/LIHTC), commercial, industrial, and special purpose properties including such diverse subjects as quarries, marinas, riverboat gaming sites, shopping centers, manufacturing plants, and office buildings. She is also experienced in the valuation of leasehold and leased fee interests. Pat has performed appraisal assignments throughout the country, including the Chicago Metropolitan area as well as New York, New Jersey, California, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Pat has gained substantial experience in the study and analysis of the establishment and expansion of sanitary landfills in various metropolitan areas including the preparation of real estate impact studies to address criteria required by Senate Bill 172. She has also developed an accepted format for allocating value of a landfill operation between real property, landfill improvements, and franchise (permits) value. Over the past several years, Pat has developed a valuation group that specializes in the establishment of new utility corridors for electric power transmission and pipelines. This includes determining acquisition budgets, easement acquisitions, corridor valuations, and litigation support. Pat has considerable experience in performing valuation impact studies on potential detrimental conditions and has studied properties adjoining solar farms, wind farms, landfills, waste transfer stations, stone quarries, cellular towers, schools, electrical power transmission lines, “Big Box” retail facilities, levies, properties with restrictive covenants, landmark districts, environmental contamination, airports, material defects in construction, stigma, and loss of view amenity for residential high rises. Most recently, the firm has studied property values adjacent to Solar Farms to address criteria required for special use permits across the Midwest. Pat has qualified as an expert valuation witness in numerous local, state, and federal courts. Pat has participated in specialized real estate appraisal education and has completed more than 50 courses and seminars offered by the Appraisal Institute totaling more than 600 classroom hours, including real estate transaction courses as a prerequisite to obtaining a State of Illinois Real Estate Salesman License. Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 114 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Pat has earned the professional designations of Counselors of Real Estate (CRE), Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI), Fellow of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS) and Certified Review Appraiser (CRA). She has also been a certified general real estate appraiser in 21 states (see below). Education North Park University: Bachelor of Science, General Studies Professional Affiliations National Association of Realtors CREW Commercial Real Estate Executive Women IRWA International Right Of Way Association Licenses and Accreditations Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) Counselors of Real Estate, designated CRE Fellow of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (FRICS) Certified Review Appraiser (CRA) Alabama State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Connecticut State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Colorado State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser District of Columbia Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Illinois State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Indiana State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Louisiana State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Maryland State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Massachusetts Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Michigan State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser North Carolina State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser New Jersey State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Nevada State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser New York State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Pennsylvania State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser South Carolina State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Tennessee State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Virginia State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Wisconsin State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Appointments Appointed by two Governors of Illinois to the State Real Estate Appraisal Board (2017 & 2021) Chairperson of the State of Illinois Real Estate Appraisal Board (2021) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 115 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Andrew R. Lines, MAI Principal, CohnReznick Advisory 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-508-5892 andrew.lines@cohnreznick.com Andrew R. Lines is a principal in CohnReznick’s Valuation Advisory Services group where he specializes in Real Estate, Affordable Housing, Cannabis and Renewable Energy. Andrew leads a group of appraisers across the country performing valuations on a wide variety of real estate property types including residential, commercial, industrial, hospitality and special purpose properties: landfills, waste transfer stations, marinas, hospitals, universities, self-storage facilities, racetracks, CCRCs, and railroad corridors. Affordable Housing experience includes Market Studies, Rent Compatibility Studies and Feasibility Analysis for LIHTC and mixed-income developments. Cannabis assignments have covered cultivation, processing and dispensaries in over 10 states, including due diligence for mergers and acquisitions of multi-state operational and early stage companies. Renewable Energy assignments have included preparation of impact studies and testimony at local zoning hearings in eight states. Andrew is experienced in the valuation of leasehold, leased fee, and partial interests and performs appraisals for all purposes including financial reporting, litigation, and gift/estate planning. Andrew is a State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia. Before joining CohnReznick, Andrew was with Integra Realty Resources, starting as analyst support in 2002 and leaving the firm as a director in late 2011 (including two years with the Phoenix branch). His real estate experience also includes one year as administrator for the residential multifamily REIT Equity Residential Properties Trust (ERP), in the transactions department, where he performed due diligence associated with the sale and acquisition of REIT properties and manufactured home communities. Education Syracuse University: Bachelor of Fine Arts MAI Designation (Member of the Appraisal Institute) Professional Affiliations Chicago Chapter of the Appraisal Institute o Alternate Regional Representative (2016 – 2018) o MAI Candidate Advisor (2014 – Present) International Real Estate Management (IREM) National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 116 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Community Involvement Syracuse University Regional Council – Active Member Syracuse University Alumni Association of Chicago, Past Board member Chicago Friends School – Treasurer & Board Member Prepared for TPE Development, LLC Page | 117 Disclaimer: This report is limited to the intended use, intended users (TPE Development, LLC and others stated in the report as it relates to the evaluation of a proposed solar energy generating facility in Illinois), and purpose stated within. No part of this report may otherwise be reproduced or modified in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of CohnReznick LLP. Erin Bowen, MAI Senior Manager, Valuation Advisory Services 858-349-8854 erin.bowen@cohnreznick.com Erin Bowen, MAI is a Senior Manager with CohnReznick in Valuation Advisory Services. Ms. Bowen is based in Phoenix, Arizona, with presence covering the west coast. Ms. Bowen’s work in Commercial Real Estate valuation spans over 11 years. Ms. Bowen specializes in lodging, cannabis, seniors housing, large scale retail and multifamily conversion properties. Lodging work includes all hotel property types and brand segments including limited, full service and resort properties; additionally, Ms. Bowen has appraised numerous hotel to multifamily conversion properties including market rate and affordable housing. Cannabis work includes dispensaries, cultivation facilities including specialized indoor facilities and greenhouse properties, processing and manufacturing facilities. Seniors housing assignments include assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and rehabilitation centers. Retail work spans power centers, lifestyle centers, outlet centers and malls. She has appraised numerous additional properties including multifamily, office, medical office, industrial, churches, and vacant land. Ms. Bowen has expertise in appraising properties at all stages of development, including existing as is, proposed, under construction, renovations and conversion to alternate use. Valuations have been completed nationwide for a variety of assignments including mortgage financing, litigation, tax appeal, estate gifts, asset management, as well as valuation for financial reporting including purchase price allocations (ASC 805). Impact Study Reports have also been generated for zoning hearings related to the development of solar facilities, wind powered facilities Education University of California, San Diego: Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Theater; College Honors Professional Affiliations Appraisal Institute, Designated Member Licenses Certified General Real Estate Appraiser licensed in New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada