# Planning Commission Public Hearing - 2045 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives - February 16, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 16, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5767 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5767?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-16 - **Last revised**: February 16, 2023 - **Length**: 29,688 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 16, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Larry Forester presided over the meeting. The Commission considered one agenda item: "Imagine Lexington 2045 - Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives," which was presented for informational purposes. The meeting included 32 public comments from attendees. One motion was voted on during the session. No formal actions were taken on the agenda item, as it was designated as informational only. ## Attendance **Present:** Larry Forester, Anthony de Movellan, Janice Meyer, Graham Pohl, Robin Michler, Frank Penn, Judy Worth, Headley Bell, and Ivy Barksdale **Absent:** Nicol and Davis **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission voted on a motion to continue discussion of goals and objectives to the end of the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission meeting with no additional public input. **Motion:** Continue the discussion on the goals and objectives to the end of the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission meeting with no more public input **Moved by:** Bell **Seconded by:** Worth **Vote Type:** Roll call **Outcome:** Passed **Vote Count:** 7 ayes, 2 nays **Voted in favor:** - Larry Forester - Janice Meyer - Graham Pohl - Robin Michler - Judy Worth - Headley Bell - Ivy Barksdale **Voted against:** - Anthony de Movellan - Frank Penn ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment from 31 speakers addressing a range of topics related to comprehensive planning, growth management, and community development. **Growth and Development** Speakers presented divergent perspectives on urban expansion. Dr. Andy Roberts [0:25:17] expressed concerns about expanding the Urban Service Boundary and its impact on the horse industry. Carla Blanton [0:27:31] advocated for balanced growth and expressed concern about delays in expansion discussions. Andi Johnson [0:30:14] stressed the need for prioritizing employment and land opportunities for job creation. Bruce Simpson [0:51:48] represented job creators and emphasized the importance of expanding the Urban Service Boundary to provide jobs. In contrast, Will Adams [0:43:23] spoke about protecting the viability of rural land by keeping development areas within the current Urban Service Area. Multiple speakers, including Steve Kay [1:22:36], Don Todd [1:29:12], and Margaret Graves [1:41:41], expressed opposition to changes to the Urban Service Area boundary or support for preserving it. **Housing and Affordability** Several speakers highlighted housing challenges. Raquel Carter [0:33:35] highlighted the need for available housing for people of all income levels. Nolan Adams [1:45:16], Stephanie Hensley [1:47:53], and Emma Anderson [1:51:23] detailed personal struggles finding safe, affordable housing. Andrea Zang [1:54:03] stated that Imagine Lexington cannot be equitably implemented without policies addressing the housing crisis. Amy Clark [1:11:24] called for more balance in the urban area for equity and housing. **Environmental and Climate Concerns** Jesse Voigt [0:55:36] expressed concerns for stronger conservation language and representation on boards. Dick Shore [0:58:43] and Judith Humble [1:26:06] called for adding a specific date for carbon neutrality. Henry Jackson [1:01:32] called for additional steps to respond to climate change. Nachie Braga [1:38:11] spoke about conserving the urban water cycle in Fayette County. **Other Topics** Todd Johnson [0:35:45] expressed concern about finishing past Comprehensive Plan goals before making new ones. Matthew Williams [0:46:51] appreciated the Goals & Objectives work but was concerned about lack of youth and underserved population representation. Josh DeSpain [1:14:16] raised concerns about transparency and communication. B. Meade [1:21:32] shared desire to expand public transportation. Richard Murphy [1:18:52] supported a specific deadline for a growth management plan. ## Contested Items **Urban Service Area Boundary** The proposed expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary generated significant community opposition during the meeting. Public commenters expressed concerns about the potential impact on rural land and the horse industry. The discussion reflected disagreement over how to balance urban growth with preservation of rural character and agricultural uses in the region. **Affordable Housing** Affordable housing emerged as a contentious issue, with numerous public comments emphasizing the critical need for affordable housing options and describing challenges faced by renters in Lexington. The topic prompted robust discussion among commission members, indicating substantive disagreement or differing perspectives on how to address the housing affordability crisis and what role the commission should play in solutions. ## Imagine Lexington 2045 - Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives The Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives [timestamp: 0:00:00]. The meeting included staff presentations and public comments regarding the comprehensive plan. **Key Speakers** Chris Woodall and Larry Forester were the primary speakers during this agenda item. **Outcome** The item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken during the hearing. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-2): Continue the discussion on the goals and objectives to the end of the February 23, 2023 Planning Commission meeting with no more public input --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon everyone. If you have not signed in to speak, please do so up there in the front when you're walking in through the doors there. We like to keep track of any individual that's looking to speak today. Please do so by signing in on a sign-in sheet. We like to call this meeting to order. We are going over the comprehensive plan, goals and objectives. This is the public hearing. We have a full house here today. So based on the agenda, just remember each individual will have three minutes to speak. That's per individual. There will not be any minutes passed on to the next person. Each individual constituent will have three minutes. So first up, this is staff presentation. Mr. Woodall. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Chris Woodall. I'm the Manager of Long Range Planning here for the City, and it's a good day to be here to talk to you all about the future of Lexington and about Imagine Lexington, our comprehensive plan. So we'll start out with something that you all are very familiar with, which is Imagine Lexington, our current 2018 comprehensive plan. And today we're talking about transitioning from our current comprehensive plan into the future of Lexington and going from the 2018 plan to the 2045 comprehensive plan. And so previous to this plan, we've been marking the date of our comprehensive plans by the date of their update. But this time we took a specific approach to indicate the forward-looking nature of this plan. And so we've titled it the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, indicating that we are looking into the future. But before we go into the future, I want to let you all know some of the emphasis statements of Imagine Lexington, the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, because that's pretty important. And as I'll explain here, that's what this current set of goals and objectives is built upon. So first we've got corridor redevelopment, anticipating shifts, continued shifts in our retail landscape, improving our transit infrastructure, determining compatible land uses, meeting our growth needs, prioritizing infill and making sure that we can provide more housing opportunities, focusing on redevelopment and adaptive reuse opportunities as well. placemaking, creating inspiring and quality private and public spaces, encouraging well-designed and well-intentioned spaces, and making sure that our development that we have in Lexington results in community. It had an emphasis on economic development, enhancing the quality of lives of the people who are here for both existing and prospective residents, but also expanding the capacity for jobs and research through the Coldstream land swap with the university of kentucky and then certainly one of the underpinnings of all planning in lexington as the balance between urban and the rural improving and creating a process a new process for how we address land use decisions in the urban service boundary so additionally it's about maintaining lexington's unique agricultural areas while still being able to provide for the growth and evolution of our city and then lastly the last two are important it's public engagement right? And that was a thrust of the previous plan, making sure that we're reaching out to the public and providing education opportunities, but also understanding the thoughts and the concerns that they have. The 2018 plan was built on this, and I think you will see that the 2045 plan is as well. And then certainly we've had a focus on updating and modernizing our regulations, which is incredibly important to getting us to meeting the goals that you all have said that we are putting forward. So with that in mind, that that is the framework for this comprehensive plan, the sort of staff process for building these goals and objectives was to build on the foundation of that plan and limit the proposed changes to only the things that we saw within the past five years that our research indicated and certainly the public input that we'll describe here in just a little bit. Some of the inputs to our goals and objectives included our public input report, where we saw thousands of people and participating in on the table we also had organizational input our divisions here internal to the government and then commerce lexington and again i will expand on those in a little bit we also looked at some research the census data national regional local trends planning best practices and then the sustainable growth task force had an existing a rather robust set of existing conditions that we used to base our information on. And certainly the events of the last five years, the Mayor's Commission for Racial Justice and Equality and the important work that they did to put together that report, the Neighborhoods and Transition Task Force, and then the Council and the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee both put forward recommendations for what we should consider in developing this plan. So this is a timeline that you all are very familiar with because you lived it. This has been the life in the Planning Commission for the last year. It really started in January of 2022 where we introduced the timeline to you and told you what the plan was going to be moving forward. And obviously we've had some twists and turns as we've gone along, but we've made our way here today. So about a year ago, we had a public input discussion, and we really kind of kicked off our public input opportunities, and those continued in the spring. And then we dug into our data at our little science fair experiment down on the third floor in Phoenix where we went through and talked through the data and what we're seeing existing conditions here in Lexington and what the trends are, as I said, big picture in here locally. And then we had a public input report that was reported to you in May. And from there, we started to build the goals and objectives. So staff provided you with a draft, and from there, you all workshopped it all the way through to July. with a noticeable gap in theme E, goal three and four. And that was because in August and on through to December, there was work being done from the goal four work group set up by former Vice Mayor Kay. And so the Planning Commission had come to a consensus in July on a set of goals and objectives absent that piece. Planning staff brought that missing piece to you in January and we discussed, and that's where we have created the goals and objective proposal that's been finalized that you all are looking here today. There's been nothing that has changed since the January 19th work session where we took a look at it. So I want to explain to you all the vast public input that went into this plan, and it started with our primary public input, which was on the table, where this time around Civic Lex was the leading agency, and we engaged thousands of people in that process and asked them this time very specific questions about what they wanted to see for the future of Lexington. And what we saw was a very robust response. And you can see here each of these lines indicates a category or a theme or a topic that was discussed by people during those. And you can see too they're color-coded by the different theme of question that they answered. So there's a lot of crossover between response. And what you can see is the codes by theme. These were the most important topics that were discussed, certainly the most frequent topics that were discussed. Walkability, bikeability, accessibility, public transportation and improving our current situation, amenities and quality of life, the environment. All of these things were important to the people that we asked to provide feedback and input. And certainly that was incorporated into the recommendations that you all have. Additionally, Commerce Lexington led a series of business meetings, roundtable events. There were nine total of these meetings that were facilitated with different segments of the economy, including the development sector, major employers, small businesses, hospitality, etc. And they asked them, you know, what is working well and what could be improved upon? And what they said was there was a highly educated workforce, and our location in the United States was good, and that there's a lot of development and action taking place, revitalization in downtown Lexington, and certainly a strong chamber of commerce and business relationships. But, of course, they included challenges as well, which is retaining and attracting and retaining talent employees, transportation barriers, specifically for those lower-wage employees. how are they going to be able to get to their jobs, housing, child care, all expensive, some things that we've seen on a national scale, but also certainly playing out here and were discussed in those roundtable events. So also the Division of Planning hosted these organizational input meetings, and we had 30 slots available for any group, civic group that wanted to, to come and be able to tell us as a staff what we needed to know so we could pass that along to the Planning Commission. We had 10 organizations all told that came and talked to us, included neighborhood associations, commission of people with disabilities, climate-focused environmental groups, the Kentucky Tenants Association, among others. And we presented that information to you as well. So the public input's important, but obviously you've got to understand what we're dealing with and what the city, what our current situation is. So again, we looked into data and analysis and collection and figuring out what are the current trends that we're seeing, what's the data telling us about where we're at, what are some things that are important here in Lexington, but nationally that are happening in equity, and in transportation, again, looking at those themes as well. But the two major themes that became prevalent through our discussions, through our look and research all the things that are taking place right now in and around Lexington and nationally, are focuses on equity and the environment. So on the equity side, we need to acknowledge the work that needs to be done to correct inequities in our historic planning practices and policies. And the Mayor's Social Justice and Equality Report that was again done by a committee of community folks gave us these recommendations specifically and did some important work. And our professional organization, the American Planning Association, recently revised the Code of Ethics to make sure that we as practicing certified professional planners are looking at these issues in communities across the country. And then on environment, we need to identify and mitigate local impacts for climate change. And these were recommendations that came from public input, it came from input from the Planning Commission, it came from our many different divisions as well. So here are some of the things that were talked about in terms of equity. These will become evident as we look through the proposal of the goals and objectives. Again, these are all important things that have happened since the last time we updated these goals and objectives. So with that, we'll kind of get right into the meat of the changes. I'm not going to go over every single line with you all, and I'm really only going to go over the changes that were made, and we'll start at the very beginning. So we'll start at the preamble and the mission statement. And here really what we see is a minor edit for clarity and including an additional equity component as well. Theme A, we changed from growing successful neighborhoods to growing and sustaining successful neighborhoods. We looked at infill and redevelopment, ways to encourage that, provide more detail on our focal points, and then of course implementing the mayor's report. So goal two explicitly calls out infill and redevelopment as an important item. It updates the list of our incentive programs and it splits out and relocates the housing affordability piece. So you may notice that there's a piece about housing affordability and we haven't taken that out we've just put it elsewhere in the goals and objectives. Here, goal three specifically talks about the urban forestry, urban forests and expanding the urban forest. Again, we didn't take that out. That's just been restructured, relocated to somewhere else to apply community-wide. Instead, we're focusing this objective on neighborhood improvements. Goal four specifically calls out our parks, our greenways, and recreational facilities for inclusion into neighborhoods. And then goal five is a brand new goal with new objectives and one of the most significant and important changes to the goals and objectives. And what it does is implement the Mayor's Report on Social Justice and Equality very explicitly. So you'll see objective A, we adopted language directly from the Mayor's Report that is directly in line with the American Planning Association's updated policies on equity. Objective B is where issues of housing affordability that I mentioned before were relocated from goal 2. Objective C calls out the need for equitable infrastructure investment and acknowledges the need to mitigate displacement pressures that sometimes come with those investments. Objective D supports the mayor's report calls for improving enforcement outcomes and ensuring that they are better protecting at-risk homeowners and renters. E, adds language to support the city's affordable housing programs. And F, and maybe most importantly, ensures that our zoning regulations are achieving the goals and objectives that we've set out for equitable housing development. Moving along to theme B. In theme B, we get a little bit more specific about our recommendations than perhaps we have been in the past. So admittedly, goal one previously lacked specificity. So broad improvements were made to address the specific community needs related to stormwater and sewer infrastructure. We've defined a list of desired outcomes instead of just listing a program. So the program itself is not the goal, the consent decree, but instead it's the desire to protect water resources. That's the goal. So instead we've listed out four significant outcomes that improve water quality, protect environmentally sensitive areas, and ensure adequate infrastructure for our growth. Goal two, this is actually a first for comprehensive planning in Lexington, where the community is specifically calling out the need to address climate change on a local policy level. First, like the consent decree, this goal has been substantially improved in its specificity. The updated objectives more clearly articulate the programs that provide us the information we need to tailor new programs aimed at reducing emissions, improving air and water quality, in creating a path for LFUCG to lead by example in this regard. Goal three is the new home for the urban forestry objective that we talked about before. So instead of applying just to neighborhoods, it now applies across the board. It also includes various enhancements for existing text with a focus on government coordination and environmental equity. Theme C, Goal 2, adds an equity component and improved language related to opportunities for small businesses and startups. And additionally, it makes clear that we not only want to attract talent, but we want to retain the talent that we already have. Goal 3 replaces existing, our existing Goal 3, following the city's 250-acre industrial property acquisition in Coldstream. So the new goal that's replacing it furthers the prosperity pillar of the