♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Next, if you jump to 31.4, this is when we start getting into the more controversial areas of the tax changes. And so I'm going to explain to you some of my whys on these. For me and for us, I would say there are two big issues here, equity and local governance. On the equity side, our rural area, this is a unique value proposition for Fayette County, represents 70% of our land mass. The remaining 30% of our land mass includes all the residences, roughly 92% of the population, and roughly 85% of our gross domestic product. On the governance side, we will soon see firsthand how utility requires land and creates installations the way they want when they do a solar farm. And we'll look at the Eastern Kentucky Power Co-ops farm out in the eastern part of our county. Kentucky PSCs approves, Public Service Commission approves installations by utilities and considers local ordinances in their decision. Without a local ordinance that states exactly how we want to have things done and is thoughtful and respectful of our agricultural land, we are removing a huge tool that has the possibility to influence that final decision by the PSC. With no ordinance, we have the ability to set some limits. With an ordinance, we have the ability to set some limits in the conversation of land use for solar. With no limiter in place, we effectively give it up. So the first change is to consider limitations on accessory use and defining urban and rural accessory use limits in land usage. Mind you, this is accessory use, which is generally small and medium scale in different zones. We've included agriculture, which was left off the Planning Commission approvals. Its inclusion is aligned with the goal, with our goal of equity and consideration of our agricultural farmland. Okay, let's jump to the chart. This is the somewhat more controversial area that we're going to be discussing. So you'll see in the chart we've made some changes. It's important to us as a council and a community to listen and consider public input, especially for things of this scale. While the public input isn't always something that everyone wants to hear, every property owner has a right to have that discussion. When they made changes so that all the agricultural ground-mounted were included, we then made changes so that all the agricultural ground-mounted was included as accessory use for small and medium, but not for large, which we included as a conditional use. We also added in the R3 to R5 denser zones and the expansion area of residential high-density zone, the ability to have a conditional use permit for intermediate scale, because these properties are a bit larger and larger in scale, and they just have more possibilities to maybe do something at an intermediate scale in those areas. The Kentucky Resources Council's Solar Draft Ordinance also nods to a rationale for considering large-scale solar in the ag zone. They note, and I would agree, that limiting large-scale solar to business and industrial land will take away some of the biggest possible corporate investment land, huge numbers of job creations per acre, and as a result, affect the overall prosperity of a community. They suggest that agricultural land needs to be considered in a nurturing and careful way, and their draft solar ordinance completely influenced our thoughts in solar in the ag area in our county. So let's jump to the next. Right below it, you'll see a note. The solar energy system uses may be subject to other restrictions. That is a nod. This was placed because we recognize that some properties, both in the rural and urban areas, might have other restrictions and approval processes, like PDR farms, donated development rights farms, historical properties, and some business parks and neighborhood deeds of restrictions. We want the property owners to know that we respect those restrictions. The next section is 31.5. A and B are pretty similar. Height and glare. These were specifically added at the request of Jada Griggs and the sustainability group. They gave us these items to include so that it would help us get our soul smart city designation. This may end up yielding some potential future supportive grants, and it's important for us to make that happen. They asked for it, and we thought it was the best decision to include it. When you jump to 36.6E, this is our agreement that our prime soils are extremely valuable to us. If we accept 85% vegetative cover, meaning there is some form of vegetation on top of the soil underneath whatever is mounted above it, then that will provide a long-term better outcome when technology does eventually change and decommissioning does eventually take place. The Kentucky Resource Council model ordinance leans into the term agrivoltaics. Our staff did a great job and suggested that we could have one chicken on 300 acres, and we could call that agriculture. And we kind of agreed that that's not maybe a good idea. And they came up with the idea of vegetative coverage, because it really provides what we want. We want to preserve our prime soil, and we want to mitigate runoff. So providing this guidance, we're putting in guardrails on what type of ground-mounted solar, what it should look like in the ag zones. While the PSC is not required, but they do have the option to consider this when a public utility comes in and requests solar farms in the ag area. We felt that we wanted to provide this type of guidance and guardrail. A no-never response in the ag area only creates a tension that doesn't need to exist if we actually do it thoughtfully and carefully. If you'll jump to the next section, 316G, and in that section, something we learned from the STR ordinance, a cap should be placed on large-scale solar, including solar farms that come from our utilities, in the ag area. That cap is 2% of the land in that area, or roughly 2,600 acres for Fayette County. Currently proposed, there's an 800-acre proposed silicon ranch proposal. There's 384 from the Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative, and our own landfill is in the ag area and is roughly 600 acres. So that's about 1,800 acres in projects already identified. That leaves a little bit of room for other ones, and it's not saying that all those projects will go, but 2% seemed like a very reasonable number. The Senate introduced Senate Bill 108 this session, and similar ones prior to this that floats out the idea that the total number of land limit, there should be total percentage of land limits for solar, 1% of total county land, and requires the PSC to include that in the decision. So it is not unprecedented what we are doing here. Since special interests' big concern in the ag area is this, we feel that 2% of the ag area is a reasonable number, and we're not destroying our factory floor, as they like to call it, because we are still saving the soils for future use when technology changes. If you'll jump to 31.7. This section most clearly defines the conditional use application. Taking a lead from our STR ordinance, it seems to be extremely helpful for the BOA to have defined metrics when considering applications. These come directly from the Kentucky Resource Council's Model Ordinance 3.0. Item 10, if you scroll down to that one, directly relates to our ag prime soils, our ag zone prime soils and land, with a plan to keep the topography similar and minimizing soil interferences. As you know, when some people do projects, they strip the land, they strip the top soil, they make it as easy as possible to do the project. This is not what we have in mind, and when someone is applying for a conditional use permit, they will need to consider the protection of that. Item 11, that completes, actually, I think, the list of changes that were made with the help of staff, and we do appreciate, we do want to accommodate concerns and public input, but we are also trying to achieve our goals. So I want to say just a few more words, and then I'll give you time for questions. One thing we tried to add, but we didn't, and it didn't get included, we wanted to include a statement that electric generation done in Fayette County must be used in Fayette County. Well, that is not that easy to really prove compliance with or enforce. We could put it in there, but the fundamentals of electric generation and distribution basically are what is going to happen. Those small-scale solar arrays that are supplying power via reverse metering are just going right to the local distribution source, and it's just going to be used at a household right near it. A solar farm is quite a bit larger and does have to have proximity to our major transmission lines and network. The electric can travel distances, but would probably be easiest to use as a local supply close to the end users. So we felt like most of the electricity from this or other facilities that are in our region would still be used by us mostly because we are the biggest user of electricity. My closing comment is this. This is a tough topic. In Fayette County, our prime soils and urban service boundary are part of our unique value proposition, and we need to be super respectful of that. Land use is one of the most stressful and important things that we deal with as a council. We hear you and will continue to hear from very vocal people that have plenty of resources and education trying to influence us. We constantly have to strike the balance and find respectful ways to push back and find equitable ways to solve big problems. Not including 70% of our land in the conversation places the total burden on neighborhood constituents, neighborhoods like Greenbrier, Autumn Ridge, Masterson Station, Islesford Place, Belcourt, Ashland, Plantation, Spiegel Heights, Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association, Southern Heights, Garden Springs, South Gainesway, and the businesses in our district trying to get by to find a way to make their own investments with limited resources to meet our goal. We also realize that our farms and farmland contain constituents of a variety of means and voices. There are rural hamlets in the ag zones and landowners around them that thrive on the status quo and the never-change mentality. There are farmers who are struggling and farmers who are not. It is up to us to ensure that our land use policy is fair to each of them. I just refuse to allow the burden to fall on one group alone. We have to create and fund policies and guidelines to allow for investment to happen in a more organic and supportive way throughout the entire of our county. This is what Councilmember Dr. Sheehan and I, with the help of our planning staff, are trying to accomplish, and we hope that we can find agreement on this topic and pledge to be equitable to each of our districts. I want to thank you for giving me this extra time. I'm quite sure now there are plenty of questions. So please, Chair, let's allow our colleagues to chime in and ask away. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and give the floor back to Dave. Good one. Councilmember Savicny. Okay. So, colleagues, I know that was a little longer than our standard 15-minute presentation, but we really have combined two presentations here. The one that was the original Planning Commission presentation and then the actual draft that we have brought to you. So I appreciate your patience on that. But if you have questions or comments, go ahead and sign in. And just for order, we do have some committee members and non-committee members here. I will go through committee members on their first time to speak, then non-committee members, then committee members on their second time to speak, and then non-committee members. Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. And I do appreciate your work on this and Councilmember Savicny's work on this. Mr. Crum, could I start by asking you a question? Mr. Crum, could I start by asking you a question that you referenced in your presentation? You said that utility companies do not have to follow a local ordinance. Is that correct? That is correct. So if we put an ordinance in place, they still could kind of make their own rules? Yes. So my understanding is that they can consider kind of a variety of factors, but as far as holding them to any particular language, they are exempt from local zoning. Okay. Thank you very much. And then I don't know if this is for the Chair or for Councilmember Savicny. One of your amendments is to allow solar in the AR zone with a conditional use permit, but totaling you mentioned it could only be 2% of the urban services area. Is that correct? That is correct, Councilmember, and it's for the conditionally permitted 2%. Right. But you said the urban services area, it's 2% outside of that. Outside of that. Okay. Thank you. Outside the urban service area. Excuse me. Okay. And how did you land on that number? I landed on the number, like I looked at a variety of just different literature that kind of was supportive of how do you do this, you know, in a geography. And I basically came up with 2% because the state kind of had this, they were floating the 1%, and I've also seen 2% from them as a state kind of bill or ordinance. And so I, it seemed like people cared more about the area outside the urban services area than inside. They didn't really care how much we did inside. So I picked a number of 2% of the land outside just as a number. And that's around 2,500 acres, correct? Yeah, because we're 181,000 acres, and it's about 125 or so outside. So when we had our discussion on expansion, it was stated that 2,800 acres, which we ended up having in the expansion area, was a lot of land. So it also kind of feels like a lot of land, I think, that number. And then, why on 315B, let me find it. I just had a question as to why the last part of the proposed ordinance was crossed out. I can speak to that. That was a recommendation from the SolSmart organization based on the designations that we were looking at. They recommended, basically their justification is that solar panels are already naturally anti-glare. And the way that they are most effective is being able to be situated in a way that they can collect sunlight. And so if you start restricting the ways they can be pointed, that makes them less effective. So they considered that a piece that they wanted to lower the restrictions on what was already in here. So it would just state, integrated and rooftop SESs shall not be eliminated, period? Yes. Okay, thank you. And then, let's see. On 31-710, This said that within an agricultural zone, the board shall consider the impact of the proposal on existing soils and topography and developments should work with existing topography with grading, compaction, tree removal minimized to extent possible. In this case, for the city, who would enforce that? You can answer, sure. Yeah, so this is the criteria that would apply to a board of adjustment case. So this is sort of a laundry list of different conditions that the board would use when evaluating whether or not a use, in this case a large scale solar use, would be appropriate on a particular location here within an agricultural zone. So they would get the information up front as to this is how we plan to use the site. We are going to grade this much. This is the trees that are being removed. All of that kind of is built into the board's review and approval. From that point on, any conditional use that is approved is subject to a review process as well to make sure that they're following the conditions that were set forth. So it gives the board some additional discretion and guidance as to how they should be evaluating these, especially in the agricultural zones. And then later, we have the submitted materials to compare against the conditions on the site from an enforcement perspective. I'm out of time, so I'll have to circle back. I want to continue that. Thank you. Council Member Lickery. Thank you, Chair. Council Members Savigny and Chair Sheehan, thank you for bringing this forward. We appreciate that we're working on regulations and guidelines for solar. I have a few questions about the large scale solar proposals. I know that Silicon Ranch is the company that initiated this ZOTA and that they have a vested interest, as you mentioned, in large scale solar arrays in the AR zone. Given that they have an 800 acre solar farm that they'd like to put in. So I have a couple of follow up questions about some of the points you made around carbon neutrality, for example. So you had mentioned in your statement that we have a goal of carbon neutrality for Fayette County for 2050. It's my understanding that the power generated by the proposed 800 acre solar farm with Silicon Ranch would, for the most part, not come back to Fayette County. You started to mention this toward the end of your statement. Can someone tell me who this generated power is sold to and share anything about their coverage area? I'm not sure who the right person would be for that. I might be the closest, but I mean generally the way, generally when you're a private developer and you have a solar field, you're selling power generally to a wholesaler. And then that wholesaler is, it's like a series of, it's going on the grid where it is at, but that wholesaler is selling that power to a variety of people, whether it's a co-op, a KU, whoever, so. Okay, I could be wrong, but I think that the company is PGM. And I think that their coverage area is mostly outside of Fayette County, about maybe 2% toward Fayette County. I'm not 100% sure, but that's one of my concerns. The other is discussion about agrivoltaic guidelines. I've heard from a number of my constituents around this issue, and a lot of them talked about agrivoltaics, if there were going to be any kind of large scale solar arrays in the AR zone. And I didn't see language or guidelines around agrivoltaics in this. I know we've talked about what agrivoltaics could look like, but I'm only seeing kind of like an 85% coverage in relation to vegetative coverage. Is there a reason why agrivoltaics were not included? I want to take this. So I want to comment on the first point about Silicon Ranch as an applicant. So while they might have had relationships with other power companies in other locations, while they have been the applicant for this ZOTA, they're actually not an approved project yet. So they would still have to go through a board of adjustment process. So these guidelines are for what this could look like, no matter who that private company or entity would be. So that's why it's hard to answer that question, but we can't just point to their model, because they haven't been actually approved. The other piece is, Daniel, would you, Mr. Crum, would you mind to talk about why we didn't use the agrivoltaic language specifically? Yes, and the long answer, the very short answer is, it's really difficult to enforce and interpret. So essentially, agrivoltaics in this instance would mean that you would have the operation of the solar facility, but you would also have an agricultural use on site. In Silicon Ranch's example, they graze livestock underneath that. However, when we looked at other ordinances and other examples of how other communities have done this, it has been very difficult to really put a number. So kind of on a, say, 800 acre establishment, how many sheep are necessary to graze in order for that to really be the emphasis? And then when staff looked at these ordinances, really the overarching use, so the overriding monetary use of that property is going to be the solar energy system. And so we took a look at the aspects that are kind of inherent with the sort of dual use of the agrivoltaics. So it's a positive when you have ground cover and limited grading, as opposed to completely, say, paving the site or covering it in gravel. And so from a land use perspective and an impact perspective, and for if the use was ever to be decommissioned, we looked at sort of the aspects that are good about agrivoltaics. Rather than trying to put a firm number on, this is the amount of economic activity that is needed and keeping up with that kind of longer term can be really difficult. I believe that the model ordinance as well, kind of that was generated at a state level, does mention these agrivoltaics uses, but it's sort of an encouragement. Rather than an actual, something that you can legislate to and verify, etc. So we were trying to kind of tell the line between what is reasonable for us to legislate and in kind of the aspects that were most beneficial about an agrivoltaics use. Okay, because the main use would be solar? Yes. Okay, I see I'm out of time, I'll log back in, thank you Chair. Council Member Baxter. Thank you Chair, thank you Mr. Kern for your presentation and to the council members for bringing the amendments forward. Council Member Savigny, I know that you based a lot of the amendments on Kentucky Resource Council's draft ordinance. Can you speak a little bit about which provisions you chose to include and which ones you didn't, was there a specific method? The way I did it, I primarily looked at the existing text that was given to us from the planning commission. And I just, I took that and I said, what do I think is missing? Okay, and what do I think is, doesn't seem right. Seems like a decision was made that wasn't really maybe based on something. And then I looked at the Kentucky Resource Council, and I was like, wow, they've used a lot of language from this, because I found it. And then I was like, okay, I think this language, when I read theirs, I was like, I like this, this would be good to be included. Because we do have a unique environment, and because we do think differently about our urban-rural divide. So that's what I did, and I also know from our experience with the STRs, short-term rentals. I just know the areas that things get hung up sometimes. And I just, I wanted to be as supportive as I can, and make it as easy as possible for a landowner to do something that's for the greater good. Thank you. Mr. Crum, at the very beginning, you started saying that this was a community-driven zoning ordinance texting amendment. Thank you. Can you tell me, was this on planning's radar at all to work on separately? Would we have already gone down this road if it wasn't for this? Yeah, so our goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan have sort of talked about solar energy. I mean, the concept of the importance of renewable energy is something that's been on our radar for a while. But we didn't have any really active efforts at the time of this application. So once again, an applicant from the community sort of brought this forward. And so once they did, we were subject to kind of the process that's laid out for that. Versus something done with a comprehensive plan or something initiated in other fashions that kind of give you a longer time to look at it. But I suppose it's fair to say that because Silicon Ranch was the organization that presented the ZOTA, that the basis of their request was on how they run their business. And their business model, I suppose. Would you? Well, yeah, the language that was put forth was really to set a framework so that they could operate. Once again, the planning staff's job when we take and have an applicant that submits language is to kind of future proof it. Yes, this is how an applicant may operate here, but this would allow any entity to operate a solar energy system by those rules and regulations. So we wanted to make sure that with any language and anything that we put moving forward, that it was sort of agnostic to a particular development or developer. Okay, so one of my main concerns with the proposed changes is the ground cover addition, the requirement there. I understand that a development plan essentially would have to be, be part of the Board of Adjustment application, is that correct? How are we going to verify what their plan is for 85% coverage? A slight bit of nuance, so as a part of a Board of Adjustment application, you would have a site plan. Basically, it is not going to be reviewed by the planning commission. This is strictly the Board of Adjustment. It would follow whatever criteria, if approved by council, that you all set forth. But that would be sort of the guiding document, and is used with other conditional uses to verify that on their yearly annual inspections that they're meeting the requirements, and if not, then they can have those addressed. Okay, I'll have more questions in just a moment. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair Sheehan, and thank you, Council Member Savigny. I know that you all have put in a lot of work on this and done a lot of homework. And I know that I personally have met with folks on all sides of this issue, and so it's not an easy task to try to thread this needle, and I do appreciate you all trying to do that. So I have a few questions, and I'm going to start with my colleague to the left here. So when we were talking about your initial explanation of why we pursue this now, I want to go back to that. Which I guess my question becomes, if we are using this to, as part of our goal to get to net zero by 2050, but we can't, to my understanding, quantify the amount of emissions we're offsetting with this. If there's not a quantifiable way to measure that, how do we count it? Great question. So currently, and I don't think Jada is here, but with the, oh, is she here? Oh, there she is. I'm sorry, I didn't see you. And you can tell me if I'm wrong on this one, but, I mean, because I did go through the entire Empowered Lexington packet, and I do understand it fairly well. The power portion of our, the 40% portion, okay, of our carbon footprint comes from power generation, and it's generally based on actually the number in Kentucky, okay? So it is a broad spectrum number that is currently based on the production from Kentucky, which tends to be more coal-powered and gas-powered than anything, okay? So while we realize that there's, this solar ZOTA covers both distributed power, so basically taking the power out of the power company's hands, putting it in the hands of the people, but also some sort of industrial clean energy as well. So we want to do what we can and do our part to make that number better. Whether or not, I mean, when they presented just the last month, I brought that up. And my guess is as time flows for us, we may do a more exacting figure of how much state and county power is generated, but that's not the way it originally was done. But I can see that being part of the scheme in the future. And I appreciate that. I expressed my concerns during that meeting as well with the framework we had for achieving net zero by 2050, and feeling that we're over-promising on something that we can't tangibly deliver. And so when we're talking about it in the context of this ZOTA, I'm struggling to make the connection on how this specifically helps us get to net zero by 2050. Well, specifically, if you, I mean, there is no current, there is no current ordinance that supports solar at all in Fayette County, okay? So this covers, it covers the space from rooftop to ground solar, okay? So, and it is currently the method of power generation that is carbon neutral. So it gets us there because we as a body make policy for our county to be able to do things as easily as possible. And I want to be clear here. I support solar in Fayette County, and I want solar in Fayette County, but I guess my question specifically when it comes to the inclusion of the rural areas is why I know that you and Chair Sheehan feel very strongly about the time sensitivity of it. And I was wondering if you or her, if you could please feel free to chime in about if you could speak to the urgency of it and why y'all don't think it would be appropriate to move forward with some guidelines but give room for that separate, more in-depth process to examine agricultural use. That was in the original ZOTA that planning had. Because the entirety of Fayette County is responsible to make our goal happen. Not 30% of Fayette County is responsible for our goal. The entirety is responsible. So to leave a group out is a disservice to the rest of the people who have to bear the brunt of it. That's it. And that's the net. Okay, I'm out of time, so I'll log back in. Thank you. Vice Mayor Burke. Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for your work on this. Thinking about the idea of carbon neutrality by 2050, and I think to speak to Council Member Curtis's point about potentially over-promising. I think that's kind of the nature of these sort of very lofty goals is usually when we set goals like this, we don't necessarily have the entire pathway lined out and all the measures and stuff. But I think it's important for us to set these sort of goals, whether it's about carbon neutrality or housing or economic development, any of those things. I think it's too easy for most of us to say we support blank. We support affordable housing. We support sustainability without putting some markers, some goals, and some measures of accountability for ourselves. So I really do appreciate that. I appreciate all these numbers and stats, and I think they are really important. My question, Council Member Savigny, is if this is potentially one tool in our toolbox to get to carbon neutrality. And I think everyone here realizes that solar in either the agricultural or our urban areas is not going to be the single solution to any of this, right? If it is one of the tools in our toolbox, why did we limit it to 2% of the ag zone? Why did you feel like that was important to include that 2%? Because to me it feels like potentially it hems in our ability in the future to develop more solar. We put that in there primarily because I've done things before in this body that the state then has looked at and considered alternatives, okay? And we've, yeah, so I think perceptively we've noticed there's this trend. For them, this is a statewide issue and every county is considering like what does this look like in my county? And there are some counties that it's happening and all of a sudden they're upset when it's happening. So there's a reactionary piece that seems to say let's set a limit because we're afraid of what could happen. And so for me, I want a limit because I do respect the fact that we have groups of people that are kind of saying no, not in my area, never, never, never. The classic kind of nimbyism that we see on every zone change that we deal with in our districts and they're saying never, never, never. At least if we can provide them a backstop and be supportive of them with a backstop, I think that's the best that we can do and have them participate and help everybody. And I appreciate that. And to that point, Mr. Crum, let me ask you, when we start thinking about like what potential lands in the agricultural zone or in the rural area can be used for solar, I've read and seen some of that 2% kind of aligns with our natural limitations about where we can do solar in the AR zone. Can you speak to a little bit about basically just like where can we do it? Because I think we've heard arguments of the idea of like, oh, if we don't stop this now pretty soon, like all of our ag area is going to be overtaken with solar. So can you speak a little bit to kind of where we can even do it and how did we identify those areas? Yeah, and I actually have a graphic that I think I can show up. But I guess while that's loading up, I can speak to some of the generalities. So a lot of this really stems from a practicality perspective. So in order to kind of operate these larger scale solar facilities, one of the critical aspects is your proximity to a transmission line. All right. And so this is, and apologies, I made the particularly inspired move to put green on green on green. So it was just, yeah. But the thicker lines that you see sort of radiating from the center of that map of Fayette County there are mapped transmission lines from the PSC. Those darker parcel splots are PDR property, so these are areas that would not be eligible for solar anyways. And then the lighter color in the center is the urban services boundary. So this gives kind of a, and without being sort of a actual solar operator ourselves, from company to company, the preferences or the proximity to those lines may vary along with the economics that can change on a year to year basis. But this gives an idea of the potential areas kind of outside the urban service boundary where solar could potentially operate. But once again, you would need proximity, you would need contiguous acreage. The applicant in this proposal is, once again, in the scale of 800 acres or so. And so in staff's research, hundreds of acres are typically what is needed for an independent standalone facility as opposed to something where you have, say, an existing office building and you're adding solar or an existing home. To make the economics of that work, you're really looking at a significant amount of acreage to kind of recoup those costs. So this gives you an idea of kind of different portions and locations that that could potentially arise. But the specifics are, once again, based on the particular provider. But a lot of the county itself actually would not be particularly feasible for this, based on staff's understanding. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crum. I'm out of time. I'll sign back in. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Daniel, for the presentation. And I have a question about the SoSmart designation, so I don't know who the best would be to answer that. So, in addition to the wording that was added to the ZOTA, are there any other requirements that we need to be thinking about to ensure that we get that designation? And what's the timeline for that application? Jade, are you the best person to answer that, or Daniel, do you know? I can chime in, but Jada, please come correct me. Ms. Griggs, please come correct me if needed. So for the designation that they are seeking, there does need to be a solar ZOTA in place. And the primary areas that we were recommended to change on the behalf of the administration, with Ms. Griggs' office, is the section that applies to integrated and rooftop solar energy systems, based on the designation that they are seeking, which I believe is silver level. Is that correct? Gold. Gold. Okay, so we're going up. We're going up in the world. But the timeline is that until we have a solar ZOTA in place for them, we can't actually seek the designation. And that designation then also makes us more competitive when we want to seek any kind of resources for solar back to our community, like grant funding. Okay, and does the exclusion of not having ag zones included in the ZOTA, would that impact the application? For that SolSmart designation, they have only asked, at this point, to do the designation to the gold level, which is just the integrated and rooftop solar systems. Okay, okay, well thank you for that. And then, I actually have a lot of questions about the electricity generation, but it seems like that's more complicated, and nobody's really here that can speak to that definitively about where the energy that's generated from the solar farm, whether it comes back to this county. And I think the general answer is no, but the more broader question is, does adding that electricity load to the line help us kind of just as water flowing downhill. If there's more electricity in the line pushing out, does that lessen the generation and the pool that we have on the system? So I'll kind of skip over those questions. But then, Mr. Crumb, you talked about the planning commission mentioned the lack of process engagement when it comes to the rural area, can you elaborate on that a little more? Sure, sure. So as a part of an applicant driven ZOTA, notice gets mailed out to neighborhood associations. However, they are not mandated as a part of that process to do any additional outreach or kind of anything to that level, as a part of the conversation as this was going on. Planning staff did have some conversations with Fayette Alliance, but in a way that's sort of dissimilar from a lot of the ways that we handle other planning initiatives. Like the comprehensive plans, small area plans, those type of initiatives where the engagement and looking to the community to help set the parameters, set the expectations, get buy-in and consensus on a particular issue are not really possible during that kind of condensed time frame, where statutorily we have to review and pass a recommendation on within six months. So when we looked at this text, we looked at sort of what was the common sense, the easy, we have kind of definitive answers on what these impacts, there's settled case history for that. And that's within the urbanized context, so staff was comfortable including those and setting kind of a framework for that. Outside of the urban services area, the impact on the rural is something that both planning staff and the planning commission thought could benefit from a larger process. And there's nothing in that process since this addressed the rural area. There's nothing in that process to send it and get feedback or input from rural land management board. So the rural land management board did offer some input during the planning commission process. They were in agreement with the decision to exclude at that time the agricultural zones from the consideration within the ZOTA. But once again, it was sort of a limited amount of input versus a larger process where all the stakeholders are present and at the table. So nothing before that, so there was no- No. And I'm running out of time, but then, so it was initiated in April. It made it to us in October. And we just put it in committee, and you and Council Member Savigny have been working on it since then. Okay, all right, I'm out of time. I'll go back. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Boone. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me, as I don't have a seat on this committee. I guess I have a few questions and a little statement also. But I guess as the Kentucky Resource Council model ordinance recommends intermediate scale solar in ag zones permitted by conditional use permit, what is the justification for reducing the restrictions to an accessory use? For me, when I did a, I looked at what the original language was that came from planning and planning commission. And I generally thought that even an intermediate scale was an accessory use for a farm that's a 100 acre farm. I just found that the pain of going through, I think we make people go through the pain of conditional use permits sometimes that shouldn't have to experience that. And I don't like there to be an undue burden on a landowner and landowner rights. So that's the way I thought about it. And you are correct that the model ordinance, a version of the model ordinance has it as a conditional use permit in that area. Thank you. And many cities kind of around the nation have a rooftop first solar policy, encouraging incentivizing solar development in our built environment before looking to farmland. Why would we rush this through and ignore best practices that provide ways to protect our community in the most responsible manner? Even, we all agree that public input is something we value, and why has that not been a part of the process thus far? I would say there was a public hearing for the SOTA, so there has been some public input. And we have received public comments. So I don't agree that there hasn't been any public input. It's not the same as the comp plan and the other processes that we do with planning, but there has been the standard opportunities for a SOTA to have public input. Right, and I'll add, I do take like a, I found it very interesting that we were able to come up with everything in all of our zones in the 30%, but we weren't able to come up with anything of meaningful, tangible value in that 70% of our ag zones. And I did sit on the Rural Land Management Board, and we did have a very good discussion about this proposal and this concept. And the result is exactly what typically does happen with that body. Okay, I appreciate that. I guess just off the top of my head, I'm thinking of 2,000 acres being quasi put in as an expansion in a very short amount of time, and it took months and years to go for the urban service boundary expansion. So I think it's a little bit rushed, but I guess if there's an interest in exploring ground minutes, industrial solar in the agricultural zones, I strongly urge the formation of a dedicated work group of a new committee item to thoroughly examine this complex issue. I would be glad to sponsor this new item and or serve on the work group. This would allow for comprehensive research into prime farmland protection, robust decommissioning plans, strict operational requirements, and an analysis of best practices for the other agricultural communities. And I will pass it on to somebody else this time. Thank you. Council Member Borton. Thank you. My first piece is Mr. Crum with engagement. So I just have a couple questions about engagement. You mentioned the reason the agriculture area was not considered was due to the need for larger or more involved conversations. Is that correct? Yes. Can you talk about these engagements and what that looks like? Sure, sure. So there's been a couple examples kind of within the past decade or so of changes that have been made to the agricultural zones that kind of took a more involved process. And so the first was the, around 2014, was the recreation and tourism ZOTA. Once again, that was a multi-year long process that took a look at, once again, our agricultural zones in general, but specifically how recreation, tourism, and really an examination of just the uses throughout the zone. That was a multiple year process start to finish. That was a coalition of staff, of council, of the stakeholders, etc. Also, we saw more recently the short term rental. So in a very similar manner as sort of the framework proposed here, the initial ZOTA was set up to allow for short term rentals within urbanized context and then a follow up was conducted later. Once again, allowing kind of additional time, kind of these coalitions and different groups to get together in a way that through the traditional process you get a mailing, you get a public hearing for those able to attend. And so we were looking for something with the kind of the scale of those potential impacts that kind of increase the scrutiny we're looking at here. Okay, cool. And do we consider and emphasize the same level of engagements specifically when it comes to existing neighborhoods or historic African-American neighborhoods? Yeah, I think part of the consideration here is kind of the scale and the scope. So just in general, we try to examine the impacts as we look at kind of any type of legislation. Here, the agricultural rule was significant, A, because of our comprehensive plan policies. But B, it's the location where we're feasibly where this large scale solar is really going to occur. So in a way, this particular exclusion from the original text was pushing down the road to a more involved process, something that impacts thousands and thousands and thousands of acres. So as a part of our comprehensive plan, we try to set the basis for kind of within the urbanized zones and these interactions within neighborhoods. And once again, always as a part of any type of ZOTA, we try to consider the different contexts in which it could apply. So here, just the scale and the scope of it really necessitated a more involved process. Yeah. I totally understand that. And when I think about those historic African-American neighborhoods, I think of thousands and thousands and thousands of constituents. Same difference. I think that even then, the engagement involvement still needs to be at that same level. And did we communicate to all stakeholders who are not part of the rural area and seek their input about this? And what was the involvement tied to that? Yeah, so once again, as an applicant-driven ZOTA, all neighborhood associations within Lexington, I think approximately 270 or so, were notified as a part of this process. But otherwise, it was limited really to the operations otherwise of the planning commission. So once again, looking at the urbanized as a way to kind of implement what we have already been operating with. Really not big substantial changes or a paradigm shift, but really holding that larger question of what to do with this large scale and committing to a more involved process with that. And when you reached out to those neighbor associations, just regarding this ZOTA, what was the return on that? Was there a lot of involvement? There was not much at all. There was not much, yeah. The planning commission's public comment was just a handful of folks, and then the Fayette Alliance, essentially. Okay, so how would this amended proposal affect, and this may be for you, it may not, for anyone that needs to take this question. How would this amended proposal affect the majority of citizens? For example, would this lower the cost of electricity for individuals? What is the long term investment for our community on this? I can take that one. We're making a long term investment in providing a framework to allow for clean power to exist in our community. The whole concept of climate change is all related to this. Climate change, there are people in our community that will not be affected by climate change to a great extent because they have the means to be able to make a difference in their life and live in a way that it doesn't affect them. There are people in our community who do not have that opportunity. And climate change will affect the marginalized more than it will affect anybody else. So I don't necessarily think it's a cost situation. This is a bigger issue that is not, we are trying to put a framework in place to be supportive of our goals, which are part of a bigger issue of supporting our people with climate change. Okay, thank you. I would just add that when we're referring to the comprehensive plan and the goals that we have set from the comprehensive plan, those did get a lot of community input. And so us setting that 2050 net zero goal has been a community issue and set as a community standard. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate all the input from the Planning Commission and then also the amendments that you made. But I think as we've had this discussion now for an hour and 15 minutes, and it looks like there's still a lot of questions, and I think what Council Member Boone had talked about with the work group. I think that has a lot of merit. At this point, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the ZOTA as recommended by the Planning Commission. So moved. Second. We still have people signed up to do questions and discussion. Will you hold that motion? They've already spoke. I will hold that if after the group does, but there has been a motion and it has been accepted. So I think we go ahead with the process. Can I do a point of information? And this is just for my, maybe my lack of knowledge, maybe it's because this motion just came forward. So within, after this motion, there'll still be opportunity to respond twice to, with questions in time to his motion. Whatever you have. We now have discussion on the motion. So I'll open it up for the discussion on the motion. I will take hands since there are people still signed in. I guess my follow up question to that would be, being that part of the discussion of this motion is related to the same topic that we're on, correct? Yes, we have, yes. So you would be looking at the motion that was just raised by Council Member Ellinger and you could discuss that motion and the acceptance of that particular language. And then you would have the opportunity to discuss that motion and your vote on that motion or ask questions or make amendments. So I will just go around for discussion on the motion. Council Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Crum, let's see. We have about 300,000 acres of land outside the urban service area, is that correct? Let me pull, let's see. Outside of the urban service area, I have that number as 125,190 acres