Good evening.

I would like to call the planning and zoning commission meeting for November 19th, 2025.

All right, thanks.

Let's get started.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Abu Becker?

Here.

Bonzo?

Here.

Casting Molly.

Here.

Long and ball?

Here.

McDaniels?

Here.

Namas?

Here.

Rachelia?

Present.

Robins?

Here.

And Wright is here.

Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

The first order of business tonight is the public forum.

During the public forum, members of the public have the opportunity to address the planning and zoning commission on issues which are not part of tonight's agenda.

Please keep your comments limited to three minutes.

Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

Secretary Wright, do we have anyone signed up under public forum?

No one signed up.

Great, thank you.

Our next order of business is public hearings.

There are three public hearings on tonight's agenda, and CARES Critical Data Centers is the third public hearing.

For the first two public hearings, we will begin with staff presentations or introductions followed by the petitioner's presentation.

We will then take public testimony to ensure that we have an opportunity to hear from each person wishing to speak.

Please keep your comments specific to the request under consideration and try to avoid repetitive comments.

Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to the comments made by any speaker.

Following all public testimony, the petitioner will provide closing remarks just prior to the closure of the public hearing.

No further public testimony will be taken after the petitioner begins their closing remarks or during the planning and zoning commission's deliberations.

Please raise your right hand and respond.

I do.

I swear to tell the truth, but nothing but the truth.

Thank you, Chair.

Anna Franco at the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0101-2025 seeks approval of a variance to permit a detached garage slash summer kitchen to exceed the 18-foot height limitation for accessory structures.

According to the petitioner, the summer kitchen is historic in nature and is believed to have been moved to the property in the 1940s.

Staff is supportive of the variance as the proposal is a creative solution for both preserving a historic summer kitchen structure while also bringing the structure into compliance with required setbacks and the property into compliance with the minimum residential parking requirement.

Staff agrees with the petitioner's findings and recommends their adoption by the planning and zoning commission.

Tonight we ask that you conduct the public hearing and we are available for questions.

Great, thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening.

Hello.

Um, I am looking to get a variance to convert a the summer kitchen that is on the property into a garage and lift the existing summer kitchen up and use the area underneath.

And I would love to keep the building that's there and just do the garage underneath just for appearances and I love historic stuff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight on the case.

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

No one signed up.

Great.

Thank you.

Are there any of the members of the public that would like to speak on the case?

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments on the case?

Commissioners.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say, I mean, this neighborhood is just adjacent to mine.

I have walked by this house so many times on my way to Ellsworth.

Um I loved hearing that it wasn't going to be torn down.

Um, it's just such a cool old house, and so I am definitely in support, and I really thank you for for making the attempt to save it.

It's it's really cool.

So thank you.

Super excited for you.

And uh, I think it's awesome that you're uh working on this property.

It's a very cool house.

So all right.

Um let's see.

Do you there's no other questions?

All right, would the petitioner like to make any closing remarks?

Um, thank you.

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for development zero one zero one two zero two five.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Longenba, will you please read the motion?

Yes, I will.

Um, I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0101-2025, a variance pursuant to section 6-2-103 of the municipal Naperville municipal code to allow a detached garage summer kitchen to exceed the 18-foot height limitation for accessory structures for the property located at 337 North Slate Street.

Great.

Can I have a second?

Second.

All right, Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Doublebaker.

Bonzo.

I agree.

Costing Lowley.

I agree.

Long and ball.

Aye.

McDaniel, I agree.

Nominus.

I agree.

Rogelio?

I agree with the motion.

Wright agrees with the motion and chairwoman Robins.

I agree.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh the next case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0133-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Anna Franca from staff will present the case.

Thank you, Chair Anna Franco with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner for DEV-0133-2025 seeks approval of variances to permit a wall sign for Charles Schwab at 19 West Chicago Avenue.

The subject property is zoned B4 downtown Core District and is improved with a two-story brick and stone building located between the George at 245 South Washington Street and Einstein Brothers Bagels at 22 Jackson Avenue in downtown Naperville.

The building has frontages and building access on both Chicago Avenue and Jackson Avenue.

The petitioner, Charles Schwab and Co.

Inc.

is considering renovation of its downtown Naperville branch and will replace the existing signage on the Chicago and Jackson Avenue frontages with new signage to reflect the updated Charles Schwab branding.

To address ongoing business identification issues, Charles Schwab is also proposing to install a 36 square foot illuminated wall sign on the upper portion of the east facade of the building, which will be the same type and sign size as those to be installed on the Jackson Avenue and Chicago Avenue facades.

The sign regulations for commercial wall signs as outlined in section 616-5.2.1.1 and 6-6 colon 3.1.1.1 of the Naperville Municipal Code permit signage on facades adjacent to a public or private street.

Sidewalk or alley, parking lot, or the DuPage River.

The proposed wall sign variances.

The proposed wall sign requires variances since the east facade of the Charles Schwab building does not meet one of these requirements and is therefore not a qualifying facade for signage.

Staff recognizes the need for Charles Schwab to improve wayfinding for its business and finds the proposal in harmony with the purpose of Title 6, Chapter 16 of the Naperville Municipal Code.

The petitioners' responses to the standards for granting a zoning variance are attached upon review.

Staff agrees with the petitioners' findings and recommend their adoption by the planning and zoning commission.

Tonight we ask that you conduct the public hearing and we are available for questions.

Great, thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening.

Good evening.

I am Kathleen West, a law firm of Downmuth Colbine, West Gensler, and all.

And our law firm represents Charles Schwab and Company Inc.

Excuse me.

Can I have you?

Yep, there you go.

Oh, sorry about that.

Thanks.

Do you want me to start over?

Okay.

Um our law firm represents Charles Schwab and Company Inc., the petitioner in this matter.

Um with me this evening are Caitlin Kepler, Robert Kalinski, and Derek Mead, all representatives of Charles Schwab.

Charles Schwab is requesting a variance to the sign regulations so as to install a sign on the east facade of its building, which facade does not qualify for placement of a sign on that facade.

To begin our presentation this evening, um Caitlin Kepler will introduce Charles Schwab.

Excuse me.

Can we hear me?

Yes.

Um hi, I'm Caitlin Kepler.

Uh I lead our real estate group for Charles Schwab.

Um I've been with the firm for about 16 years, which is a long time, but not as long as we've been in downtown Naperville.

So it's an exciting time for retail with Schwab.

Um we have embarked on an expansion project.

We're adding branches to our network.

And as part of our initiatives, we're also looking at our existing footprints, where we are, and how we bring them to align with where we want our retail footprint today.

Um we really like our downtown location.

Um, you know, similar to how downtown has evolved over the last 20 years.

Our branch priorities have evolved over the last 20 years as well.

Um, one of the things that we really strive to do is look at you know, the experience at Schwab through our clients' eyes as we help our tagline is own your tomorrow, right?

And owning your tomorrow looks different for every individual.

Um, but that really starts with you know your your approach to the branch and your journey to the branch.

Um we believe that adding the sign that's facing Washington on that east facade with the George in front of it will help become a beacon for our branch as people are making decisions on how they want to navigate downtown as they're coming to visit us.

In addition to uh the visibility piece of it, we're also looking to you know continue our investment in our Schwab location and the downtown community by providing uh seminar space inside where we do financial literacy.

Um, we've got a variety of ways to meet with different Naperville community members and really think that you know, kind of the improvements that we want to do to the building, um, both interior and exterior will really resonate with the community and uh Charles Schwab.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on this case.

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

No public members have signed up.

Sorry.

Oh that's just the beginning of our presentation.

Wow.

We will go back.

Okay, all right, okay.

That's okay, thanks.

Yes, of course.

Um let me see.

Um I need the camera on yes, she's gonna set it up.

It's right here.

Just double click over here.

Okay, it's uh here's exhibit one.

Great, thank you.

And then I'll bring up the exhibit two, too.

Just in case.

Sorry, I'm taking a while.

Okay.

Great.

I think this should be okay.

You might need to double-click on the other one.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Charles Schwab occupies a building located at 19 West Chicago Avenue in downtown Naperville.

The building is located between Washington Street and Main Street and has frontage and pedestrian access on both Chicago Avenue and Jackson Avenue.

The property is zoned B4 and consists of 4,258 square feet.

The properties surrounding the Schwab office are zoned include commercial and residential uses.

The subject properties adjacent to Einstein Bagels to the west and the George Restaurant to the east.

Charles Schwab has leased the entire building for its offices for approximately 20 years.

The lease is now up for renewal.

The lease renewal presented Schwab with an opportunity to reassess its Neighborville branch as to its relationship with the Naperville community and any improvements needed to the office.

Schwab has determined that it needs to provide more community engagement and financial education to support what is projected to be the highest wealth transfer between generations.

To achieve this objective, Schwab is expanding its educational programming, and the renovation includes a seminar room to host events and additional seating areas.

Also, Schwab determined that it needs to address the identification and traffic circulations with its present location.

In conjunction with this renovation project, Schwab is proposing to replace its existing signage with signage in conformity with the new branding introduced by corporate Schwab.

The Schwab building has frontage and entrances on both Chicago Avenue and Jackson Avenue.

Both facades have signage.

The existing signage will be replaced that conforms with the city's sign regulations and the uh Naperville uh downtown Naperville guidelines.

Um Schwab is also proposing to install a sign on the upper portion of the of the of the east facade of the building, and that's the um facade that's in on the screen in front of you.

Um this wall of the buildings adjacent to the west wall of the George restaurant.

Um this wall does not qualify for signage because it does not have street or sidewalk frontage, nor customer access nor parking.

Therefore, a variance to the sign regulations is necessary to allow the installation of the proposed sign.

The sign will be approximately 36 square feet in area.

It has push-through lettering, and it is internally illuminated.

This is the same sign that as will be installed on Chicago Avenue and the Jackson Avenue frontages.

Umab um submits that the requested sign variant satisfies the criteria for the granting of a sign variants.

Schwab is um requesting the sign due to customer complaints.

Schwab's customers have said it's difficult to locate the branch.

As they travel west on Chicago Avenue down the hill, and they cross Washington Street, they don't see see the office until they've passed it.

So what they then have to do is turn north onto Main Street, go all the way up to Jefferson Avenue, back east on Jefferson Avenue, down Washington Street, back to Chicago Avenue, and then either go to the parking garage or try to find an on-street parking space.

Also, we have to remember that Jackson Avenue in this area is one way westbound from Washington to to Main Street.

Um the the lack of um the lack of adequate identification of the Schwab building creates circulation issues, which are frustrating to Schwab's customers.

Several times a week, someone who's passed the branch and has turned on to Main Street, then turns to go east on Jackson Avenue.

Um the wrong way.

So we'd like to try to resolve this issue, and we think that if we have a sign facing Washington Street, that'll provide better identification for the location of this building.

Um we have also have to remember that many of Schwab's customers um are older people, um, and they don't, they're infrequent visitors to downtown Naperville.

You know, the Schwab facility may seem to be a kind of a low-intensity use.

However, it is heavily utilized by its existing clients and walk-in traffic.

The Naperville branch serves over 76,000 families in the Naperville Lyle, Downers Grove, and Warrenville area.

Its financial consultants have face-to-face meetings with over 4400 customers on an annual basis.

And then another 6400 customers come in without meetings.

With its community engagement efforts, Schwab anticipates a significant increase in branch visits.

Because the purpose of the requested sign is to help customers and visitors to safely and efficiently locate the Schwab branch.

The sign is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the sign regulations.

The special and unusual conditions of this property are its use, its mid-block location, and the traffic circulation in this part of downtown Naperville.

The Schwab branch is a destination business for its its customers.

Being mid-block, its locations difficult to determine.

And the traffic circulation is confusing, especially with Jackson Avenue being a one-way street between Washington and Main Street.

If the variance is not granted, the customers and visitors of Charles Schwab will continue to experience difficulty in finding the branch and will create more traffic issues.

Schwab's objective is to provide the best client experience from parking through their visit to the branch.

Ideally, Schwab clients will stay downtown following a visit to the office to patronize the other retailers and restaurants in downtown.

Having an upper level sign to identify tenants or the location of a building is not unusual in downtown Naperville.

There are a number of these signs, which are either permitted by their development approval or allowed by the sign regulations.

These include the main street shops, Barnes and Noble, Sweetwater's Coffee and Tea, North Central College, Wentz Center for Health and Sciences, and Hotel Indigo.

These signs are located throughout the downtown area.

They are not intrusive.

They help visitors navigate downtown Naperville.

Therefore, this sign will not alter the essential character of the area nor be a detriment to surrounding properties.

Based on these factors, Charles Schwab submits that the requested sign variance is reasonable.

We have also talked with our neighbor, the George, and they are supportive of this request.

To further expand on the reasons for for this sign, Derek Mead, the branch manager will explain that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And again, I appreciate the time here and the consideration for the variants that we're asking for.

I'm Derek Mead, I'm the branch manager for Charles Schwab.

I am a Naperville resident, which is kind of unique for Charles Schwab branch managers.

There's only six of us in all Chicagoland.

I'm the only one that actually resides in the community that I serve.

Moved here from Chicago with my wife Becky, and part of the reason was to be closer to family.

Her family owns a business in Naperville for the last 35 years.

So very well aware of the impact that the businesses can make on the community, the involvement and the great people that we bring.

I think the main thing that I just wanted to highlight here for us is that with the number of people who come into this branch, it's a destination.

It is.

So they spend a day, they come up, they do their meeting, they have lunch, they go to the local businesses, they support it through shopping.

And at the end of the day, you have so many great parking areas here for people who come downtown, you know, to be able to be able to navigate where to go, find those great parking garages, not have to worry about looking for a parking spot on the on the street.

I think is going to be a great place for us to be in when we increase our community involvement.

After speaking to some of the local leaders, it was painfully obvious that we need to try to further our impact on the community.

Uh, we know we need to make a bigger impact.

I think that all aligns with what we're trying to do with the branch with these improvements, including you know, having a few more office uh offices set up there, um, you know, a couple more people in there to serve the community outside beyond just the residents of Naperville, you know, coming in and seeing what beautiful you know, downtown area we have.

So I would just urge and and please you know, ask the the the council to consider this recommendation.

I think it would go a long way for us to you know um, you know, think about our involvement with the community and in continuing to invest in the building, you know, beautifying it just like you guys have done a great job with the downtown area yourself.

So thank you very much and thank you for the consideration.

Thank you.

Uh so we would um request an opportunity to respond to any questions and to any public testimony.

Um, and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Wright, I think you had said there was no one.

No one signed up.

All right.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this case?

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments on this case?

Going once, going twice.

All right.

Uh would the petitioner like to make any closing remarks?

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0133-2025.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Bonsall, please remove please read the motion.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV 0133-2025 of variance pursuant to section 6-60-5.2 dot one one, and a variance pursuant to section 6-16-6 to 3.1 dot one dot one of the Napleville municipal code to permit a wall sign for Tal Schwab on the east vacate of the building on the property located at 19 West Chicago Avenue.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Great.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker, I agree.

Bonzo.

I agree.

Costignoli.

I agree.

Long and ball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I do not agree.

Namas.

I do not agree.

Rachelia, I agree with the motion.

Right?

I agree with the motion and Robins.

I agree with the motion.

Seven two.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is the reconvening of the public hearing for DEV-0057-2025, 1960 Lucent Lane CARES Critical Data Center.

On Thursday, November 13th, Russ Whitaker, legal counsel for CARES Critical Data Center sent a letter to Alison Laff, Deputy Director of TED, asking for the opportunity to offer a witness to testify to the regulatory framework and air permitting associated with emissions specific to the CARES Critical Data Center.

This would be responsive to the testimony given at the last PCC hearing related to those concerns about emissions from the backup diesel generators on the site.

Mr.

Whittaker would like to present the testimony of Brian Goldman, who is the environmental system engineer.

Our legal department has advised that the only way to accommodate Mr.

Whittaker's request would be to reopen the petitioner's presentation for the limited purpose requested and after his testimony to allow cross-examination of Mr.

Goldman after the public comment and testimony portion of the hearing would be reopened for the limited purpose of providing members of the public with an opportunity to provide comment or testimony solely related to the issues raised by Mr.

Goldman.

At the conclusion of that testimony, no further comment will be taken, and counsel for petitioners will resume his closing remarks.

Do I have a motion and a second to reopen the petitioner's presentation and the public comment and testimony portions of the hearing to allow for Mr.

Goldman's testimony and to allow for public comment and testimony limited solely to the substance of Mr.

Goldman's testimony?

Second.

All right.

Secretary Wright, roll call, please.

Abu Baker.

Aye.

Bonzo.

Aye.

Costagnoli.

Aye.

Long and ball?

Aye.

McDaniel.

I agree.

Namus?

Aye.

Rochelia.

I agree.

Wright agrees with the motion and Robins.

I agree.

All right.

Anyone who wishes to provide testimony who has not yet been sworn in, please stand up, raise your right hand, and respond.

I do.

I swear to tell the truth, but nothing but the truth.

No one?

All right.

At this time, petitioners, the petitioner's presentation is reopened for the limited purpose stated.

Mr.

Whitaker, will you please introduce your witness?

Good evening.

Russ Whitaker, Rosenov and Whitaker.

I thank you for your indulgence this evening.

Um, I have Brian here.

I'm gonna turn it over to him and let him get directly into the testimony.

Excuse me, real quick before you get started.

I do see all the signs.

I would ask that you not hold them up, blocking people behind you in their views, so please be respectful of that.

Thank you.

Hi everyone.