existing comprehensive plan framework in Theme C and identifies ways to improve economic mobility and socioeconomic and health issues. These three new objectives address access to financing and home ownership, food, and social services. For theme D, we're talking about improving traffic calming and safety, site design and equitable transportation and electric vehicles. Goal 1, adds an important equity component to our transportation network goals. The objectives enhance options for those without access to vehicles and address pedestrian safety within our neighborhoods. Goal 2, we simplified the language on how to meet our urban design goals and provide safe and accessible development. And Objective D focuses on monitoring the outcomes of the newly passed parking regulations. And Goal 3 is really just a cleanup item here to move the old Goal 4 to an objective underneath Goal 3. so theme e is on balance the urban and rural balance here a simple edit to objective b was made to include equitable sustainability and goal two responded to the planning commission's feedback to include local food production and ag tech as important components of our agricultural economy So now we're going to talk a little bit about addressing the urban service area and the urban service boundary. So previously, the current comprehensive plan goals and objectives called specifically for a process to rethink the way that we make decisions based on the urban service boundary. And separate that into a completely separate discussion from the comprehensive plan goals and objectives. You can see that evidenced here in goal four. So the tasks that were outlined in goal four were to identify land for long-term preservation, identify land for potential future urban development, set up a process for adding land into the urban service boundary, and then implement that process as a comprehensive plan amendment that's adopted by the Planning Commission. So there were two groups that worked on this process since its inception as a goal for the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. The first was the Mayor's Sustainable Growth Task Force. And what it did was create a replicable and comprehensive data set that we used in the formation of these goals and objectives, but also it drafted an evaluation framework. The Goal 4 Committee, set up by former Vice Mayor Steve Kaye, created a map to identify the first two, specifically the land that was to be preserved and the land that is not to be developed for the long term, and identify the future land as well. It also made recommendations for a decision-making process so far that identifies when a need exists to expand the urban service boundary and what that process might look like. So to be clear, in the goals and objectives that you all have before you today, there's no adoption of either one of these documents, the Sustainable Growth Task Force and the Goal for Workgroup report. But rather what it says is that these were important steps moving us closer to a process to identify how we make these important decisions regarding the urban service boundary. And what the goal and objective here says is that we would like to build on the work of the Goal 4 work group and the Sustainable Growth Task Force in order to complete an urban service area growth management plan. So that's not a specific endorsement of any of the specific recommendations within those things, but rather saying that those conversations had merit and they moved the conversation forward. and those are important. And as the council said in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives and the Planning Commission as well, this is an important task for us to consider. So the recommendation here is that we move forward, we build on those with a robust amount of stakeholder engagement, a robust amount of public involvement, more research, more development, continue those conversations that we started in order to create a process that will allow us to make informed and smart land use decisions regarding the urban service boundary. So also I should mention that while we're talking about picking up this work at the end of the comprehensive planning process, what we're really talking about here is something that is ongoing. One of the implementation items of the Goal 4 workgroup was to study the sewer ability of areas outside the urban service boundary. Now this project is funded and it is moving forward and it's currently being managed and will be completed by the Division of Water Quality. And it's to provide information for the process that I was just talking about so we can again make informed decisions about not should we but could we, right? The sewer ability study would tell us could we. And the answer of should we has to be more fully fleshed out in an urban service area growth management plan. So the goal from the Division of Water Quality is to have a draft of this study by fall of 2023. All right, moving us back into theme F so we can finish this out here and get to the public comment. The implementation here, a couple of things. Here in goal one, the objectives really are about broadening the scope of public engagement to not only include residents but stakeholders, anybody who's interested in a particular project, and particularly engaging historically in underrepresented populations. Goal two, this recognizes that we've got a new process for receiving annual data updates, the Sustainable Growth Task Force, and additionally, the old Objective C that you see here that's stricken through resulted in the creation of the place builder in the previous comprehensive plan. So the recommendation of this proposal is now to make explicit the need to update our regulations to implement the other goals and objectives that are throughout this plan. So the proposed timeline today is February 16th. We're here for the public hearing. If everything goes well today, then the council has 90 days after we've delivered the Ural's recommendation to the council. They have 90 days with which to adopt the goals and objectives. They will be the final stop in creating the direction of where this comprehensive plan is going. And we'll continue our work with you all and working through the elements and the implementation phase, the next phase of this plan. We won't just stop. We will continue to work on that as the council is working through the goals and objectives. And, of course, anything that we ultimately adopt will have to reflect the goals and objectives that the council will ultimately approve. But, nevertheless, we'll continue our work with you all. And then, hopefully, in summer of this year, we'll have a public hearing on the elements and implementation of Imagine Lexington 2045. And then we'll return to the work of implementing the comprehensive plan. So the reasons we have this timeline are to be able to complete it within our statutorily required time frame. statute says we've got to review analyze and potentially update these the comprehensive plan every five years so this keeps us on track to be able to do that we're also going to be able to keep the urban service area process moving with the sewer ability study like i mentioned has continued to be ongoing and then we'll be able to return to the work of the implementing the comprehensive plan quickly and getting back to the urban service area process once that sewer ability study data is complete and we can begin to build from that. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that's all I have for the moment. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have or seat the floor for public comment. I think we'll take citizen comments first. So this is time for citizen comments, statements. Let me read this. I'll do my best. First up is this A.M. Roberts. Is that what I'm saying? Thank you all for the opportunity to talk. My name is Dr. Andy Roberts. I'm an equine veterinarian. I live on a farm on Old Richmond Road. and I think that perhaps the as we say in the horse business the cart is before the horse here. If you go to theme E, goal 4, section A, basically the way I read that is that we are opening up for an unlimited growth of the urban service district bit by bit, which is the way I see it happening. This is the second time I've been in this building in a month. I don't often ask for anything of the government. As a matter of fact, I'd like you to have the lightest input on my life humanly possible. I'm conservative by nature. We live out in the country for a reason. We like it there. We want it to stay that way. Many of the goals in the plan are noble, but destroying the horse business destroys me personally. If there are no horses, I don't have a job. If the rural land area doesn't remain rural, there's no horses, and I've got to have someplace else to go. So I think this is a really important thing. You guys need to consider this with great magnitude because if we get rid of the thing that makes Lexington what it is, it would be just like saying let's move U.K. to Richmond. Nobody would ever dream of that. So that urban service district is a critical, critical issue when you guys look at these things. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Carla, that's Glanton. Good afternoon. My name is Carla Blanton. I'm a board member of Lexington for Everyone and a former planning commission member. Lexington for Everyone is a nonprofit that works to educate and advocate for how our land use policies impact our everyday lives, particularly related to housing, jobs, and equity. And our community does a great job of selling the dream of Lexington. But through the city's land use policies, we are telling people that dream isn't for them. They can own a home somewhere else. They can find a job somewhere else. They can start a business somewhere else. And they can be involved in some other community. To be clear, we know the horse industry is so much of what makes Lexington special. And we don't want to lose that either. We also recognize that infill and redevelopment is an important strategy. but it shouldn't be the only strategy for the city's growth. Infill and redevelopment is expensive and flexible, and most residents, as you know, feel well from sitting up there, are opposed to projects that would add density to their neighborhoods. There has to be a more balanced approach to growth, and we must do it now. And the good news is that we're asking for you today is a policy that's been approved by two government bodies already. We simply ask you to approve what you've already done. Both the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council approved a 2018 comprehensive plan, goals and objectives that mandated that by 2020, land would be identified for future inclusion into the urban service area. After a delay of more than two years, the Goal 4 workgroup took an admirable task of creating a process that would begin to look at possible locations for homes and workforce. And now, with that plan in danger of being placed on the shelf and no timeline in the current draft goals and objectives before you, that delay now seems like a best-case scenario. We need to process now to plan for common-sense growth and opportunity. It should include land that is near the interstate, that is sewerable, that follows property lines, has a willing seller, and meets the need for jobs and housing, and it should establish a specific deadline so we don't have to wait 10 years to begin addressing the need. Delay is not a solution, not when Lexington was ranked seventh in the country in rent increases in 2022, not when the census numbers in December show that Lexington has lost population for the first time in our lifetimes, and not when housing prices have gone up 80 percent in 10 years. We appreciate your service and we appreciate the inclusion of affordable housing that's referenced in theme C, which lists some of the things that Lexington for Everyone is advocating. We now simply ask that you include a specific deadline for determining how Lexington will accommodate land for much needed housing and jobs. Thank you. Thank you. Andy Johnson. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Andy Johnson, and I'm the Chief Policy Officer for Commerce Lexington. Our organization represents nearly 2,000 employers and job creation in Lexington and Central Kentucky. Our mission is to promote and grow a vibrant economy in Lexington, and our team works every day to recruit and retain businesses as well as attract and retain a diverse labor force to the city. In recent years, our city has lost 1,500 jobs to surrounding counties. and another thousand jobs are in jeopardy of relocating elsewhere because we do not have enough options for businesses to grow here in Lexington. And without jobs, we begin to lose our young professionals and our talented workforce to other cities. Site selection consultants recommend that our community have at least 500 acres of contiguous, shovel-ready land to compete. Currently, we have less than a handful of small sites properly zoned for I-1 scattered throughout the urban service area. More land inventory is needed to support our high-growth sectors. Yes, the Legacy Business Park will add another 130-plus acres of industrial land to our inventory when it comes online in a few years. But as we've learned, it takes time for land to be developed once it has been identified. Therefore, we believe it's imperative our goals and objectives place a priority on continuing to address a continuum of property for jobs. In Theme C, Goal 2, we are advocating for more detailed language, encouraging land development that enables Lexington to attract, expand, and retain jobs in our growth sectors, and language that prioritizes identifying additional land opportunities for job creation. In theme E, goal four, important data such as the vacant land inventory and the sewer ability study are being updated in the months ahead. So we're recommending adding language that expedites the deadline for adoption of a growth management plan by the Planning Commission and Council by the end of 2023. Our community cannot afford to wait another five years for a plan to strategically consider growth in appropriate areas with qualifying criteria. This work needs to continue with a sense of urgency. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. We know this is the first time we've been able to speak to you about these draft goals and objectives with input, so we look forward to continuing to work with staff, planning commission members, and the council members on updates to the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. Raquel O'Connor? Good afternoon. So I'm Raquel Carter. I'm here on behalf of the Lexington for Everyone. I'm on the board there as well. But it's so exciting to see all of you guys up there. I sit up there sometimes, so it's better here than up there, Larry, I will tell you that. But anyway, I just want to bring a unique or not so unique perspective to what we're talking about today. As a business owner, as a realtor for 20 years, as a woman of color, as all of these things, I'm so excited to even be able to have this conversation with you guys about Lexington, about our community, and about how we can make Lexington for everyone. In the presentation, we touched on housing and housing affordability, and I would definitely say that's my wheelhouse. But what I would also say more important than that is inclusion, being able to include everyone, include everyone in all nationalities, include everyone in all incomes, and be able to create a Lexington where people can buy into this dream, just as Carla said. We talk about affordability, but we also need to just talk about the availability of housing. When we talk about our families getting housing and adequate housing, we know, first of all, that that's the first step in wealth building. We know that affects schools, it affects children, it affects our future just to be able to have the opportunity to get into homeownership. And whether that's an entry-level homeowner or whether that's a new couple with a new baby, we find struggles in all of those price points currently in trying to create a Lexington for everyone. So I just want to be sure that as we're having the conversation about growth and about expansion, it's not just about land, it's about the people that are involved in it. And as we advocate and we celebrate who we are as Lexington right now, if we say this is all we could ever be, and if we can say whoever already has a part of the dream are the only people that will be able to do it, then we're purposely excluding people and not allowing them to have an opportunity for that. And that includes our kids, that includes our grandkids. And so we just want to make sure whatever decisions we make, you know, they are inclusive. They are including people from all walks of life and all spaces. So thank you all. Thank you. Todd Johnson. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. I appreciate you guys having this public comment forum for us today. I appreciate all your work and staff's work on the goals and objectives to this point. My name is Todd Johnson, and I'm with the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky, and we really only have one item to bring before you all today for consideration. We feel it is unacceptable to go forward today with the goals and objectives until you consider the fact that we haven't completed the work of theme E-goal 4 to this point. There was a time-bound element in the last comprehensive plan, which has been talked about here before today, for this to have been done in 2020, summer of 2020. We've missed that by a long shot, weren't prepared to get there even before COVID hit in March of 2020. in my opinion. We are asking today that you all consider a time-bound element to finishing this work by the end of 23, specifically December 31 of 23, before you move forward. We feel like this sets the foundation to move forward in a new comprehensive plan era, and without doing so would be almost irresponsible not to complete the work of the previous plan before you go into the next one. Thank you, Bunch, for your time. thank you next one I may give the first name so I'm gonna go with the last name it's Bob thank you Thank you. Yes, my name's Bub Crutcher. I've been a long-time resident in the Blue Sky area, 284 Blue Sky Parkway. My brother and I have run business there for over 40 years and been fairly successful by just sticking to what we do. But today I'm talking about a piece of property we own on 8th and Boonesboro Road. Many years ago, I bought it with the intentions of it was a very steep valley with a photography that would not allow it to be developed in a fast manner. Now, with 20 years of work on it, with my bulldozer and tens of thousands of loads of clean dirt and rock materials that have been brought from many job sites like Hamburg and UK and hundreds of jobs around Lexington, and the clean fill has brought the elevation level up to a point that it's really shaping up to look like something. I apologize for the heading on my letters. I had a miscommunication on who I was speaking to, even though I feel like the order right now is more correct than what I thought. So, you know, Jim Duncan, I met him when he first came to Lexington or to the city, and he knows I've been struggling with getting this property promoted for a future growth for all these years, four or five comprehensive plans I've went through. But with saying that, we would certainly like to see a portion of our 80 acres considered. It faces on 8th and Spoonsboro Road. It runs from the old Waffle House, which has been closed, all the way to the city-owned ballpark. and it's exactly across the street from Blue Sky Industrial Park, the auto auction, and several hotels. So it's surrounded by commercial uses, not to mention the cell tire in the rear. So the impact on any surrounding property as a commercial use would be none. And I have a lot of people ask me almost quite frequently, why isn't something there? I mean, you get off interstate, drive a few hundred feet, and there's nothing on the right. I do have three state-approved road entrances that are repaved. And, you know, I've done a lot of work with engineers and the city on keeping my grading permit in order. and worked with Army Corps engineers, put in a beautiful retention down near the interstate. We are directly across from that new soccer stadium development, so it's pretty certain that it looks like it ought to be something more than it is. It would be beneficial to Fayette County far more than it is now, nothing but mowing and trying to keep it look good. I pick up the trash and do all I can to keep it looking nice. But I've met with Charlie Martin several times. I have a sewer pump station on my property that is in the AR zone that takes care of five businesses that are using it every day. it's 50 years old it just happened to be on my property that i bought so now i'm i'm the one that has to go work on it excuse me i go up there every day of the week to make sure it's not overflowing mr crutch your time is up okay well in saying that i have proven on paper that the Property will. Gravity flow. I've shown a map there, so I really appreciate y'all's time and consideration and everything you do for Fayette County. Appreciate it. Thank you. Will Adams. Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission, thank you for allowing us to be here this afternoon. My name is Will Adams. I'm with the Bluegrass Land Conservancy, where I serve as Director of Strategic Initiatives and Assistant Council. And it is in that capacity that I give my remarks today. Bluegrass Land Conservancy is a 501c3 land trust that protects our region's distinctive soils, cultural heritage, scenic vistas, natural resources, and farmland through voluntary permanent conservation easements. In that capacity, we hold real property interests in Fayette County on 17 properties totaling 2,391 acres. When practicing land conservation, we rely on local comprehensive plans as a statement of values expressing the community's support for land conservation. These values are crucial not only to the statement of conservation values included within the easement documents, but they are also critical to our ability to pursue private and federal funding in support of our efforts. We appreciate the retention of supporting language in Theme D, Goal 3, and Theme E, Goals 1, 2, 3, and in Part 4. These expressions will continue to aid our work into the future. However, we do have concerns about the adoption seemingly by reference in theme E, goal 4, of the Sustainable Growth Task Force and goal 4 workgroup's urban service area growth management plan. As previously expressed when the goal 4 report was before the Urban County Council, we feel that this plan inappropriately injects uncertainty into the future viability of agricultural lands in areas of the community where we hold conservation easements. Specifically, we oppose the approach to define potentially developable areas because it impairs the conservation values of our protected properties, as well as the agricultural and scenic nature of these areas, which were protected for the benefit of the general public. The federal government supported the protection of these properties by allowing the landowners a tax deduction so long as the conservation values on the properties are protected for the benefit of the public in perpetuity. Fractured farmland is not viable farmland. Incompatible neighboring uses can present noise pollution, degrade air quality, reduce pollinator viability, and affect microclimates and impair transportation linkages. By creating defined development areas that substantially, and in some cases completely, surround conserved farmland, the future development strategy undercuts the continued agricultural viability of these properties. In the face of continued population growth, a warming climate, and geopolitical instability, greater consideration for the protection of local agricultural viability is needed. Uncertainty discourages investment. The strategy of identifying overly broad swaths of land as subject to future development will have the immediate impact of disincentivizing agricultural producers for making the improvements necessary to keep their land viable for agriculture in the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Matthew Williams. Hello my name is Matthew Williams, lover, thinker, husband, father, connector, builder and I aspire to be a bridge. I'm here. I also sit on the board of NASW Kentucky which is National Association of Social Workers. I'm on their board of directors. I'm currently vice president of Lexington FED NAACP. I want to start by saying thank you. Thank you to Imagine Lexington. Shout out to Civic Lex. Shout out to the public that gave all that wonderful public input. I'm really pleased and just filled up with gratitude that the language in this draft is actually moving in a positive direction for all people, right? We talk about things, so thank you. Thank you, Imagine Lexington. Thank you, Planning Commission. Shout out Civic Lex. Thank you, Public. Anybody who had a part of that, thank you. I'm here today, too, to speak to not just you all, but to speak to our city council members, to speak to the entirety of Lexington, right? And ask a couple questions, right? So around this wonderful language that we see in there, We see things like safety, equity, anti-racism, right? Growing and sustaining safe neighborhoods. But I come to ask y'all, for who? What does safety mean to you? I think we need to reexamine these definitions of these flowery words that we're putting into this draft. And like, how is it defined for everybody, right? When we think about safety, is it just like physical safety? Or does my emotional and psychological safety matter? Does that matter for my children? Right. So I'm encouraging you to ask yourself those questions. When we talk about an anti-racist approach, who's qualified to do that? How are you going to do that? Right. And I'm not just speaking to the planning commission again. This is to the people, to the city council, to everybody. Right. So who's qualified to do that? And how can how can we see that? How can we see that? How can you get there? Right. Another another some other things I saw in there, underserved, underrepresented. it. That's great. But who is that? Let's be more specific with our language, right? One more thing I saw in there is all people and historically excluded people. Those are important words right there because people that are being excluded are indigenous folks. We got to talk about land theft, right? We got to look at the actual history that we've all lived through and we got to think about that for our future. I'm also a little disappointed to see the makeup of our planning commission. When I look at the KRS statutes, it says some stuff in there like people that are that have like financial interests can't be on the board. It doesn't really look like that up here right now. I see a lot of realtors, a lot of developers, and that goes directly against KRS statutes. So I'm confused by that. And I'm also not seeing a representation of the people. I'm looking at people that are in the top I would get just guessing top 20% of incomes that's going to be generous may I please have one more minute chairman I mean homie just got to pass out his papers and stuff took a whole extra minute but I have one more minute alright thank you I appreciate you okay thank you so again I would ask you all like I'm confused by that I'm confused by the makeup So I would ask you all to look into your hearts and do what's right and consider resigning from your positions right now, immediately. And allowing people to actually represent the people of Lexington into these positions planning for our future. And something else that's missing is youth representation. How do we not have no youth voices on the planet like in this conversation for planning when they're the ones that are going to have to live here? And I also call on Lexington to call for the resignations and removal of everybody up here who has a conflict of interest in planning. Okay? So, council members that's in here, I know there's a couple of y'all. Y'all need to call for the removal of these people that have conflict of interest. And let's have a planning commission that's going to plan, actually plan for all people and can represent those perspectives. Respectfully, thank you for the extra time. Thank you for your hard work. And I'm so grateful for the love that y'all put into this draft. But love is also accountability, and I'm here to hold to account that we can do better. We can do better. Thank you all. Thank you. Bruce Simpson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm an attorney. This is my 35th year of participating in comprehensive plans, I'm privileged to say. I'm here actually representing two different groups of businesses that are offering the opportunity to train young people for jobs and to provide young people and others for jobs. and this property is located south of Athens Boonesboro across from Blue Sky Industrial Parkway. That's why I'm here. The observations I'm about to make, though, are personal. I've had the privilege of representing neighborhoods and developers for 35 years. I've never been called upon to represent a marginalized group, a disenfranchised group, a group of unemployed people, a group of people looking for housing that they could afford, I've never gotten that call. No one's ever contacted me about that. Instead, I have represented neighborhoods who could afford to pay what I agreed to charge them, and the same way with developers. The people that attend these planning commission workshops over the years are not the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the unemployed, or people looking for homes. They are people with homes and with jobs who have the time and the inclination to come down and speak for their property rights as they should, to preserve their neighborhood as they should. But the people that are left out are the people that don't attend. You've heard from a couple of them today. They've taken some positions that I don't necessarily agree with, but I appreciate the spirit in which they gave it. Fortunately, your staff does speak for these people that are marginalized, unemployed, don't have homes, looking for housing. They do speak in the language of this document. But when it comes to implementing those important words, there's no group advocating for them. Now, the folks that I'm representing with respect to employment, meaningful jobs, highly skilled jobs, training and employment, the impact of what they would do is to benefit the people that don't attend these meetings, that need these jobs and then can afford housing that keeps increasing in Lexington. you all are the stewards you and the council for the people that never attend the meetings of the comp plan you are all the stewards and the guardians of these people and they don't hire lawyers I'd do it for Opono if they call me but they didn't call me, they haven't and they don't have a voice when it comes to implementing the plan there's no advocacy group speaking for them and so it's left to you and the council, and we have not added land in this urban services boundary since 96. We're not serving many, many Lexingtonians because they're not adequately represented when it comes to representing the comprehensive plan and advocating for those positions. It's a disservice to our fellow citizens that are in this group that are marginalized and disfranchised, and we need to stop it now. I agree with Todd Johnson. We ought to have a deadline of December 31, 2023 to have a growth implementation plan and to allow the opportunity that my clients have to provide jobs, meaningful, high-paying jobs, and skilled trades for the citizens in Lexington who are not represented here today. Thank you. Thank you. Jessie Voigt. Hi, my name is Jessie Voight. I own an architecture firm in Lexington. Also, I am an elected official for the Fayette County Conservation District. So I primarily wanted to come here to talk about the goals and objectives that I've seen in regards to protecting the environment. I've looked over this document. I've also commented to long-range planning on this. And ultimately, I think this is a great step in the right direction because I've lived here for five years. And I can tell you five years ago we weren't even touching these topics. So I think it's really great that this is being brought to the table. With that said, as I've said to Long Range Planning before, I think we can go even further. There's a lot of, as the use of the word that Matthew was using, flowery language when it comes to environmental discussions. And I think we can be a little bit more rigid on that. One of the council members, I'm sure you'll hear, Mr. Savigny, he was mentioning that we should put in there that we should have a goal for, for instance, climate change for 2050 and how we deal with that with our emissions. Because we address certain things in here about promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest throughout Lexington. But let's be real, we know our canopy hasn't gone anywhere for over 20 years. We've had a tree canopy look at in 2010, and we've had another one just recently, and we've grown by 2%. So unless we have, like, actual goals that state how we're going to do this, we can't even possibly begin to look at emissions because we have no carbon sink to look at. So it's really important that we put in intents and language in our documents that hold us accountable to what we're doing. And I lastly want to just address what Mr. Williams had said, because it is something that we address on a conservation standpoint of who represents what boards and who are coming to it. As our conservation district, I'm newly elected, and so what I've noticed is that our district, we don't have enough representation. We reach out, most of the people who reach out to us are from 40502 and 40503. And that's on us to really reach out to the different districts and why and what they think of conservation, what it means to them. And it's incredibly important that we begin looking at Lexington as Lexington and Fayette County as Fayette County. And hearing about the urban service boundary and hearing about this divide. Well, conservation does not have a divide. A bee will fly across the boundary. People will travel across the boundary. How do we holistically look at this? And I think it's high time that we have a comprehensive conservation master plan that we look at and we notate beyond policies what's important for people and how growth is important for our different districts. And on that note, with this sort of idea of who's in representation, it is really important when we look at boards and commissions to ask how many districts are being represented here. Like, is there a district one? I mean, how many people on this board represent district five, which is, to be all fair, one of our wealthier districts? So I think it's really important we start looking at our policies and procedures on who our planning boards are, who our commissions are. And this goes beyond planning commission. This is tree board, every board. This is even our board. How are we representing these people? And, you know, given the time, it's 1.30 right now. How many working class people come here? I'm lucky. I own my own business. I can come here and make the time. So thank you very much. Thank you. Dick Shore. Good afternoon. I'm Dick Shore. I'm not representing anybody else. I live at 205 Catalpa Road. Have for 30 years now. First, I'm very pleased that although this is a land use document, there are a number of things in it that we can do whether we grow or not. And I think it's very important to keep in mind those things that we can do whether we grow or not. There are some people that tell me that the earth is finite and continued growth is not only impossible, it's very destructive, but we don't need to address that issue. The fact is there are a lot of things in here which we can and want to do whether we grow or not. Secondly, I spent a fair amount of my adult time invested it as a middle manager, both in the private sector and government, so I know the value of having numerical goals. You can tell whether or not you meet them. I have a very specific suggestion in theme B, protecting the environment, goal two, objective A. I suggest that we add a specific numerical goal, that we're carbon neutral by date certain, and I would suggest 2050. That gives us time to do it. It says we're serious about it. And much of this document deals with filling the holes up after we dig them. or rescuing the children from the river after somebody's thrown them in. We need to go upriver and find out who's throwing those kids in the river. So to have a carbon neutral goal by 2050 says not only are we accommodating ourselves to the damage that the climate instability is causing, we're doing something about minimizing the climate crisis that we have created for ourselves. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Henry Jackson. Hi, my name is Henry Jackson. I'm a member of the Bluegrass Climate Action Team. I have one comment. First, I'd like to thank the Commission for including some of our proposed new theme A, anticipating and adapting to climate change. However, I'd like to urge the Commission to still consider adopting the proposed theme in its entirety. The emphasis of its nine objectives is to conduct an assessment of our climate change vulnerabilities and to prepare a resilience plan that addresses those identified needs. Although the current plan, the current draft, does call for that, there are eight other objectives in that theme that we've proposed, calling for additional priorities and steps, acknowledging and responding to the climate emergency. The thrust of our proposal is to hope for the best and plan for the worst. And this is important, separate from any proposed citywide reductions Dr. Strong was just talking about, and that the city make an assessment of how Lexington may be affected and might respond in any event. While all of the increasing, truly destructive weather consistently blows around Fayette County, we will still have very likely impacts as global warming continues to accelerate, such as ever hotter heat waves, supply chain interruptions, first responder impacts, and then possible less obvious impacts, such as an influx of eco-immigrants in search of safer areas as climatic conditions worsen in the lowlands. The bottom line is that this decision is a simple risk assessment. I would ask members of the Commission to ask themselves what is the chance that global warming could reach 1.5 degrees Celsius sometime within the next 20 years. Is it 5 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent? And whatever your guess, is it worth the risk to not take a comprehensive look at the threat and prepare a plan to deal with it? And I'm not suggesting to actually spend any money other than the cost to assess the situation and plan accordingly. The World Meteorological Organization recently estimated that there's a 48% chance that average global temperature will reach 1.5 degrees Celsius within at least one of the next five years. That would be roughly a 35% increase in warmth compared with the last two years in Lexington. We've already seen what's happening in this current much lower temperature. Just imagine what a 35% increase in warmth may trigger. The larger consensus is that with the rise in worldwide emissions continuing unabated, that the planet will likely keep getting warmer and way beyond that point. But whether it's five years or 20 years out, that's no time left at all for your kids and grandkids to deal with whatever higher levels of impact are in store for them. Thanks for your consideration. I have a lead behind that I'll lead with staff. Thank you. Thank you. Ashley Dunsmore. Hello, Planning Commission. My name is Ashley Dunsmore. I'm the Director of External Affairs at Fayette Alliance. We are a nonprofit organization dedicated to achieving smart, sustainable, and equitable growth in Lexington, Fayette County. We provided a letter to you in support of the majority of the goals and objectives recommended by planning staff and with recommendations for changes specifically related to Theme E, Goals 3 and 4, and we appreciate your careful consideration of our letter. as long as the letter may be in light of the importance of the goals and objectives and the roadmap it provides for growth in our community. First and foremost, we want to applaud planning staff and planning commission's efforts on the 2045 goals and objectives. In such a short time after the innovative 2018 comprehensive plan was adopted, much work has been involved in implementing the recommendations and I know it has not been easy. In addition to that, in preparation for this current update, planning staff undertook public input from organizations in a thoughtful way and worked closely with Civic Lex to gather diverse public input from thousands of Lexingtonians through On the Table. And the edits to include recommendations of the Mayor's Commission on Racial Justice and Equality and the input from On the Table around environmental sustainability, equity, and the importance of maintaining our urban-rural boundary, thoughtful in invulnery development and more lay the groundwork for long needed attention to the impacts of land use policy on our most underrepresented community members and the need to continue our long-held practices of sustainable growth and preventing urban sprawl. Maintaining the current urban services boundary and the rural activity centers are key to meeting our future growth needs responsibly and intentionally. Research has consistently made clear we have significant amounts of vacant and underutilized land to accommodate our growth. Significantly we have land to grow jobs in July 2022, Lexington set a record for number of people employed, the fourth highest amount since 1990. Millions of square feet and thousands of acres are available for employment in warehousing, logistics, manufacturing, and more. The 200 acre legacy business park has been approved for funding for infrastructure development and marketing for new high paying jobs. Research and history shows that expanding the USB will not decrease housing prices or create affordable housing. It also shows that what we do need is a diversity of housing types and different price points to meet our demographic needs and create long-term affordability. Significant investment has been made in affordable housing and more is needed, but our policy changes to enable more housing supply are on the right track. Staff has also made recommendations to address the continued need for a long-term process to evaluate growth policy decisions around the USB, how it is created is key