7.b 2g Jarvinen LetterJune 20, 2017
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to tell a bit of my story. I grew up in the suburbs of the Twin Cities. I often went camping and soon
developed a great appreciation for nature and land. Back in 1996, at the age of 18, 1 had a dream of having a farm, but even at
that young age, I recognized the fact that rural land was disappearing near the cities. When I was around 20, 1 started actively
searching for acreage on which to build my dream. However, my dream of the rural life, the life on a farm, was elusive. I didn't
want to be near power lines or anything industrial and it is hard to find affordable land with those specifications. After many years,
my search took me to Scandia. I loved Scandia's commitment to rural life..."Dedicated to Rural Community Values". I decided
that the drive was worth it if I could find something in Scandia. I had two near misses in Scandia. I made an offer on one piece of
land, but it was rejected. I almost made an offer on another piece of land that was one of two 40 acre parcels, but before I could
do so it sold to a solar developer. I did not make an offer on the other 40 acres because I didn't want to be next to solar. I was
disheartened and decided that 19 years was long enough and that I would make an offer on a property I didn't love. The very
same evening I decided to settle, I saw another listing. It was on beautiful Manning Trail, with pastoral views - a pond, trees, and
fields. It was exactly right ... just perfect for me. I was so excited, I sent four emails to my real estate agent that very night in
2015.
So, I bought my dream property on Manning Trail. It is surrounded by two farms and a wooded parcel. I've so enjoyed watching
all the wildlife on the pond. It is breathtaking. I've been working hard for the last year and a half to be able to build there,
have my plans drawn up and my driveway mostly in as of last fall. The wildlife is truly amazing! I see something different every
time I am out there. The views are beautiful. I was so excited to get started on building.
Then my neighbor told me she was planning to put in a solar garden. I was and am completely devastated. There would be 6
acres of solar panels right across the pond from me and 8 acres total of infrastructure. 19 years of careful planning and saving
and searching and striving for my dream was crushed in one simple phone call. I tried so hard to find an affordable rural property
that was not next to power lines or industry, but rather was rural and natural, only to find that, although the zoning is Agricultural
Core, my neighbor could actually put a for-profit, industrial power plant in her backyard. This is not a non-profit venture. It is not
something the landowner and neighbors decided to build and share like a real community solar garden. It is an industrial
enterprise where the developer and landowner profit while the neighbors, and I would contend the community, lose. I'm not even
sure if the landowner will profit in the end ... with potential property tax increases, insurance coverage requirements, and impacts to
mortgage, etc. (http://www.scolaro.com/solar-leases-property-owners-beware/). The developer may end up being the only one
who benefits, and they are not even from Scandia.
I am extremely upset and very disappointed. I do not want to live next to a solar power plant. I do not feel I should have to
because I bought in an area that has only agricultural zoning. I am holding off on my plans to build until I find out what
happens. If this industrial solar power plant gets built, I lose regardless of whether I keep the property or try to sell it. Since I am
not one to jump into something blindly, I did some research on solar. My property is directly south of the proposed site and I have
many concerns. They are as follows:
1. Solar panels: How green are they, really?
You might be surprised to find, as I was, that the manufacturing of solar panels produces large amounts of toxic waste.
You also may not know that there are toxins within the panels, which means that if solar panels are disposed of, they
need to go to toxic waste sites.
a. The toxic waste in solar panel manufacturing is significant. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control
reported that from 2007 to 2011, 46.5 million pounds of toxic sludge and contaminated water were taken to hazardous
waste sites ... most of which stayed in the state, but 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states, including
Minnesota. This was even before a major boom which came in 2012, a year when solar generating capacity sites
nearly doubled.
http://www.acregister.com/2013/02/1 I/solar-industr- ra les -with -hazardous -wastes/
htt ://www.n times.com/2013/05/29/business/ener-environmentlsolar owers-dark-side,htmi
b. Toxins produced in the manufacturing of solar panels consist of things such as silicon tetrachloride (a toxic byproduct
of making polysilicon), hydrofluoric acid (used to clean the polysilicon wafers), and cadmium sulfide or cadmium
telluride (used in making "thin-film" solar cells, cadmium is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin - meaning it can cause
inheritable mutations). These are just a few examples.
htt://news.national eo ra ph!c.com/news/ener /2014/11/141111 -solar -panel -manufacturing -sustainability -ran kin1
http://spectrum.ieee.orgAreen-tech/solar/solar energy _isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think
2. Health concerns
a. Solar panels contain toxins. Therefore, I have concerns with toxins leeching into the soil, groundwater, and well
water should panels crack, break, or be defective. City water is not available on my property in Scandia, so I would
need to use well water. I have concerns about all toxins, but of special concern are the panels that contain cadmium,
which is both carcinogenic and can cause inheritable mutations, which is why manufacturers so carefully protect their
workers from exposure to cadmium.
hft :lls ectrum.ieee.or !green-techdsolar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as- ou-think
htt s:llcleantechnica.com120141051011solar- anels-toxic-emissions/
b. Electromagnetic Radiation - EMR's from inverters and "dirty" electricity may cause long-term health issues due to
frequent exposure. This radiation can be transmitted hundreds of feet, and is a specific health concern of mine. I
tried extremely hard to find a property that was not in close proximity to any major power hub for these reasons.
