New Orleans City Planning Commission Hearing on Transient Lodging Study – February 2, 2026
New Orleans City Planning Commission Hearing on Transient Lodging Study – February 2, 2026
The New Orleans City Planning Commission (CPC) held a public hearing on February 2, 2026, to consider the Transient Lodging Study prepared by Desire Line and CPC staff. The study proposes new regulations for hotels, commercial short-term rentals (CSTRs), and other transient lodging uses. After staff presentations, extensive public testimony from over 20 speakers, and commission deliberation, the CPC voted 7-0 to transmit the study to the City Council with several amendments and recommendations.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jennifer Wickham (architect, Workshop W40): Opposed splitting hotels into categories, arguing hotels have higher safety standards than STRs. Asked to retain current hotel zoning and rename "neighborhood hotel" to "small hotel." Noted hotels constitute only 7.9% of transient lodging uses.
- Nicole Weber (Greater New Orleans Hotel Lodging Association): Supported a single hotel category, warning that a "neighborhood hotel" category conflicts with Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence on ancillary uses (bars, restaurants).
- Gregory Lett (property owner, 226 Decatur Street): Supported allowing STRs in VCE1 to offset rising costs (insurance up 100%, property taxes up 33%) and cited 11 buildings with vacant upper floors on Decatur Street.
- Suzette Taladano (representing 215/225 Decatur LLC): Supported STRs in VCE1, detailing that of 42 VCE1 properties, only 24 contain residential units, and estimated only about one-third of units could qualify as STRs.
- Christian Casey (220 Decatur): Supported STRs, presented 38 signatures from business owners in support.
- Ron Langslow (1000 South Normus C. Francis): Supported current hotel and B&B regulations, opposed complex categories, supported two-year renewal cycles for CSTRs, and supported VCE1 STRs.
- Alan Johnson (1418 Charters): Opposed hostels in the historic core, warning that loopholes allow hotels to bypass STR restrictions. Pointed out that in Marigny, hotels under 10,000 sq ft are by right.
- Patrick Quinn (131 Decatur, hotel/STR operator): Supported moving CSTRs toward hotel regulations, asked to remove occupancy caps per room for CSTRs.
- Nathan Chapman (Vieux Carré Property Owners, Residents & Associates): Opposed STR expansion in the French Quarter, criticized staff for not raising the French Quarter to the highest impact level, warned against creating exceptions.
- Aaron Holmes (VCPORA): Opposed any new transient lodging in the French Quarter, citing over-concentration and fire hazards. Noted that in the study's public comments, only 2 supported STRs in VCE1 versus 26 opposed.
- Dr. Melanie Mitchell Muller (resident, 232 Decatur Street): Opposed STRs in VCE1, described negative impacts on quality of life, noted her building has 20 units and no vacancies since 2023.
- Eleanor Graham (900 Bartholomew Street, Neighbors First for Bywater): Opposed neighborhood hotel category and CSTRs entirely, urged simplification, opposed grandfathering.
- Jacob Wardner (Garden District Association): Opposed lifting the ban on STRs in the Garden District, citing its National Historic Landmark status and 5 million annual visitors.
- Susan Johnson (2822 Page Street): Opposed hotel development near university campuses, noted lack of data supporting staff recommendation and example of a failed 57,000 sq ft proposal at 1772 St. Charles Avenue.
- Kim Keene (1201 Canal Street): Opposed STRs in mixed-ownership condo buildings, asked for a ban on bad actors.
- Shelley Landry (Garden District Association): Opposed lifting the ban on STRs.
- Lyle Montgomery (625 South Rochelle): Opposed CSTR overdevelopment, asked to eliminate grandfathering, noted one block in his neighborhood has 20 CSTRs.
- Andrea St. Paul Bland (Garden District Association): Opposed STRs, noted 5 million annual visitors.
- Justin Frank Stoffall (Jane Place): Opposed expansion of transient lodging in CBD districts, supported on-site operators and no grandfathering.
- John Rayershad (1430 Aladama Street): Opposed removing the STR ban in the Garden District.