thank you for your time thank you Michelle Lutz you know okay all right Aaron Michael okay Brittany Rothenmeier Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Brittany Rothmeier, the Executive Director of Fate Alliance. As Ashley mentioned, thank you, a big thank you to both Planning Commission and planning staff for all of your work on the goals and objectives. I want to speak specifically to the recommendations made in the Fate Alliance letter that you all received related to Theme E, Goals 3 and 4. Fade Alliance would support a process that continues to focus on infill and redevelopment as our primary growth strategy and that prioritizes protection of our invaluable resources, but that also enables our community to take the long view and have time necessary between comprehensive plans to implement the steps outlined and meet our long-range needs. The public hearing on the Goal 4 Workgroup report in December made clear that in order to achieve community buy-in around a long-term growth process, its development must include robust public engagement, identify diverse and representative stakeholders, and widely agreed upon objective data points in order to be successful. While partial aspects of this work have been done, critical pieces of that work remain incomplete, including the update to the 2006 Rural Service Area Sanitary Sewer Study, which will examine feasibility and more importantly the cost of building infrastructure outside the existing urban services boundary. It's important to note that we still don't have a plan yet to pay for it. In order to ensure that there are both public engagement and research driven discussions in the goals and objectives, we ask for consideration of the following language that you have in front of you. The current language in theme E goal 3 for a new yet-to-be determined process that would supersede being the key word the drafted goal regarding the urban services boundary undermines trust in the development of the process. The draft goal should support continuing efforts of the process while acknowledging that future decisions will be informed by completion of Theme E, Goal 4, Objective A, the new process itself, while continuing to focus on infill and redevelopment as the primary strategy. We propose the following language. Goal 3, maintain the current boundaries of the urban services boundary and create no new rural activity centers. To ensure that Lexington is responsive to its future land use needs, future decisions concerning the USB will be informed by completion of Theme E, Goal 4, Objective A, while continuing to focus on infill and redevelopment as our primary growth strategy. While the work of the Sustainable Growth Task Force involved much public input, and a portion of that has been adopted by Planning Commission and Council, no aspects of the Goal 4 workgroup recommendations have been adopted by either body, and their creation involved no public input. Aspects of those discussions will be important moving forward, and some of the efforts also undermine community trust in the process. As a result, for goal four, we recommend the following language. Protect our invaluable resources and inform long-range planning by creating a data-driven process for determining long-use land use decisions involving the USB. Objective A, develop a process which is informed by robust public and stakeholder engagement, key research necessary for data-driven growth decisions and which enhances and supports other goals and objectives. Adopt the process as an amendment to the comp plan. Vane Alliance appreciates your efforts and look forward to continuing to be a key part of the process. Thank you. Amy Clark. Good afternoon. I'm Amy Clark of 628 Castle Road. I'm not here to talk to you about the just and feasible balance of urban and rural land, a longstanding tradition in our community. It's the balance within urban land that is critically neglected, despite welcome new language on equity for those in humbler social, historical, and economic situation here. We have a critical need for housing, and the commercial land is not doing its part. The communities that are poorer, older, or just plain smaller are taking it on the chin. The 2018 plan documents our over large retail and services footprint call us Bigfoot. With our vast parking lots and burgeoning drive-through lanes, gas stations, car washes, I do mean burgeoning, consider how many you have approved or reviewed development plans of late. Hotels for transients are rising, that's to say they're mushrooming, on corridor land needed for our citizens and long-term residents, while the poorer, older, sometimes just even smaller communities are taking it on the chin. Office land likewise, like hotels, has a high vacancy rate that has continued since documented in the 2018 plan. Digital billboards are hard on their heels. They tend to be in areas where poor folk live. I ask that you adopt the goal of both protecting and restoring, even increasing, modest home ownership in the urban area now gravely declining and declined. Some 30 years ago Fayette stood first of all Kentucky counties in in homeownership. Some four to five months ago, our council was informed, we now stand dead last. I call that critical. Let's adopt and realize an objective of not displacing our humblest homeowners and developing an objective to develop multifamily models for affordable housing, to enable families of all kinds and conditions to build equity and have a forever home. We need to embrace co-ops and condos. Let's take the money out of this trap with land trust models, where the land remains in the public or charitable trust, while the people of modest means can enjoy the home and its ownership and build equity. I see I'm out of time. I'll just add that you will never get anywhere with cyclists being a major part of our commuting unless you take them out of the road and in sheltered paths off the curb. Thank you. Thank you. Josh. Hello, I'm Josh Despain. I'm actually just representing myself today. I don't have any groups of interest. I will say that I don't know that there's been many points made that I don't agree with. I think the biggest thing, the one word that came to me while I'd kind of been listening to the comments is trust. and that kind of moving forward that the communication and the transparency will be there. I think to the comments that have been made about certain groups and kind of the way things are done sometimes, and I will admit I'm a transplant. I've only called Lexington home for about 15 years now, but you certainly get invested, and it's hard not to take things personally sometimes. I think there's been dealings and things that have happened in the past where the public perception is you can shake enough money at something or you can get the right connections and basically get what you want, or people are willing to sometimes look the other way or not consider everyone's best interest all the time. And I'm not saying that that always happens. I'm just saying that sometimes I think that's a perception. and I think that moving forward that kind of that communication and trust and the buy-in from everybody is going to be pretty important. Thank you. Nick Nicholson. Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson. I was a member of the Goal 4 workgroup, but I was not able to be here at your all's December public hearing. I was out of town, unfortunately. When I saw the draft goals and objectives, I was kind of disappointed that we were removing the objectives without actually resolving those objectives. And I thought that the goal for workgroup was very diverse and representative of the kind of divisive issue that it was sought out to kind of tackle. And I think it was very smart by Vice Mayor Kay to have made sure that every decision that had to be made at that workgroup was done by consensus. It was not a majority vote. It was not a if this is a hotly tested item, five of us say yes, four of us say no, it's in. it's everybody at the table had to basically agree or else this thing was thrown out and so by eliminating the objectives and taking away the required timeline that we've already missed this kind of feels like this is just a plan to make another plan one day that we hope will actually lead to a successful community and as Mr. Woodall said we're supposed to be looking to the future in 2045 and so let's make a plan that actually addresses the needs as we head towards 2045, not one that just looks to kick the can down the road a little bit. While kind of rereading the goals and objectives, I kind of just did some back of the napkin math, and I thought it was interesting that there are 14 different references to green space or greenway and open space infrastructure. There are nine different references to some type of multimodal transportation and there are three references to affordable housing. This plan sure feels like it is more concerned about the amenities of our communities than making sure that everyone has a ceiling over their head. That is all I'd like to say. Thank you all. Thank you. Richard Murphy. Thank you very much. I'm Richard Murphy. Just had three points to share with you. Number one, I also support the imposition of a deadline on the growth management plan. As has been mentioned before to you all, last time an expansion was approved, it took seven years before the first housing unit was open and available to people. If you decided something today, that would put it in 2030. The farther you put it down the road, you're looking going that far past 2030 to make a decision. We have a crisis today, and we'll certainly have a crisis in 2030 and beyond, when finally the fruition of any decisions that are made can come to pass. Second, I'd ask you to give some flexibility for smaller parcels, smaller-sized parcels in the expansion area, especially those that are bisected by the urban service boundary. The problem we've encountered is that the expansion zones are designed for large parcels. When you have a four-acre tract or a ten-acre tract, especially the one that's bisected by the boundary line, what you have if it's non-residential, you don't have enough room for both the commercial and the residential component, for instance, required in the CC zone. You don't have enough room for all the open space required in the ED zone. I'd ask you to put an objective in there, building in some flexibility in the non-residential zones, in the expansion areas, so that that acreage can actually be used. Right now, your smaller parcels are going to waste because we can't use them because of the inflexibility in those zones. Third, I just wanted to point out that I think the figures now say that over half the people who work here in Fayette County do not live here in Fayette County. They have to commute in every day. They don't get the benefit of the mass transit, the bikeability, the walkability that we're building into this plan. What we need to do is to make it possible for more of those 50% of the people to live here and enjoy those positive attributes that we're building in, the walkability and the bikeability, at the same time reduce the carbon footprint that is caused by people driving 15 or 20 or more miles and to Lexington to work every day. Thank you. Thank you. B. Mead. Good afternoon. Thank you for the time. My name is B. Mead. I live in District 1. As I read through the goals and objectives, there's a lot in there that I was excited about, And I was struck by how many of those goals and objectives we could make progress towards by expanding public transportation. Expanding public transportation makes our city more livable and accessible and equitable. It will dramatically lower our city's carbon footprint and reduce pollution. It will create jobs and lower cost of living. It can free up former parking spaces for infill and help reduce urban sprawl. And most importantly, it connects people. As a relatively new Lexingtonian, I moved here in 2020. I'm excited about everything that's happening here, and I've also been really glad to see how good our public transportation is. It's clean, it's affordable, but we just need more of it. Thank you for the time. Thank you. Steve K. Thank you. Steve K. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, good afternoon. I'm Steve Kay. In my former capacity as the Vice Mayor, I appointed the Gold 4 Work Group and served as co-chair with Council Member James Brown. I'm here today to speak about the proposed theme. theme E, Goals 3 and Goal 4. My concern is that the proposed wording of Goals 3 and 4 places Council in the position of approving or disapproving a goal and related objectives without knowing any of the details about what might be in the plan to which the goal and the objective refer. In other words, if the Council were to approve this wording, the construction of the urban service area growth management plan would be entirely in the hands of the planning commission with no opportunity for review by council. The urban service area growth management plan would include identification of the rural land to be preserved and the rural land to be considered for potential development. The growth management plan also would include the new process by which decisions are made about whether to expand the boundary, where to expand the boundary, and for what purposes to expand the boundary. I believe the elected members of the Urban County Council should be the ones to have the final word about what that plan contains. To that end, I propose the following amendments to theme E, goals three and four. For Goal 3, at the end of the last sentence, change Objective A to Objectives A and B. For the wording of Goal 4, new wording for both objectives. Objective A, adopt the Urban Service Area Growth Management Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Objective B, provide for approval of the Urban Service Area Growth Management Plan by the Urban County Council, which would then supersede Goal 3. My proposed amendments would allow the Planning Commission to proceed with its work of the Urban Service Area Growth Management Plan. They would allow for Goal 3, which prohibits any expansion of the Urban Service Boundary to be superseded, and they would avoid having council having to approve or disapprove a goal and objective without knowing their content and without any opportunity to review them. I believe you've heard from a few other people about the uncertainty about what might come out of this plan. I encourage you to give this proposal due consideration. I thank you for your time today and for your service to the community. Thank you. Judith Humble. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm Judith Humble. I'm the chair of the Bluegrass Climate Action Team, a regional team that works with city governments on climate change mitigation. and I'm also on the Empower Lexington Update workgroup team, and I facilitate a climate conversations workgroup with citizens from the community and members of city government to talk about what climate change means for Lexington and what we can do about it. They're a very productive experience. So as you can imagine, I'm here today to mention climate change in the context of our comp plan, and I want to say how much I appreciate the Division of Planning for the many excellent revisions they've included in this update, and including their decision to acknowledge climate change with clear language and to focus on what we can do to begin mitigating this crisis. That is a very bold step for Lexington, and it's very timely at this point in our history. So what I want to do today is echo the suggestion that's been made by a couple of our earlier speakers that I think would strengthen our approach to climate change, and that is to amend or expand Goal 2, Theme B, to include an emissions reduction timeline and target, such as carbon neutral by 2050. The inclusion of a target, whether it's the one that the Paris Agreement has established or a more robust target that some other cities have adopted, would serve several really important purposes. It would create accountability. It would keep us on task. It would ensure that we perform regular greenhouse gas emissions inventories in our community to track our progress. Importantly, which I think has not been mentioned before, it would enhance our eligibility for funding from the IRA money, which is coming soon, and in plentiful quantities, and which we would not be able to generate in our own community. I think there's a lot to be said for this revision being embedded in our comp plan. And while it is likely to be included in the sustainability plan, when that is finally completed, that's a way out. And I also think this is a more protected document and is fundamental to our city. So it would also place us in the ranks of other proactive cities across the country that are mobilizing to keep us from passing the critical point of 1.5 degrees centigrade warming. So I'm nearly at the end of my time, I see, but I want to ask everybody to think about some parts of the country that are strongly affected by climate change at this time. My cousin in Arizona is experiencing the severe heat. her water supplies drying up. And if we keep putting carbon into the air, the problems that we're seeing will only get worse. So I think there's a strong reason to include this change, even though it involves only a few words. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Don Todd. Mr. Chairman, Don Todd. I've heard so many comments today. I have to discard whatever notes I made because I feel as if I need to respond to some of these points. But nonetheless, I've served in official capacities for 50 years. I've been on two comprehensive plan update committees. I've served on city council. I sponsored legislation that established the Green Space Commission, which is now the PDR program, the Corridors Committee, a number of other issues that dealt with preservation of rural issues. I even sponsored legislation to increase the Planning Commission size from 7 to whatever it is, 11 or 13, to make sure we got more people involved in the process. I even got Bruce Simpson as the very first client in a planning and zoning issue. I'm here to say I am strongly opposed to theme E-goal 4. The urban service line is the bulwark of what we have here in Fayette County. Do not, do not undermine it. I understand the staff's concern and issues, and I understand what Steve's comments made earlier, but this is what makes us famous. If you go back in history over the years, we've had five-year arguments over the last 40 years over development, over expansion, contraction, whatever. They've written about us in the Atlanta Constitution. They've written about us in the New York Times. They've written about us even in the Brandywine of Delaware where we copied a lot of their concepts. Our urban service line is the backbone of what we've got. Please do not do anything that would undermine it. Looking at some of the arguments that were made earlier, I think if you read the Fate Alliance's letter, it's a wonderful letter. I've read it several times. Brittany did a fantastic job. If you would look at it and look at the points she makes and then ask yourself, is she correct? Are these questions true? I think that will help you reach the right decision. In 1996, we expanded the urban service area, I think, by 5,400 acres. To date, only 50% of it's been used. The other 50% hasn't been used. And you have to ask yourself how much of that land was actually geared towards, focused upon, and helped with affordable housing. Developers didn't take the opportunity to do that. Ask yourself those questions. Read her letter. She did a wonderful job. I don't think I could say anything more than just read what she says. One of the points that was made was sewer user fees. They've gone up 120 percent in the last 10 years. 120 percent. We can't even meet the federal mandate that's been imposed upon us now. I understand that's a more current issue, but it's certainly going to project out, because these are costs that we're going to have to bond or face going down the road. All right. One more point, and I'll leave it be. She makes a wonderful point in there about the trust fund and how much money we've received from the federal government and from other sources and how those funds have been utilized to create affordable housing opportunities. And I will say one final point. It's really tough to find people to fill this commission. You want equity. You want people to participate. You want people who don't have a say to participate. you go find them and ask them they're going to commit the time and effort to serve on this board. You can't find the people to do it. It's really tough. So don't fuss with these guys. They're volunteering their time for your benefit. Thank you. Thank you. M.D. Hannah. Yes, Jim Hodge. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is James Hodge. Together with my wife, Mary Ann Delaney, I live at 6050 Old Richmond Road. I'm here on behalf of myself, Dee Dee, and the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. The Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association heartily endorses the Fayette Alliance proposal outlined in the letter of Valentine's Day, which has been disseminated to you, which Ms. Rottenmeier spoke about, Mr. Todd spoke about, I want to talk about specifically Goals 3 and 4 of Theme A. Goals 3 and 4 of Theme A of the proposed updated comp plan effectively abandon the urban service boundary concept and should be revised, and the Fayette Alliance proposed language should be adopted. Goal 3 of Theme A of the current comp plan states, quote, Maintain the current boundaries of the urban service area and rural activity centers and create no new rural activity centers. Goals 3 and 4 of Theme A of the proposed updated comp plan would delete this language. Since 1958, the comp plan has divided Fayette County into two areas. One, the urban service area, and two, the rural service area, which of course is protected from development. The proposed updated comp plan would effectively create a third hybrid, neither fish nor fowl, area called the, quote, outside the preserved area, close quote. While this new area will technically be part of the rural service area, it will not be afforded the protection granted to the rest of the rural service area. It will be an invitation and an open season for developers to attempt to include the, quote, outside the preserved areas in the urban service area and develop them. the map that you all have all seen i'm sure and i didn't uh waste time to have it put up the map of the goal for work group preservation areas show that 27 491 acres that are currently in the rural service area would be included in the quote outside the preserved areas This would include land along Old Richmond Road, DeLong Road, Walnut Hill Road, Winchester Road, Briar Hill Road, and Military Pike. Yesterday I drove out around my area, and along Old Richmond Road, this area would include Judmont Farm, Belmar Farm, Wimbledon Farm, Chesapeake Farm, and Woods Edge Farm. each major thoroughbred operations. Mr. Chairman, I've got at least one more minute since you gave this other gentleman four. And it would include the historic Walnut Hill Church. So in summary, as recently noted by the Fayette Alliance, quote, the Goal 4 report raises alarming questions about the expansion of the urban service boundary to allow future growth. It proposes a map that destroys the concept of the urban service boundary. Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association would urge you to reject the proposed language and adopt the proposed language of the Fayette Alliance. Also, as an aside, having practiced zoning law for a little bit longer than Bruce and having been a former commissioner of law, it appears to me on reflection that Mr. K's proposal would violate KRS chapter 100. Thank you for your time and attention, and I hope you will give due credit to the failed alliance proposal. Thank you. So, Ms. Hanna, you said you did not want to speak. Okay. That's fine. Next is Chaz Martin. nothing okay and last name is it Braga wrong guy I don't want to say the first name I'm gonna mess it up hey listen good afternoon my name is Naki Braga I'm a resident of the 11th district I'm also an urban ecologist and permaculture designer so perhaps unsurprisingly my comment today pertains to theme B, the environment. I am sensitive to the legacy and regulatory context that have led to a distinct separation between goal one, protection of water resources, and goal two, mitigation of climate change. However, I'd like to make the case that it is short-sighted and ultimately ineffective for us to encapsulate the city's efforts at climate mitigation entirely under the umbrella of a reduction in carbon emissions or other greenhouse gases. Specifically, the science indicates that the thermal regulation of the biosphere is at least as much, if not more so, tied to the hydrologic cycle as it is the carbon cycle. Consequently, I would love to see consideration of this fact added to at least one, if not both, of these goals. So, for instance, in the case of Goal 1, protection of water resources, language that explicitly refers to the repair or restoration of the fractured urban water cycle. In the case of Goal 2, language that explicitly refers to the role of soil infiltration and evapotranspiration from tree canopy in climate mitigation. I am, well, planning staff certainly knows that I am available for more detailed discussion or to address questions if and when appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Doug Gibson. My back's sore. My name is Doug Gibson. In 1972, I bought 25% of exit 104. for development. 51 years ago, exit 104 has been developed a little bit at a time with no overall plan. It is the fourth entrance into Lexington. It is the most southern entrance that we have, and we're in a good chance of losing it as an attractive way to enter our community. I would simply encourage you, as members that are helping determine the future of Lexington, to allow a development plan to be developed for that exchange. If you don't, it will become what it is already, a spotty, unpleasant location, but it could be remade. you have that right and in your plan going forward as planners for the future of our city ask yourself how you want that entrance into Lexington to be perceived it's up to you and I'm excited for the opportunity you have to allow that to happen going forward thank you very much thank you Margaret Graves Good afternoon. My name is Margaret Graves, and I serve as the chair of the Bluegrass Land Conservancy, and I'm a member of the Rural Land Management Board. First, I want to thank you for your time and effort that has been spent on creating the 2045 goals and objectives. I know and understand the thousands of hours that have gone in to creating these goals and objectives. I do have concerns that I hope that you will consider. First and foremost, I want to say that I have concerns about the very delicate balance between the urban area and the rural land. I have concerns about the goals and objectives that are in theme E, specifically goals 3 and 4. I understand that we have a very special resource in the rural service area. and I would urge you to protect that asset for the future of Lexington and future generations. We in Lexington have been recognized worldwide for innovative land use practices since 1958, when the urban service boundary was adopted. The Rural Land Management Plan and the establishment of the PDR program were innovative steps forward in land use planning for the rural service area. As we continue planning for the future of Lexington-Fayette County, I would respectfully suggest that the process needs to be open, transparent, and fully engage all citizens of Lexington-Fayette County. The lesson learned from the Goal 4 workgroup debacle no offense, Steve Kay, is that Lexington citizens care passionately about this community and its future. And the results of a land use process that does not involve diverse stakeholders, substantial community input, and is not based on objective and current data will not be accepted. As a representative of the rural conservation community who has dedicated over 25 years working to conserve Fayette County farmland, I would urge the Planning Commission and the Council to pursue a sustainable growth model that promotes compact, contiguous growth that is technically feasible and financially responsible and respects the commitments and investments that have been made in conserving farmland. And I would ask you to adopt the recommendations of the Fayette Alliance. Thank you. Thank you. Beth Overman. You good? Okay. Nolan Adams. My name is Nolan Adams. I'm a leader with the KY Tenants and KY Tenants is a group fighting for Lexington where everybody is guaranteed safe, high quality, and affordable housing. Last spring we met with the planning staff for an organizational input session where we discussed tenants with issues like mushrooms growing under their TV stands, Lexington's eviction rate, and how decisions guided by the place builder tool have affected tenants lives. KWOT tenants has talked to thousands of renters in Lexington, knocking on over 2,500 doors, having over 1,500 conversations over text and phone and in person, and hosting a town hall and monthly tenant meeting. From the collective expertise on the housing crisis of these tenants, we want to talk to you today about the find of the policies that will make Lexington a city for everyone. I want to share a little bit about my story as a renter. In my previous housing situation we had a break-in occur in our back window and in the process of trying to find a safe and affordable housing situation our landlord left that broken window unfixed for two months in the middle of winter. And this is something that people in Lexington, This is not an abnormality, and it shows that landlords often prioritize the steady income of their renters over their physical and mental well-being. Equity Policy No. 5 of Lexington's 2018 Comprehensive Plan recommended Lexington create a rental registry. Tenants need this to be included in the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. And I would also like to add that I've heard a lot about sustainability today, but I would like everyone here to keep in mind that where does sustainability begin and where do the the uplifting of the people, uplifting of the conditions of the people in Lexington. And thank you. Thank you. Stephanie Hensley. is Stephanie Hensley and I'm with Kentucky Tenants. I'm a leader with Kentucky Tenants and I'm a renter here in Lexington. Kentucky Tenants is fighting for a Kentucky where everyone has safe high quality affordable housing. This housing system has hurt my hurt me and my family a lot. I have three kids all all under seven, including a five-month-old baby. After we moved here from Corbin, we lived in Salvation Army. Then we got a voucher to live at Matador North. When we got out to Matador, they took us to the apartment and electric wasn't even on. Even though the office said they couldn't move us in without it being on. We had slept in the living room with the balcony door open because that was the only way to stay cool enough to fall asleep. Then in October, the air went off. I went and told the office because my fridge wasn't getting cold either, and they didn't do nothing. A month down the road, the tile fell out of my shower, the toilet broke, and the dishwasher stopped working. We had to keep the chicken in the freezer, but it still went bad. So much of our food went bad. I had a heart attack from all the stress. And the mold was so bad that I was hospitalized, pregnant. The health department told me I wasn't allowed to go back. So then I stayed in a motel and finally found a new place to live. I lost my voucher and had an eviction filed on me. for abandoning my lease. So now most places won't take me because of my record, because it's on my record. I had no choice to leave. I had to protect my kids. At our new place, it's hard to keep up with the rent. They charge us $45 extra because we don't make three times the rent. And now I have a five-month-old, and I was recently diagnosed with epilepsy in December. Having to deal with the stress of an unfair housing system on top of everything else sometimes feels like too much. This is happening to thousands of renters like me across Lexington. That's why I'm here today. I'm speaking for them because they're afraid they'll be evicted. They're too busy fighting to keep their homes to make it here. Tenants need to imagine Lexington's goals and objectives to include a ban of discrimination based of source of income, eviction history, credit score, criminal history, and immigration status. Thank you. Thank you. Emma Anderson. Good afternoon. I'm Emma Anderson. I'm a leader with Kentucky Tenants. I am here today because I was evicted in early 2022 and spent six months couch surfing before I could find a new place that I could afford. I'm here because our members are coming up against the housing system again and again and we're hurting housing is a problem in Lexington across the board. For my job I knocked doors for people in eviction court. So I knocked almost every door of somebody facing an eviction in 2022 to let them know about rental and legal assistance available. I have talked to people being pushed out of their homes. I've been one of those people. Tenants in Lexington are struggling to afford living here. Lexington had a rental price increases by as much as 40 percent during the pandemic. Many of our members are searching for new housing because their rent has gone up too much for them to afford. We also see people being pushed out of their neighborhoods that they've been in their whole lives. I'm thinking of someone I met in November of 2021 in eviction court. He was confused about why he was there because he never missed a rent payment. It turns out his house had been bought by a company that was going to flip it and they weren't renewing his lease. They let him stay after talking with him but his rent went up $250. This was in the north side of Lexington. A lot of the policies that have been, a lot of the parts of the comprehensive plan will have huge effects on renters. And to make these changes, we have to make sure that it's done right and that renters are considered and that whatever the result is doesn't end in the displacement of our people. Like Mr. Williams said earlier, for who? We need the city to prioritize housing. It should be our main concern. How can you have a strong city if the foundation is cracking? We run the risk of pushing out the people who help make the city what it is. And in general, housing should be the priority, but Kentucky tenants has several specific policies that we want to highlight to you. Tenants need Imagine Lexington's goals and objectives to include an eviction diversion program, including permanent rental assistance and right to council so that neighborhoods can be stabilized as we grow. To make sure that housing-related goals are carried out in the best interest of our communities, tenants must be on the boards that make decisions about housing, including the planning commission. 48% of Lexington's are renters and we're struggling. How many of the commission seats are filled by tenants? We must have our voices represented when we're thinking about Lexington's future. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Next, is it Andrea or Andrea Zang? Hello, my name is Andrea Zang, and I'm a leader with Kentucky tenants. I have had a landlord since I was 12 years old. I got my master's in urban and regional planning from Florida State University. I probably shared some professors with Mr. Woodall. And as a planner, it is crystal clear to me that without the collective expertise of tenants like us and policies that address the housing crisis that we are surviving every day, imagine Lexington can never be effectively implemented, can never be equitably implemented. No one talked about the landlord registry, about living with a broken window for two months. Stephanie, about mold and months without AC. Imagine Lexington needs to include a landlord registry to support housing preservation, the health of tenants, and address property owners who are letting their structures rot. Stephanie talked about we need anti-discrimination measures. Everyone deserves a fair chance at housing in every neighborhood. if you use third-party payment for your rent like a voucher or rental assistance, if you are an immigrant, if you have a low credit score like me because you were born after credit scores started in 1989, if you have an eviction filing, if you're an immigrant or if you've served time for past mistakes, your choices for where to live in Lexington are limited. Frankly, there are huge swaths of the city that you just cannot live in. This commission can guide the funding for all the best parks and trails like the upcoming Brighton East Rail Trail. But tenants with those lived experiences, if we aren't able to live near those amenities, who exactly is this comprehensive plan for? Who are we really improving Lexington for? Emma, Emma talked about her experience with eviction. And the reality is that black and Latinx households are the most likely to experience eviction. And there is an abundant body of literature showing that gentrification and eviction go hand in hand. Eviction is how neighborhoods are displaced, how they are undone. We need right to counsel so that tenants aren't pushed out when landlords take advantage of the court system and the fact that they can afford a lawyer. At Kentucky Tenants, we believe that black neighborhoods have the same right to remain as white neighborhoods, and right to council is part of that. 48% of Lexington are runners. Without including the policies that we discussed today, imagine Lexington is a plan that only serves half the people who live in Lexington. And not to spike everyone's blood pressure, but I want to leave each of you with this observation. We've talked to thousands of tenants on the phone, at their doors, about what policies would improve their lives as renters, and not a single one mentioned anything about an urban service boundary. This is not an issue of civic education. Tenants just don't have time to wait for hypothetical new housing as info or through expansion of the USB. Tenants need this commission to amend the goals and objectives to include tenant protection, and lay the groundwork so that all of us can be a part of Lexington come 2045. Thanks for y'all's time. Thank you. Patty. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. And I don't know how I'm going to follow that. That's just. I am a retired registered nurse. I've lived in Lexington, well, a long time now, but I've lived in Joyland for over 40 years and have been involved with environmental organizations. I'm on the board of Kentucky Heartwood and participate with the CR Club. In looking at the goals and objectives, one general question I would say is that And there really need to be, as a nurse, I know this, measurable criteria, because how does one know when they've achieved these goals? So I would say please re-look at that. And then some specific comments on theme B about protecting the environment under goal two. And I think other people have said this before also, but add specific stepwise percentage reduction of carbon emissions by date certain. We can no longer ignore the fact that climate change is here, and we need detailed, measurable criteria for this. Under theme C, about jobs and prosperity, for goal 2, I think it's A, add while protecting the air and water quality of existing neighborhoods and avoiding noise pollution. And as far as the air and water quality, to be cognizant of federal air quality and water standards, even though it is not under your purview. Under theme D, desirability of community, goal 1B. While we have, I think we still have extra federal money to add to mass transit that specifically add reliable light rail. There are main thoroughfares in this town where light rail could be added. It's been done in communities in India that have populations over 2 million people. So just because the infrastructure is already there doesn't mean that we can't add that. Let's see, and under theme E, goal 4A, regarding the urban service boundary, everyone I, well, not everyone, but most people I speak to are still supportive of having the five-year reassessment of the urban service boundary as opposed to basically, oh, 30 more seconds, opening it up, and you folks having to be persistently pressured to put in structures at the whims of developers who will have no plans to create affordable housing but just buildings that give them more money. And lastly, this board needs, and this is most important, lastly, this board needs that one representative at least, from the client science sector to help guide our community growth. The science needs to be infused throughout decisions that our government makes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Emory Elkinson. Hello, my name is Emery Elkinson, and I'm a senior at Henry Clay High School. I'm speaking on behalf of Bluegrass Youth Sustainability Council, which brings together high schoolers from across Lexington who are passionate about sustainability. We have spent our teenage years worried about the climate and the environment, and the inaction of our leaders. I'm here to encourage the Planning Commission to make Theme B Goal 2, which focuses on climate change even more ambitious. As young people, we recognize the importance of thorough, immediate, and equitable action on climate change. There is so much at stake and so much to gain. Transitioning to a net zero future allows for the opportunity for cleaner air, safer and more just communities, and more walkable streets. Peer cities like Cincinnati have implemented ambitious climate goals with specific dates for emissions targets. Lexington should follow their lead. Lastly, I would like to add that by holding these meetings in the early afternoon, you prevent many young and working people from getting involved in this process. This is a plan for the future, and Lexington's young people are just not engaged the way that they should be. