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.

Y'all, we've um added some more chairs over here, so please go ahead and find some place to sit.

I think we have and if not, we've got a few more up here that we can just want to make sure that everyone's comfortable.

Are we going to use the slides anymore?

Unless you want them up.

I think we're good to turn them all.

Oh, okay.

We have a preference here, we're very democratic.

Just give it a give us a minute to adjust.

Exactly.

Alright, we're gonna go ahead and move forward into the public comment.

I'm gonna read the cards and support, and then I'm gonna read the car, it's the informational, and then um the acquisition.

Remember to state your name and address, and that you have two minutes unless you've seated time.

So Miss Jennifer with him.

There's some seated time comments over there.

Two weeks.

Yeah, there should be three.

Eight minutes, and Commissioner Thornton's going to do our time.

Okay, thank you.

Awesome.

You can say if you'd like to eight minutes.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Wickham, uh 701 Poitris.

Um, I'm here as an architect for Workshop W E40, we're a small architecture and development firm.

Uh, unlike most of what you have here today, my comments are focused on the massive changes proposed to the hotel use standards.

Uh, for page 26 of the study, hotels and motels make up only 7.9% of transient lodging uses, and none of the top feedback issues were about hotels.

So I'm not sold that hotels are really an issue.

Uh, the report mentions many times though, about how CSTRs often operate like hotels.

And that's confusing to us as hotel developers because hotels are held to such a higher standard.

First, unlike STRs, hotels have always been part of our zoning code and a use restricted by zoning district.

Instead of multiple categories of hotel, there is currently a system of zoning use restrictions that are applied by districts with square footage limitation in the HMC 1 and 2.

The zoning map as it is was very carefully and intentionally developed, and we would encourage you to rely on that work done already versus complicating it with these additional standards and definitions.

Second, hotel use requirements and code are so different from that of STRs.

They're required to provide at a minimum a lobby that's ADA compliant, a lobby attendant, a bathroom for that lobby attendant that's also ADA compliant, and larger ADA rooms and suites.

Additionally, you need a sprinkler system, a backflow preventer, a fire alarm, and emergency lighting.

This is not a single family home with an Airbnb listing.

These extensive requirements mean that hotel development is much more complicated and thus purposefully and intentionally done than that of STRs.

On a related note, I will touch on STRs to say it's always been a contradiction to classify STRs and commercial districts as commercial but regulate them as single family homes.

Louisiana's building codes are clear that if a use by that code's definitions does not fall under residential code, then it has to comply with commercial building codes.

The ADA and be reviewed and inspected by the state fire marshal's office.

It seems that as CSDRs popped out throughout the city, that some of these requirements may have been inadvertently not enforced.

And transient user uses have these stricter requirements for a good reason.

That unfamiliar buildings are harder to navigate in an emergency in the dark in the smoke.

If enforcement were increased, compliance with these already state required measures could be too much for a lot of existing CSTRs.

We encourage further focus on investment in safety and permits.

An ongoing issue, and we know that your vote today presents an opportunity to reinforce needed improvements, hopefully budget expansion.

To fully put my architect hat on here, we've had recent uh state level changes about that have created an opportunity to relieve safety and permits of some of their plan review burden and uh shift some of that to the fire marshal.

They're reviewing more of the code now.

Uh we also have large code changes being adopted on July 1st of this year.

So council should we think discuss all of all of this with safety and permits and with the office of the state fire marshal's office and get everyone on the same page moving forward.

Uh putting my hotel developer hat back on.

Um, as I said before, we believe that hotel use standards by splitting them up into two categories and changing where they're allowed is not needed because the current zoning district use and size restrictions work.

But if you do move forward, we propose changing that name from neighborhood hotel to small hotel.

Um these buildings are not going to be tucked away in residential areas or neighborhoods, they're only permitted in commercial and mixed-use districts and along major corridors.

Uh we also support then adding the recommendations from the December CPC staff report, which expanded where small hotels would be allowed.

Um, unless this is done, there actually is very little difference between where the small and the large would be allowed.

Um, and it still has a lot of conditional use areas on there.

We just want to say that as small hotel developers, like additional use is basically a non-starter.

It takes so many resources, not just of CBC time, but on the developer and the property owner with no guaranteed outcome.

So for large hotels might be worth it, that might be why they haven't.