Good evening.

Uh thanks for welcoming here me here today.

Uh as Russ mentioned, my name is Brian Goldman.

I'm a managing consultant at all four.

We're a can I have you speak just a little bit louder into the mic.

Thank you.

How's this?

Better?

More?

Can't hear it?

How about that?

Just get closer.

Better.

We have a microphone as well, a handheld one, if that's if that's that loud enough.

Is it how about this?

Yeah?

Speak loud.

Just speak loud or we can get the microphone.

Either way.

Sure thing.

All right.

So my name is Brian Goldman.

I'm a managing consultant with all four.

Uh I have a bachelor's of science degree in environmental systems engineering from Penn State University.

And I'm a professional engineer registered in as an environmental engineer.

I have 12 years of experience in the environmental industry with a focus in air quality permitting and compliance.

And I've developed air permit applications, air permit evaluations, as well as compliance assessments for data centers in uh more than 10 states.

So I would like to provide some background and regulatory framework that exists in place for facilities such as CARIS.

So the purpose of the Clean Air Act, uh, which was set forth by uh the Congress in 1970, is to protect health and the environment of the people.

Uh the Clean Air Act established the national ambient air quality standards.

It established news force performance standards for new stationary sources as well as national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.

It also provided the regulatory framework for federal construction permitting programs, such as the prevention of significant deterioration program and non-attainment new source review.

So to dig in a little bit more on that, the core of the Clean Air Act is the mandate for the protection of human health and the environment.

In order to do that, they set forth the national ambient air quality standards.

These are health-based emissions limits for these are health-based limits for criteria pollutants, including ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, uh, sulfur dioxides.

There are two primary, there are two categories of the national ambient air quality standards, or NACs.

Uh the primary NACs, which are in place to protect health of the public, and the secondary NACs, which are set in place to protect public welfare, things like visibility, crop health, et cetera.

Additionally, the Clean Air Act targets hazardous air pollutants.

These include pollutants such as benzene from meldehyde.

Uh diesel engines are governed by the NIHAP, the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Uh there is a maximum achievable control technology standard within that rule that specifically targets reciprocating internal combustion engines, such as the backup diesel generators proposed by the Keras facility.

This rule ensures that the best pollution control technology is in place to minimize emissions and protect public health and the welfare.

Because potential and actual emissions from the proposed facility will fall well below the thresholds of the PSD and non-attainment news source review programs.

Uh the Illinois EPA will have full authority to permit the proposed facility.

Illinois, along with every other state, has developed and implemented a state implementation program or SIP, which is approved by the US EPA and ensures that the state's efforts are strong enough, meeting or exceeding the national health standards.

So as I mentioned, the Illinois EPA has its own state implementation plan.

IEPA has several tools for governing facilities, such as the proposed KARAS facility.

Their primary tool for ensuring facility compliance with the NACs and the Clean Air Act is the permitting process.

This is the first piece of it.

Any facility that has the potential to emit air pollutants over certain thresholds must obtain a permit to construct from the Illinois IP, Illinois EPA Bureau of Air.

Once a facility is operational, IEPA requires typically a specific operating permit.

The proposed KARAS facility will plan to apply for a federally enforceable state operating permit, which ensures that emissions thresholds stay below federal permitting programs.

The federal enforceable limits will keep these emissions limited and would have legal implications if they were exceeded.

Following the permitting process, Illinois EPA has a robust system of protective measures that go well beyond issuing a permit.

They conduct routine inspections of facilities to ensure they're operating properly.

They maintain a network of air monitoring stations, measuring and reporting actual concentrations of pollutants.

They also have an enforcement branch where they can pursue legal action if needed.

So in short, the Federal Clean Air Act and its amendments set the bar for air quality to protect human environmental health.

IEPA then implements enforces and monitors those standards through permitting compliance and enforcement programs for all of those regulated facilities.

This is designed to create protections for both human and environmental health.

So moving on, want to discuss a little bit about the proposed KARAS facility.

KARIS is proposing to install 24 three megawatt generator sets.

These would be backup diesel generators to support their proposed data center.

The facility will fall below federal construction or operating permit thresholds.

That is the PSD or NSR programs I mentioned on the first slide.

So therefore they'd be regulated solely by IEPA.

Under the IEPA regulatory framework, they will pursue a construction permit followed by this federal federal, federally enforceable state operating permit.

The engines at this facility will be governed by the new source stationary performance standards, Quad I, which is in place for compression ignition engines, basically diesel engines.

And that along with IEPA, the facilities required to install Tier II certified engines for emergency generators of this size.

KARIS is proposing to install engines which meet or exceed Tier 4 emission standards.

These are US EPA's highest standards for diesel engines.

When you compare engines to similarly sized but uncontrolled engines, we see a reduction of emissions of greater than 85% of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and greater than 45% reduction in fine particulate matter.

Each engine at the facility is intended to operate approximately 10 hours per year.

The intent of operating this equipment will be for maintenance and readiness testing to ensure it can operate in terms in the case of an emergency.

However, that is not the goal.

The facility does not want to operate these.

However, the reality reflects that these engines will likely be operating for 10 hours or less outside of emergency situations.

You lose power to the facility, the engines would turn on to provide backup power.

There would not be a scenario where all engines are operating because they do install redundancy.

So there are additional engines that are there just in case of an additional critical failure.

So the intent would be to permit the facility for 230 hours per engine per year.

This would provide backup power, this would provide limits for maintenance and readiness testing and electrical systems testing.

That falls into that 10 hours.

The additional time, up to eight or so days, is really there just to ensure that we are being good stewards and remaining in compliance with the permits, not exceeding permit limits even in case of an emergency, something that's unplanned.

Sorry, skip too far ahead.

So I have this chart here that shows expected emissions and potential emissions of what they would be limited by the facility's permit.

You can see the blue bars are representing expected emissions from the proposed equipment compared to the anticipated worst case emissions.

Uh those worst-case emissions again would only occur in case of a true emergency.

Uh, they are legally bound to operate in the NSPS quad I definitions for emergency power.

Um I also want to provide a comparison uh just to show how extreme the control measures that are going into the Keras facility are compared to some of the equipment at neighboring facilities.

Uh so nothing against some of the equipment nearby, but um as equipment gets older, it's often replaced or often superseded by newer, better equipment.

On top of that, Keras is proposing to install equipment with controls far above and beyond what the regulatory framework requires of them.

Um just showing here the average emission rates per generator.

Uh this is per three megawatt generator per Keras, compared to Edward Hospital and the Nokia facility.

Um so you can see there's a huge reduction in emissions of both of nitrogen oxides, particular matter, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.

Um all of these are reduced by good operating conditions, uh control technology, and just installing the best possible technology that exists.

Um also want to go into a brief discussion of the observed ambient air quality in the area of Naperville.

Excuse me.

Um these are the criteria pollutants that are um with monitors nearby uh near the Naperville area.

So we have a discussion of the background concentrations as well as the national ambient air quality standards.

So you can see the carbon monoxide 3% and 11% of the standards.

We have an eight-hour, a short two short-term standards, um, a long-term standard for NO2, we're well below those thresholds.

The O3 is uh ground level ozone.

Uh that is where the Greater Chicago area is exceeding the thresholds.

Uh as part of this, Illinois EPA has set their um federal permitting programs to a limit of 50 tons compared to um areas which are in attainment with the standards, which would have a limit of 250 tons per year of nitrogen oxides or other similar pollutants.

Um the facility has will be well below the federal permitting thresholds uh that would be required due to the due to the non-attainment with the ozone standard.

Um the other standard that you can see here that is potentially over the national ambient air quality standards is the fine particulate matter.

However, one key note is that IEPA has not finished uh they have to go through an exercise where they remove exceptional events.

These are wildfires, um those types of exceptional events.

Once those are removed, we expect that the area will be meeting those standards, uh, that the standard of nine micrograms per cubic meter.

Um other standards shown here are well below the national ambient air quality standards, uh which are set forth by the national by the Clean Air Act.

Um just want to touch uh lastly on the conditional use to allow a data center.

Um the what I really want to explain here is that the regulatory framework in place by the Clean Air Act as well as IEPA ensures that the proposed facility will not be detrimental or endangered public health or safety and the general welfare.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Does anyone present have any questions for Mr.

Goldman?

Yes.

Did you were you sworn in?

Yes.

All right, so have you can approach the podium and Mr.

Goldman can sit down or go to the side.

Um I have a a lot a number of questions.

Um, how is he gonna respond if you'll direct the questions?

I'm sorry.

Um could you please state your name for the record?

Hi, this is James Butt.

And um Mr.

Goldman, could you sit down next to a mic so that you can answer the questions?

Thank you.

So are the questions being asked directly to us or to him?

Directly to him.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Brian, I I noticed in your LinkedIn profile that you are professional engineer licensed in Georgia.

Are you licensed in Illinois?

Is it not working?

Oh no, it's not on.

There you go.

I am not, no.

Okay.

So you uh uh had uh you submitted data, uh you had you displayed data uh that indicated uh what uh the output uh would be um of the generators from a pollution's perspective.

Um Keras has not disclosed uh to the public uh what generators they're going to use.

Um really haven't disclosed almost anything about the generators.

Um can you um provide any information as to you know what you use to uh generate um you know that information um sure we we used uh vendor specification sheets that were provided to us by Keris as well as several others that are industry standard for the best available technology that meets the tier four compliant threshold.

So specifically which generators models and and things like that uh did you know, are you okay?

Uh I did not have that information that I can share.

Okay.

Um I I think it's critical that we understand that, right?

It's it just like the the rooftop chillers, it's it's actually an important, an important thing.

Um when you actually did your calculations uh and you uh you you uh calculated your your yearly output, did you can you explain how you actually uh did that?

Because you know, there's there is allowed yearly output, and then there's you know uh you know what you you'll put up there as estimates, you know, there you're allowed yearly output is significantly larger uh than what you displayed for um those generators all running and so on.

So how did you did you do this with just um you know what was the testing period?

We what would you know how how did you what numbers did you use for your numbers?

Uh sure.

So uh a couple of answers that hopefully will answer these questions.

Um for the testing runs, uh we we worked with Keras to understand what their expected testing programs would be on a uh quarterly basis, and we built in some amount of uncontrolled time the engines, the SCR, which is the technology that controls nitrogen oxides, takes a little bit of time to warm up with the technology that Keris is discussing.

The warm-up time is significantly shorter than some of the industry standard controls.

Uh so we built in a certain amount of uncontrolled time, uh averaged that into an average, sorry, built an average hourly emissions rate, assuming that there's a brief period of uncontrolled time in the beginning, followed by time where the SCR is uh warm and controlling nike uh NOx from the engine.

Uh for the for the annual uh the tons per year, that was your second question.

Uh yeah, because they're they're very related, but I I guess the I I'm not sure you answered the question.

Like what what are what was the amount of time that you specified on a monthly basis for testing?

Oh, uh right now we have uh two hours or sorry, two hours on a quarterly test.

Two hours on a quarterly test.

Yeah and that is uh in compliance with the generators um manufacturers recommended.

Um I understand is most generated uh manufacturers, as well as actually the fire uh fire code um actually uh has a 30 minute a month minimum for testing.

Um I I would have to defer to Keras on their specific testing program, but their their testing program will meet the manufacturer requirements, then that's specifically required and set forth by the Clean Air Act.

So they would violate the permit if they were not operating in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

Um okay, so it but it but in terms of so what what it was two hours per so quarter.

We we we what we showed was 10 hours per year, which is uh a conservative estimate of their expected maintenance and readiness testing.

Okay.

Um allowed by um the EPA in the Illinois EPA, uh USCPA and Illinois EPA, um, can you talk through the amount the amount of allowed testing per year uh the facility uh would be allowed?

Yeah, the so the facility under the NSPS quad I is allowed 50 hours of maintenance and readiness testing.

Okay.

However, if we were to take a limit, that limit would supersede the 50 hours.

Uh so if you were to ask for a permitted number that is less than that 50 hours, is that what you're you're saying?

Yes, but the yeah, qu quad eye allows 50 hours of maintenance and readiness testing.

That and I absolutely agree with that.

Um so you know, that 50 hours, if they were to use all that 50 hours, we're talking four point something hours per month uh of uh generator use.

Sure, yeah.

Okay.

So they could in in theory, depending on how it, you know, what the application looks like, what the permit looks like, they could actually use four hours per month, is that correct?

Yes.

The the regulation is very specific as to what qualifies that maintenance and readiness testing time.

So they would they're allowed 50 hours per year per generator, right?

Sure, for very specific operat types of operation.

Right.

Um can you you know you you did some comparisons to other things.

Uh do you have any idea what the comparison would be on just say maybe CO2 output of the generators at 50% load uh to the output of a semi?

Uh I did not do that comparison.

Yeah.

It's 13.7 per generator.

So a semi running 65 miles an hour down the highway.

It's it's equivalent to 13.7 uh semis.

All of the generators uh running at 50% load would be 328 semis.

So you know, it's it's a lot of well, it's a lot of exhaust, right?

Um in terms of the air permits, um, I went through and reviewed every single air permit uh that's been issued in Naperville.

And uh do you have any idea what the you know where this would fall and kind of stack rank?

You you obviously looked at a couple of them, right?

You looked at uh Nokia and you looked at uh Elmhurst or the Edwards Hospital.

Um, but did you did you look at you know you all the rest of them?

Can I can I interject and object real quickly?

I I don't we didn't testify as to all of them.

I I've kind of tried to give a lot of leeway here, um, understanding that this is a resident asking questions, but um I I I want to sp I want to keep the the questions to the scope of what we presented, and I also I also would like to make sure that their questions that the wit that the examiner is not testifying.

We've not offered any evidence with respect to the amount of emissions that would come from uh a diesel.

There was an opportunity to do that previously.

That's not where we're at in the hearing right now.

Um I'm sorry, I never introduced myself.

I'm Pat Lord, I'm an attorney with the legal department for the city of Naperville.

Um so you're free to ask questions about what the witness presented on.

Um if you could try to limit it to to that, that would be appreciated.

Yeah, he he did present to uh two local facilities uh that uh that have generators, right?

And you know, so I was just uh you know more curious.

I you know I did very similar math to you.

And it my my math was reviewed by uh a PhD environmentalist at Northwestern University.

Um I'm happy to share that data.

We came out with some different conclusions.

You know, when I when I did the math, I I found that you know, based on the uh the generism what would be allowed, right, by by regulation, that all of a sudden I'm gonna object again, he's testifying.

Sure.

Mr.

But um let me just clarify when uh the this portion of the presentation's over, uh, the public testimony and comment period will reopen for the limited purpose of addressing the subject matter that Mr.

Goldman testified about, at which point you can testify on the same subject matter.

But this is just cross-examination right now for this witness.

Okay, if you understand what I mean, absolutely.

Thank you.

Um so uh one of the things that I didn't hear talked about, um, and then maybe this is off limits, I don't know, but uh Dimage County is designated a serious EPA non-attainment zone.

Um I was wondering if you could explain to everyone what that what that means.

Uh sure.

So that is the slide that I showed with the uh comparison to the national ambient air quality standards, so it shows the greater Chicago area has exceedances of the ground level ozone concentration.

Um would you you know is is can we agree that adding additional pollutants uh to the air will increase the uh the overall air quality uh or decrease the overall air quality?

Well, what what I can say is that the Illinois EPA know that they what they are trying to do is correct the issue of non-attainment.

They have set the thresholds or of major source permitting at 50 tons, and they've designated that anything below that 50 tons does not require uh another level of review.

Okay.

Um I guess there's one comment that I have about uh you said that tier two generators would be allowed.

Are you familiar with the uh recently passed uh Illinois surge or clean and reliability reliable grid affordability act that was just passed?

Uh yes.

And the requirement for tier two or four generators for data centers that are is it part of that?

Uh my understanding was that had not passed the had not been fully signed into law.

Uh I am aware of it.

The rule would not be take effect uh for quite some time, but it still, I mean, all that means is we're meeting, we're still meeting the standards.

It requires tier four compliant, and that is what Keris is proposing.

Yeah, I do believe it was passed uh actually, but uh I could be wrong as well.

Um so what would limit the generators for uh being run uh to reduce uh grid load if directed by local balancing authority, local transmission or distribution system operator during high demand or during transmission line failure event.

Uh so under NSPS quad I they would be allowed up to 50 hours of operation if there was a specific program from your local utility.

I'm not aware of any conversations that Keris has had uh related to that.

But the possibility exists that you know, due to that sort of situation that they could be asked uh based on on some sort of failure or some sort of high uh demand uh event, they could be asked by uh the distribution operator or I'm I'm going to object again.

We already have in the record that we we've stipulated as part of the evidence submitted that that would not happen.

We've we've we've suggested that there should in fact be um uh as part of our stewardship pledge, we have committed that we would not do this.

And I I think what I I guess what I'm suggesting is we're we've already said we would not do what Mr.

Butt is suggesting is possible.

So I I object to the question on the premise that we've already stipulated that we would not do it.

We're talking about what's legally allowed though, Russ.

But it's legally they will be legally allowed to do this.

So regardless of what you know, if if the power company tells you they're going to shut your power off, right, like that falls into that scenario if there's a grid problem, right?

So it's it may be outside of their control in that scenario.

I guess we would we would stipulate that we are using emergency generators only for emergency purposes.

We've said that repeatedly through the hearing, um, and we will continue to say that.

We're not we're not peak shaving, we're not doing anything with the generators except for generating electricity in the event of a power outage, period.