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay, now that was the last of our public comments. And this part of the session, we will bring it to the Planning Commission for discussion. Just to staff, any questions or concerns? I have a question for staff. We've had a lot of information here today, and I'd like to know how we proceed going forward with perhaps incorporating some of this information into the goals and objectives. Well, Ms. Meyer, Planning Commissioners, you certainly have options for that. One of them, of course, we've set a public hearing today, and you are certainly empowered to take action on the goals and objectives today if you choose to do so, either as presented to you or as amended by you today based on what you heard or based on your own inputs into this. And, of course, you also have the option of continuing this hearing to a later time if you don't feel that you're ready to make a decision today based on the input you heard from the public. And if that was a course you wanted to take, the staff would want direction from the Planning Commission on what you'd like us to review and focus on, on what you heard, or if there's some priorities of your own that you would like us to consider to bring back to you. But we could do any of those things today or at a later time. There is a council meeting at 6 o'clock tonight, so we do have a finite amount of time in here today. but we can discuss as long as we want to today and then make a decision perhaps on what you'd like to do. Timeline. If we were to continue our discussion at a later time, will we have this in a work session? How would that occur? A continued hearing would remain a public hearing, so it would be you could do a couple of ways. You could certainly say that you've taken all the public input you intend to at this time and come back at a continued hearing, which would be open to the public, but deliberate in front of the public and make your decisions at that point. There may be other options for taking additional public comment if there's additional information you believe needs to be presented. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. this being the third one of these that i've been through it's one of these kind of situations where this one is different and it's different in several ways one of them is there is a trust factor here and the trust factor is about who's going to make the decision and the trust factors about why is it important who makes the decision. I think we're really hung up on who's going to make the decision here, and we haven't even talked about that today. Two people are going to make the decision, two bodies. Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation, and the council is going to approve it. or the council's going to make the decision and then planning staff and commission are going to implement it. That's what we haven't talked about. That's the elephant in the room. The thing that concerns me most about this is that we've only halfway implemented the 2017-18 comp plan. For a city our size and a city the size of Louisville, five years is too close to have comprehensive updates. It's too detailed. It has too much implementation has to happen. Too much ordinances have to be rewritten. Tax amendments have to come. We're on a wheel here we just can't get off of because of KRS. Now, why did I even bring that up? I bring it up because this will continue to be a problem. But when I look out of the last three comp plans, this one is a lot more about social justice and equity, and that's our times. It's a lot more about how to fix problems that may or may not be able to be fixed. And we're trying to do all this within goals and objectives which do not get to the level of detail that you're going to solve it. You have to trust that the goals and objectives will go forward and that the council will look at them and they'll make input as they see fit. But the problem is, is we have a consent decree that has showed us that didn't work. We got out ahead of our infrastructure. We had to wind up $600 million consent decree, and we haven't even finished that one yet. So you can holler we're going too fast, or you can holler we're going too slow. The question is, what can we afford? Because of the bonding capacity of the city, the ability of water flow outside of Lexington, and what the capacity is, we don't know any of that now. We know what it was in 1996. We probably know what it was in 2017 or 2013. But we don't know what it is going forward for 2045. So anything that's done with haste is not done well. And to say we don't have land when we're using a little over 100 acres a year and we've got an industrial park coming online is an idea that, well, we're going to fix affordable housing by creating more land. Well, how'd that work out in 1996? We're still talking about that. We still don't have affordable housing. So to do the same thing over and over the way we've done it and expect a different result, you know what that is. So I don't think there's any way we can fix all the issues that have been brought up here today. I think there's a couple of really good ones that we probably ought to do. but I'd like to hear from the rest of my planning commission members because this is just my take on what's happening here today. And I hope I haven't confused you. I hope I made it a little clearer what we're dealing with. And I'd like to hear from some of the rest of us what we'd like to do. Thank you, Mr. Penn. So, like, this moment for the commission, this is for us to either give guidance to the planning staff on what we would like to see, or maybe there's things in there that we don't like, but this is our moment to express that. Mr. Woodall's staff, too, as well, I do have been listening to the voices and taking advantage, making sure that we continue to take a hard look at the underserved and disadvantaged population. I know we've been doing different things to get there, but I always say sometimes it's good to brag on yourself on things that you've already done. Let's continue to do that. But Mr. Penn had his points. I know we all have different opinions because we all are human and we think differently and we come from different backgrounds, as we was recently told earlier in the conversation. So this is a time to see and put those backgrounds together and come as one. hopefully we can get something together so I would like to hear your opinions as well I'd like to expand on that we've we've had suggestions here about how how can we get some more land within the urban service boundary for affordable housing one of which which is its flexibility and parcel size and expansion areas I mean I don't know if that's a possibility but is Is that something that we could look at? Could the staff look at? You know, I'm not the expert here. I'm just, you know, listening to what people have said. And, you know, if we have some flexibility in our land use within the urban service boundary. Can you repeat that this direction because your voice is... I'd like to see some flexibility within the urban service boundary for housing options. I mentioned the expansion area, but I don't know. I'm not the expert about how that would work. I appreciate that. I think in terms of flexibility of what's available and what's able to be done within our existing zoning scheme requires more text amendments. And if you recall, what the implementation of the current plan would be, has been, to look at our regulations and try to figure out how can we improve the flexibility. And providing more housing is a key reason that we've been doing that. And so I think we would like to continue to do that. We've got emphasis in here about some goals and objectives that are specific to revising our regulations, specifically in theme A, the new goal five, talking about equity and trying to provide those kinds of developments through our zoning schemes and updating our regulations. So I think if we want to make a significant impact strategically on those uses and what we're seeing on the ground, we really have to take a hard look at our zoning ordinance. And I would hope that the goals and objectives we put forward give us the grounds to be able to do that. And I believe that it does. Well, I really appreciate everyone's comments. It certainly has given me more to think about since we first saw the draft of the goals and objectives. I think, you know, what I'm hearing from some of you all, and on both sides of the issue, is that uncertainty and vagueness is hard on our builders and our developers. It's hard on farmers who don't know if their farm is going to be in the middle of a future development. It's hard on planning and this vague future growth management plan. I do have concerns about it undermining the urban service boundary. I also, in kind of thinking about what Commissioner Penn and Commissioner Myers just said, It seems like with this five-year renewal, we just now implemented some of the text amendments from the last plan, and they haven't even had time to really take effect, most notably the parking one, which really takes down one of the big barriers to infill and redevelopment inside the urban service boundary that we have now. We just saw a plan this past month come forward, which had, I think, 50 percent fewer spaces than would have been required two months ago, and enabled a lot more housing to be developed on the same size parcel. So I am not convinced by anything that I have seen yet on the need to change and the concept of an urban service boundary to something that we progressively prioritize development in some sort of automatic way. And I have a lot of concerns about that going forward. As a second note, on a side, several people came to speak about carbon emissions. And this is to staff. While I don't know that we had enough information today to adopt a specific target in the objectives, it does seem like the objectives could direct us to create a carbon tracking and a policy to adopt a specific target by a certain date. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Mickler, I think you make a good point, is that the goals and objectives are to set the stage for the policies, and the policies really do, at that point, get a lot more specific. So what we're talking about today is the direction that we want to head and the goals that we have from a 30,000-foot view, and that we really will focus in those goals on implementation as we get into the policies. So I think we've already started brainstorming. I kind of gave you a preview about those things will be coming to you and they'll be coming to you sooner rather than later. We've already started brainstorming some ways that we can take some of those measurable things because I agree I think they're important and I think a lot of folks out in the crowd spoke to that as well and finding ways that we can benchmark, look at other resources, look at what other cities are doing, look at national and global resources as well for how we want to do that. So I think you're right. I think we can get more specific in the policies of the plan. Yeah, I do. That makes sense to me. My first gut reaction, though, is I think we could strengthen the actual text of the objective to sort of say that we want the policies to go in that direction rather than just continue programs and incentivize to track and improve energy efficiency. I think we could be a little stronger there. But I guess sort of that's two separate points. Coming back to conclude on the large one, I guess I really, before I can vote to support this, I would really want to have more clarity, less uncertainty, and really hear a stronger case on why the urban service boundary that has really defined so much of our planning should be weakened with an automatic expansion based on metrics. Bill. Thank you. I have faith in this process. We have had a number of public hearings. This isn't the first public hearing that we've had. It may be the first whereby all of us are together as one, and it is meaningful. And we do care. we're here to listen. But we are, our staff, our city staff, they are professionals in what they do. And they guide us in what we do. And we listen to what they suggest. And we have conversations and decisions are made based off of years of instruction, of goals, of objectives. And I personally, I have a great deal of faith in our staff. This isn't just today. that when we refer to the quote 1958 urban service line that was directed by staff and and citizens we have one of the oldest planning commissions in the country that have that have assisted in making lexington what it is to make it this great city while we even care about what the future is So for me, I believe in our staff, and I believe they hear what we hear today. I believe there are many things that have been put into this next five-year comprehensive plan that have taken into consideration all these different public hearings, not just in this five years, but the five years before. So my overall arching comment is that I have faith in what's been presented today, and we might tweak it some, and I appreciate that, but I personally have a lot of faith in what's been presented. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Ms. Boxtel. A couple of things kind of have resonated with me today, and probably the biggest one is the issue of affordable housing. And I think what we've seen is just because land is available doesn't make housing affordable. And so my question is, how do we capture the need for policies that keep housing affordable? What, you know, Mr. Woodall mentioned that we'll go into more detail when it comes to policy, but is there anything in these goals and objectives that will keep us reminded that we need to look at this totally differently? It's not just about being able to build. And we know this past year costs for building have gone up, which in turn will translate into housing not being as affordable because it's not as affordable to build as it was a few years ago. So how do we make sure there's something in the language here? Or do you all think it's already here? Maybe I'm missing, but how do we make sure that there's language in these goals and objectives that will get us to that ultimate goal of truly figuring out a way to keep housing affordable? So I appreciate that and I also heard that today and we've been hearing that for a long time about the need for truly affordable housing and also housing affordability across Lexington. We did want to in theme A goal 5 specifically address some of that where we're talking about protecting existing housing affordability and expanding low and middle income housing across the city those those are goals and objectives that are that are incredibly important but if you're talking about truly affordable housing housing there's you know there's a subsidy right there's um there's a gap in providing that affordable housing for the developers and we also have an objective in there that's talking about our land bank program our affordable housing trust fund our community land trust these avenues that are available to us that perhaps might be you know not exactly funded through the planning commission but funded through council actions and grants and those types of things but certainly we would want to do what we can and i think we've acknowledged those programs we want to continue to advertise those programs and promote them so that we can help but also in addressing the housing issues you know creating additional housing choice and making sure that we're providing a variety of housing options throughout the community as well uh in in addressing the supply side of things as things are coming in and making sure that we're we're doing that and theme a talking about neighborhoods does that as well uh in goal one where it talks about expanding housing choices so i think we do have some mechanisms in here that will allow us to expand on that to work with some community partners that are already doing these things i mean one side of affordable housing is addressing the the financial subsidy the other side of it is what we maybe have a little more control over which is the incentive side of things from a regulatory standpoint and trying to figure out ways that we can address going back to miss meyer's comment address some of these housing policies address some of our regulations so that we can allow for more housing to be built throughout the community and so i guess that's just something we you know as we go forward we just kind of have to keep keep in front of us because it it from i've had several section a tenants that call me i'm not i don't do rentals per se but people call me because they felt like they can you know i'll listen to them or whatever and their biggest issue is just getting the voucher accepted it's not it's not necessarily that there's not housing available but because a landlord can choose to not accept the voucher then that puts them at a huge disadvantage even though that voucher may bring in more money than just you know public rent would um and so i could really feel their story because I've heard it time and time again. And so, you know, so that's something I want to be sure that we, you know, keep in front of us. And then the the other thing I had a question about was several people talked about deadlines and dates, you know, when are we going to have a process or, you know, for urban service boundary extension or is there, you know, How do you address something like that? Is that part of goals and objectives, or, again, is that once you get into the detail? Well, I think what we've seen through the discussions of the urban service boundary throughout the years, and even recently, is that you cannot rush a process that takes time to bring along very disparate opinions on the urban service boundary. So I don't know that I have a great answer on whether or not a deadline or what the deadline should be, but I would just say that in order to achieve an outcome and a plan that does what it says we want it to do, we've got to have buy-in, and that's going to take time and study to be able to accomplish. One final thing. The question Commissioner Penn referred to that we had not completed everything in the 2018 comprehensive plan. Will we roll over some of those things into the 2045 plan? Is that how that works? I just wanted to be sure. Yes, ma'am. Yes, Ms. Worth. I guess I'm going to repeat some of what you all have said just in terms of themes that came up to me. One was the theme of we talked carbon emissions, but I also heard us talk about thinking more holistically and comprehensively about climate change and not jumping to a specific like carbon emissions and thinking at a higher level and whether we might need to either add or revisit some of the goals that we have written under that environmental concern. So that was one thing I heard. I don't know if Lexington's ready for emission neutral by 2050 or whatever it is, I mean, but certainly if there are various cycles we need to be looking at besides carbon emission, I hope we would figure out a way to do that. That would be number one. Another big trend, the housing trend. I think we've really focused heavily on getting people in housing. I think what we heard a lot today was whether they're rentors or whether they're homeowners, We've got to figure out a way to help them stay in that housing and ensure that that housing is habitable. I don't know what that means for our, whether that's a new goal in there or whether that means we need to add some objectives or in our implementation we focus on that. But I think there may be a missing piece on that. We talked a lot about affordable housing as a federal definition of affordable housing versus housing, which is truly affordable. the missing middle and that was always about getting people into housing but I think there's a piece that we can work on getting people the ability to stay in their housing once they've got it and then at the third third piece I heard us talk about is is the how do we make decisions about land use and whether we need to change the boundary and I think one of the things that to me has gotten a little bit lost and I'm speaking as one of the people who was in the goal for work group conversations is that nobody in that room talked about expanding the boundary. They talked about setting up a process for figuring out how and when we need to expand the boundary. And in those conversations, there was always a three-question test. Do we need to keep doing things as we're doing them now? Do we need to stay within the boundary and do it more intensively? Or is it time to expand? That was the template that got used. And so the question there was not about are we trying to make a decision about whether it's time to expand now. It was can we make a decision about what process we would use when we got to that. And what I heard were really, I think, three different proposals. Mr. K has one, Fade Alliance has one, and I think the home builders have proposed something that's a tweak on the others. it would be helpful to me to well and in the wording that staff has given us it would be helpful to have for me to have a conversation a little bit more about the implications of those three for us as a Planning Commission I don't know if anybody else would find that helpful or not. That's a good question. Mr. Polk? I guess I'm in agreement with what everyone's saying here. To my ear, I heard a fair amount about needing quantifiable objectives for environmental aspirations, and I would really like to see us incorporate that in some way or at least for the staff to reflect on how best to move in that direction. The other issue that we've been discussing and that we've been hearing has to do with housing and affordability, and I hesitate to lump these together, but just for purposes of brevity, housing affordability, equity, and a tenant's bill of rights. It seems to me, from what we heard, that a tenant's bill of rights is probably fundamental to housing affordability. And I would really like to learn more about how we can move in that direction. We really, really