It really isn't worth it for a smaller hotel.

So part of the CBC report that recommends this says that while STRs in large hotels have generated significant opposition from neighborhoods, smaller hotels have not.

And that bears out with what we've seen too.

We also disagree with the proposed complicated formula capping small hotels at the 16 units and the max two guest bedrooms.

When the goal is really a cap on the overall number of occupants, and while large hotels are still allowed to have more than two bedrooms per unit.

This favors large chains over small businesses and restricts these small buildings to the traditional and more antiquated hotel setup rather than allowing them to innovate and look forward to the growing traveler preference of more private space and group travel.

Places where a group can have one private communal space that's not the public lobby are growing in demand and not just around rural recreation spots.

They're not inherently party spots, but are widely used by families, youth groups, graduations, weddings, and conference attendees.

I'm sure everyone in this room has stayed in something like this.

And I totally get though that the problems caused by unstaffed whole home CSDRs are the reason we're here today.

But there's no denying that this is popular, and we think that the place to allow guests to stay like this is hotels with their extra safety requirements and the customary lodging and staff that is required.

And up until a few weeks ago, the recommendation was to allow this type of stay in a more permissive large CSDR.

So instead, you're making the small hotels compete more with the NSTRs and their two bedroom limit.

But if the number of beds is the same and the number of cars is the same, then why only allow 16 suites of two rooms and not you know four suites of eight rooms?

The overall impact seems about the same.

And if the concern is the disruptive nature of large parties, then the solution should be enforcement and not limitations.

Because the nature of hotels and commercial districts are they're just more self-regulating.

You have other hotel guests that you know the staff will make sure you're not interfering with in the way that STRs do not.

So the hotels and CSDRs are just so different.

And my last point is that proposed language about uh small hotels only being allowed the ancillary uses in accordance with their base zoning district, that large hotels may have any ancillary use.

This is really unclear because most ancillary uses are not addressed in zoning districts.

Three that are expressly permitted for large hotels are conference and meeting rooms, recreational facilities, and sale of convenience items.

These don't exist in district use matrices and they don't have use standards.

So it seems like it's a bar and restaurant issue, and we think that this is being an unnecessary complication, and that it should just address that.

Um again, it also disproportionately favors chains over small businesses.

So, in summary, um, there are massive changes being proposed here to what hotels of all sizes will be permitted, both by right and conditionally, and where they will be permitted.

We think without need and not supported by the data in the report.

Um, hotels are not the issue here.

We ask that the motion being voted on today consider one asking the uh council to coordinate with safety and permits and the State Marshall Marshall's office and drawing up their motion.

Remove the categories of neighborhood and large hotel and leave that current zoning for hotels in place in regards to where they are permitted and conditional use and their uh ancillary uses.

And my understanding is actually this was set by some case law around the Collins Hotels years ago, anyway.

But um, those are our three uh requests.

And thank you for your time and consideration and your interest in balancing neighborhood needs with promoting investment in our city.

Thank you.

Nicole Weber.

Good afternoon.

Um I represent the Greater New Orleans Hotel Lodging Association, and I like to pinzy back off of what Jennifer Wickham was saying.

Um specifically, I wanted to point to Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence that was set forth in Redfern versus Crapel, and that's a 1984 long-standing court determination, and that deals with criteria that's provided to determine whether or not ancillary or accessory uses such as bars, restaurants are appropriate for a hotel, and based off of the five standards, um, most hotels are allowed, although the underlying zoning district under this jurisprudence and longstanding that the city has recognized, and I can give you examples of that.

Um, as long as it meets the criteria, regardless of the underlying zoning, a hotel is allowed to have customary lodging services, and it's further noted in the definition of hotel motel in the CZO related ancillary uses may include but are not limited to, conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, sale of convenience items, bars, and recreation facilities.

And as a representative of the Hotel Lodging Association, we want to keep that in place.

There was reference to a zoning interpretation 2206, which I'm unable to find.

But I was able to find online is the zoning interpretation 18-02, which again reiterates and talks about customary lodging and ancillary services.

In having a neighborhood designation for a hotel, we are going to cause confusion.

We are going to be flying in the face and contradicting what the Louisiana Supreme Court has upheld in that ancillary and customary services that deal with bars, restaurants, that kind of thing are pertinent to hotels.