Well, I think it's just important for to, you know, this is a rule change that just happened this year to allow that additional 50 hours uh in in that exact scenario that I just outlined, right?

So um it was the federal government that made this that made this change to allow this.

Um the the concern is that you know these numbers and things that we're using, you know, it isn't what it will actually be allowed.

We're we're we're you know, you know, at this point it's it's what what you are you're saying is going to be allowed, but now in actual reality, what you're saying, additional additional runtime would be allowed under under statute, right?

Like it's you're we we haven't gotten a single we we've got no information about the generators other than they might be three megawatts, and now you're trusting us to say, you know, all your math and things like that when we can't verify any of it ourselves.

I have a lot of other things that I think are probably not going to be allowed uh here.

Uh that uh one of the things that uh I I did have a question on, so you you um I assume you are contracted to help uh Keras apply uh for their permit.

Uh not officially contracted to take that step.

Not officially contracted to take that step.

Well, in I'm not sure if this is off off base or not, but you you mentioned that you did do that for other organizations.

Can you talk about some of the things that you will do in preparation of that uh application to um to actually to actually go through that process?

What the permitting process actually looks like and what and what things that you would ask the um petitioner for in that process.

Um so there's no specific petitioner in this case, but we we would have a critical as the petitioner for the sorry, sorry.

Uh we would uh have a meeting with the state agency.

We as part of that, we would work with Keras to I mean, we we've done this part.

We kind of did the the pre-permit strategy for them, um understanding their intended operations, their intended use cases and their equipment.

Uh we would prepare an application that details the regulations that they the facility is subject to, explain the attainment uh status of the area, what the proposed limits would be, um, and then submit a narrative description that basically details all of that forms, calculations, uh all of that would be submitted to the state agency.

Okay.

Uh are in Illinois um are air dispersion studies and things like that uh necessary for permitting.

Uh there are certain thresholds that can be triggered that would require dispersion modeling.

Okay.

In your opinion, uh with generators uh next to residential homes, uh is air dispersion um uh uh study necessary and and or should it should it be part of the the overall um we protect of the health and safety of the of the neighbors?

So in in this part of Illinois, it would be required for facilities that can emit greater than 50 tons, uh as I showed where the proposed facility is far below those thresholds and does not require modeling as part of Illinois EPA's uh regulatory requirements.

So you're modeling based on a shortened runtime than would actually be allowed.

I'm sorry, we if you're only modeling two hours of runtime for for testing per quarter as opposed to the allowed four hours per month, um wouldn't that affect the overall um output?

It would, but modeling is not required for the facility because the the emissions that the emissions that the facility will be submitting in their application will be far below those thresholds.

Okay, but we we don't have any way to understand they don't have any way to understand that necessarily because we don't even have model numbers of things like generators.

I I think that that's that's all uh that's all my questions.

Um this has a chance to be the fourth largest polluter in Illinois, right?

Like based on math.

Sorry, not in Illinois, in the objection.

Mr.

But you can you you have will have an opportunity to testify at this time.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to make a comment that has raised their hand?

Uh were you did you uh raise your right hand?

Were you sworn in?

Yes.

Okay.

You can approach the podium.

Are you allowing additional cross-examination?

It's question.

Mr.

Weiler, yes, on the testimony that's been presented by Mr.

Goldman.

Just this topic.

Yes, with regard to the testimony that was presented by Mr.

Goldman.

Yes.

Yes.

Are you are you allowing additional people to cost?

Yes.

You just need to state your name.

Yes.

My name is Hebel Soleiman.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Goldberg, I just have a few clarifying questions.

Um you had stated earlier that you are not licensed, is that correct?

Uh I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Georgia.

In Georgia, yes.

Okay.

Um, so you're resident of Georgia.

That's correct.

Uh were you flown in then to give your testimony today?

Yes, I flew here.

Okay.

Um you were contracted by Keras to give your testimony, is that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

Um, how much were you paid for your testimony today?

I I I don't think that has anything to do with what he presented tonight.

It goes towards credibility of the witness and the expertise.

All right.

So it is legitimate.

It'll be allowed.

Okay.

How much were you paid, sir?

I am just paid salary.

I don't I don't get paid for specific, like coming to this.

It's just okay.

You're paid salary through your uh company, all four?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so this is what you this is what Alt4 does.

Uh is that right?

Uh among several other things, yes.

Okay.

Um you consulted on other projects for Keras.

Uh I have not for Keras, no.

Okay.

And have you consulted for other data centers in Illinois?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and how much you how many would you say?

Uh myself has been three.

Uh my colleagues that I work closely with has been uh significantly more than that.

Okay.

And uh you had stated earlier um that your report or your analysis was primarily based on the information that you were given to Keras, is that correct?

Or given by Keras, excuse me.

Yes.

So you did not do any independent studies on your own?

Is that right?

Uh we didn't do an independent study, but the information, like the emissions specifications come from the vendor, not from Keras.

Okay.

And uh based on your um expertise, you are not a medical professional, is that right?

That's correct.

And on one of the slides you stated that this data center and the pollutions that it emit or the emissions, excuse me, um, do not pose a harm to the public.

Is that right?

Uh I don't believe that's exactly what I said.

The the intent of the Clean Air Act is to protect the health and the environment.

But you cannot testify to whether it would cause personal harm.

Is that right?

Sure, I'm not a medical professional.

Okay.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public?

All right.

Uh sir, as I understand it, uh your opinions are based upon data.

To state your name.

Uh my name is Bernie Weiler.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh your opinions are based upon data that was supplied to you by Keras, is that correct?

Oh, uh, as I as I just referenced, it was supplied from Keras, but uh ultimately from the equipment spenders.

Okay, so you were given you were given uh a description of equipment and what that equipment would yield uh with regard with regard to the particulates that it generated, isn't that correct?

Yes.

Okay, so you were given data that uh that somehow promises that this that the particulate generation generated is within the threshold of the regulation set you're trying to meet, isn't that right?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you perform any tests on this equipment?

No.

Okay.

Do you have any basis to say that the equipment that's being used from your own personal knowledge and test will generate a level of particulate emissions that is within the standards that uh the the regulations that you referred to uh show as a threshold from your own personal knowledge?

Uh generally, yes.

I these are large equipment vendors who we have established working relationships with who have conducted multiple rounds of testing, they have to be certified by EPA standards.

Uh those certifications get submitted to the Illinois EPA as part of the application process.

Okay, but you haven't you haven't conducted any tests to to confirm that.

No, sir.

Okay.

And uh do you know whether or not these are the actual um uh generators that are going to be used?

No, I don't believe that has the final selections have been made.

Okay.

And then uh uh also it's my understanding that your testimony um relies a great deal on the uh the time at which these generators will be uh uh will be run, the limitation of the time at which they are planned to be run.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Okay, you you had indicated in it and on your slides, there were a number of times where you referred to the fact that these generators are only gonna be only gonna be uh run for I believe it was 10 hours, uh 10 hours a year.

Yeah, so so 10 hours would be the expected operations.

Okay.

Uh there's there's no benefit to KARIS to run those outside of those operations except for emergency scenarios where the facility loses grid power.

So what you were um and what was the significance of the fact that it is limited to 10 hours per annual animal?

10 hours would not be a limit, that would be the expected operation.

Expected operation.

Uh and does the does the fact that it's only 10 hours as opposed to 50 hours make a difference with regard to your analysis of the safety of the emission standards?

No, it does not.

So if these so they could be uh so they could so in your opinion, these um generators could be used for an unlimited amount of time without any danger to the public?

That is not what I just said, no.

Okay, so you ask specific to 50 hours.

Okay.

So that's what my my question is.

As the time that these generators are run increases, does that have a bearing on the effect of whether or not they meet the minimum standards?

So not not speaking to health standards, but speaking to the regulatory standards, they are only allowed 50 hours of planned maintenance and readiness testing.

So that's where they would test the engine, they would test the electrical systems.

And why is that uh so those are the requirements to meet the federal definition of an emergency generator?

Okay.

And they are only allowed 50 hours, correct?

Yes, of planned generation.

Okay, and why are they only allowed 50 hours?

So that they can meet the definition of uh an emergency engine.

Uh so the I think I see where you're going here.

I may save a step.

So the that allows a facility to use a tier two certified engine.

Uh those are a lower emission standard that is a permitted for emergency generators.

Okay, as I mentioned though, uh Keras will be using Tier 4 emission equipment that meets or exceeds the tier four standards, which tier tier four engines, if you were to permit, you could permit them for unlimited operation.

However, that is not what KARIS is proposing to do.

Okay.

So it's I'm not asking you what Keras is proposing to do.

I'm trying to get to the point.

Um I thought we were at a relevant uh uh relevant uh we had a relevant understanding when I ask you why it is that the limitation uh on the testing standards is 50 hours.

Why put a limitation on that at all?

Can I object?

I he's asking about the the underlying intent of why the federal government puts a puts a limit on the number of hours you can run it for testing.

I think it's far beyond the scope of where we're at.

Mr.

Whitaker, he can answer if he if he can.

If he can't, then say you can't answer.

Uh no, I I think that was a uh valid point.

I do not know the in the full intent of the federal rules of where the 50 hours was derived from the but you're an expert in this area, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And isn't it logical to assume that the that the limitation is placed upon the uh on the testing period because the number of hours that it's tested impacts the safety of the emissions as it relates to the public?

I'm just just trying to get it.

The longer these run, the worse it is.

Isn't that correct?

The the longer they run, the more emissions would be generated.

Uh I I think what you're coming from of where the 50 hours was set that specifically applies to a tier two generator.

Uh the tier two generators don't have the NOx control, they don't the they don't have the S C R that controls nitrogen oxides.

Okay.

Uh so the but the point is, the point is, and I think you said the longer that they run, the worse that it is.

And my question is, and you've been uh you've been an uh expert in this area and have testified about a lot of data centers, so that you understand what the purpose of these generators are, correct?

The purpose is for backup emergency.

For backup emergency, when the electric goes off, these generators go on.

Correct.

Okay.

And there's 24 of them in this facility.

Yes.

So when the electric goes off for a period of time that the residents are powerless to do anything about all 24 of these generators are going to be running.

Not all, but I understand your point.

Okay.

And it could be a day, could be two days, could be three days, isn't that correct?

Uh as I showed, we we were intending to permit for up to 230 hours of operation.

Okay.

But that's what you're permitting them for.

So is is your understanding that the permit would be that if there is a power outage that lasts more than a day, more than a day and a half, that they would turn these generators off?

Is that your understanding?

230 hours, so it would be their maintenance and readiness testing.

So 10 days.

So 10 days.

Yeah, more or less.

So it's possible that these generators, all 24 of them, could be running for 10 days in a row.

If the facility were to lose power for all of those days, yes.

And does your analysis take into consideration the proximity of these generators to the homes that are located uh in the vicinity of this uh of this facility that's already built?

Uh the the because of the emissions thresholds of the facility, that is not part of the consideration.

So you did not consider that.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like I will recess if you continue to do that?

Thank you.

Step forward, state your name.

Uh good evening, Rich Janner.

Uh Brian, I'm opposed to the project, but I certainly uh I'm open-minded to listen to all perspectives and appreciate you coming to uh Naperville here today.

My questions will be uh not technical but much uh much simpler.

Uh is it your position that city leaders should put all their trust in state regulatory agencies like the Illinois EPA to keep kids and families safe, or would you advise them to use their own judgment, research, instincts, and common sense?

I don't believe that's in the scope of what I what my study or evaluation was That's a pretty easy question.

Um all right, let's move to uh not answering that question?

Yes.

Okay.

Um you're obviously here to talk about government regulatory agencies.

Uh in your experience, can you talk about instances when government regulatory agencies have failed during your 12 years of practice, maybe starting with Flint Michigan 2014 and moving forward from there?

I would say that's outside of As for your uh credentials, we heard uh from uh a number of medical professionals, doctors, PhDs at the November 5th meeting.

Uh do you have uh an advanced degree from a four-year institution above and beyond a bachelor's degree?

Uh I do not.

I have a professional engineering license.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the count in the public that would like to speak that has been sworn in?

Please state your name.

Hi, uh, my name is Damendra Sharan.

Um by profession of uh of uh working in IT for about 28 years.

Um I have a few questions.

Um the very first question is around the noise and pollution.

So my question is instead of diesel, why did Karen's not look at other options like natural gas, especially because Hilladoid does have natural gas options?

I don't think that's for Mr.

Goldman to answer Um uh in the presentation they specifically are talking about diesel, so that was this right now is public comment to ask the petitioner the the testimony from Mr.

Goldman.

Any questions based on what he presented only at this time?

Okay.

All right.

Uh I'll just go back to some other questions.

Um regarding the noise uh from the side again, this is outside of what Mr.

Goldman was here to present.

Okay.

Um does uh obviously like whenever we have data centers, the price of electricity goes up.

And uh my question is uh is it an offset which Keris plans to do for clean energy like solar or something?

So unfortunately, this is a question outside of Mr.

Goldman.

Okay.

All right.

Um Do you have any questions for Mr.

Goldman?

No, I think uh these were like the specific questions which I wanted to touch on.

Okay, so the public testimony that's already closed.

This is just for Mr.

Goldman at this time.

So thank you.

Okay, sure.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?

All right.

All right.

Is it are we asking questions only or this is it only pertains to what Mr.

Goldman is presented?

Other than that.

Correct.

That's as correct.

Yes.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Do you have a question from old?

All right.

Please approach the podium and state your name.

Hi, my name is Max Watkins.

Um I wanted to ask do you have uh any data about the frequency and duration of power outages for the surrounding area?

I have not done an energy study on the facility.

Okay, so you that has not been incorporated into your estimates at all of how much these generators might be used over the course of the year.

That's correct.

And so I would assume that it's also true that you haven't done any modeling about what the increased strain, how the increased strain on the grid from this facility might affect the overall reliability of the electrical grid and potentially increase the frequency or duration of these piratities.

Excuse me, sir.

This is outside of what he provided tonight.

So this is I would disagree.

I I think that like because he's presenting estimates based on how long these generators are active, if they're not making realistic assessments of maybe what's gonna happen in that emergency, I think that's a good idea.

I would disagree.

I will refer to Mrs.

Lore.

Sure, I mean if it's out of the scope, that's fine.

Um why don't you ask this question, but then limit your questions to just what Mr.

Goldman testified to?

Okay, so I'm just gonna, I guess that's just about it.

I would just assume that you don't have any sort of estimates of how long these might actually be used in emergencies for that is correct.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that has a question for Mr.

Goldman?

All right.

Could I if I could just redirect with a couple of quick questions?

Okay.

Um Brian, real quickly, you testified that you weren't licensed.

I'm sorry, can you put on your speaker?

Is it on?

Yeah, it it wasn't showing before.

Got it.

Brian, you testified that you're not licensed in Illinois.

Do you need to be licensed specifically in Illinois to do to work on a perm an air permit for an Illinois project?

No, you do not.

And you've worked on um on air permits for other projects in in Illinois?

That's correct.

And in other states where you're not licensed?

That's correct.

And that's not a problem for the federal government or for the state governments where you're obtaining permits.

That is correct.

Brian, there was a question about the um uh about I think the role of state government, the federal government, and local government.

Do you think that the subject of air emissions is something that is uh is appropriately covered by federal government and state government regulations?

Uh I I do.

That was the intent of my presentation was to explain the regulatory framework that exists in place to protect the public and environmental health.

And in your experience, that's a a sophisticated set of rules and regulations that someone someone hires a professional like you in order to be able to weave through that process.

That is correct.

They're they are complex, nuanced regulations that require uh lots of work to uh maintain to get a permit and lots of work to maintain compliance.

Uh that they are complex and intended to be protective.

Have you ever submitted a permit, be it for a data applicant for a data center or elsewhere, where the the client who is building the facility didn't give you the specifications for what they were going to build?

No.

So the the only way you could conceivably prepare the information for a permit is to obtain that information from a client, correct?

That's correct, yes.

Great.

And in this case, KARES provided you some manufacturing manufactured specifications.

They did, yes.

And that was the basis for your conclusions.

Uh yes, we we also used uh specification sheets for similar industry standard data.

And that is the industry standard for obtaining state and federal permits.

Yes, and those are provided by other equipment vendors.

Someone else asked a question of whether you took into consideration the proximity of homes.

Can you explain to us why you didn't take into consideration the proximity of homes?

Yeah, so the Illinois regulatory requirements do not require that if we're below 50 tons per year of nitrogen oxide emissions.

Uh as I showed, the facility would be well below that.

Uh and that is what the state has deemed to be their protective measure.

Anything above that requires that additional analysis.

So what you're saying is in a if this was a significant source of emissions, you would have done the air modeling, but you didn't in this case because the source emissions were so minor.

That is correct, yes.

Thank you, Bri.

Thank you.

All right.

I do have a question for legal.

At this time, are we allowing uh comments and testimony per yes that are directed towards Mr.

Goldman only, Mr.

Goldman's testimony.

Right.

Before we go to that, um the commissioners may also ask questions of Mr.

Goldman if they have any.

And then as soon as all the questions for Mr.

Goldman are completed, then we would open the public comment and testimony section.

So anybody could speak tonight who wants to speak on the substance of what Mr.

Goldman testified to.

All right.

Thank you.

So is there anyone here that would like to comment or speak uh ask provide testimony to Mr.

Goldman?

If you can approach the podium.

I guess no commissioner question.

Good evening.

All right.

This won't be great for my back, but it'll work.

Um my name is Austin Bobber.

I'm a general cardiologist.