- Sandra Stokes (Louisiana Landmark Society): Opposed expansion in historic districts, asked for on-site management, opposed grandfathering, supported simplifying categories.
- Julia Jones (827 Louisa Street, Neighbors First for Bywater): Opposed CSTRs, said they damage neighborhoods.
- Jim Goodwin (537 Red Street, Algiers Point Association): Supported eliminating all STR categories and high-level regulation for simplicity.
Discussion Items
Staff presentation (by CPC staff) covered:
- Removal of recommendation for neighborhood hotels in VCE1 due to conflict with 1969 French Quarter Hotel Moratorium.
- Retention of recommendation to permit small CSTRs (one unit per lot, one per block) in both VCE and VCE1, but removal of medium CSTRs from these districts.
- Lowering neighborhood hotel threshold from 20 keys to 16 keys.
- Recommendation to place CSTR regulations in Article 21 as temporary uses (no grandfathering for future licenses).
- For CBD5: recommendation to allow small and medium CSTRs with block limitations (more restrictive than current by-right status).
- Discussion of combining non-commercial and commercial STRs into one typology if operator presence is required – staff called it a policy decision for Council.
- Enforcement is outside study scope but noted that simpler regulations aid enforcement.
Commissioners deliberated amendments:
- Commissioner Flick: Add recommendation for coordination between state fire marshal and safety/permits on building code compliance.
- Commissioner Whittree: Remove hostels as permitted use in HMC2 district and request Council review hostel permissions.
- Discussion on grandfathering: Ms. Graham (former deputy city attorney) argued CSTRs are only permits, not land use entitlements, and can be eliminated without grandfathering. CPC staff maintained that existing CSTRs have non-conforming use rights under state law.
- Concerns about CBD5 and Garden District.
Key Outcomes
The commission passed a motion (7-0) to transmit the study with the following amendments and recommendations to the City Council:
- Rename "neighborhood hotel" to "small hotel."
- Recommend Council coordinate with the state fire marshal and Department of Safety and Permits on life safety code compliance for CSTRs.
- Remove hostels as a permitted use in the HMC2 district and recommend Council review hostel land-use permissions.
- Retain the existing prohibition on short-term rentals and bed-and-breakfasts in the Garden District (do not lift the ban).
- Prohibit small and large hotels in CBD5 by right; keep hotels as conditional use only.
- Recommend Council consider consolidating commercial and non-commercial STRs into a single typology to simplify enforcement.
- Recommend Council consult with the Law Department on the issue of grandfathering existing CSTRs.
- No change to current regulations for the French Quarter (study recommendation to allow small CSTRs in VCE1 stands); commission emphasized enforcement and opposed a new lottery system.
The study now moves to the City Council for public hearing and potential codification via a text amendment.
Meeting Transcript
Council will likely initiate a separate motion for a text amendment to codify new regulations. Those regulations may or may not follow the CPC recommendations. This text amendment process will include its own process and public hearings. Because the contents of the study have been presented twice, this presentation will focus on the questions the commissioners presented at the December 9th CPC hearing. The first concern was expanding transient lodging uses to the French quarter. The initial recommendations from Desire Line proposed allowing neighborhood hotels in the VCE1 district, which would be in direct conflict with the 1969 French Quarter Hotel Moratorium. Both Desire Line and CPC staff recommend amending this recommendation to remove neighborhood hotels from the VCE1 district. However, CPC staff recommends retaining the recommendation to permit small short-term rentals in both the VCE1 and VCE district, but remove the recommendation to permit medium commercial short-term rentals from these districts. This recommendation is consistent with staff recommendations in the 2018 and 2019 short-term rental studies, which stated the VCE and VCE1 district should be treated similarly. There was also discussion to reclassify the French Quarter as a high impact neighborhood. While the staff understands the reasoning, changing the classification would be inconsistent with the methodology used to tier neighborhoods in the city. Regardless of this classification, CPC staff believe that amending land use permissions is a more appropriate response to concerns. The study recommends a tiered framework for hotels, recognizing that smaller hotels do not have the same impact as a large corporate hotel. Scaling the uses allows for more nuance in determining each category's use permissions that accounts for the scale and character of the two proposed hotel types. After hearing concerns voiced at the December CPC hearing, desire line and CPC staff recommend lowering the threshold of neighborhood hotels from 20 keys to 16 keys. Neighborhood hotels would still not be allowed ancillary uses, such as bars or standard restaurants unless permitted in the base zoning district