So that's why we are asking that the neighborhood hotel be struck and some other type of definition or name be given to it and that we keep hotels in place.

Life safety compliance, having staff on site 24 7 is a much needed necessity, and it also is easily enforced.

If someone's not there, then that is that is a way that the city can enforce whether or not a hotel is operating accordingly.

Thank you.

I have one question.

So do you are you in agreement then to strike the neighborhood hotel and use small hotel?

What we're in agreement to is to strike any kind of separate categories and to have one category and just keep in place what we currently have, and that's hotel.

Thank you.

Mr.

Greg Red.

And after that, Miss Suzette Teladano.

Please take your name and address.

Sure.

My name's Gregory Lett.

I'm in the building of 226 Decatur Street.

I'm here to voice my support for short-term rentals in VCE1 as an owner of that building down there.

I'd like to point out I've owned it for five years.

Since I've owned it, my insurance has gone up 100%.

Our property taxes have increased 33%.

And then the carrying cost of maintaining a two hour year old structure is expensive as well.

I could use a license to help offset some of those costs.

Another thing I like to bring up in the 200, 300 block of the Decatur.

We walked those two blocks and notated every building that had vacant upper floors, so I just like to point those out.

200 Decatur, 206, 210 Decatur, 228, 209, 211, 239, 300, 305, 315, 329.

That's 11 buildings with vacant upper floors.

If you vote yes for short-term rentals, it now makes a financial assignment to bring these units back into commerce.

I always hear the argument about short-term rentals kicking out long-term tenants.

We don't hear the argument about the opportunity cost of all these vacant buildings, all these vacant units that could come on the market.

That's 11 buildings.

Each one has five to six units, that's 55 to 65 new units that could be on the on the market and available for people to stay in.

So that's it.

Just like to point that out.

Thank you.

And when you say license, you mean an SDR license.

Yes.

And then after Susette.

Oh, you Suzette, you have time seated to you, so you have four minutes.

Thank you.

I'm Suzette Tallinano.

I'm here to represent 215, 225 Decatur LLC, as well as myself personally.

No, it's a massive challenge to draft blanket STR regulations.

With blanket regulations, a real estate business with full-time employees whose jobs are to manage, maintain, and lease residential apartments, is placed into the exact same category as an absentee homeowner.

There are at least a dozen full-time New Orleans real estate developers who have invested millions in VCU 1.

We're not faceless out-of-town corporations, we are your neighbors.

The demand from locals for high-end primary residences in VC1 is non-existent.

Even corporate rentals have disappeared.

A VCE1 neighbor who opposes STR sent me an email.

She was complaining about a late-night club for the 300 block of Decatur.

She wrote me.

The reality is that this area is unsafe, noisy, and drug distribution back up because of the nightclubs and bars masquerading as restaurants.

From Thursday night through Monday morning, 4 a.m.

We are subject to noise, fights, drug dealers, constant honking of horns to pick people up, parking on the sidewalks, intersections, and in front of the fire station.

What my friend describes is not a problem caused by short-term rentals.

Tourists are not the ones parking on the sidewalks and actually valeting spaces in the driveway of the fire station.

Tourists walk in the corner.

Instead, there are late-night, these people are late-night local self-appointed VIPs breaking the law.

Dark tinted windows conceal illegal activity in vehicles parked to be giveaway cars.

Personally, I welcome tourists displace this kind of activity.

We all recognize the importance of accurate data.

At the last meeting, there was a comment that there were 70 billion buildings in VCE1 and seven block faces.

The phrase fear mongering comes to my mind.

There are 42 properties in the VCE one and six block faces.

Effectively, there are only five block faces, and that's because of 300 block of Decatur and North North Peters feature buildings that face on both streets.

Of the 42 properties, only 24 contain a minimum of one residential unit.

One of the 42 properties is an 80-room hotel serving tourism.

Another is a fire station, housing the headquarters in the New Orleans Fire Department.

Among the 42 properties, there are 144 upper floor units for an average of 3.3 units per VCE1 property.

Still that does not translate into 144 units being converted into short-term rentals.

Many are primary residences.

I personally have two units that are my primary residents.

There's seven homestead exemptions in VCE1.

Others are residences of ground floor business owners who are eligible for homestead exemptions because the property, the title is in the LLC.

In addition, long-term rentals used at least as primary residences are not represented in the number of the hosted exemptions.