I spoke at the last session.

Um today, I just like to uh speak on behalf of the uh at least 25 physicians in the neighboring uh um community about our health concerns uh specifically regarding these emissions that were spoken about.

And um much of this was also compiled by uh Dr.

Suj Shaw, medical oncologist who also spoke at the last session.

So, in summary, although Tier 4 diesel technology represents an improvement over older diesel engines, the assertion that a bank of 24 tier 4 generators is safe simply because it meets EPA and Illinois standards is incomplete and misleading.

The standards set minimum regulatory thresholds, not guarantees of local health protection, and do not account for the cumulative, episodic, and proximity-based risks that arise when dozens of large engines are concentrated near homes.

The following points outline several key points supporting why simply citing regulatory compliance is insufficient.

Number one, Tier 4 reduces emissions, but 24 units produce significant residual pollution.

Tier 4 controls lower a particular matter and nitric oxide emissions, but they do not eliminate them.

Even short testing periods generate concentrated plumes of combustion byproducts.

When emissions from a single generator are multiplied by 24, the combined pollutant load becomes substantial, particularly for properties positioned downwind or within a few hundred feet.

Regulatory compliance does not change the fact that residents will be exposed to recurring emissions, events at ground level.

The longer they run, the worse it'll get in short.

Number two, diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen with no safe threshold.

Diesel exhaust is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a group one carcinogen, meaning it causes cancer in humans.

It is also strongly associated with asthma, cardiovascular disease, and reduced lung function.

These health risks persist at relatively low environmental concentrations, even.

Introducing a new concentrated diesel source next to homes increases cumulative lifetime cancer risk and accelerates the burden of respiratory and cardiac conditions, especially for children, older adults, and at-risk individuals with pre-existing disease.

Number three, EPA state standards do not guarantee neighborhood level safety.

The EPA and Illinois permitting frameworks regulate overall emission quantities, annual averages, and equipment specifications.

These frameworks do not directly evaluate short-term spikes during testing and maintenance, near field concentrations at adjacent homes, exposure to ultra fine particles, local meteorology or neighborhood wind patterns.

A facility can be fully compliant on paper while still creating localized hotspots that surpass levels associated with increased health impacts.

Regulatory compliance is therefore a minimum threshold, not confirmation of safety for nearby residents.

Number four, downwash and building geometry can intense intensify ground level exposure.

Dispersion of diesel pollutants is not uniform.

The interaction of exuse plume exhaust plumes, excuse me, with building height generator placement and prevailing winds can cause plume trapping, downwash, and high ground level concentrations directly in residential areas.

These effects are well documented in air quality model modeling literature, but are not captured by generic compliance systems or statements.

Without site-specific dispersion and modeling, it is impossible to credibly claim that neighborhood exposures fall within safe limits.

And number five, significant health relevant pollutants are not adequately regulated.

Regulatory focus on PM 2.5 or 2.5 micron particular matter mass and nitric oxides leave major gaps.

Diesel engines emit ultra fine particles, which are smaller than the ones that were even stated, volatile organic compounds, polycyclocyclic or aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic species that are not covered by EPA's ambient air standards, penetrate deeply into the lungs and settle there, trigger systemic inflammation, cardiovascular stress, and oxidative damage.

These pollutants may represent some of the most biologically harmful components of diesel exhaust.

Any assessment claiming safety without addressing these unregulated pollutants is incomplete at best, and at worst case, harmful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please, I'm asking nicely here.

We're trying to get through this tonight.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak or have comments or questions based on the testimony provided by Mr.

Goldman?

Please approach the podium.

Thank you.

Um made me uncomfortable.

Uh the first um that Mr.

Goldman uh commented that although he's not licensed in the state of Illinois and doesn't need to be, he did also agree that expert knowledge of the permitting process specific to Illinois is necessary and that sometimes it's nuanced.

Um it makes me uncomfortable that he wasn't aware that SB25 SERGA, uh, which does touch the EPA and explicitly directs changes that could affect air quality in addition to permitting practice in Illinois.

Uh the bill adds greenhouse gas and permit issuance language and expands regulating authority, which has been passed by both houses, and he wasn't aware of that.

That makes me uncomfortable.

Um also looking at expected hours, whether it's 10 or whether it's 50.

I just want to say that Cyrus One and Aurora has a total of 45 hours runtime.

That's from August 14th to November 15th.

So I think that's important for context.

Um furthermore, uh I have another letter that I would like to submit if I am allowed from someone else uh who is an expert in this field.

Um, her name is Dr.

Susan Buchanan.

She's a board certified physician.

She's a public health expert.

She serves as the director of the Great Lakes Center for Children's Environmental Health at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Um this center is part of the Region 5 Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is funded both by the US EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Uh, not only an MD, but she also has her master's in public health from UIC, uh, has over a decade of clinical experience, extensive research, academic credentials, she's a professor, uh, expertise in diagnosing, researching, and providing guidance on public health issues, specifically as it's related to the things we're talking about tonight.

Um, she's been included in expert amicus for court filings and policy briefs addressing environmental health issues, and her recognized stature in the public health medical and environmental science communities affirms her expertise across every dimension relevant to the testimony that was presented tonight.

So I'd like to share that letter.

Also, the if I could, I'm gonna object to that real quickly.

If we're if we're getting into the realm of cross-examination, she's trying to submit evidence from someone who's not available for cross-examination, so we're not able to accept that as evidence.

I I can just read it as public comment then.

So I'm but that's not excuse me.

Excuse me, madam chairman, and and miss, I'm sorry, I didn't catch your last name.

It's okay.

Um, it does sound like you're presenting new evidence, not anything in response to what Mr.

Goldman testified to specifically, and that's all that's being heard tonight.

So he evidence could have been presented during the public comment and testimony before tonight, but it it's not appropriate for tonight if it doesn't pertain to what Mr.

Goldman specifically testified to.

So it pertains because there was a slide, and we could pull it back up, where he he referenced, you know, a public health concern.

He did not say that was if within his scope of practice, but it was on the slide, and he referenced it.

And in this case, this person who is also an expert has written a letter that concerns the emissions that diesel generators put out.

And if that witness was here to testify to that, then we could cross-examine the witness, but she's not here.

Does it pertain to the regulatory framework in state and federal government?

It pertains to emissions and and impacts on communities that live nearby residences, which which also wasn't taken into account.

I'm sorry, but it should have been presented during the regular public comment and testimony if you wanted it to be.

Um so I'll email it.

Cool.

Thanks.

All right.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to make a comment towards Mr.

Goldman's?

Yes.

Please state your name.

Hi.

My name is Michael Redig.

Um I'm new to the area, so forgive me uh with my for my ignorance here, but on one of the slides, he compared the emissions to Nokia.

And am I incorrect, or is Nokia no longer here?

Nokia is still here in okay.

So that is current data that is not historical.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would make to make a comment?

Please state your name.

James Budd.

Um I I have a lot more that I could say.

Uh, but I think probably the most important thing is that you know, I I looked at every single air um permit that's been issued in Naperville.

And it's really interesting.

There are two of them that are not actually in uh flat industrial um areas.

Edwards Hospital and Nokia uh are are two of them.

Um BP Amico, you know, that that facility's empty at this point.

That would be the the a third one.

The rest of them are in industrial areas as to where um the you know these higher air permits.

There's a whole other classification of permits for the uh for the low um low output uh uh things.

It's just important to note they're every single one of them in Napraville is in a um outside of what I just stated is in an industrial zoned area.

And I and I think that you know part of the part of this is that you know the EPA somewhat you know wants to make sure that that communities you know perform their zoning so that when there are things like this, that you know that that is why the part of the reason why it seems that um that the EPA doesn't enforce restrictions on distance to households and things like that because zoning should normally take care of that, right?

These you know uh uh a normal business, a normal commercial um uh business doesn't need an air permit for anything, it's just these heavy industrial facilities that that need these things.

And and I guess that's that's really all I have to say is that you know, part of this whole thing is about is about the zoning of it and the and the health of it, and it it is uh you know that is what is to protect us from these things um as much as anything.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Could I actually follow up with Mr.

Butt real quickly?

So I I I just want to clarify you you just testified that the IPA doesn't look at distance to homes, but the IP if we were doing modeling, the distance to homes and the impact on homes would be investigated, correct?

Uh I I actually don't know uh that I couldn't find regulations that actually I know that it is required in some cases for some projects, um, but I I could not uh uh fully determine whether Illinois even required it.

I know other states absolutely dis uh require the dispersion uh things, but I I actually can't find any any evidence that uh Illinois does require that.

I don't know.

Okay, so you so if I if I told you that per conversations with our consultant, IP IEPA does require modeling and does require dismeasurements of impact on homes, but only for a only for higher tier tier pyramids.

Would you be surprised to hear that?

Uh no, I'm hope I hope they would.

Um but again, I I would I still would argue that um like the EPA is here to keep us healthy.

It's an interest balanced organization, right?

That the interest of the of the public's health and the interest of industry, right?

So uh this is one of these things where uh we essentially um from an from an EPA perspective from from all these things, you know, they're getting to determine, you know, we all acknowledge that it's bad, right?

Like we we acknowledge that uh that these pollutants are bad.

You know, it's we're all we're talking about pollution, and we're talking about a loud amount of pollution, right?

So it really comes down to any amount of pollution is not good for someone, right?

So, like but but your but your testimony is that the IEPA is there to protect us.

Those were that's what you just said, right?

Oh, absolutely.

Okay, so the IEPA that's there to be a good idea.

That's also an interest balanced organization, so the they're also trying to make sure that business can happen and things like that.

And they have they have a framework for permitting, and the lower tier permits, um, lower tier permits don't require modeling because they were the IEPA has determined that they're safe.

Uh Russ, I can't, I can't even determine like when I use industry data sheets, I come up with very different numbers, and again, my numbers were verified with a PhD environmentalist at Northwestern.

Okay.

I come up with very different numbers from what would be allowed uh versus what was presented, but you've not given us any information about the specific models of generators, even the manufacturer, anything to for us to be able to trust what is being said.

You're you're basically saying trust us on everything.

Um we're going to make sure we we've we're pledging that we're uh we're gonna keep you the community safe.

I I'm not sure that that's quite fair when you're what not even willing to give us the information that you certainly will have to give to the EPA, the Illinois EPA.

Uh, you're certainly gonna have to disclose that, and it's gonna go through the public, you know, a public uh um process as well uh with that, but but this is from a zoning perspective, I think that's a very relevant thing when we can't you're asking to allow this as a conditional use, but you can't even allow the public to make a determination as to whether the numbers you're putting putting forth are truthful.

I'm not saying they're not.

I just so you can't verify anything.

I I think we can agree on the fact that the IEPA will review it, the IEPA is intended to keep us healthy, and that the IEPA will issue a permit for this.

I would uh ask the people in Flint, Michigan about their water and how the government has helped keep them safe.

Stop.

All right.

Please state your name.

Uh uh Bernie Weiler.

Um I would like to uh make a point of order.

This um uh proceeding uh was reopened for the purpose of allowing expert testimony on behalf of the petitioner, and that came with it the uh understanding and guarantee uh that the objectors would have an opportunity to introduce evidence.

Uh Sarah Bao has come with such evidence, and uh uh it is relevant and it relates specifically to that, and I believe that it should be uh it should be admitted and considered uh by uh by this body uh for the you uh for at least you can make a determination as to the weight that should be given uh to the extent that it is not subject to cross-examination, but with regard to its admissibility and the responsibility to look at all relevant data, I believe that that uh that she should be uh entitled to uh present that letter.

But but it it is my understanding the person who wrote that letter is not present, and that person needs to be present.

But it is an author, but it stands as an authoritative article.

I will refer to legal Mr.

Weiler, we have no idea what's in that article, not at all.

We haven't read it, we don't know it could be 30 pages long about many different issues.

It it is not at all clear that it's responsive to the testimony that Mr.

Goldman gave tonight.

It seems highly unlikely that it can be.

You have no idea because you haven't looked at it.

That's so the so the issue is is it is it an authoritative is an authoritative article that's responsive to the uh to the um information that was introduced on the basis that this hearing was reopened.

So, under the rules and bylaws of the PCC, if you would like to introduce documentation like that, they're supposed to be brought to the commission's attention the Wednesday before the public hearing, and that obviously has not been done.

Had it been done, we would have been able to read it in advance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have an additional comment?

It's already been this is this is closed.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment towards Mr.

Goldman's please state your name?

Tim Falball.

Russell, I just have one question.

Pursuant to Mr.

But's comments.

Why aren't you releasing the specs on these generators?

Again, this is outside of Mr.

Goldman's testimony.

Oh, it's planning.

Oh, is it outside?

How is that how stock?

Says who please be respectful.

This is not respectful.

This is not a good idea.

Are we not talking about generators tonight?

Madam Chairman, if I may, first of all, if I could address Sarah, um, she has a point.

They didn't know, they couldn't have known until Friday that we were gonna see about reopening the presentation.

So pointing to the bylaws saying you had to have had it in by the Wednesday before isn't fair.

It still leaves us in a bad position, however, in terms of looking at the documentation and not knowing what it says.

As far as Mr.

Falbus question, there was testimony um given during cross examination of Mr.

Goldman about what specifications he looked at.

And I believe he testified that he was given some specifications by Keris and also looked at industry standards, if I recall correctly.

So I do think that there was testimony about the specifications and that the question is not out of bounds.

All right, please proceed.

Why aren't you willing to release the specs on the generators pursuant to Mr.

Butt's request?

So Pat, I'm just gonna clarify that we're in a weird position here because I'm not testifying as attorney for the uh for the petitioner, but I think from a from a procedural from a process standpoint, I'd be happy to answer that question if we could entertain the the answer for the limited person for that limited purpose.

I think that would be fair.

Okay.

So I I there's there's like a major process issue here, right?

So I I do land use and zoning in Naperville.

I've done hundreds of cases in Naperville, and we're at a we're at a zoning hearing.

We're not at a hearing where we're seeking a a permit, either an air permit or a building permit, but we're in a preliminary process trying to determine whether we have a right to proceed with a project.

So during this process, we have a limited scope of information.

We don't necessarily have we we don't have final building plans, right?

We couldn't tell you today 100% which cooling unit, which spec, which generator spec, um, and a hundred percent where they are going to be located because we're not that far in the process.

The zoning process, um, right or wrong comes before the process pursuant to which we draw all of our final plans.

It is only after such time as we go through zoning process that we make an investment.

In this case, it's going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional investment if we obtain the rights through the zoning process in order to reach all of those decisions.

So we've we've looked at possible specifications.

I believe there were three different engines that were looked at.

One was a Volvo, one was a cat, and I don't remember what the other one was, but it was an outlier and it was one that we were unlikely to use.

And we we've run models, we we've we I shouldn't say we've run models, we've looked at the permitting options based on um a couple of different generators that could be used.

But again, now is not the time that we would normally make that type of decision.

If I was building a house, if I was if if I was here asking for the right to build a house, I couldn't tell you what what furnace I was going to use because I hadn't done my building permit plans yet.

So there's a there's a process to all of this, and part of the and with part of that process, we've tried to include in the stewardship pledge that we would follow up on this documentation by way of example.

The the noise study is a perfect example, and I think staff picked up on it and they included it in conditions in the staff report.

So we do not know exactly the specification for our uh our cooling units.

We've spec'd a train 450.

I don't know the I don't know the three-letter model number, but that's the that's the expectation today.

But by the time we go build and can and do uh do construction plans, we will have the specific specification, and we will update the study and we will submit it to Naperville with a copy of our building permit and our ability to proceed through the building permit process, obtain a permit to construct, will be reliant on our satisfaction of that requirement, meeting the standards.

So I I totally respect the question.

I respect where it's coming from.

Unfortunately, because of the investment that goes into projects like this, we're just not fully planned.

We don't have every detail of the building specified at this point in time.

That's that's the true answer.

Thank you.

Is there an additional comment or testimony towards Mr.

Goldman's testimony?

No, it's it's I'm sorry, it's not subject to cross-examination.

We haven't read it, we don't know what it says.

Absolutely not.

All right, if there is no other questions or comments, I would ask that Mr.

Whitaker come, please.

I'm sorry.

All right, sure.

Please state your name.

Good evening.

My name is Ken Schmidt.

I will live in the uh Fair Meadow neighborhood.

I this is a permitting question, and it's a kind of uh futuristic, so I want to ask the question anyway.

If there's a tornado, suppose the electrical uh station that's not very far from where Keris wants to put in their system.

Uh suppose there's a uh tornado and it takes out the substation.

The question is, is Keris going to be permitted to turn on those 24 generators and run them 24-7 until that substation gets rebuilt, or are we not going to allow all of that uh diesel fumes to get keep getting those generators running so that we can continue to send those bits out over the airways?

I don't think that's something we would answer at this time outside of Mr.

Goldman, but I will refer to legal there's got to be a way to control that.

Sir, um I got an answer.

I I think that's outside of the testimony that was offered by Mr.

Goldman.

I can't hear you.

I don't believe that's within the test.

Your question um is outside the testimony that Mr.

Goldman offered, and this is limited to that.

So regulatory characters, if you care to answer the question, otherwise I think Yeah, I I would I would stipulate that our our our permit would allow for 230 hours of operation per generator.

Um I think that if you when you factor in the the testing that that would give us about eight days of operation um on an emergency basis, um if we go past the operating limits in the permit, then the IEP we would be in violation of the permit, and the IEPA would have enforcement capacity and be able to shut the facility down here in there any additional questions.