haven't dug into that as a commission. You know, I think everyone's very much aware of the issue and the difficulty of making affordable housing available. But it's really interesting to hear from a tenants group real experiences and to reflect on how broadly that is affecting a huge number of people in our city. So I'm going to put those items aside and talk about the elephant in the room. And so I'm not hearing any evidence that expanding the urban services boundary is going to result in any affordable housing. I think evidence actually suggests quite the contrary, that it's happened before and that it didn't result in additional affordable housing. So I don't think those two issues are related to one another. However, I do think there are really strong arguments for considering carefully the possibility of changing the way we deal with the urban services boundary. I personally am in agreement with the Fay Alliance position that goal three is a worthy goal and probably shouldn't be superseded because it is a goal, and I think it should be a goal. That doesn't mean that we're bound to limit ourselves. It just means that we're clearly stating that we value the boundary and what it has meant to the city and what it could mean to the city in the future. And I also agree with the idea that a data-driven process for determining long-term use and decisions involving the boundary absolutely is necessary. And thirdly, I think that the idea of putting a time limit on making that decision is really important. I think we need to stop kicking the can down the road. That doesn't mean we have to say today what is going to happen, but I think we probably ought to say we're going to make a decision on this by the end of this year or by sometime early next year, something like that. I would be interested in the staff's reflection on a time limit on having a process, a data-driven process, as described, in place. What is a reasonable deadline for getting something like that done? Mr. Pohl, the council put that deadline in in 2018 and we didn't make it. And so I think just that one example shows how challenging it is to take something, as Chris described, as important as this kind of decision and demanding that it be finished by a certain time. And so that's sort of the philosophical approach, but the practical approach is we also have a major input into those decisions that both the preservation and the development interest have called for, and that is an update of the sewerability study. And that has not started yet, and that will likely not be finished until fall. and I think you need to wait and see how that turns out and what information that can provide to the process as well. And I also think it's important to take the terrific work that's been done from both of those, the strategic growth and the Goal 4. A lot of work went into that, particularly the Goal 4. It was a compressed time frame and an impressive output for what it was. But what then has been levied against that is the lack of public engagement in that process. And that, as we all know, is time-consuming to get the public input, to be able to provide the education on that, to take the input as those processes are developed. So, Mr. Pohl, I don't mean to be evasive, but I will not say what an appropriate time would be. I know we've got to finish the sewer ability study, and that won't be done until the last quarter of this year. and then we've got more work to do after that. And along that same vein, the sewerability study is going on, or will be going on starting this fall. And while that's going on, could there be other studies about PDR or conserved? Is that in the goal four work group? I mean, you know, elements that are easily can be brought, studied at the same time as the superability study. And let's remember our priority is to finish this comprehensive plan. So as soon as the goals and objectives are adopted by the council, we need to make sure that we have all that we need to finish this plan. So that will be the planning priority for at least until we get it done this year because the statute compels us to do so. And if we don't, we jeopardize future decisions that are based on the comprehensive plan. So that's first. And then, certainly, Ms. Meyer, I think it's important to look at those other policies. What does the Rural Land Management Plan say? What does our housing, affordable housing study, our housing study say? What do these other inputs say about the needs of the community, and how can those be incorporated into the decision process for the urban service boundary? I agree. Can I add to that? Yes, yes, yes. To tag on to your question, I think the recommendations from the Gulf War were not only complete the surability study, the cost of development study, and I've never figured out if those two go hand in hand or if that's a separate study, and the third was an update of the Rural Land Management Plan. And that certainly could be going on right now while these other things are going, I believe. Mr. Penn. The other option we have that we haven't talked about today is that when these studies are done, we can adopt the goals and objectives. The council can adopt these goals and objectives. We can go ahead with that process, and then when this works itself out and we have those things, they can be added to this comp plan. If you look and remember the sustainability study that we did, in order to get the software that we need to track every development, what we have on a monthly-monthly basis, that's already been put into the comp plan, for the 17 comp plan. So it's not like this is going to be adopted. It's going to be set in stone. It's a moving, living document. The goals and objectives can be added to as we go along, and we do have precedent for that. What my concern is is that until you know what the council wants, for us to sit back here and to keep trying to add this and add that and add something else, and we send it to the council, they're going to look at it. If they don't like what they see or if they want to change something, they'll change it and send it back to us. They have 90 days to do that. So the longer that we keep having actions on this on our part, let's add this, let's add this, let's change something else. All we're doing is dragging this out, and then the council's got 90 days more to do this, and then we're up again what we need to do to do the elements and the implementation stage. And those are very important. If you don't know how you're going to implement something, what good is it to do to put it in your goals and objectives? if you're not going to implement it you're not going to say how you're going to fix it or how you're going to achieve that goal so i'm not saying let's don't have this discussion i think it's a good discussion but for where we are right now the durability the rural management plan was developed so that we didn't have leapfrogging so that we you know we didn't make an emerald necklace around the urban service boundary so if we wanted to expand and and I'm not naive enough to think the urban service boundary will never expand but I think it needs to expand for the right reasons than the right place at the right time so if we but we don't want to jump we don't want to leapfrog and the only way you do that is you do it by good planning with a lot of input and Chris you're exactly right both the two Chris is sitting there together you're exactly right that you have to have that input but we can't get all the input and hold the goals and objectives and not send to the council because the clock is ticking so I think there's a couple adjustments we ought to make but the other part of this is you can analyze and analyze to your paralyzed but still live in document it's going to change. Yes, Robert. Well, Commissioner Penn, I got a follow-up question for you on that. Do you think that it's something that you would want to vote on today as is or would you want to make an amendment? I'd want to make a couple of amendments, too. Just because I think it's… You can't just… We can't hear you in this direction. You know, I think there's, to address the elephant in the room, I think we have to take the word supersede out. I like what the two, go four and go three, as presented by Fayette Alliance. I don't think that's the end all, but I think it gets it to the point to where we're not fighting. because just remember, if the council wants to do something, eight votes will do it. You know, if we want to change something, six votes will do it. So it's not like that you're pinning them up against the wall and saying it's never going to change. If the council wanted to do something tomorrow, they could do it. They just have to have eight votes to do it. So what we're trying to do is to get the council to look at how they want us to go forward with our goals and objectives and then how we implement it. I just don't want to make this too hard, I guess, is what I'm saying to you. Just for clarity, this may be Mr. Duncan's question. If there are significant amendments, should we vote on it or push it back and bring it back, continue this meeting? Mr. Chair, certainly you could amend the draft today, and you all could discuss those and make those decisions. And certainly that would be easy if you were doing some wordsmithing. But I think if you're looking at fundamentally changing the goal or the objective, that you should direct the staff to review that and bring back an alternative at a continued hearing. I think that would be best for the process. Okay, that's what my thoughts were too. Okay. Then let's do it. Yeah, any other? Just what Commissioner Worth was talking about in the Goal 4 Committee, the process of determining if you're ready to expand the urban service boundary, not whether it's necessarily this is the right time because we've done the sorability, we've done this. But I was thinking when she said that, my thought was that there needs to be some parameters for triggering, even triggering the discussion of extending the urban services boundary. And we know that the surability has to be there, has to line up with the urban, I don't know all the terms, but everything has to line up. You know that, but it's kind of like, would there be any value in having a committee that looks at the process for making those determinations? Not saying this is the area that we're talking about, but just to say that in order to entertain a discussion of extending the boundary, here are some things that need to be our trigger. you know something you know would that get us any further or is it better just to wait until there's exact I want to extend this boundary and then you figure out if that's the right boundary you know just a thought so Commissioner Barks I think what you're describing is some of the conversations that we're that are fundamental to the urban service area growth management plan that's described in the goals and objectives so I think there's a lot of conversation that's left to be had. I think both the Sustainable Growth Task Force and the Goal 4 Work Group both put out recommendations for how to do that and how to make some of those decisions and I think you know with additional conversation and stakeholder interest and engagement that we would be able to to finalize that plan. But I don't think that I think that is fundamental to the work that has already been done and that certainly would need to carry over into conversations for the plan that's described here and um i think that uh in the the fayette alliance adds on under goal for objective a um word word verbiage that it's key research necessary for data data-driven growth decisions and i think that's i think maybe that may be what commissioner Barksdale may be referring to on you know that if we have data if we have key research and then we get the data that's going to help inform moving forward you know that's my interpretation yes Mr. Mikkel Well, I have a process question. Is it possible for us to discuss and approve the goals and objectives with a continuance just on the one goal on theme E? or just on one theme? Because I think there's a few things we've heard on some of the other goals that could be sort of wrapped up in this meeting, and then the continuance would just be focused on drilling down into that one theme, Theme E. I'll let Legal answer that question. Oh, E, right, or D? E. Theme E. Theme E. So your question, can we adopt a recommendation on all of the other goals and objectives except for that one and then continue this hearing to just discuss that one? Is that your question? Yes, because I think some people have brought forward some interesting observations that relate to some of these other themes that we could come to possibly agreement or consensus on today that they're not necessarily getting time if we're all focused on the discussion on theme E, and then it seems like maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like it might be headed towards theme E being sent back to staff for more information. I think the best thing for you to do is, well, let me back up a little bit, just so we're clear on what is happening here and what the procedure is according to the statute. What you all are doing as a planning commission today and looking at and considering extending and giving yourself a little more time to do is you are voting on a recommendation of goals and objectives to the urban county council the state statute says that in the planning process that we follow that the urban county council adopts the goals and objectives so what you all are doing is making recommendations to them so that they can then and then they have you know their 90 days to consider and adopt those once they adopt those they the their role according to statute in the goal in the comprehensive plan is more or less completed and they send them back to you what they have adopted then your job becomes implementing the elements that will serve those goal adopted goals and objectives so that's kind of where we are so just so you know why I can appreciate what you're what you're saying I think you all could certainly discuss what you would like to do if you think there's certain tweaks or specific things that you can adjust in other themes today and then if you want to continue this hearing to a subsequent date and I think mr. Duncan has some possibilities if you feel like that's what you need to do limit the discussion at the continuance to just theme e but it might be best to take the vote on the all of the recommendation at the continued hearing, although you may not entertain more discussion on items that you feel comfortable with today, if that makes sense. That makes sense to me. I'm just, you know, I was here, you know, listening to Commissioner Penn, too, on the sort of idea of wrapping up some of these other themes as well, but also wanting to make sure that they got response and air from us here. All right, Mr. Bull. I have a quick question for staff. Mr. K suggested, including in goal four, a requirement that the urban service area growth management plan would be reviewed by the Urban County Council and would have to be reviewed and approved by them prior to it taking action or superseding Goal 3, if that were to be the case. Can you reflect on that? I'm going to hone this down to what I think you're asking, which is can we legally do that under the statute? Is that what you're asking? I mean, you know, I just like to be as clear as I can. So I think that, as you all may recall, we got where we are right now because of how this developed with the last update. So it is my legal opinion that the elements and the nuts and bolts of how you implement the goals and objectives are in the purview of this planning commission. The goals and objectives are in the purview, ultimately, of the council. However, depending on how the council words those goals and objectives, that may or may not implicate what they hear. So, you know, I'm not sure it served the best interest to tweak the goals and objectives the way that they were tweaked last time because we still don't have the result that we wanted. That's my personal opinion, maybe not a legal opinion. But I think legally you all are tasked with doing the nuts and bolts, legwork of whatever those goals and objectives say. And so as they're currently written or as the Fayette Alliance proposed, I think that if those goals and objectives were adopted by the council, that ultimately you all would be doing the legwork of what the growth management plan says and implementing that. But that's not to say that the goals and objectives couldn't be tweaked in some way at the urban county council to be reflective or directive differently which is what happened last time so it's it's a hard question to answer because we don't know you know you all are going to make a decision on what you want your recommendation to be but until the council votes on the goals and objectives we don't know exactly what they're going to say yes they can change it that is correct mr bill mr woodall and mr duncan um based on what y'all heard today do you see any kind of tweaks to to this that you might come back to us and suggest based on this or based on that and i'm not talking about just theme e so i'm really talking about other getting back to what Robin suggested. Are there some things that you all would say, you know, we might implement this and I would suggest that to yourselves and if we came back because I'm trying to decide whether just theme is the only theme or you all have other suggestions which actually could make it better or not. Certainly, Mr. Bell. There were a number of compelling themes with a lower or case T discussed today besides just the urban service boundary that would be different than what you have in your draft. And we would, at your direction, if that was your interest, we would be happy to go back and look at those and craft those into an appropriate statement for the goals and objectives. For me, I would rather not do this on the fly. I would prefer for staff to hear all that they heard, to provide us professional guidance on it, that we could then tweak from them taking what they heard in their professional capacity and then allow us to be able to go from there. That's my feeling. Adding to that, if that's the case, then when will be the next time we bring this back? Well, Mr. Chair, just to give a long answer to what should be a short answer, next week the government is closed on Monday, and then there is a robust zoning hearing scheduled for Thursday, and the rest of the week is full for a variety of reasons. We would not recommend doing this next week. But the following week, which concludes February and into March, there are some options. We could meet on the off days. we can meet on Monday, February 27th, and this room is available after 1.30. Wednesday, March 1st, this room is available after 1.30. And then Thursday, March 2nd, now that's your committee day, but this room is available after 6 o'clock. So we do have three options, not next week but week after, that would give the staff a time to reflect on some things. and then also have an appropriate space here in the council chambers for a meeting. And it would be a continued meeting from this meeting because you would certainly want incorporated into that meeting what you've already heard today. Mr. DeMolder. Thank you. First, I'd just like to thank everyone for coming today. I appreciate it. I'm constantly reminded of the intelligence of everyone here that far exceeds my own. I appreciate your all's interest and concern and passion for each item that each of you brought to us. It was well-spoken, and that was great. Also, we've been going down this road for a long time. This isn't the first time those of us up here have seen it and been informed on it and trained on it. and presented reports and different work sessions and an unbelievable amount of work by the staff to make sure that we're educated and prepared to make decisions today i guess i'm more in line with what mr penn said in terms of moving this forward to the city council getting their input getting their response and then moving forward to take actions and implement the goals that will best benefit the community. So that's where I am today. Okay. We've had several statements, comments for the discussion, so I'll close this part out of the hearing if there's not any others. Just clarification of that nod. Mr. DeMoblin, are you saying the goals and objectives as presented by staff today? Is that what you're proposing? Yes. Okay. Mr. McClure. Well, this discussion has given me another question, sort of, and maybe this is background information, but I'm looking at the text from staff on goal four on theme E to complete an urban service area growth management plan. And I'm looking for an alternative here from the Fayette Alliance that says, data-driven process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the urban service boundary and rural activity centers. Maybe it doesn't necessarily have to be staff. It could be someone on this commission. I know this urban service area growth management plan language is not originating here. What's the background a little bit on that? Just for my information, if anybody. The origin of the growth management plan, is that what you're asking? I would say that that was sort of a title that was given to what an outcome might be of looking at the Sustainable Growth Task Force and the Goal 4 work group and the materials that they've