Eight of the units are used as business offices and employee housing.

At least 18 of the units are condos whose condo declaration requires a minimum of a six-month lease.

The bottom line is that among 42 properties, few units are eligible to qualify as a short-term rental.

After extensive groundwork, I literally went door to door and I researched what every unit was was used for.

I estimate, this is my estimate, but it's a third of the units could be short-term rentals.

Is that the end or may I finish?

I'd like to hear a couple of sentences to desperately need an economic goose in VCE1.

The broken window theory is that work in VCE1.

They're vacant and blighted buildings of Decatur.

They provide the perfect graffiti backdrop.

Twenty-five percent of the buildings of VCE1 are vacant and they need.

And as my friend Craig noted, it's number 200, 211, 239, 300, 305, 315, and on North Peters, 235.

We ask you to please allow short-term rental in VCE one.

Let this two-block area contribute to the city's success and taxes and fees.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

Before the next speaker, can I ask staff a question?

Yes.

Um, can you refresh our memory of you said that at the outset in one of the slides for no um neighborhood hotel in VCE one?

But remind us what the recommendation is currently for other categories for VCE1.

So correct.

Um does Ireland had put a recommendation in that neighborhood hotels could be allowed in the VCE one district.

That was in contrast and contradiction to the moratorium.

So we suggested removing that.

Um it also does Ireland also suggested uh that small and medium short-term rentals, commercial short-term rentals be allowed in both of those districts.

Actually, originally CPC staff agreed, but uh we believe that only commercial short-term rentals small should be allowed in both of those districts.

In either case, um, the district should be treated similarly.

So we're suggesting that just the commercial short-term rentals small be allowed and the VCE and BCE1 district.

True.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kency.

And that's the only cards that I have in support.

Other ones are information and opposition.

So if you do are you in support, please fill out a card.

Otherwise, we're going to move to information only.

Welcome.

Well, Christian Casey and 220 Decatur.

Um I was just coming to say what they said, but one thing they didn't say is we went around the neighborhood, the two blocks, and we got 38 people whether there or they were business owners signed in support.

And we got 38 people whether they or they were business owners signed in support.

They left their phone number and email address.

They couldn't be here today.

They left the phone number and email address in case I wanted to reach out to them.

We signed the support.

I don't know what the small means, but only two or four allowed in the whole district on those two streets.

They have a street on the front and a street behind it.

So there is no building behind it, and it's all historical, so they all have the sprinklers, backup dinners, emergency lighting, but single pane windows.

So as soon as the music stops at 2 3 in the morning, there's dumpsters that are metal that bang on the ground from three to the six in the morning.

And then as soon as that stops, the fire departments come through.

Or street cleaners are coming through, so it's really difficult to live there.

There's not a single parking spot in the BC one.

Closest parking is $350 a month.

So it's just makes sense.

That's what the overwhelming majority of the people with invested interest in the district asked for and support.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, now we're gonna move into information only.

And then Mr.

DePlanche.

And Mr.

Johnson, Mr.

Quinn.

Ron Langslow, 1000 South Normus C.

Francis.

Thank you, staff, for all your work on this.

You guys have been uh awesome, and it's been quite an undertaking.

Um I do want to uh just uh support what Nicole and the architecture firm stated here about hotels.

Um what we have works, there's no reason to change it, and the same with bed and breakfast.

Bed and breakfasts, we have uh two categories of bed and breakfast.

You haven't seen people writing in or complaining about bed and breakfast, they're conditional use, they have to go through the process, they have to go through the neighborhood research.

So, you know, part of what's important to me is finding simple and easy legislation to follow as a developer and as a staffer for City Hall.

Having consistency is very important by creating more and more categories and more and more uh additions and names to what we already work does not make any sense.

So I fully support their position and others that state the hotels in bed and breakfast are not the issues and not the problems.

Uh I'm glad that the as informational that uh it was pushed to city legal remark regarding non-conforming uses.

We have trouble understanding right now what a non-conforming use is in City Hall, and so we are fighting battles, a month of battles when it comes to non-conforming uses.

Um fully support two-year renewals on commercial short-term rentals.

Uh, I do want to say here that I am anti-shot-term rental for someone that has hundreds of clients that have transmitted and lodging services.