There's we have two more.

Please state your name.

My name is Samir.

I don't live in Naperville, I live in Lyle, and actually I'm half a mile from the place they are trying to build.

Since this all the studies are very important to everybody, this place is quarter mile from Vita, half a mile from Layah.

Do you think you need to have this whole thing expanded to the two other cities like towns?

Don't you think it's important?

Uh sir, this is just regarding a piece of property that is in Naperville.

So I understand or here just for like if Lyle does something which is not good for Naperville, it said, okay, that's what you mean.

I I don't make those rules, but we're here just under the Naperville.

Yeah, but that's what I'm saying.

Is it not important that you should expand between the three?

It's quarter of a mile.

VTN is just next street, and my house is not even half a mile from there.

Okay.

So you should think of expanding these studies between different cities.

Just not neighborhood.

This is whole thing, Illinois.

I understand that, but that is outside of our responsibility here.

Thank you.

Uh my name is Hashim Said.

I actually live in the area.

I feel like uh there's a lot has been discussed about the EPA standards and regulatory standards and how Keras' data center is going to meet those, which is great.

Um actually I recently passed an emission test for my car.

So same thing.

There's regulations, there's standards.

Um if I stand a thousand feet away from my car, I can't smell any fumes.

If I get a little bit closer, five hundred feet.

If I get closer, like may say fifty feet, you can start to smell fumes.

And obviously, this car is small, it's not a big deal.

But when the lights go out and you have twenty-four choo-choo stacks of uh diesel fuel pumping out, you know, uh pollutants into the air.

We're not very far from the uh data center.

And I I know not all twenty-four would be going off at the same time.

There's twenty-four because they're redundancies, but we're not very far.

And so the whole idea of the fact that while I'm a thousand feet away from my car and my car has met regulations uh and standards and I can't smell it, that doesn't mean it's not harmful if I don't get closer.

And now just imagine the car is larger and it's j pumping out the smoke.

So just please consider that when you hear all of this about like reading meeting regulatory standards.

It's impacts the local community a lot more than one might think.

Thank you.

At this time, I am going to take a five-minute recess and then when we come back, we'll have Mr.

Whitaker approach the podium and resume.

All right, thank you.

One that's called information.

Yeah, I can't get all the slides going on.

All right.

We are back in session, and we'll now proceed with Mr.

Whitaker for his closing remarks.

Thank you.

Um by thanking the commission for their time.

This has been a long drawn out hard one.

Uh, much harder than a lot of the ones we deal with.

As volunteers, you've devoted significant time and effort into the case before you this evening, and we appreciate your service to the community.

Um, as I get started, I want to identify a theme for my remarks.

The theme is not all data centers are created equally.

I think it's an important point.

It's one that distinguishes uh between most of what's been presented by residents regarding data centers in general, uh, and the specific information that we've presented about the proposed CARIS critical data center.

Uh the Care's Critical Data Center is a small scale facility by today's standards.

It is not created equal to large data center campuses, hyperscale facilities that might be twenty times the size of what is specifically contemplated here for Naperville.

So I want to begin tonight talking about why a data center.

We see the signs, um, kids over taxes, but this isn't just about taxes, right?

This is not just a revenue story.

Um this is there there's there's much more complexity to what's at play here.

Um so I I think there's four primary rationales that I'd like to focus on this evening.

Uh the first is integrity of the IEDA corridor as a primary business district uh in the city of Naperville and beyond.

Uh the second item is data centers as essential infrastructure.

The third item is the Ori District text amendment that was approved in twenty twenty three.

And the fourth item is uh in fact tax revenues or um not just tax revenues, but fiscal and economic impact associated with the proposed data center.

The approximately 40 acre property is located in the I88 corridor.

From Aurora through Naperville in east of Chicago, the I88 Corridor is a regional business district.

The business district leveraged its capacity, leverages the capacity of its namesake roadway to accommodate larger buildings and generally more intensive uses.

While residents may think of the district as an office corridor, it's historically been much, much more than that.

Whether here at the Bell Labs campus, next door at Shervon, down the street at BP, the Proton Therapy Center or Ecolab, uses throughout the corridor have historically and continue to be much more than your run of the mill office buildings.

The Bell Labs campus has historically been a hub for research and development.

The existing data center on the Nokia campus is representative of the fact that the campus continues to be much more than your run-of-the-mill office building.

Naperville has long focused on how to preserve and build upon the historical success of the IEDA corridor.

Most recently, the Naperville Development Partnership conducted a study evaluating the corridor and recommending strategies for long-term viability.

Alarmingly, NDP's study found that the corridor has fallen behind the average value of land in Naperville, despite being once highly valued commercial property.

The study suggested, and I believe it's critical for the long-term health of the city that we find ways to invest in the long-term sustainability of the corridor.

I believe that will ultimately mean more mixed use development, but I think uh, but I don't think it means abandoning the corridor as a as one of the city's primary business corridors.

Residential uses should be supportive of the business district.

Residential uses cannot undermine new investment in core business assets, be they office, research, or light industrial type uses.

I believe the city must support investment in next generation technology.

The CARES Critical Data Center represents a minimum 250 million dollar investment in the corridor.

It means deployment of new leading edge technology.

The CARES Critical Data Center is consistent with the long-term viability of the IEDA corridor as a primary business district.

Just last week, Nvidia and Nokia announced partnership, a partnership to pioneer the AI platform for 6G, powering America's return to telecommunications leadership.

To be clear, I have no idea where those jobs will be located.

What I do know is the type of research and development that this is the type of research and development that has historically occurred at the Bell Labs campus.

As the city considers how to retain and attract this type of work in the I-88 corridor, I believe that the development of technology infrastructure should be core to the city's strategy, and that's a reason you should approve the data center here tonight.

Second, um data centers are essential infrastructure.

Republican or Democrat, the importance of data center development seems to be one of the few unifying themes.

Leaders of both parties are talking about data centers as critical infrastructure in a changing world.

The Trump administration administration issued a July 2025 executive order intended to facilitate the rapid and efficient build-out of data center infrastructure.

The administration called these systems essential for powering America's technological and industrial future.

At home in Illinois, the Pritzker, the Pritzker administration, kind of the opposite of the Trump administration, is actively incentivizing data center development toward the goal of making Illinois the undisputed data center capital of the Midwest, their words not mine.

To this end, DCEO's 2024 annual report on data center investment program notes that the program has strengthened economies across the state.

The data center industry generated $3.51 billion in state and local revenue in the 2022-2023 period.

In discussing the data center investment program, Governor Pritzker said, in today's world, data centers are as critical a part of our infrastructure as our roads, trains, and schools.

Is data storage or processing?

I'm sorry, as at our first hearing, I compare data centers to the city's water infrastructure.

Is data centers is data storage or processing as important to human health as water?

Of course not.

I think that misses the point.

These are things we don't take for granted.

Water infrastructure is the opposite.

We quite literally rely on the infrastructure for survival, but no one advocates for additional spending on water replacement water main replacement or new treatment or new treatment plant.

It's out of sight, it's out of mind.

The operation of water structure is probably beyond the basic knowledge of the average resident.

I think a data center functions in the very same fashion.

While it's become a critical component of our daily lives, we don't see it, we don't comprehend how it applies to our daily lives.

We don't understand how a data center relates to daily activities, but that doesn't change the fact that data centers have become a critical component of the infrastructure in our modern society.

As Brett Rogers testified back in September, the Keras Critical Data Center will be a co-location facility.

The data center will provide critical infrastructure for multiple companies to house their servers in one shared, highly efficient building.

The Keras Critical Data Center will house enterprise clients, that is industries such as financial services, software services, marketing and advertising, supply chain, manufacturing, commerce, insurance, and media.

In other words, the data center is a hub for regional businesses serving the Chicagoland market.

While it makes for good objections, the project is not a hyperscale facility.

It is not about AI, it is not about machine learning, and it is not about the creation of CAT videos, as many residents would have you believe.

This type of hyperscale hyperscale activity occurs typically in thousand megawatt facilities that are 20 times the size of what KARIS is proposing here in Naperville.

As we've repeated throughout this hearing process, not all data centers are created equally.

If we looked at them from June of 2023, show that all of the townhomes along Weatherby Lane and many of the townhomes along Jessai Road had already been constructed.

The 2023 is notable not only for what it allows, but for what it pro but for what it prohibits, prohibiting that prohibiting the activity only after residents at Naper Commons had moved in.

Reading that clause, whereas on May 2, 2023, City Council directed staff to review the city's zoning ordinance, Title VI of the Naperville Municipal Code, and prepare an ordinance that provides the city with greater ability to control warehouses, storage, and distribution facilities in the Ori district to reduce the negative impacts on nearby office and residential neighbors resulting from all day and late-night semi-truck traffic, noise, light pollution, and poor visual aesthetics associated with warehouse storage and distribution facilities.

With the effective elimination of warehouse and other manufacturing uses, the city was directing the future vision of for the I-88 corridor.

The vision specifically contemplated life sciences as a permitted use in the district, and it also specifically contemplated data centers as a conditional use in the district.

I don't think it's coincidence that data centers are first in the list of conditional uses.

This change wasn't unknowing.

It didn't predate the trend of development in this sector.

To the contrary, the change was made knowing that the Nokia frontage property that we're here on tonight had been sold and that redevelopment was pending.

I think it's important context for the commission's consideration of the application before you this evening.

While residents have characterized data centers as heavy industrial, the city spoke on this issue two short years ago.

The city determined that data centers are conditional uses in the ORI district, by definition, light industrial.

If we look back to the specific ordinance language, it provides direction on how the city treats conditional uses.

I'll highlight it on this slide.

Whereas the ORI amendments provide consideration of possible conditions to mitigate potential adverse impacts of proposed conditional uses, including but not limited to additional landscaping, improved building elevations and/or materials, access restrictions or additional access, directional signage, increased setbacks, improved lighting, and/or change in building orientation.

If you think about where this case started, as a two-building 72 megawatt data center campus, we have quite literally instituted mitigation specifically intended to address the potential adverse impacts raised by residents.

I also think it's important to point out that the conditional use process is an important distinguishing factor between zoning process in Naperville and Aurora.

Residents have cited the Aurora Moratorium and called for similar action in Naperville.

What makes while it makes for a great talking point, the position is wholly uninformed.

In Aurora, data centers were being permitted as warehouses, which is a permitted use in the ORI district of Aurora.

As such, in Aurora, there was no legal process for review and consideration of the type of mitigations that have specifically been instituted by KARIS Critical with respect to the data center for Naperville.

Such a huge fundamental difference that this process was not required.

This this resident input was not part of that process in the same manner.

In just a minute, we'll focus on the very issue of some specific stewardship pledges that have been made by KARIS, which go above and beyond what was originally contemplated even in this 2023 amendment.

The last, the last one I want to focus on, and I think it's certainly not the last that we could talk about, but um for purposes of uh trying to keep it brief this evening.

Um, I'll I'll say the last reason here that to discuss this evening is the fiscal and economic impact of the data center.

Um, while fiscal and economic impact shouldn't be the sole reason for approval of any project, they're certainly relevant considerations.

Um we submitted fiscal and economic impact studies associated with the proposed development.

Aaron Gruen testified to those studies during the September hearing.

On the fiscal side, the proposed data center will become one of the city's largest tax generators.

Between property taxes and electric utility taxes, KARIS will be contributing approximately 1.6 to 2.2 million in annual new local tax revenue.

By where, by way of comparison, the anticipated property tax is approximately 1.5 the property tax paid by the new Costco on Ogden Avenue.

I heard some questions, I heard some residents in prior meetings questioning the value, how much was actually being paid by KARIS.

So I wanted to kind of provide some perspective.

We're paying one, we are projected to pay one and a half times the property tax of the the new Costco.

Um, sticking with that comparison, Costco estimated approximately two million dollars annually in stabilized uh sales tax revenue uh after five years of operations.

Costco, however, asked for $5.5 million in local incentives.

KARIS has pledged to seek no local incentives.

While generating significant new revenue, the data center will also have very little impact on government services.

From police, fire, schools, park, and library, there's virtually no new spend from local governments to service a data center.

And I think this is an important point because while KARIS will generate significant new revenue, the point is there's going to be little demand for services, so the actual financial benefit to the city is greater than in many other applications.

For example, this stands in stark contrast to a residential subdivision.

While residential subdivisions generally uh subdivisions generate substantial new tax revenue, the residents of those subdivisions also generate significant new obligations, whether it be students for the school district or demand for park space, which may offset or exceed the revenue generation of the residential development.

Aragor city finances rely on projects such as the Keras Critical Data Center, which uh which don't consume the same type of revenue that they put off for the city.

In terms of economic impact, I've heard a lot of criticism about the number of jobs produced.

Our studies suggest that the project will ultimately produce 82 to 170 jobs in the Naperville economy.

Not all of these jobs are directed at the KARIS campus, but includes third started third-party service providers.

I think the objection to these jobs is myopic.

The suggestion that there are not enough jobs or that the jobs at the data center are not good enough for Naperville is borderline offensive.

Not everyone graduating from a local high school this May will be a corporate executive, an attorney, a doctor, or an accountant.

From my perspective, that's a good thing.

The data center will directly employ a management team, a security team, a team of facility technicians who will operate the sophisticated sophisticated data center infrastructure.

I've been through these data centers on multiple occasions.

It's a high-tech operation.

It demands professional employees, and those employees are paid commensurate with their responsibilities.

Most employees will earn well over 100,000.

I know a resident mentioned PPE requirements within a data center.

I've certainly uh encountered advanced security at data centers.

However, I've never witnessed a requirement for PPE, whether in meeting rooms or touring data halls.

Why a data center?

I think the reasons are compelling.

The I 88 Corridor is a critical business district in the city of Naperville, and frankly, well beyond the integrity of the corridor should be preserved into the future.

The data center is part of the nation's, the regions, the city's critical infrastructure.

The point this that point has been emphasized by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In 2023, just two years ago, the city took legislative action to specifically revisit permitted and conditional uses in the ORI district.

With guidance from the city's professional planning team, the city specifically and intentionally moved away from warehousing type operations in favor of data centers in the ORI district.

I believe the KARIS critical proposal is consistent with the city's recent this declaration of intent with respect to the future of the IEDA corridor.

Finally, the data center is additive to the local economy in a significant way.

It will become one of the city's largest taxpayers.

It will also produce well-paying management and technical jobs that will help diversify the city's economy.

I want to transition here and talk about some specifics of the KARIS critical proposal.

Specifically, I want to talk about how the plan is refined for Naperville.

As I spelled out, as I've spelled out here on the side, the refinement or mitigations, if you refer back to the 23 ordinance, really fall into two categories.

It's site plan changes and then KARIS commitments through the stewardship pledge.

You could probably add a third relative to the conditions that city staff has suggested for approval under the ordinance.

We first submitted application materials for the development of the subject property in April.

That's over seven months ago.

The original application contemplated a two-building campus that provided 72 megawatts of IT load.

I think this was a logical starting point.

It was fundamentally based on market demand and what could be accommodated on the subject property, at least from a planning standpoint.

However, as we got into the details of the project, as we rolled up our sleeves and work with city staff, as we worked with the city's electric utility and we heard from residents, we changed course.

Based on the additional information gleaned through the city's conditional use process, the plan was ultimately refined for Naperville.

The revised plan, which is depicted here actually reduced the scale of the project by 50%.

We went from a two-building 72-megawatt facility to a one-building 36 megawatt facility.

This was a significant change to plans and the pro forma for the project.

I think it was it was an important representation of KARIS's willingness to listen to the city and to nearby residents.

A willingness to refine project details for Naperville and specifically for the subject property.

With a revised site plan, the setback to residential properties significantly increased.

As depicted in this setback exhibit, the back corner of the equipment yard, which is where the generators would be housed, is almost a thousand feet to the nearest townhome building in Naper Commons.

You see on this exhibit, the utility infrastructure that serves the Nokia building is much closer.

Um to the townhomes in Naper Commons.

When we zoom in on that area and take a closer look at the Nokia infrastructure, you can see that the cooling towers are 161 feet from the nearest townhome structure.

The generators are 259 feet to the nearest townhome structure in Naper Commons.

To be careful to be clear, the backup generators at KARIS Critical provide four times the separation of the existing generators at the Nokia Data Center.

KARIS commitments through the stewardship pledge.

Using the language from the 2023 amendment, they are the conditions that mitigate potential adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use.

The stewardship pledge is the foundation of why the KARIS Critical Data Center is not created to eat other generic examples of data centers presented by residents.

The stewardship pledge shows that the KARIS Critical Data Center is refined for the subject property, is refined for Naperville.

The stewardship pledge is broken into five categories as reflected here.

Before I get into the individual categories, I want to remind the commission that the pledges intended for incorporation into the zoning approvals, making it a legal commitment tied to the zoning of the property.

There were questions about permitting process when we were going back and forth with our witness earlier.

I want to be clear that there are there are state and federal permitting processes and there are also local processes.

We are make we have made commitments as part of the stewardship pledge that are enforceable by the city city of Naperville or would be enforceable by the city of Naperville as a zoning violation.

So where we voluntarily reduced where we've voluntarily reduced operating hours, that it does become a legal, legally enforceable commitment through uh through this zoning process.

Um ultimately the pledge may take a different form through conditions appended to the conditional use permit or through the negotiation of a development agreement for the subject property, but irrespective of the form it ultimately takes, KARIS intends that each of these commitments are again legally binding on KARIS and its successors and interest.

The first category of pledges is ownership and operation.