or a separate land use entitlement is received. Commercial short-term rentals have been amended twice since their original adoption. In 2019, a zoning interpretation determined that grandfathering was permitted for properties where commercial short-term rentals where the commercial short-term rental regulations change in accordance with Article 25, Section 25.2. This presumption would apply to existing commercial short-term rentals once new regulations are codified. The CPC staff proposed locating the commercial short-term rental regulations in Article 21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, aligning them with the non-commercial short-term rental regulations where entitlements are temporary and cannot be grandfathered. The transient lodging study recommends three commercial short-term rental typologies, small, medium, and large. The large category functions as a whole home single family rental. While the study initially recommended allowing commercial short-term rental large in several zoning districts, Desire Line and CPC recommend amending this recommendation to remove this use from all districts with the exception of the MMU Maritime Mixed Use District. There were other concerns voiced regarding the maximum number of guests allowed for this use, which was originally recommended to be up to 20 guests. Desire line and staff recommended recommend reducing that number to 10, which is a maximum number permitted under the current commercial short-term rental regulations. Currently, the CBD 5 district permits commercial short-term rentals by right, where there is currently no block limitation. The proposal to permit small and medium short-term rentals in the CBT 5 district would be more restrictive than what is allowed now by establishing block limitations and decreasing the number of units permitted in each building. The CBD 5 district currently allows hotels through the conditional use approval process and must comply with the use standards found in Section 20.3.x XX of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which evaluate if there is already a hotel or motel established within the subject block phase. To date, all conditional use requests for hotels in the CBD5 district heard by city council have been approved since the adoption of the new comprehensive zoning ordinance in 2015. A few have been withdrawn, but none denied. Combining all non-commercial short-term rentals and commercial short-term rentals into one use typology was a suggestion posed by the city planning commission staff supplementary report. This is ultimately a policy decision that will need to be made by the city council. Whether this consolidation is appropriate will be determined based on how the city council chooses to regulate operator presence and operational standards. For example, if the city council determines new commercial short-term rentals must have an operator on site, the distinction between a non-commercial short-term rental and a commercial short-term rental would be negligible. In this scenario, combining these uses into one typology makes sense and would simplify enforcement and the zoning code, reduce confusion, and could apply one set of standards to all short-term rentals. There was discussion at the December 9th CPC hearing around standardizing all transient lodging uses by owner, but this was found already to be unconstitutional. Moreover, simplifying these uses into traditional and non-traditional transient lodging types would dismantle long established use typologies such as hotels and bed and breakfasts. Should the city planning commission or a city council wish to consolidate transient lodging uses into new terminologies, a new study would likely be needed to determine how to differentiate and regulate these uses. And as noted in the desire line's response, was advised to adhere to consistent data sources throughout the analysis. All information that did not come directly from the city or from publicly funded sources, including the gene place data, was excluded from the analysis. Additionally, the data from Jane Jane Place did not differentiate between non-commercial versus commercial short-term rentals, where analyzing eviction rates, skewing the data in a study where only commercial short-term rentals were studied. The data from Gene Place is, however, included in the appendix of the study. Enforcement is outside the scope of the transient lodging study, but City Planning Commission staff recognize that enforcement is a key component to effectively implementing new regulations. The more straightforward the regulations are, the easier they are to enforce. Once transmitted, city council will determine if they want a presentation and how they'll move it forward. Council will likely initiate a motion for a text amendment to codify new regulations, which could look different than the commission's recommendation transmitted to council. The future text amendment will have its own public hearing process with both a city planning commission hearing and a city council hearing. The recommendations stated in this presentation reflect both the consultants' analysis and staff's assessment of how to address the commissioner's concerns. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much.
openpublica.com