put together, the work that they've done to further the existing Goal 4 that is within the comprehensive plan now. So the actual title of it was something that staff came up with in order to give it some sort of title that would incorporate the concepts that are within those two things and also all the concepts that were addressed in the existing goal four why does it have to supersede three mr penn i would say that in order for a process that determines uh the decisions for making making those urban service area decisions if you are fully committing to a process that would do that somewhat differently at such time when it when that process which would be adopted by the planning commission at such time when that process said after whatever process has been defined that it is time to expand the urban service boundary it would be inherently in conflict with an existing goal and in the comprehensive plan already and so that would cause some perhaps some legal issues and i you know if tracy jones wants to jump in here as well but if you've got an outcome of a process that the planning commission has adopted that says it's time to expand the urban service boundary and a goal within the comprehensive plan that says don't expand the boundary those things are inherently in conflict and adopting a process into the comprehensive plan which is what this says that you would do would therefore be in conflict as well so an element of your comprehensive plan that says the process is going to be this and then you've got another goal that says don't expand those I mean there's just a conflict that I see between those two things and this is meant to resolve that conflict only at such time when the Planning Commission is comfortable with a process that has been fully vetted well i like your term fully vetted i think that makes a lot of sense but what my concern is here is that it will be interpreted a different way by the council and that's what my concern is my concern is is that the council will interpret that where the word supersede goes in there and i like your explanation for that because i hadn't hadn't gone quite that far. But you know, there's going to be so many other things that are going to drive this decision that it just seems premature to be sitting here arguing over this right now when we don't know what's going to drive this thing. I mean, it's going to be driven a whole lot more by cost availability, sewer capacity, all those types of things, and whether the council wants to bite off that big of infrastructure applications. All those things are going to be in before we ever get to that point. So it seems to me pretty premature to try to sit here and say, well, whatever we come up with, you know, if, if the council is going to approve it, they got to fund it. And we're not talking about tweaking the capacity because we've already done that. and the consent decree has already done that. And so if you're going to expand very much at all, you're going to have to think of a new way to do it and how to pay for it. And it's going to change the whole game when you start talking about that. So I don't want to be getting the cart for the horse or the horse for the cart here, but I want these goals and objectives to get in the hands of the council because I think we're spinning our wheels here until we know what the council is going to do with it. We have no voice in what the council does with these goals and objectives. And we can fiddle and do the whole thing, but we've got to get them to them, and we've got to deal with what they send back to us. And they've got to live with the consequences of what they send back with us. So there's no clear-cut decision here. I mean, it's just not. Okay. Ms. Meyer. I appreciate Mr. Penn's remarks. However, I would, you know, if we vote on this today, I would like to, in theme E, I would like to have the wording that Fayette Alliance has provided with us. I would feel comfortable with that. I want to feel when I forward this to the council, I want to feel good about what I'm forwarding. I understand. And this is what I feel good about on this particular theme. Do you feel good about the staff vetting it, though, first themselves and guiding us on that? Well, if you'd like. Yes, absolutely. I mean I just I really I rely on them rather than us sitting here right now personally I'm particularly interested in the about the objective a the wording in that I think that I think it has to be very clear and and about how we you know what's going to drive this yeah and I don't disagree but I'd love for staff to be able to guide just for me. I may be asking a question that I should know the answer to. I'm not sure. Okay, so the urban service area growth management plan, is that in existence today? Or is that so I think I think it's a wording thing because it makes it sound like by accepting these goals and objectives we are accepting the urban service area growth management plan which does not exist so so the wording needs to say something about when the plan is adopted at the time of the you know that plan being adopted you in your option uh yeah your your other goal is no longer valid. It's not, you know, it's not superseded. It's an either-or thing. Once you've adopted the plan to expand, then keeping the boundary the same makes no sense, you know, because you can't have it both ways. But this kind of sounds like this plan is already in existence, and that's what I was kind of having trouble with. So somehow this needs to say when it becomes the plan. And Ms. Markstil just just to quickly clarify, and I'm sure this is what perhaps this is what you meant, but the growth management plan is not an expansion. It's it's a it would be a roadmap to consider for expansion, but completing the growth management plan would not expand the urban service boundary. No, not that it would expand it, but it does imply that I just but I just want to make sure because that we want to make sure that that term is not not being misunderstood by the community. The growth management plan is the process to follow to consider expanding or not expanding. Right, but that's what I'm saying though. At that point, you could decide to expand. That's why three becomes invalid because three said, I'm saying the right one. The one before it says that you will not expand the urban service boundaries. And the next one says when this plan is adopted, we have the option of expanding. And I think that's what it was confusing to me because I was like, you know, is this plan in existence already? And we're already saying that. Yeah. So I don't know. That helped me. Mr. Chairman. Yes. On that point, and I've had to look at this several times because I'm looking at the red line version, which has a lot on it. But on item A, at the tail end of that first black sentence that's there, it says that this superseding of theme E, goal 3, will be at the time of adoption by the Planning Commission. So my understanding is that this will not occur until we vote to approve the Urban Service Growth Management Plan. So it's going to come back to us for approval, and it will not replace Goal 3 until that actually happens. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, Mr. Pohl, and then Mr. Mickler. A question for staff. So is it not possible that the growth management plan would allow for growth outside the urban services boundary without changing the boundary? I mean, couldn't it create something like a rural activity center? You know, there are already exceptions. why is it not a possibility that the urban services boundary would remain intact, but the growth management plan would allow for deviations in how the area is treated outside the boundary? So, Mr. Polo, I would say that by longstanding practice, we've confined urban growth to the urban service boundary or the existing rural activity center boundaries. But that's not to say that through the growth management plan, a different set of criteria could be established. Again, I think that's where the input becomes very important, because it may very well be that there is an option to do that that we haven't considered simply because we wouldn't have considered that. It really wasn't available to us. And by me even giving any notion of affirmative to your suggestion, I don't want that misinterpreted by the community or by anyone that says we're going to create new rural activity centers. That is not under any circumstance what I'm saying. But I believe the growth management plan should allow us the options to look at what the growth possibilities are outside the urban service boundary. Well, I think when we're discussing this, I'm on the one hand hearing that, you know, this is not an expansion. this is creating a process, but then I'm also reading a title that calls it a growth management plan. The language from the Fayette Alliance calls it a process. You all are calling it a plan. But I think with this continuance, I would question whether the possible outcome of a data-driven process, which might be growth, should be included in the title of the plan. It seems like that might be an outcome of a process, not the title before it's done. You making a statement, or is that a question? Well, I mean, I'm looking at this, and I think that we're asked, The draft text is economic development to complete an urban service area growth management plan. And then the alternative we were given was creating a dated urban process. Now, I would argue maybe just say a process for determining or a processing. But, again, this is, I think, why we're not making this decision on the fly. But, I mean, I agree with your sentiment there. I fear that the term growth, the urban service area growth management plan, I'm just not sure that that is a wide word choice to send forward. That's all. Mr. Chair, just as a reminder, we have less than an hour in this room. So that's plenty of time to do some monumental work, but I just wanted to remind you all that we will need to be vacating about a quarter to six. May I? Hold on. Ms. Worth had something first. I was just going to say, Mr. McClure, in the part you were reading right after the word plan, it says which creates a new process for determining long-term use. I don't know if it would be less confusing if we said create an urban service area process for developing a long-term land use management plan and just switch the order of those two. Would that take care of the – for you two, not for you. You're not in this fight. That helps me. I think it should be very obvious that that plan is not in existence. When I see the word B, to me it implies that you're pointing something very specific. And so that was my issue. I'm sorry to be wordsmithing. If we put the process before the plan and the plan is the result, would that clarify things a little bit? Or muddy it? I think we could certainly make that change. I would simply say that the urban service boundary is Lexington's greatest growth management tool. So if we're talking about, and from the planning canon, that is one of the major growth management tools in existence. So just from where that term came from, that's what it was intended to be. But certainly we can switch the wording of that. That's not a problem. I'm not suggesting you do that unless you think that would help. So here's why we maybe shouldn't. My fear is this. the language presented by the staff would ultimately eliminate the urban services boundary. It would be gone. That's right. And in ten years, this planning commission might be very different. And you might have a bunch of people up here just say, let's build the shit out of that area. And what are we going to do then? We don't have anything to protect us. What we have to protect us is the urban services boundary. That is what has made Lexington a great city. Hold your applause, please. Sorry about my French. It's too late now. I'd have heard it all. Mr. Chairman, let me just say something. And so to try to hone down what you're talking about here, two different things. One is just wordsmithing, and one is do you want to send something forward that preserves or maintains the urban service boundary, which Mr. Paul just spoke to. So if that's, you know, consider that in determining whether or not you're ready to move forward or whether or not you want to continue and have this come back, because those are two very different questions in terms of changing the wordsmithing or putting forward a goal that does absolutely speak to maintaining the urban service boundary. Those are different questions. So I just want you to be clear on that and what you're doing. And if it's a more substantive issue, it may need a little more time than something, Mr. Bell, as you speak to on the fly. I just wanted to make clear from a legal point of view. Mr. Duncan? It seems that the record. Hold on a second. Hold on a second, Ms. Boxdale. Mr. Duncan may have a statement. Mr. Chair, just to be clear and for the record, the staff is not proposing in any circumstance to eliminate the urban service boundary. And when that goal says to supersede, it is superseding a goal that says maintain the current boundaries. It is not saying eliminate the urban service boundary. So I want to be crystal clear that the staff believes that the urban service boundary is a monumental and important tool. We have no intention of ever recommending anything to the contrary, despite what this community may say. And so I want that to be on the record, that that is not what we're recommending. That is not what is before you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Hold on, Mr. Poe, because Ms. Boxdale, then I'm going to come back to you. It doesn't matter that much anymore, but I just was looking at the Fayette Alliance's objective A, and it's not – I don't get that it's saying that there's no urban service boundary, but they're just being more specific as the process to which would determine whether or not you expanded that boundary. And so that's what I got from it. But I like the wording because it says there is a process to it and not just a plan that's being thrown out. Thank you. And thank you for your comments on making that clear that we will still have an urban service boundary, period. Thank you. Right. That's really helpful. and it points to a potential solution here. So if goal three were to say maintain an urban services boundary rather than the current urban services boundary, that would be a whole lot more, that would be much more reassuring than language saying we're superseding goal three and just eliminating the whole mention of an urban services boundary. Well, but, Graham, that raises another point. The rural land management plan was created so if and when we expand, we won't leapfrog. We didn't put an emerald. We gave negative points for anything around the urban service boundary. And the reason for that was long-term, the situation you're talking about, you wouldn't want to leapfrog and put a preserved farm inside the urban service boundary. It just puts everybody at a disadvantage. so whatever it takes to give us to where we need to give we need to do but what we don't need to do is to start thinking about what could happen 20 years down the road because that council that's going to come in this room in less than an hour with eight votes can change whatever you put in here. So that's more of a threat to me than what the planning commission is going to do. If that makes any sense to you. Thank you. I'm ready. I see all the council members have gone home. Council members are getting ready. They'll be in a minute. Any more questions? Statements? changes I have a you know I still it's too important for me because I'm just not that wise to be able to make decision here on without some filtering from staff who has guided us through all this process and know the meanings of these words personally. Now, I can only be here one of those days that was offered, but I have enough faith in this whole commission that whomever is going to have, to me it's more meaningful to have a chance to really to pause on this for a second. It's five o'clock, we've been here for four hours, to just take a reboot, allow staff to do their thing, to allow whomever can be there amongst our our team to be there on a continuation. That's for me, but I'd go either way, but that's just for me. That's my concern. If we continue it, we barely have people here now on Thursdays. So if we do a different day from Thursday, are we guaranteed to have a full committee? Well, let's do a show of hands. Do we know? No, because you're still missing two today. And I know some of you guys have said. We have to get that list of days again. And then we need to check everybody's calendar. I don't know if that's going to be. You're in charge. No, I mean, I agree with you. It's just we've been in situations where it was just me and nobody was here. But don't you have to have a majority? I know. You have to have a quorum. You've got to have a quorum. That's my point. Otherwise, it'd be. That's just the point. What you're going to do is put it back 60 days. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Woodall says he can do it by next Thursday. If you all want to do this at the end of your zoning hearing, there's not a council meeting that night, so we can stay here until the cows come home, or the horses, or whoever's going to come home that night. So, if you all want to do this a week from today, we will do our best and get that back to you. Okay. Mr. DeMovell. Let me ask you a question. Chris, if you look at goal three, and the first line there says maintain the current boundaries of the urban service area and rural activity centers. I've heard about it. You add right there, accept as outlined in the urban service area growth management plan. I'll bring you a lot of that. And then get rid of where it says ensure, get rid of the rest of that. Would that maybe provide the clarity that the urban service boundary is not going away, but that the growth plan would take precedence? I think potentially I'd want to think through that a little bit, because maintaining the current boundaries and then also saying we're going to follow a process to change the current boundaries, right, what are the – I don't know. I'd have to think through that one. Jim, you – Absolutely. And, yeah, and Jim has just pointed out as well, we've also got on goal one of theme E as well, has uphold the urban service area concept as the first goal in our theme. So our intention was to maintain the urban service area concept, and just we're talking about the process by which we make those decisions here. Just one last. Yeah, that covers it for me. I didn't see number one on the other page. So Mr. Bell asked about staffs responding to the Fayette Alliance language regarding goal three and goal four. So could you give us some reflection on that language that has been provided by? I wasn't talking about now. I was talking about. Oh, later. Yeah, giving them a chance to do something, not now. I'm trying to avoid the fly. So this is looking at the two proposals. In the goal for Fayette Alliance, their objective A, I know from your presentation that your plan is to incorporate stakeholder input. Is there a way to incorporate some of what's in their A into what you've got in the original document? Would there be value in doing that? I think certainly we can make that clarification. That's the intention of what we're talking about. Okay. So here's where we are. We haven't closed this part out. We need to make a vote on what direction we're going. We're either going to continue it and we're going to approve it like it is, or we have an amendment. That's the three items I have so far. So the floor is open. I don't think we can tell. um i i'd like to make a motion that we continue this to the next thursday and add it on to the thursday um meeting to the zoning meeting to the zoning yes because i think most people geared up for that or not and by show of hands can we just see how many people might of this group are planning on being here on thursday it's gonna it's gonna be hard to determine it by now Supposedly we're supposed to be here Thursday. Now that you know what you're getting into. I mean, it does. I'm trying not to put anybody out there, but I'm just telling you. You got it. Anyway, I'll make a motion that we continue it to next Thursday. Okay. All right. So we have a motion for continuance. And Mr. Chair, we would also suggest that you close the public hearing. Close the public comment portion, yes. So the motion includes no public comment, correct? Correct. Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion? Okay. So do we need a vote via hand, or are you going to have it on Granicus? Is that Poland-Worth? No. No, Bill. Yeah, the bald-head guy. Okay. All right, so we can vote via Granicus for next Thursday. All right, as much as you go. At the end. And Mr. Forrester brings sandwiches. Yes. Okay. The motion passes for next Thursday. No public comment. Mr. Woodall? We'll work up some changes for you. Okay. Thank you. It will be added to the end of your agenda on Thursday. It will be at the end or the beginning? At the end. At the end? Okay. All right. Thank you. I knew two weeks ahead of that. I might not say what. Just because of that. Hey, tell Aunt Steve this. Tell Aunt Steve that. Tell me I'm about to. You can. Oh, thank you. Next week? That's next Thursday. You've got to come back. That's next Thursday after service comes. Explain to me. Explain your reasoning. Thank you.