By way of reminder, KARIS critical as a contract purchaser and developer of the property.

KARIS will finance, construct, and retain ownership of the facility.

However, the data center will ultimately be run by an experienced operating partner, a company that has established a footprint running data centers in Illinois and across the country.

I think this is if we think back to some of the interaction earlier, this is exactly the same point.

We're in a zoning process.

There is a limited spend that any developer makes in this process.

It's is the use appropriate at this location based on the conditional use factors, and from there we go and we make significant additional spends.

Do we go out and do we sign an agreement with an operational partner before we know we have a project?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There's an order of operations.

You walk before you run.

You obtain zoning before you hire a consultant to draw building permit plans before you go sign a formal operating agreement.

And so while it may be difficult to understand or somewhat inefficient because we'd like all of the information as part of this process, it's just not the order of operations of how this process is designed to work.

Weird concern from residents about the carbon footprint of this project.

But we do understand that this is a at some point this is a political process and that the nature of the issue deserves some consideration.

So while again, I don't think it's a relevant consideration for purposes of the approval of the conditional use.

I think it's information that speaks to KARIS's commitment to the city of Naperville and how we've refined the project for Naperville.

We've pledged what we have the illegal legal ability to do.

Purchase renewable energy credits or recs to match the IT load of the data center.

KARIS will purchase RECs through the city's green energy certificate program.

Notably, KARIS will be the first participant in this program.

To reiterate the point, not a resident or a business has signed up to participate in this program today.

Through KARIS's leadership, we hope to collaborate with city staff to market the program and to encourage encourage other Naperville businesses to follow suit.

KARIS's commitment to RECs will facilitate private development or private investment in renewable energy and new electrons onto the grid.

KARIS is doing what it can legally under Naperville's process through the Naperville electric utility to support renewable energy.

We cannot be asked to do anything more.

As it relates to infrastructure, I want to remind the commission that the Indian Hill substation, which is owned by the city, is wholly surrounded by the KARIS property.

This is a unique condition that relates to the historical development of the property and the use of the property as a research and development facility.

It's also a significant factor as to why this specific property is uniquely positioned for development as a data center.

I believe it's the only property in Naperville which has a substation on site.

The study found that there is sufficient capacity in the specific Indian Hill substation to serve at reduced scale data center at 36 megawatt IT load.

While some reinforcements to Naperville infrastructure will be required, KARIS is committed to paying 100% of those improvement costs necessary to serve the project.

I want to note that this is very different than Comed's historic structure.

In Comed territory, developers don't typically pay for infrastructure charges.

Comed installs facilities and socializes costs among ratepayers.

I think this structure is largely responsible for allegations that data centers have caused residential price increases.

Our commitment to covering costs is specifically intended to address this concern and will specifically limit any cost increases that would occur to Naperville residents.

Before I move on, I want to be clear that there's no gamesmanship with respect to the commitment to pay for required infrastructure improvements to this end.

Keras is committed not to seek any form of local subsidy to support development or ongoing operation of the facility.

Infrastructure upgrades are 100% part of Keras' commitment to invest a million, a minimum of 250 million dollars in Naperville's data center.

Move on to environmentally uh conscious design and operations.

Um is the fourth uh fourth category in the stewardship pledge.

I worked through all of these, uh all of these commitments at the October hearing, so I'm not going to revisit all of the associated exhibits.

However, I keep hearing and seeing misrepresentation of facts, so I want to make sure the record is clear.

Um, I want to start with uh with cooling technology.

Um with respect to water usage, KARIS is committed to using a closed loop air-cooled conditioning system.

The system is filled at initialization, uh, after the system is filled at initialization, the daily water consumption is effectively zero.

I want to repeat the point.

Because of the design implemented for Naperville, the daily consumption of water for purposes of cooling at the data center is effectively zero.

In terms of total water consumption, the data center is equivalent to a small office building.

The water usage is limited to what employees will utilize on a daily basis, functionally the kitchen and bathrooms.

In other words, the water use is a significant reduction to the 600,000 square foot office building that existed on the property previously.

Uh uh batteries.

We heard resident concerns with respect to internal battery backup systems.

We subsequently met with the fire department to address the issue head on.

The department had no concerns but asked that we design the system to comply with the 2024 IFC.

The department acknowledged that we had not yet designed the system because of where we were in the process, but we voluntarily added uh the commitment to design pursuant to the 2024 IFC as part of our stewardship pledge and um and provided these supplemental details as part of the October hearing.

Uh the pledge includes a couple of commitments with respect to generators.

First and foremost, we're using tier four technology.

Well, this is not a requirement.

It is our commitment to Naperville to strategically reduce emissions.

I'm gonna be clear on this point, it is not a requirement.

That is a correct statement of law as it exists today.

Um I know there was some suggestion otherwise, but um SERGIA has passed the legislature, it has not been signed by the governor, even if after it is signed by the governor, it will not become effective until uh till July.

So uh as it exists today, tier two generators are the legal standard.

Um, if we want to talk about SERGIA though, I would stipulate that the state has updated standards pursuant to new legislation that will take effect in January, or I'm sorry, in July.

And I think the good news we have to report is that we've been ahead of the curve.

Um we instituted tier four generators before anybody else in the state required it, and so we have been refining this project uh for Naperville's best interest uh from the beginning.

Uh to be clear, tier four generators doesn't mean we eliminate admissions.

I agree with the residents on that.

But if we're being honest, every development comes with some form of emissions.

There are 277 homes in Naper in Naper Commons.

Looking back at the city's population tables, we estimate 682 residents at Naper Commons.

There is an emissions component associated with the school buses, Amazon deliveries, garbage trucks, cars, cooking, heating, cooling, and the associated residential occupancy.

The standard for development in Naperville and beyond isn't zero emissions.

The standard for development is compliance with state and federal regulatory standards.

As Brian testified today, we meet those standards established by state and federal agencies to protect air quality and the public health.

I believe that is the basis on which the commission should be evaluating uh the impact of the emissions.

I'm gonna draw a comparison.

Uh, functionally, it's no different than how this commission addresses many other issues.

When we did Naper Commons, um, we had uh water connections.

Um, Naperville doesn't independently review the capacity of the water system, that's a state permitting process.

Uh so this commission has never asked a question about whether the water capacity is sufficient for the 277 homes at Naper Commons.

This commission relies on IEPA through the permitting process to understand that there is capacity in the water system.

It's the exact same process for the sanitary system.

We have to flush a toilet, the toilet has to go, uh has to go to uh to a treatment facility in Naperville.

The treatment facility is designed to a certain specification.

Someone is tracking whether there is sufficient capacity in the system to accommodate new development.

That is the state.

Who did we talk to?

The Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Fish and Wildlife Service told us that in fact the uh the pass through the Forest Preserve were going to be more of an impact on the bald eagle in the Forest Preserve than would be the construction of the new homes.

I was kind of blown away, but we relied on the information from the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Services.

We could go on.

There were wetlands at Naper Commons.

The DuPage County regulates wetlands.

We did a wetland delineation to determine the limits of the wetland.

We submitted that information to DuPage County.

DuPage County verified the limits of the wetland, and we obtained uh obtained permits according to that process.

This commission did not did not question, did not go into the details, did not look at the floor of the fauna or the uh or the soil condition that verified or stipulated the condition, the quality of that wetland.

This commission relied on the agency with the specific with a specific regulatory authority to review that information.

In that case, it was the uh DuPage County uh stormwater committee.

Um so you know, I I think it's a critically important point.

There's a process.

This plan commission is part of a process, but it's one small part of a process.

This plan commission doesn't consider the elements of a building permit.

We haven't, we we we haven't even prepared plans for a building permit.

That building permit plan will be submitted after city council and after this commission have reviewed and considered the project.

You rely on the city's building department to issue a permit in compliance with all of the rules and regulations contained in Naperville's building code.

And so our suggestion tonight is that this commission is responsible for doing what this commission always does with respect to stormwater, with respect to water, with respect to standardary, with respect to endangered species, with respect to historic properties.

We could go on and on.

But this commission's sole tact is to look at land use.

And as it relates to land use, it doesn't mean that you do a deep dive and you question or overrule the regulatory authority of other specialized agencies.

It means you take those decisions into consideration, understand how they relate to the whole of the projects, and make a decision based on that regulatory structure.

I want to reiterate that the generators will be delivered as part of a containerized system, uh, complete with noise attenuation.

As an example, uh, the container type of containerized system we would use is shown on the screen.

I want to be clear, this may not be the containerized system that we use.

Uh I said it earlier, I'll say it again.

We have not we have not picked this detail, we will not pick this detail until the um until we get through zoning process and we get to specifically MEP design and building permit plans.

Um but this the containerized system that we do choose will be complete with noise attenuation.

An example, I said that the example of the containerized system is shown on the screen.

Um, unlike generators that are clearly visible from homes in Naper Commons, those generators support the data center on the Nokia property that exists today.

Uh Keras' containerized system will be located within an enclosed equipment yard outside of public view.

We have committed to using generators solely for emergency backup generation and standard maintenance testing.

Regular main regular testing is 30 minutes per generator per month.

We reasonably anticipate testing operations of six to ten hours per generator year, per generator per year.

The forest preserve raised only two concerns.

Uh we address both of those concerns with commitments in the stewardship pledge.

Uh the project will be dark sky compliant.

In fact, as as we had a witness testify, it will actually exceed dark sky compliance requirements because the the parking lots will be motion censored and lights will go below dark sky level when there's not activity.

Um the the other item, the only other item addressed by the forest preserve district was coal tar coal tar sealants.

That's hard to say.

Um we have specifically prohibited the use of coal tar coal tar sealants as part of our stewardship pledge.

I want to make a point that the the forest preserve district submitted a letter, I believe it was in in advance of the first hearing, they raised these two issues.

Um we heard from a lot of residents that this project was going to destroy the the forest preserve district.

So I made a point of picking up the phone and talking to the Forest Preserve District, and I said, hey, listen, we're in the middle of this process.

I know we went through a process on Naper Commons recently, and we heard the same thing.

We heard that Naper Commons was going to destroy the character of the Forest Preserve District and it would never be the same.

We're here we are a couple years later, and it is.

To be clear, all of this infrastructure predated the development of Naper Commons.

It was not an impediment to the sales at Naper Commons.

To my knowledge, until we identified the generators during this hearing process, there had not been complaints about the operation of this infrastructure from neighbor from neighbors at Naper Commons.

I have video of the generators running at Naper Commons if there's specific questions about that.

Residents have rightly been concerned about noise in light of news regarding one of Aurora's data centers.

So we conducted a noise study to evaluate impacts of the proposed data center on residential neighbors.

Findings findings of the study show that the KARES critical data center will comply with Naperville's applicable regulations.

Increases in sound are characterized as negligible at one tenth and two tenths of one decibel.

One tenth and two tenths of one decibel at the adjacent residential property at the at the closest residential property in Naper Commons.

The city hired a consultant to peer review our study.

If there are more specific questions on this issue, our sound consultant is here this evening to answer those questions.

The technical specifications for the unit were received directly from trained representatives.

I would reiterate that this is preliminary information.

When we get to full building permit, when we get to MEP plans, we will rerun the study and we will ensure that the uh that the facility, as specifically designed, does comply with all of the uh all of the applicable sound measurements, Naperville and IC IPCB, as we've stipulated before this commission.

Um I think staff has taken it a step further.

Staff is asking us to also do uh confirmatory testing, um, which is not a problem.

So once the facility is constructed as part of the permitting process, we would go out, we would conduct a study to measure sound uh that is actually produced by the data center.

Which takes us to the last item of oversight and accountability.

Um we've made a series of pledges that are intended to uh to present the city of Naperville a best in class data center that checks all of the boxes.

To put a ribbon on those pledges, we've committed to annual reporting to confirm that we've done what we said we would do.

Remember, this is a legal commitment contained as part of the zoning.

We're not asking you to trust us.

We're committing to proving it over and over again with an annual property stewardship report.

We've proposed a five-year term on the reporting obligation.

There's no magic to that term, but after consistently establishing compliance, I think the need for additional reporting diminishes.

As I conclude tonight, I want to underscore the importance of the proposal before the commission and our community this evening.

Decades and ago, Naperville sees an opportunity to attract development in this very on this very property.

That development became home to Bell Labs, later Lucent, and today Nokia.

That decision shaped Naperville's economy and identity.

Attracting Bell Labs was possible because city leaders embraced technology, innovation, and growth.

Had city leaders chosen differently then, Naperville's trajectory into one of America's great cities would have been dramatically altered.

Now on the same property, we face a similar crossroads.

Do we lean into progress and moderation modernization or do we turn away?

This is our chance to renew 40 acres of the former Lucent campus for relevance in today's economy and into the future.

The proposal before the commission secures a minimum investment of 250 million dollars in Naperville, renewing part of the Lucent Bell Labs campus and equipping it with best in class technologies that will help to transform the I-88 corridor consistent with the city's long-term vision as reflected in the Naperville Department Naperville Development Partnerships I-88 corridor study.

The revitalized campus will help to attract additional investment to Naperville and our region.

History proves that Naperville thrives when we embrace technology innovation and investment.

The facts of this proposal show how CARIS is engineered the campus for efficiency, is committed to the stewardship of our site and resources, and at every step took initiative to design its proposal specifically to align with the values and standards for Naperville.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

All right.

So at this time, we will ask the commissioners if they have any questions for the petitioner.

And I will start with Commissioner Longenbach.

Thank you very much.

And this is questions and this is this.

All right.

All right.

So for the record, um, I have reviewed the proceedings prior to my appointment as PCC commissioner.

Um and I just want to thank everybody here for for coming to speak and for your letters.

It means a lot to see you know all of the input that we've received.

Um and I appreciate you know, bringing bringing your kids here, knowing that these meetings could could last very long.

Um I am no stranger to long meetings in this chamber.

Um just to put my role in perspective for everybody who doesn't know, um, I served on city council until August.

Um, and there are factors that I could have considered as a city councilwoman that I cannot consider in my role as a PCC commissioner.

Um, for example, council can consider the IMEA contract that um is under discussion right now.

They can consider the impact of the center on the on the electrical grid and whether there's gonna be an impact on residential rates.

Those are all within the council purview, but our purview here is much narrower.

So just wearing my new PZC hat, um, conditional use is the tough part of this ask, which is why you have all come here for so many meetings and and spent so many hours here with us.

Um I have visited the site many times.

Um I live close to the Fifth Avenue train station, and I even ran home from there one afternoon just so that I could get the full full feeling of the you know, in in entire surroundings.

Um I've visited the Iola site.

I've read every article that you've sent.

Thank you for those.

I've learned quite a lot.

Um, I mean, based on everything though, I still have some questions though for staff and for uh the petitioner and for Mr.

Goldman.

So I'll I can start with Mr.

Goldman, just given that that those were kind of fresh.

Um one of the sides you mentioned the IEPA having full enforcement and routine expect inspections.

I was just wondering how often do they do those routine inspections?

So it it's entirely dependent on the facility.

They'll typically do an initial inspection and then use their jurisdiction or their their decision making.

Uh sometimes it's annual, sometimes it's uh totally random and not routine at all.

Okay.

It it varies pretty well.

Okay.

Could I could I ask a point of clarification on that though?

Because I believe that with the permit, is there an annual reporting requirement?

So there's a specific run log and very specific details kept with respect to the operation of the generators.

Could you yes, there will be an annual emissions reporting requirement so that they will the facility will submit to IEPA their emissions that would be based on uh runtime or fuel usage, depending on how the permit ends up being structured.

Okay, but that's in addition to maybe surprise inspections that they might do.

That's correct.

Okay, good.

And then my second question on your one slide, it was the observed ambient air quality.

Um had air quality concentrations.

In like any any of those numbers, how did the I-88 pollution fall into those categories or or did it?

Um it was observed ambient, yeah.

So like these concentrations, did I88 so the these were either based on uh directly on I-88 or other nearby locations where traffic patterns were worse uh than what is expected on I-88.

So the the traffic does play a role in the monitor data here.

Okay, yeah, because one of the um, I think it was Mr.

Butt mentioned um I might have gotten it a little bit wrong.

He compared a generator to a semi, and if I got it right, it said that one generator could either be the same as 13 semis.

Is that right?

Okay, thank you.

Um so I just did a quick Google search up here and found that on an average day the Naperville exit on ID8 would see between 8,000 and 15,000 semis.

So it just there's quite a lot of pollution in this area already from the diesel traffic on 88.

So I just wanted to make sure that I understood this um this slide correctly.

Um my other questions are on noise.

I know that you know there's been a lot of sound studies done.

There's just seems to be a little bit of confusion about whether they type the cover the types of sounds that are actually admitted by the data center.

Um so the third party study and these studies are they equivalent or is as close to equivalent as possible as um what is in the proposal.

For example, like the the cooling unit sizes, fan speeds, and frequencies, like is it like for like?

I know that you know we can't get into all the contract specs and stuff like that, but is it as like for like as as possible for both yours and and for staffs?

I I was gonna I assumed you were gonna direct that at Bill, so I was calling him up.

Um I can you kind of paraphrase it one more time?

Well, I'm just so that all the the sound studies, there's been a lot of questions about whether they were like for like.

Did they use the same types of cooling?

And I know we can't get exact, but how close are they?

Because we want to be able to look at the sound studies and we see this and say that yes, this is very much close to what we were to expect.

It's you you're it you're asking a process question.

So we we submitted a uh a sound study, and I talked to staff, and staff ultimately decided to hire a sound consultant.