http*//www.eiwellspring.org/SolarEMFHazard.pd
httos://pesn.com/archive]2013/01/06/9602261 Beware Dirty ElectricElectricty from Clean EnerQvlindex.htmi
https:llwww. solarpa nelta lk. com/forum/solar/what-s-the-best-solar-panels-and -the-gest-solar-company/876-are-there
adverse -health- roblems-with-livin -in- roximit -to- v anels
3. Safety concerns
a. Panels are increasingly defective due to manufacturers cutting corners to save on costs.
http:llinstituteforeneMyresearch.orglanalysislamericas-green-energy_problems-defective-solar paneisl
http://www,far!g law.com/blo /2014/06/minnesota-comp an _-recalls-solar- anels-due-to-defects.shtmI
b. Fires. One example: Solar panels in Los Angeles that had a 25 -year lifespan failed after only 2 years and caused 2
fires before the system was taken offline.
htt :llwww.n times.com/2013/05/29/business/erier-environment/salar- owers-dark-side.html
http:llwww.aitener YmD2.com/content.2hp?
c. Transformer leakage
http://www.altenergyniag-com/content-php?post type=1948
d. Combiner box damage
htt :fp lwww, altenergymgg.com/co_ntent.ghp?post type --1948
e. Who is doing the maintenance and how will it be funded? If the developer goes out of business, will that affect the
maintenance?
4. Property devaluation
My property devaluation, and those of my neighbors could be anywhere from 3-30%, An appraisal would need to be
done and I would need to consult with a lawyer upon review of the final plans to determine the extent of the damage.
5. Screening
a. I am concerned that the screening won't be maintained at 95% for the life of the project - i.e. dead trees replaced, etc.
Who will enforce this if the developer does not accomplish the 95% by year 2? Why has the developer only
committed to a 1 year warranty? Note: The existing trees by the pond are deciduous, thus not year-round screening.
b. I don't believe that a 95% screening is possible on the south due to the slope downward to the pond and the height of
screening needed. I estimate that it would take 45-50 feet in height of screening to achieve 95% on this slope.
would love to be in a city where the city council works hard to preserve the agricultural values of the community. I would also love
to be in a city where health, safety, and life savings that people invest in their property are all considered. I do not think it is wise to
grant a conditional use permit when we don't even know what we are getting ourselves into for 25 years. The developer has not
even said what kind of solar panels they will be using and they are looking for the permit to be approved without providing
specifications. How can we just blindly approve something without knowing what we are approving? What toxins will they
contain? Are they made in China? Are they from one of the manufactures with a 22% defect rate?
I am against industrial solar power plants in close proximity to people's homes as I believe it is unsafe and irresponsible both for
the current generation and the next. It is not the kind of alternative energy that I can feel good about living next to. I am also
against an industrial use of properties in agricultural zoning (and also in residential zoning).
I really want to build my dream. I am hoping that Scandia is the protector of the rural character and agricultural core that I
believed it to be. Please protect our agricultural heritage in compliance with the Scandia city code and the city's motto.
"Purpose. The AG C District is established to protect and preserve land for long-term agricultural production and to
preserve the rural character of the City. AG C District areas are designated Agricultural Core in the Comprehensive
Plan." -Scandia Development Code, Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations)
I ask that you vote "NO" to the permit for putting a solar garden on 23485 Manning Trail North. If you do not deny the permit, I
hope that you will table this matter until a future date to allow for more time for the specifics of the project to emerge and perhaps
to review some of the articles I've cited that may be of interest to you. It is prudent to consider carefully what we are committing to
before we jump in and have to live with the consequences for 25 or more years. Furthermore, I hope that you will consider doing
as some communities have already done and draft a zoning bylaw that restricts large-scale commercial solar projects to areas
designated for industrial use (htt s://www, bostong lobe.comlmetrolre ionalsisouth12013/05iO4fsolar-farm- roiects-hit-roadblocks-
soi1ie-cornrnunities-solar- roNects-meet-resistance-local) /'UFUAxSZE K4swEcCa9hPM/sto .html).
If this project should be approved despite my objections and those of other people affected, I request the following
1. That a high quality, non -Chinese manufactured solar panel be required.
2. That the EMR levels be reduced by installing quality inverters, twisting the DC wires 3 times per foot, and placing the wire
within steel (not aluminum) conduit.
3. That the soil and water be tested semi-annually for toxins.
4. That maintenance checks be done every other week on equipment and surrounding infrastructure. That these checks
involve looking for defective or damaged panels and replacing them. And that there be extra checks done after a storm.
5. That the project (including screening) only go as far south as the point at which the land starts sloping downward toward
the pond. The reason for this is that I do not believe that adequate screening can be installed on the slope. This was
discussed at the planning commission meeting and moving the southern boundary 50 feet northward was an option.
6. That there be a solid screen of coniferous spruce trees on the south and west sides of the project — screening 95% at a
depth of 25 feet.
7. That any living screening that dies be replaced as long as the solar panels exist on the proposed parcel.
8. That the developer be required to set up a fund for the purpose of maintaining the 95% screening, and this fund can be
used even if the developer goes out of business.
9. That the developer be required to setup a decommissioning fund, at 100% of its cost. If the developer wants to setup
the site, they should also have to tear it down at end -of -life and not expect the city or landowner to foot the bill.
10. That I be compensated for the devaluing of my land, the value of which will be determined based on final plans and upon
my consulting with an attorney.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I am available for any and all further dialogue.
Lori Jarvinen
4097 Wild Goose Lane
White Bear Township, MN 55110
651-315-3767
LJJ777@gmail.com