after the urban growth expansion that occurred recently. And then 2%, I'm going to try to keep. I'm going to make a motion to amend Council Member Ellinger's motion to adopt the amended language of Council Member Sivigny, so moved. We have a motion and a second, so now we have discussion on that motion. And I'll do another point of information just for my clarity and for the public clarity as well. So the motion, the amended motion that is now on the table is up to discuss everything that's in this packet. Solar, red line, and what's not a red line, correct? The motion that is now on the floor is the red line version. Thank you. Okay, so I'll go to Council Member Curtis. I'll just go around. People are still signed in from before, so I can't use that. So, are we going to say something? This is on the amendment. Right, so we're not going to use the. Does anybody mind if I clear the screen and start our things over? Okay. I'm concerned about us getting caught in a procedural loop here and creating unneeded headaches there. So I just wanted the clarity. I'm taking notes, but yes. Thank you. This is discussion on the amendment. And I will call on, I had already called on Council Member Curtis. Does anybody? Okay. No, no, no. Go ahead. Okay, so I'm going to focus my question again back on the redlined version of this. So, apologies for taking a second to wrap my head around that procedural move that we just had. So, one of the things that I did when I was looking through this was compare the redlined version of our ZOTA to the KRC recommended ZOTA. And one of the things that I noticed was that the KRC recommended ZOTA has definitions for soils of statewide significance, but we don't have that in the redlined ZOTA that we have, even though we have the definition of prime farmland and considerations for that. I was wondering if you could speak to why one was included, but not the other. Just for, just because prime farmland seems to be an all encompassing term. And there's, so I just, I chose one. I just chose one, because the other one isn't really the soils of statewide significance. It really didn't show up anywhere else. So when you define something and it doesn't show up, it didn't seem like there was a reason to define it. Prime farmland does show up. Okay, and so when we're talking about these large scale solar farms in rural areas, we're talking about major investments in infrastructure and people. Like these are major projects incorporating technology that does have, if it's mismanaged, the potential for pollution. And I'm coming at this from the angle of somebody who's both come up as an environmental activist through orgs like the Sunrise Movement, and also somebody who grew up on my family's farm. And it feels a little bit as if it's framed as a choice between supporting one or the other. And I'm not sure that I fully buy that dichotomy, because when we talk about pollution, that is something that impacts our environment, it's something that impacts climate change and whatnot. As we are looking at large scale solar as an industry overall, and especially now under a federal administration that is working actively to dismantle incentivization for clean energy. I do have some concerns about the long term viability and what happens if, what protections do we have in place if a company is say, unable to decommission or starts using half measures or shortcuts in the meantime? I think you've kind of given me a whole bunch of hypothetical things that could happen. And that's the same with any other project that would take place anywhere. So I'm going to struggle to give you an answer that may make you not fear, okay? So I'm going to, for me, I'm going to have to kind of, I'm going to have to leave that, let that one sit. Because there's a lot of decisions we make every day that we're making a decision and we're creating a framework that is our best intent is for it to be used properly. And that's what I've done here. Thanks. And I understand and appreciate that. I don't think that we should be making decisions out of fear or capitulation. But when we're talking about it in the economic environment, I think that's something that we should be considering as important context. One of the things that you had mentioned was the inclusion of that acreage boundary as a prevention for potential reactionary element. And so with that in mind, my question is, wouldn't a more in-depth process to examine the ag use give ample time to create public buy-in and avoid some of that short-term reactionary as opposed to just putting the language in now? I don't think whatever, I'm going to be completely honest with you. Yeah, and I appreciate that. Yeah, I don't think there are people that are in control of the narrative in the farm area that are going to continue to control the narrative. And we won't necessarily hear all the voices, okay? You hear the people that are in control. You don't hear the people that aren't. And I think the statewide solar ordinance that was created thought a lot about just the basics, and the basics are good. The structure is there. It's supportive. Like there's limitations. There's so many things there that allow for things to be done thoughtfully and carefully that the no never continues to play into the power system that's been created there. I recognize that I am out of time. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. To the amendment, I just want to thank you and Council Member Savigny for all your work on this. I appreciate you all making amendments to give us to consider options to maximize all the land to be considered for solar in Fayette County. And I actually do agree with some of the language or the amendments to the small scale and the intermediate scale. But I think it's the large scale that gives me pause, but I would separate those two. But I think we probably need to, to Council Member Boone's point, is to have those conversations in tandem, kind of like we did with short term rentals. Whether it's an amended total amendment to the ZOTA or a complete separate policy on the rule. So I don't plan to support this motion. I plan to support Council Member Elliger's motion, but then would also entertain including the changes made to section 31-5 that came from Ms. Griggs in regards to the sole smart designation. And I won't make a motion at this time, but thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to you and Council Member Savigny for working on this diligently. And I just have more of a comment than a question. From my perspective, this amended ZOTA, we are pretty much laying the groundwork to achieve our sustainability goals for the future. And remember, as a council, we voted on those goals, I think, unanimously, if my memory is correct. That we were serious about those goals so we could have a sustainable environment for our children's children here in Lexington. And so we are currently taking sustainability steps on several fronts here as a city, which we should. We're building out our tree canopy so it's better for our neighborhoods. Our street safety task force is looking at how we move around our city in safer, more environmentally friendly ways. We had Empower Lexington that brought solar panels to homes in my council district, which was something that was not very popular. But I was very pleased with the amount of my neighbors that joined that program. And so I feel that no matter how this ZOTA originated, I'm supporting the ordinance and the amendments to this ZOTA because it's moving our city forward in a direction that we already committed to, and that's our 2050 goals for sustainability. We have to create and be intentional about creating and meeting those goals. We can't just throw a goal out there and just let it sit or push the can down the road. I think we have to take intentional steps toward meeting those goals, and I see this amended ZOTA as doing that. Preparing a safer, a cleaner, a more environmentally friendly Lexington for our children's children. And it's not just the urban Lexington, it's the rural and urban Lexington. And then also, I feel like this discussion kind of eerily feels like a discussion that we had in 2023 about our goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. I feel the us versus them environment around this topic, which shouldn't be, which makes me not very happy because I feel like this topic, as with our goals and objectives discussion, is being weaponized. And when things are weaponized, unnecessarily, it divides our community instead of unifying our community. We are one county, we are one city, and we have to govern and legislate that way. We should not divide our city based on where you live, whether it's in the rural parts or in the more urban parts. As a legislative body, we have to make decisions that are best and greatest for the whole. And I see this amended ZOTA as laying that groundwork. Yes, whatever applicant decides to file an application after whatever ZOTA is passed, that may not have the imprint that we think it will have immediately, but that's just the first one. Then we're at the beginning stages of laying this foundation for the future, for years to come. We should do it in a way that's going to benefit all, and I think this is going to benefit all, no matter where you live. And that's how we should be looking at this. Is it going to benefit everyone, no matter where you live? It's not us versus them. It's not, I'm protecting my land, and it's going to have to go in the city, because y'all have to deal with this. We're not dealing with this. That's not fair, that's not unifying, that's weaponizing. I see this topic as something that we should legislate on as for the good of the whole. So that's why I support this amended ZOTA, because it's good for the whole, and we will see the benefits into the future. Maybe not next year, maybe not in three years, but we will see the benefits into the future. We just have to lay the groundwork to what's done in a way that we can be committed to and believe in that is best for our neighbors. Thank you, Chair. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. I really want to echo Council Member Lynch's comments about it. I think it's important for us to keep sight of, at least for me, what I think my job is here. And I can distill it down to one sentence, and it's doing the most good for the most people, right? And those decisions that we make are not without consequences. They're going to affect and impact a lot of folks positively and negatively, and we always have to weigh those considerations. What I'm hearing in this conversation, or rather what I'm not hearing in this conversation from folks who have a lot of issues with the amended language from Council Member Savigny is I'm not hearing folks talk about how to get to yes. I'm hearing a lot of no's. And what I really want to know, and this might be a rhetorical question or a question for my colleagues to really sit with, is are we opposing specific items, specific points of this plan and this framework? Are we saying, well, if we move this to here, I would be comfortable with it. If we did this over here, we'd be comfortable with it. Or are we saying simply, in different words, that we don't want any solar in our rural or agricultural zones, period, full stop? Because if that's the case, we need to have a whole different conversation and any good faith effort to move towards changes or amendments or compromises is kind of pointless. And I have to say, in my experience here, particularly as somebody who has to chair the zone change hearings that come before us, I see a lot of parallels. Because what I've seen is zone change applications happen and we see opposition groups organized and coming out and saying, we don't like this, we don't like that, we don't like that. And then throughout those processes, they've worked with those applicants. And those applicants have said, okay, you don't like that, we can change that, we can make this a little bit milder, we can do this. And then in the end, and I've literally heard people say the quiet part out loud, is we don't want any development in this area, period. And I think as a community, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that if I ask this room, who here cares about sustainability? Everybody would raise their hands. If I say, who here cares about renewable energy? Who here cares about getting to a greener, more sustainable future for our children? Every single one of us would raise our hands. If I ask, who in this room supports affordable housing? Everybody would raise their hands. But then when I ask you, we'd like to do this development behind your property. And the conversation completely changes. And I've seen it over and over and over again. And it's very, very frustrating. I want us to get to a yes. I want us to get to the thing that everyone says that they're for. But you can't have this philosophical stance of saying you're for something. And then any time anything comes up moving in that direction, you say no, no, no. Because of this, because of this, because of this. It's unacceptable. As a community, as elected leaders, as decision makers, it's unacceptable. We have to do the most good for the most people. Now, take one step back from that. We live in the reality of what we do here. We don't live in absolutes. Not everybody gets everything they want. I've been on both sides of every conversation that we've had here. I've been in opposition to things. I have not wanted things to move forward. With that in mind, in that there is so much disagreement right now, I think, among this committee. And with the consideration of potentially gathering more discussion and input from the public, I move to postpone this issue to the December 2nd GGP committee meeting. So moved. Do I have a second? We can put a motion to postpone preempts the other things. So I have a motion, do I have a second? Second. This is not a discussable motion, is that debatable, correct? So I will take a vote. December 2nd, it's our December GGP meeting. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. No. Okay, we'll just do that as an electronic vote. There is six votes no, so that motion fails. So then we're back to the original amendment discussion. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Chair. I shared some of my questions earlier, and I still have a number of questions and concerns about the red line version. I do think that the potential to use hundreds of acres in the AR zone as delineated in this amended version could be too much of an industrial use. And I am worried about the ecological function of the land. When we talk about putting large scale solar in the air zone, and I would like to learn more about decommissioning plans, about agrivoltaics. And I'm worried about the degradation of the topsoil and related erosion. I grew up on a farm in rural Kentucky. My father's a soil scientist. And I think that these questions are legitimate. And I 100% believe in our need to mitigate the effects of climate change. You all see here that with smaller arrays, with intermediate scale arrays, we have options. And I think that these are very much possible within the guidelines provided by this legislation that the planning commission sent to us. And we also have many places, rooftops, intermediate scale solar, and large scale, but not in the AR zone. So B4, I1, I2, ED, that could support solar and help us move toward net zero. So I guess where I am right now is that I'm not comfortable with the options provided here for large scale solar in the AR zone. And I think that there should be more discussion and potentially more regulation if we're going to continue to explore and talk about that option. Vice Mayor, to your points, Council Member Boone shared that we have the option to set up a work group. It could be around a range of things, including net zero solutions in relation to solar, if that is truly the goal. And I'm interested in that option and in incentives that we can use to promote solar in a meaningful and sustainable way. And I think that there are numerous spaces to do that. So thank you, Chair. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Chair. I think I still have a lot of questions too, and I'm obviously not going to ask them at this point. But I think bottom line for me as well is that I still do have a lot of questions. I think the red line version that was provided to us, there are some good points to it, and there are some points that I still don't agree with. When Mr. Crum said that this kind of wasn't on our radar or that we started down this line of conversation about this ZOTA because it was brought to us by an organization. I understand that he also made mention that while a specific company brought us the ZOTA, we still have to make sure that it is applicable across the board. However, because this was brought to us by a for-profit corporation who has been involved in multi-million dollar lawsuits, I don't feel like this ZOTA benefits our community more than it benefits their business. I do feel like solutions for sustainability and further discussions about how we utilize solar in this community is very important. I also would be interested in furthering those conversations. However, I'm still not convinced that a usage of acreage similar in size to the recent expansion that doesn't provide housing and doesn't provide a number of jobs is a good use of that land. I don't believe that this will allow for specific benefits as far as our power infrastructure is concerned. And I'm concerned that if we're saying that it's the entire community's responsibility to achieve our goals, then we have to be really careful about how we consider ordinances like this and how we're working towards our goals, because there could be a lot of unintended consequences along the way, too. Vice Mayor, you asked how we get to yes, and I do think that a work group would be appropriate for that. I appreciate that the public has had opportunity to weigh in to this ZOTA prior to today. However, this is the first public presentation we've had of these amendments, and so I think the public does deserve an opportunity to weigh in to the amendments as well. And I do think there are some other provisions in place to allow for a little bit of feedback. But at this time, I'm not going to be supporting the amendment. I will be supporting Council Member Ellinger's motion to move the Planning Commission's recommended ZOTA language forward. And then I will also be in support of any additional work group that would be created for AR provisions. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be brief and just say a few comments, and I'll save the rest of my questions for a later time. I just want to be clear that I don't think we're discussing here whether those of us that may be against some of the amendments, whether we support solar or not, whether we support having a better environment or staying to net zero, I don't think that's what we're saying. It feels like the conversation is if you all don't agree to a certain thing, then you're not agreeing that we need to make changes and that we need to get to where we want to go. Instead, for me, I'm concerned about how this particular outcome of allowing solar in the ag area will actually not help us get there, that it is not helping Fayette County, it is not helping Lexington directly, and that it could cause harm. And I think that's the question that we're talking about, not that we're not open to solar, not that we don't think it's a good idea. For me, myself, I think it's a very good idea, residential areas, business areas, parking lots, roofs, and I think as a city we can do more to incentivize that. But this is talking about something that at this point would not directly benefit Lexington. And so I think that we have to be extremely careful. I agree with my colleagues, either a work group or looking at this item. I'm not against all of the amendments. I think some of them are fine and I could support them, but I cannot support putting large scale solar in an ag zone. So I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you, and thank you for giving me the time to speak, being that I'm not on this committee. And that's exactly what I'm about to highlight. So I'm not on this committee, so I will not have a vote on this matter right now. But I will say that I believe in preserving the uniqueness of Lexington while also addressing our challenges head on. That means both rural, but then also both urban, our historic neighborhoods here in Lexington specifically, our historic African American neighborhoods who are constantly under attack. So at the city level, we must make sure when we're talking about that engagement, we're talking about that intentional engagement. We must make sure that that engagement is the same and is equal and intentional for those neighborhoods that I just mentioned, those historic African American neighborhoods. We must look at it as their input matters as well, not just as complaints or just as here they go again. So I look forward to gaining more information about this matter, specifically related to how it will directly impact the constituents, both short and long term. And I look forward, if this motion does not pass, I look forward to coming to the full council and having a discussion on it. So thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair. I want to speak to some of the considerations that I'm struggling with words a little bit. I think many of us are at this moment because this is a very difficult conversation for a lot of us to be having. I want to make something very clear, which is that when I say that I support solar projects, it's not a hypothetical to me, it's not a I support solar projects somewhere else situation. If I were able to have solar panels installed on my apartment building today, I would be 100% on board, please build it in my backyard. But one of the things that I do think needs to be taken into consideration when we're talking about the equity conversation is that I do live in an area that produces more pollution. That is, contributing more to our carbon footprint. When I was living on my family's farm, I wasn't contributing to that in nearly the same way I am now when I live in an urban area. I am not philosophically opposed to considering agricultural solar usage. And I'm not anti-Silicon Ranch even. I've been out and I've seen their facility in Garrett County, and I think that what they've proposed is really fascinating. I think it's something that does have potential, but I don't think that we've had the appropriate level of engagement thus far. I'm not going to support this motion right now because I want to see us form that work group. I want to see us have an in-depth discussion involving all stakeholders about agricultural solar. And I want to see us get to the point where we have environmental, more solid environmental protections in place, should we end up in a situation where we are relying upon the goodwill of folks who are motivated more by profit than out of desire to do good in terms of the environment, in terms of sustainability, and in terms of helping us achieve net zero. So that's where I'm at today, but I also want to point out before I yield the floor that I do think for us to pursue the importance, for us to pursue the SolSmart designation, I think it's worthy to make a motion after we get through this vote to, should it fail, to amend the original planning ZOTA to include the modifications that were made in section 31.5 of the planning amendment ZOTA so that we can continue to pursue that SolSmart designation and open up those opportunities for us. So if this vote should fail, I do intend to make a motion on that. Thank you. Mr. Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair Dr. Sheehan. And I just want to thank all you colleagues for your feedback, it's all great. And I'm excited to take this vote, and I'm going to now call for the question on that vote. So I look forward to seeing how it plays out. And then, so I'm just calling for the question, let's do it. Okay, you just preempted me speaking, but that's fine. So all in favor say aye. Aye. This is the amendment from Vice Mayor Wu. I'm sorry. So let's do an electronic vote on everything. I'm going to say no on my part. So this is the amendment to accept the red line version. Oh, is that what it is? Yes. No, this is for the call to question, you have to do a vote for call to question. I don't think you do. Parliamentarian, you don't vote on that. Call to question forces the vote. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so we voted. That motion fails for the red line language. So then it goes back to Council Member Ellinger's motion on the floor. So there still can be discussion on this motion. I will ask for your consideration of time because we do have a work session. So if we're coming up on 3 o'clock, we might have to take a recess. Yes. Okay. Council Member. Thank you, Chair. I move to amend the ZOTA as is to include the red line provisions under section 31-5, general requirements applicable to integrated and rooftop solar energy systems with, again, the red line language that we had from the prior ZOTA. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Can you repeat what section that was, please? 31-5. A? Is that A or B? All of it. We'll do a digital vote on everything. Okay, so that motion passes. Then it goes back to the original motion as amended. We had a motion and a second, so do we need any discussion on this vote now? Any further discussion? Okay, another electronic vote, please. Okay, from 8-2, that motion passes. We had one more presentation. We'll work with CivicLEX to get that on another scheduled day. Thank you, everyone, for your discussion. Council Member Savigny. And I just have one final point on this, even though we voted at this point. When this comes out to Council, the other Council Members may be thinking and may have amendments. I would strongly encourage the Council to consider limitations in the ag area, because whether you like it or not, the East Kentucky Power Cooperative is going to do what they want out there. And if we put limitations on the how and why it can happen, even if we don't allow it to happen, we at least have a legal leg to stand on with the Public Service Commission to be supportive of the way we think industrial solar should be. So I would ask you to consider that and think about that, and let's talk about it beforehand. And I want to make a motion at this time to report this out early at the August 19th work session. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Okay, we will work on the Charter Review presentation and getting that on the schedule. One of our items on the agenda is an update for LPGMP, so I'm going to turn it over to Vice Mayor Wu for that. Thank you, Chair. This was going to be brief to begin with, and now it's going to be even briefer. I just basically want to thank everybody involved with the Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program. We've had some really great public input sessions. And basically what's happening now is the planning staff is going to hunker down and work on the next draft, which will be presented to this committee on September 9th. And a week after that, we're going to have a special call GGP meeting as an opportunity for public comment. If my colleagues have not yet had a chance to talk to planning staff about LPGMP, I encourage you to do so. And of course, if you're not on Engage Lexington yet, please do. Thank you. The last item on our agenda is items referred to committee. I do have two brief things for that, three brief things for that. So one, Council Member Morton is the sponsor of a waiver notice requirements item and has requested to remove that from committee. He is not on our committee, so he cannot make that motion himself. So I would accept a motion to remove. So I have a motion and a second. I need a second. We have a second. All in favor to remove the waiver notice requirements item, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Then the Blue Sky Area Master Plan, when that was put into committee, it was assigned to me as chair. But Council Member Boone and Council Member Hale are both serving on the stakeholder group for that work group. So they have agreed to co-sponsor that item. So they will assume that role. And then, Council Member Morton, would you like to just talk about the renaming of your other item, or do you want me to just read it? Okay, briefly. Can I see that real quick? So just, I have an item in GGP committee, and it's just titled Youth Programming. But the work we're doing around it is aiming to revitalize youth programming. So I just want to make a title change to put one word in front of youth programming, revitalizing. And that's it. Okay, we don't need a motion for that, so thank you. That concludes our agenda for today, colleagues. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.