So staff's consultant did not do an independent study, they reviewed they they talked to our consultant, they reviewed the they reviewed the parameters, how the study was conducted, the inputs of the study, and they found that they agreed with the findings of the study.

They asked us to do a deeper dive, which is the IPCB information, and said, hey, listen, Naperville's got a pretty basic standard based on DCB DBCA.

Um, and so let's take a deeper dive, let's look at the various octave bands, and in looking at this, we look at the different measurements, and we're going to be able to flush out what might be lower tonal issues that residents talked about.

Um, you know, we've we've done uh a discussion on this internally, uh some of the some of the tonal issues that were historically had with data centers related to the type of motors that were appended to ACE to uh to chiller units in today's in today's world, we're typically using uh mechanical motors, electric motors on the cooling units, and those mechanical motors, those those electric motors generally eliminate that low tonal issue.

So when we plugged in the uh when we plugged in the data into the study using the specifications from that train that the train uh the train chillers that we talked about, um these were all of the byproducts, and I would note that and Bill could get into this, there's a there's an upgraded sound package with respect to the train chillers.

We went ahead and selected the upgraded sound package.

If we want to incorporate that as a specific requirement, we're happy to do that.

Um, and then I would note that it between the first and the second hearing, city staff also asked that we increase the height of the parapet wall to fully screen those chiller units.

Um and so we've actually we have a very tall parapet wall, and so that parapet wall fully encloses uh to the height of the chiller units, also reducing the total sound emission to residential units, residential dwellings.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Um let me see.

Um the diesel tanks, where will those be stored?

Like for the generators?

Are they like right underneath it?

Are they yeah?

So if you and it's probably a little bit hard to read at this scale, but um, if you look at this specification, the the uh the tankage for the generator is actually that bottom component of this building.

So um this this effectively looks like a uh uh like a trailer, right?

It's got you can see the doors on it here and here.

Um in this bottom section is the um uh is the diesel storage tank um that comes outfitted directly with um this containerized system.

And it's fully lined and double protected.

Double wall lined with monitoring devices between the two double walls, and so if the interior tank interior tank, which is exposed to the diesel exhaust leaks, it's going to leak into the outer tank.

That outer tank is equipped with um with a detection system so that there's going to be an alarm that sounds, and that alarm would monitor us to a tank failure and then a replacement.

I would also note that this type of um these type of facilities are regulated by the state fire marshal.

Okay.

Um and then just to follow up, I know there's been worry about the safety of the the diesel tanks, not from seepage into the water table, but from a public safety perspective.

Um I do I can't remember which meeting it was, but there had been something that Chief Pugnitus of the fire department had signed off on this from a public safety perspective.

Um I just want to make sure that like we can get some kind of confirmation probably from staff that they are fully on board with disaster recovery procedures, um, and that they have I'm assuming they have protocols already for the Nokia data center, which I'm assuming also runs on diesel and has similar type things, obviously at a smaller scale, but given that it already is there, they have protocols.

So is that can you confirm that?

Sure.

Um I I can't speak to the Nokia site.

I don't know the specifics, but um I can say that the fire department has reviewed all of Keras's documents, um, engineering plans, landscape, um, as well as this proposed containerized system, and they've identified no concerns.

Okay, so they're supportive of the project as proposed right now.

All right.

And then my final question for staff again is is there any evidence that the Nokia building is going to be demolished?

Not that staff has seen, no.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so here are my thoughts in in general.

I don't have any more questions.

Um the from a noise perspective, the existing I-88 noise, it's already really, really loud.

I mean, when I walked home from there, I mean, it is it is incredibly loud.

Um when came up, came up tonight.

Um, obviously, noise.

Um, whoops, wrong one.

Um I mean, an I-88 it it predates Nokia, it predates Naper Commons, um, and so with all of that, you know, truck traffic, pollution, and noise, and so comparatively from from high to low, interstate noise is considered high, whereas a data center is is moderate, and that's not using generators.

Like obviously, data center with generators is is on the very high level.

Operating normal, it is it is moderate.

Um, you know, and in addition to the I-88 noise, there's the I-88 pollution as as you know, we just we just talked about.

I mean, there are between 8,000 and 15,000 semis that go by the Naperville exit every day, and that produces quite a lot of diesel um pollution already.

And so the thing is, I mean, industry has been at this site since the 1960s.

Um Nokia already has a small data center, um, which we you know her described um at a number of these meetings, and as far as I know, they don't have any restrictions on how often they test and run those generators, how much water they use, or how loud they are.

Um this one is different.

Um, this is not a hyperscale center.

I like the ban on crypto and AI, like this is for banks and travel agents and and that type of thing.

Um they removed phase two.

I mean, that that's a very that's a very big deal.

Um when I always thought of data centers, I thought of how much water they used and the fact that this is a closed loop system.

I mean, I learned quite a lot about that.

Um and it uses a fraction of the water that other data centers use.

And in fact, there's probably more water used by the residents in Naper Commons watering your lawns than will be used here in this in this data center.

Um I like the dark sky compliance.

Um, when I was on council, I always asked whether developers could do dark sky.

It is not a Naperville ordinance.

Um but I but I like it.

I like that they're taking the extra step.

I I do wish I would really love to see if it could be carried out on the Nokia property as well.

There are at least 20 lights in the Nokia property that are not dark sky compliant.

It would be great to see if there could be some kind of partnership to try to maybe get those fixed as well.

I know that would be that would be huge, especially to the people who live on Josiah.

This emotional factor, it weighs heavily.

I mean, your stories here, they just demonstrate just how much you love your neighborhood and how important neighbor commons is, the videos that we saw at the last meeting with the phone party.

I mean, that is that that means it means a lot.

You've you've created this this community there.

And and I actually see that recognized in the pledge that they have they have promised.

They they recognize that and are committing to that.

Um but I do like Mr.

But's if approved list that he brought up at the last meeting.

I really like that, and I like Nest's prioritization framework.

I mean, those are things that address the baseline noise study and all of this.

And I mean, rather than just being a pledge, those, I would actually like to see those written into the contract or as a city ordinance, but again, that is something not for us to consider that as a neighbor, that is a city council thing.

So I mean, as you can see, I mean, I approach this the way that I approached all topics when I was on council and this.

I do a lot of research, I do a lot of homework.

I I carefully consider all the sides, and I don't engage in in speculation.

Um, I've read everything that's been presented.

Um, and that I have decided that through the lens of my PCC that based on the data and all of the studies and and staff's recommendations that this does pass the requirements for conditional use.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Ebbett.

Thank you, Chair.

Um good evening, everyone.

Um I just want to echo um what uh Commissioner Longenbaugh just shared about the emotions in the room.

We respect that.

Um I'll keep it short.

I have one question um to the critical leadership team.

You guys are going to be the neighbors.

Um, what steps you will be taking to make sure that we in, you know, the trust is established from project um uh like project execution to ongoing um ongoing relationship building.

Uh is the the stewardship pledges which you made.

Um, to me, it looks pretty impressive.

Um, are you going to keep give an update to the neighbors on that, like where you are an ongoing relationship building standpoint?

Yeah, it that's that's certainly something that we can talk about.

Um, I mean, we have the we we have the annual report that we would be filing with Naperville.

Um, you know, spitballing off the top of my head.

We've um in other projects, we've instituted a website um and we've posted things to our website so that people could find them.

Um, in other cases, we've collaborated with uh with residents on a move forward basis.

So I I think that you know, I I would be happy to meet with uh Neighbor Commons HOA on a move forward basis and say, hey, listen, is there a way that we could work collaboratively, communicate on a move forward basis so that we are um we're good neighbors, both neighbor commons to us and us to neighbor commons.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Banson.

Thank you.

I just have a comment.

I want to start saying that I have truly heard and felt all the concerns, several of you have shown in the last few weeks.

I including all the letters, all the signatures, everything.

I truly appreciate and grateful every speaker who took time to express your thoughts and concerns.

As a resident of myself, I understand the emotions tied with our own neighborhood when it comes to the change.

My sincere gratitude goes to the petitioners and their consulting teams for the thorough and professionally delivered presentation, which thoughtfully addressed significant concerns and factual data.

That was amazing.

The data center in Naperville could bring significant economic benefits, as we all know and we have seen through all the detailed presentation.

Um, as if Mr.

Witeker has given us tax revenue, jobs, revitalizing a large and currently unused I-88 corridor.

It does show the commitment to sustainability and community responsibility.

Our responsibility is to review every proposal based on facts, long-term community benefit, compliance with our city standards, not just for today, but for the future generations.

And the proposal before us meets those standards and brings it significant investment, infrastructure improvement and opportunities for our local economy.

I know that change can feel uncertain and uncomfortable.

But I genuinely believe that with the safeguards and conditions we have required, this project can coexist responsibly within our community.

Again, I sincerely thank each one of you who came forward.

The dish the decision definitely rooted with love in this community, and I truly believe that it deserves strong and sustainable growth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wright.

Um, most of my questions were really answered, so I really only have two, and one is for Mr.

Goldman.

I know did Mr.

Goldman, oh sorry.

Um this is in regards to the Tier 4 generators.

Um there's there's been a lot of talk about um the specifications for tier four generators.

Um I would assume that under a tier four guideline, those are also regulated.

So would there be a big difference in a tier four generator regardless of who the manufacturer of that generator is?

Uh the we we could see some amount of difference, but they are all ultimately going to be certified.

Well, that they will be they will be meeting the emission standards in uh NSPS quad I.

So they'll be meeting the standards in those tables.

Some may exceed those, but they're likely not going to provide a guarantee.

Um they'll say, you know, this is this is how we typically test, but this is what we are committing to.

Uh, and that would be the the tier four standards that are in the regulation.

So, in your in your expert opinion, would there be big deviations in standards?

I mean, I'm assuming they have to meet a certain threshold in order to qualify as tier four, they would fall into tier three or tier two.

That's correct.

They have to meet a certain threshold for engines of the size that are being being considered here that includes uh at minimum uh selective catalytic reduction system that is what reduces the NOx emissions.

They're at least balanced in a way to reduce particulate matter emissions, uh, and then depending on the specific technology, include a diesel particulate filter.

Um, uh some vendors use engineering to avoid that filter and get similar emissions out of the engine, out of the exhaust.

Gotcha, thank you very much.

And then um, Mr.

Whitaker, one question that I just want to ask about the property itself.

After the the property was reduced to one building, you have quite a big piece of land there.

Has there been any talks or discussion about what the additional land will be used for?

Will it be sold?

Will it be uh converted into something else?

Is that has there been discussions on that?

No, we've really been laser focused on what's before you.

Um, you know, will there be development of the rest of the property?

Yes.

Um the property zoned ORI today.

Um, you know, there are other uses in the ORI district we may pursue.

Um I think what is in front of us right now and the the conversations that led us to the reduction, the the elimination of the phase two building is let's let's move forward, let's prove we're responsible operators, let's prove that this data center is not going to negatively impact the community.

And if if we get to that point and we're years on, and everybody is comfortable with this facility, and if Naperville has capacity, then maybe we look at another data center, maybe we look at some other use in the warehouse in the ORI district.

Maybe we look to rezone the property.

I I would just reiterate that there are there there will be development of the the vacant land, but we have no plans for it right now.

Right now, our sole focus is proving our capacity to operate uh one data center in compliance with all the applicable regulations.

Gotcha, thank you.

And then my last question would be to staff based on Mr.

Werker's answer.

If that property were to be developed for um, let's say another data center, that would have to come back before this commission before for approval.

Correct.

Yep, they would be required to submit a new petition for development approval of a second data center and begin this whole process again.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So with that said, I do uh apologize, madam chair, but I did prepare a statement, but I just wanted to make sure that I didn't forget anything, so I know it's getting late, but I'll I'll try to make it quick.

So, as a planning and zoning commission, our responsibility is to evaluate this position based on the standards of the zoning ordinance, the technical records, and the findings of facts, not personal preference and not public sentiment.

This commission is a regulatory body, and our decisions must be grounded in that framework.

The property before us, as we know, is currently zoned ORI, where data centers may be allowed as conditional use when the applicant demonstrates the use uh can operate without creating adverse impacts that are incompatible with the surrounding property.

That determination must rely on evidence, mitigation, and enforceable conditions.

I also want to acknowledge that we know the site is near residential neighborhoods, which required heightened scrutinies.

In reviewing the material from staff, expert evaluations and public comments.

I believe that level of scrutiny has been applied, and it has resulted in meaningful adjustments to the plan.

This proposal incorporates significant mitigation measures, which we've all heard tonight, which includes the reduction from two building to one, uh the generator yard being built on the north side of the building, uh surrounded by 22 foot height solid screen walls.

The rooftop HVA uh HVAC units will be fully fully screened by five-foot parapet walls.

All rooftop units will be placed and set at least six inches below the top of the parapet, which will help control the directions of the sound.

We've talked uh ad nauseum about the tier four generators being installed, and then the closed loop cooling system, not to mention all of the other um factors that the petitioner put in the stewardship agreement.

Additionally, this use generates very low daily traffic compared to many other uses that could be operated in this zoning area without required special approvement.

Now, regarding the power demand, this facility's 36 megawatt load would make it Naperville's largest user.

It is important to be clear that our role as a commission, we do not set utility policy or rate structures, nor do we determine any fiscal strategies.

However, infrastructure capacity is a legitimate planning concern because it affects the city's ability to support growth and maintaining reliable service.

One of the required findings for conditional use approval is the adequate utilities and public service will be provided.

And if Naperville Electric has determined it is rely, it it can reliable reliably service the project, then under those standards, the size of the load alone is not a legal basis for denial.

That said, I would encourage the applicant and staff to continue working collaboratively to explore shared investment approaches that support long-term infrastructure planning within the within the corridor.

This type of public-private uh partnership coordination ensures that major power users can contribute to sustaining the system that supports continued economic growth.

It is responsible, forward-looking approach that aligns with the city's broader planning strategies along the I-88 corridor and throughout the rest of the city.

For those reasons, I will be uh supporting the conditional use, and I think it has satisfied and I will be supporting it.

Um, in closing, I want to thank the residents who took the time to participate throughout this process.

Your engagement and thoughtful questions led to more thoughtful and rigorous review, and several of the mitigation measures now indicated in the plan are a result of the community's impact.

Even when we arrive at different conclusions, your voices are meaningful, and I appreciate the respect and seriousness in which it was carried out.

So thank you all for being here, and thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Namas.

Um, thank you.

My questions were answered, so I do have a couple comments.

Um just to round that out.

So I also appreciate the testimonies and materials provided by both the petitioner and the public throughout all of these public hearings.

Um, I I am actually not sure that this proposal meets the conditional use standards.

Um, a data center is unique, which is why it's considered conditional.

Um the operations of the data center introduce impacts such as noise, resource consumption, and activity levels not present in surrounding parcels, raising concerns under standard 2.1 that regards the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Um, this general area is comprised of neighborhoods, parks, forest preserves, low-intensity commercial use, and it kind of makes the propos, or I believe it makes the proposed use out of character and creates a potential adverse effects on the nearby properties, contrary to standard 2.2.

Um, I would like to acknowledge though that the standardship pledge will be included as a permitting permitting condition, correct?

That's what was brought to our attention.

However, it doesn't provide the fame framework for mitigating resource consumption or noise or health-related impacts.

That is a that's a concern I I see going forward.

As a result, I I don't believe that the proposal supports the normal and orderly development of adjacent properties required by standard 2.3.

Um for these reasons, I cannot support the conditional use at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Castanoli.

Thank you.

I have read so much on data centers, I think I could build one myself.

Naperville has become a world-class city, as we all know.

And it's a standard that all other towns are trying to follow.

And I do believe that this data center can be built safe, quiet, clean, and efficient.

And I hope the city of Naperville and its staff will make sure this happens.

Based on the conditional use, I do believe it is appropriate use.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Chellian.

Mr.

Witt, I just have one quick question for you.

Um now I did a lot of research myself, and um I found that more of these new data centers are going more towards natural gas versus diesel, because it's cleaner, and also it um it's not quieter when it when they're um sourcing on generators.

So did the petitioner even look at natural gas?

And if he did, why didn't he go that way?

Yeah, great question.

So we we've we have discussed that at length.

Um when when you're seeing natural gas applications at data centers, um, generally speaking, that application is for direct source of power.

Um, that wouldn't be something we could do here.

So in other words, if if if you look at the BP property, um the BP property use natural gas on site to generate electricity for the BP property.

That's that that's generally the application where you see natural gas used at a data center.

Instead of just pulling power from the grid, they're using natural gas on site to generate electricity to power the data center.

When you see data centers using natural gas, those data centers by and large also have diesel backups because the the natural gas cannot provide in in an under uninterrupted supply in the event of emergency.

So we did, we specifically looked at it.

Um we considered whether it was possible.

Um I think the technology is not there in part, it's because of the the start time and when uh a diesel generator, I'm sorry, a natural gas generator would start delivering power.

So we're looking at the battery backup in the system and the time uh the time that we can run the facility on the battery backup before we go to the diesel generator, and the diesel generators just it is the industry standard um at this point in time.

Okay, one more question.

In regards to the generators on the roof, right?

Can those be enclosed to reduce the um noise with the um sound proof um the barriers?

The chillers on the roof?

Yes.

So the the chillers are located on the roof, so the the chillers will have uh a fan on the the a fan on the top, that fan is rejecting heat.

Um and so in in certain applications, the the area between those chiller units can be 130, 140 degrees.

Um so it's not it, we're not able to fully enclose it because it's it's very important to have airflow around those cooling units in order for them to effectively reject heat um on the closed loop air chilled or the uh on that's the system we've designed.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner McDaniel.

Uh I want to thank Commissioner Longba for asking so many great questions.

Um I actually have a couple questions for uh Keris and a few for staff.

Um it might be about 40 slides back, but there was a slide here that uh compared um some of the diesel generators within Naperville, uh Edwards Elmherhst, uh Nokia, uh the proposed uh development.

Um I am not an engineer.

I went to an engineering school.

I studied engineering for semester, and it was the worst semester I ever had.

What uh so when you look at this, please just be very you know honest and straight.

What is this telling us right here?

Not the numbers, just you know, what is this telling me?

So it represents that what Keras has proposed, it represents the latest and greatest technology in diesel emissions standard in diesel emissions generators.

So it these are the these meet certifications that first of all didn't exist um when the Nokia or Edwards generators would have been installed.

They certainly weren't required, uh just as they aren't required to be met now.

Um but go that that is what Keras has proposed to install.

So the technology, the engines are tuned better, they're they're better operating parameters, they also have control technology uh specifically designed to mitigate emissions from the diesel combustion.

Right.

Um idea, one, how many data centers already exist in Naperville, and two, how many diesel generators there are?

Mr.

Whitter, you may have an answer to that.

No, it's a that's it's a tough question, and part of the reason it's such a tough question is because the the industry, the data center industry as a whole, has considered themselves critical infrastructure for a long time.

And if you would ask Mr.

Groff specific questions about his electrical infrastructure, which is also critical infrastructure, he would tell you you you're he's not gonna give you that information.

So data centers have historically been very uh secretive about information.

Um getting to the getting to where we got to with the stewardship pledge um was a big lift because that's not the industry standard, it's not industry standard to share all of the information that we've committed to sharing.

Um I can tell you that there's the data center at Nokia.

I can tell you that BMO Harris has a data center across the street.

Um I believe they've got three or four um gen sets at uh at BMO Harris right across the street.

Uh, and then there are a number of much smaller scale, like one megawatt type data centers um in a number of office buildings, which is interesting, right?

Because they still require backup generation.

Um, and of course, you have these data centers operating in um in office occupancies where you have uh have residents of Naperville working on a uh 40 hours a week.

Um so I I think there's a lot of different applications.

What we're doing here um is bigger than what exists in Naperville today, but again, it's you know, small scale in terms of what's happening in the industry nationwide.

Okay, so are any of these generators that you know of, uh, are they tier four, or is this gonna be the first tier four generator in Naperville?

I I I don't want to at the data centers, I believe it would be the first tier four generator.

Like what that's not information that I think we necessarily have published, but based on the the date of the generators and some of the air permits that we did look at, we believe that by and large they're not tier four generators at other locations.

Okay, one more question.

Different different direction.

Uh we talked a little bit about uh fuel deliveries um or fuel storage uh rather.

Um how often would you expect deliveries to occur?

Uh the it yourself.

Oh uh my name's Gary McKee.

I'm a engineering and operations expert.

Uh the diesel generators all have 24 hours of a fuel fuel storage.

Um, and if in an extended outage, if they're running for longer than that, and we needed to refill them while they were running, it would be around 1.4 trucks per hour.

Okay.

So let's say, you know, on an average basis where there is no major significant storm, there is no tornado.

Uh how often would you have to refill these if you're just testing them, like you say so in the proposal?

It's actually an issue that we have to keep the fuel polished and and recycled uh because it sits in there so long.

All right, fair enough.

Um thank you.

Um now for staff, um how how long has this been zoned ORI?

I'd have to look into that.

Um I I think it dates back several years.

I'm just how many?

I'm sorry?

Uh several.

You're asking how long the property has been zoned ORI?

Correct, yeah.

Um many years.

Many, many years.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I I the and the reason I ask is within that time frame, it's never been zoned residential, correct?

It's always been zoned ORI.

Correct, or another industrial district.

Or owner of the disk, okay, thank you.

Um, and probably yeah, I I think the location of it to IEA makes sense with the hundreds of thousands of cars and trucks that drive by every day, it would make sense to have that you know area corridor zoned ORI.

Um, we we've we've been up here you know for a few years now, some of us.

Um this has been uh it's been a very interesting, very challenging case, and I want to thank our professional staff for all the work you've done, because it has been a tremendous lift on your part.

I know it.

Um so thank you for all you've done to the petitioner.

Thank you for uh working with our city and making the accommodations you have made.

Um it shows that you are willing to work.

Um you know, like some of us, I've lived in Naperville for a long time.

Um it's given me and my family, you know, really everything.

We've gone to elementary school all the way through high school here, and so we care about the community, and we want to make sure that it's it's we're being good stewards uh for the generations you know after us.

So um I'm gonna support this, uh, but I appreciate uh again all the hard work everyone's put into this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so most of my questions have been answered, but I do have some questions.

Um to address the community's concern about the developers' background and project ownership structure.

The community stewardship pledge is described as a binding commitment.

Who specifically, which LLC or parent entity will sign that binding agreement?

So the I would expect that um I would expect that the applicant entity, which is the contract purchaser, would sign that.

Um, but I I think from my perspective, um, it's a matter there's some legal semantics to it because in working with the city's legal department, I don't know if it becomes it could become an exhibit to the ordinance approving the project, or the terms of it could get rolled into a development agreement, which is binding on the property, um and is and is applicable to successors and assigns.

So I I think we are we are committed as the contract purchaser, um, when we get to ownership, we would um we would be happy to execute in a manner that binds the property um and ties it to the the zoning approval.

All right, thank you.

Also, um there's been a lot of commitment in the stewardship pledge, which I appreciate.

During generating testing, are you willing to provide specific plans scheduled testing for monthly generating testing?

Sorry, I'm repeating that so day, week specific hours to minimize impacts to the residents.

So I know there are some data centers that only test the first week of each month, and it's only during business hours.

Are you willing to commit to that?

We don't know when they're gonna break it, but yeah, in terms of so in terms of testing, um, I I think that we would we would be happy to work with staff.

I I think we probably it's a fair question.

I think we're we had already committed that we would do it during weekdays, normal uh normal business hours.

Um, if you would like us to further refine that and nail down whether it's a recurring basis or how we communicate with the city, what the testing schedule would be.

I think we'd be happy to do that.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Um, as far as uh I think this goes to staff.

Um, how will the city verify and enforce the the commitment throughout the lifetime of the facility?

And what are the penalties if non-compliant generators are used for replacement for emergency needs?

We will have an enforceable ordinance and an agreement, excuse me, a development agreement.

Um, as Mr.

Whitaker just indicated, that will legally bind this property owner and all future property owners.

It always comes down to a matter of knowledge in terms of enforcement.

We can't enforce something we don't know is going wrong.

But to that end, at least for the first five years under the steward stewardship pledge, there would be an annual report also in the conditions that staff has recommended.

There would be annual testing, I believe, a noise level testings if I'm recalling correctly.

Um so we could enforce those, and if they're violated, typically we work with the any owner to try to have them come into compliance, and typically that works out well.

But if it doesn't work out well, then we go to other uh remedies such as ordinance violations, or if it gets very serious, we go to court.

All right, thank you.

I'll go back to reporting.

Um, it is also my understanding in the northern states and in the Midwest, there is something that's called free cooling, which is utilized.

And I'd like to understand a little bit more on that.

Um from what I know, the AC units, this is where they are turned off, the fans are turned off, and because of the climate outdoors, it cools the inside.

I know enough about that to be dangerous, but I would like to hear a little bit more from you guys.

Uh the data center chill cooling system needs to comply with certain efficiency standards.

Um, one key one is is at uh minimum of 16 IPLV.

Uh there's a few different ways that you can that you can do it, whether adding things like free cooling coils, um, but but we we have uh selected chillers that meet those requirements of efficiency of energy efficiency.

But isn't there times of the year that those AC units are not required to be on because of the outdoor air?

So at all all times inside the data center, the computers are running and consuming power and they're generating heat at the same rate that they're consuming power, so it's not necessarily cooling the data center, it's removing the heat from it.

So even when it's really cold outside, the chillers are not, it's not as hard for them to reject the heat, but they're always rejecting the heat from the data center.

Okay, thank you.

Building management systems, BMS are the industry standard for monitoring and optimizing all critical infrastructures with modern data centers, including HVAC, power, and environmentals.

Since the proposal has heavily relied on modeling assumptions like 50 to 60 percent HVAC capacity and commitments like emergency only use generators, obtaining BMS reports for verification is going to be required.

What specific BMS or electrical power monitoring system platform will KARIS facility be using?

Uh that hasn't been selected or finalized yet, but there are certain technologies uh or certain certain softwares and products that are uh industry standard.

Um, a couple to mention would be ALC Automated Logic Corporation, Niagara Tritium, uh Schneider Eco Structure.

Um we're considering those three options and a couple of others that would that would qualify that are used as a standard in data centers.

So, with that commitment, is KARIS willing to provide the city with reports that would provide specific data points around HVAC usage, generator usage, power usage effectiveness, water usage, um, effectively, or essentially providing a dashboard for the city uh for us to see uh those metrics.

We we will be collecting all that data and and we we're happy to share it in in a way that uh is agreed upon, basically.

Yeah, it's been mentioned that it would be annually.

Would you be willing to consider it on a quarterly basis, especially as we're getting started here?

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Um let's see, do I have any other questions?

I don't think so at this time.

I think I'm good for questions.

Um with that said, I've got to take a minute.

Some of this will be on repeat to what the other commissioners have said, but I do want to thank everyone in this room.

It it's been long.

And I appreciate everyone's commitment.

All of the commissioners up here, staff, the residents, the petitioner.

This has been long.

It has been unlike any case we have ever worked through.

And I just want to recognize that intense scrutiny and the extended process of this case.

In my head, I'm thinking this is a new higher standard for data centers or any future ORI cases that we look at.

The time that we spent, the extended review, public hearings, we opened in August, continued through September, October, and November.

And this wasn't to rush or to delay anything.

It was very intentional.

I wanted to hear from all of you.

I wanted to hear every side of it.

Um, it's easy to make uh a decision when you're not emotionally attached to something, but the reality is is we too are residents, we are emotionally attached to this.

And like Commissioner Longenboss said, I live right by the train.

I I deal with those environmental pollutions myself.

Um, so I really appreciate every ounce of energy and time that has been spent on this.

Um I really look at this as you know, this could be the gold standard for other communities.

We do look at Aurora, and I've tried to get as much information on that as possible.

And like what's been mentioned, they had data centers zoned as warehouses.

They didn't have any delay, they didn't have this process when they approved those data centers.

And so for me, that this has been of sorts a moratorium.

This has been delaying it, making sure that we've done our homework and that city staff has, and that the residents have had a voice.

Um, and just remember, like we've said, planning and zoning is just one stop in this process.

We are one piece.

You know, we are an advisory board to city council.

So like I said, I think this could be a gold standard.

The fact that we have requested a comprehensive environmental study on independent noise, focus on air quality, impact uh utility impact, and all those things still have to continue on and get vetted through council.

The stewardship pledge.

That was, you know, in response to the scrutiny, the developer has voluntarily proposed a community stewardship pledge.

Uh, that in itself is huge.

If approved, Naperville's ordinance will likely be one of the heavily just the most heavy condition of any single data center in the state.

It's establishing a new model for accountability.

On top of it, protecting residential quality of life.

The core of this process has centered around the data center's proximity to the neighborhood subdivision.

The PCC has forced the developer to reduce the initial plan from two buildings to one, increase the height of the screening wall, create a natural buffer with an eight foot tall berm.

Naperville effectively would be writing a playbook for how municipalities extract maximum environmental and community commitments for a development precisely by refusing to expedite the process.

I feel like we have done that.

We also must acknowledge the fundamental truth of the I 88 corridor.

Air quality and noise are not blank slates here.

This area is already home to significant unavoidable environmental factors that contribute to the regional airshed.

We have high volume traffic on IED and I-88, a constant source of tailpipe emissions and particularly matter.

Existing ORI businesses do not face the same stringent requirements or ongoing scrutiny for their older generators and equipment as a new conditional use like this case.

This requires the scrutiny that we have been doing.

And I do look to, I am gonna ask a question for legal on that.

I would like to amend the motion to take that community stewardship pledge and and name it more of a legal binding measurable document or agreement.

And maybe that already means that to you, but I just I feel the word pledge is is I promise, and I'd like to hear it say an agreement.

You and me both, uh Ms.

Chair, and and I think Mr.

Whitaker knows that.

Um staff will be working with the petitioner to refine these conditions and even the steward stewardship pledge.

Right now, I think that they've um suggested five years of reporting with the thinking it might not be necessary after that, but perhaps that condition could be changed to five years plus upon request because the neighbors might have concerns or people might have concerns that need to be addressed, and the city needs to be able to respond to those concerns.

So we will do everything we can, and I'm sure Kiris will work with us to make sure that we can deliver a solid enforceable product to the city council at that time.

If I could if I could respond to that real quick, I I agree with everything Pat said.

I absolutely no objection.

I think we've got some long afternoons in the legal conference room working through the details of the agreement.

That being said, there are a couple of items in the conditions that I would like to talk through.

Um we got these um just a couple of days ago.

Um, I have a couple of things highlighted that I would I want to raise to make sure we're all clear that these are things that we would like to refine and work on details with staff.

If we can simply take that offline and work with staff on them, that's great.

But I I I wanted to take a moment and if I could raise a couple of the conditions and identify specific issues that we would have.

Yes, please.

Okay.

So on uh on condition three, um it is the petitioner shall conduct um annual noise analyses.

So um we do not have a problem conducting um noise analyses.

I guess I would recommend something along the lines of what Miss uh Miss Lord just suggested that maybe it's a five-year term and then as requested or as needed after that.

But if we're 15 years down the road, I don't know that it makes sense that we're you know producing another noise study.

Um it just may be inefficient.

I understand.

Um I just have a couple here.

So on um on condition 11.

Um that that condition reads upon session uh upon cessation or use of any part of the subject property for data center purposes, petitioners shall work with the city to decommission the data center and take steps to make resulting structure useful for other purposes or demolish the data center at petitioner's sole cost within a time frame directed by the zoning administrator.

So I I have significant concern that the that authority being vested in a zoning commissioner makes this project unfinanciable.

Um we're talking about a 250 million dollar project.

I was just working on a refinancing project on another data center, and to suggest that there are a lot of eyes on that kind of refinancing process is a gross understatement.

So I I would like to rework that provision to make sure that we have language that would make this project financial.

That's fair.

Um the on number 12.

Um and this is kind of the issue you just raised uh on 30 days written request of the zoning uh administrator, uh the petitioner shall conduct a review its data center operation operations and provide written compliance reports to the zoning administrator.

In concept, I don't have any problem with this, but I think the the term and the timing is something we just need to work on.

If we're as part of the initial process doing this on a quarterly basis, um then I think that 30 day um maybe gets modified, and I would say that 30 days isn't isn't physically enough time because if we have to measure sound, that kind of reporting cannot be done in 30 days.

I agree.

Um and then just the the very last one is on condition 14.

Um this says that each generator will only be tested for one 30 minute interval on monthly basis.

Um so that is the that is the regular interval testing that that will occur.

Um that will most certainly occur.

Um we have talked throughout this process about six to ten hours uh of testing.

We do anticipate that there could be years, probably not every year, that there would be some testing beyond the 30 minute test, which is why we modeled um 10 hours as part of our testing.

That's what we are comfortable with.

So I think we just would look to rework that condition to reflect the the 10 hours of testing annual.

Okay, and that those would be the only issues we had with the conditions.

That's fine.

Thank you.

All right, do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments?

All right, so let's see.

Uh seeing no further questions, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0057-2025.

So moved, second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

Uh, at this time, I'd like to begin.

Oh, we already did the delirions.

Uh hold on.

So I'm gonna have Commissioner Wright.

You want me to a row call, right?

Don't we use the show?

Hold on.

Sure, okay.

Can I we have a new script, so I apologize.

Could I have a show of hands of those commission commissioners who wish to recommend denial of the petition?

All right, say no.

No.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so I would like Mr.

Wright, Commissioner Wright, uh, at that time to read the motion.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to adopt the finding of the facts as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval for DEV-0057-2025, a conditional use to allow the operation of one data center and variants to reduce the required parking and increase the maximum uh permitted height of the proposed equipment yard uh yard screen wall, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the subject property located at 1960 Lucent Lane.

Can I have a second?

Second secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Ubba Baker, I will yes.

Bonzel.

I agree.

Cal Signoli.

I agree.

Longaball.

Agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Namas.

I disagree.

Uchelia, I agree with the motion.

Right agrees with the motion and robins.

I agree with the motion.

All right, motion carries.

Uh this case will move forward to city council for consideration with a positive recommendation.

All right, so hold on, because we still have we still have uh yes, we have the reports and recommendations and the approval of the minutes from October 15th and November 5th.

All right, so I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes for October 15th, 2025.

So that make a motion.

Second.

All right.

I'm sorry.

Sorry, could you repeat the motion and second?

Second.

We've got to finish this out.

Please be respectful.

Uh I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of October 15th, 2025 planning and zoning meeting.

So moved, second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Next is the approval of the minutes of November 5th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting.

Do we have any corrections to the minutes?

We do not.

We do not.

I would like to entertain a motion to approve the minutes of February fifth, twenty twenty-five planning and zoning meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

No old, no new.

I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

So move.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Meeting adjourned.

Thank you.