The fact is our illegal short-term rentals, those those people don't care about their neighborhoods, they don't care about the house, they don't care about the neighbors, they don't care about the city.

Strongly, strongly encouraged a strict and hard enforcement on those who repeatedly refuse to follow the rules because it hurts the people that are doing it right, and it gives those people that are doing it right a bad name.

Also, I fully support uh VCE one.

Look what worked on Canal Street and Bourbon Street, allowing those upper floors to be developed.

It worked.

We're not talking about a creek into the French quarter here.

We're talking about a very, very small two blocks, and we need to clean it up.

It is the worst area of the French quarter.

This is one way to fix it up.

Um I'm against multiple same rise.

No, I'm against all sorts of different forms and sizes of short-term rentals.

Uh it really confuses the staff, the short-term rental staff needs to be able to permit and enforce that's easy to understand, and developers need that too.

Thank you.

And residents and consumers, Mr.

DeClinch.

Thank you.

Ms.

Woodry, I'd put down information because honestly, I wasn't sure what I was gonna be opposed to.

Right now, so with regard to C B D5 though, we were calling it address.

Well, with regard to C B D 5, especially.

Um you got to stage your name and address, sir.

Your address.

I hear just one of the record.

We have to.

I think I will do platier, 820 per roll.

Yes.

Uh I've appeared numerous times in support of a CPD five.

Try to enforce traditional use application there.

But I find of course we lost all those battles.

So practically every hotel in CBD5, which is not supposed to have a lot of hotels, by the way.

We lost every one of those fights.

And now we're finding that the consultants are using that as a basis for recommending essentially more hotels.

Well, they've already approved the other one.

We knew that was going to happen, by the way.

Every time we oppose them, we said everyone you approve is going to make it harder to approve, make it harder to oppose the next one.

That's exactly what happened.

At some point the staff inserted these use standards.

But truthfully, the use standards, well, I think they're a little bit helpful, but they're not very much of a help.

Obviously, really it's a straw man.

The use standard is a straw man for the staff pretty much to say, well, they meet the use standard, so we can approve it.

These standards are weak.

What they're avoiding and have been avoiding from day one is the fundamental requirement of conditional use of hotels in CBD five, and that's compatibility with the neighborhood.

Those those kind of standards are never really much talked about, and we continue to ignore it.

And for that reason, I find the staff consultant recommendations rather weak.

And uh I think they could have done better, quite honestly.

With regard to commercial short-term rentals, uh, they advise us that they're more straight now, if that's true.

I'm all for that.

But uh basically, we still get hotel obligations, by the way, even though the last several that have been approved were unable to find financing, but people still keep trying, right?

There's probably a reason for that.

I'm not smart enough to know what that reason is, but they get the app, they get the approvals and then it just sit there.

Maybe not, maybe they sell that approval to somebody else.

So who knows?

Thank you.

Mr.

Johnson, and then Mr.

Quinn.

Yes, my name is Alan Johnson.

I live at 1418 Charters.

I feel like I've been at every one of these meetings when it comes to STRs.

And I'm not the only one, but we have been doing this for a long time, and I've learned a lot.

I would like to applaud Desire Line and the staff that work on this, but I think what was great was we have been bombarded in the historic core.

Marini, Verme, Bywater, and they were able to recognize that.

And going forward, they had said no more commercial short-term rentals, hotels going forward in the in the historic core.

But they recommended having hostels in there.

And I found that peculiar and interesting as to why they were doing that.

And this is not specifically about hostels, but the CPC staff agrees, and they with maintaining distinct hotel categories, but there's a line here that concerns me, allows more nuance in determining where each can be permitted, and does not support the removal of the neighborhood hotel category in its entirety.

The word nuance scares me because we've seen nuance forever.

We've drawn these regulations.

They've tried to find a way to do everything in every neighborhood.

And that's what's happened.

There is a rule that says you cannot have a hotel over 10,000 square feet in the Marin.

What that means is anything under 10,000 square feet is a hotel by right.

So all the commercial short-term rentals that were stopped by the ICD, all of a sudden magically became hotels.

And there's a line in here also regarding hostels, where they thought hostels were okay, but that's because there have been no complaints about.

Guess what?

There's gonna be a lot of hostile applications coming your way.

And people that are gonna act with act as commercial short-term rentals, actors hotels are now gonna be hostile.

We need to have strong lines, and as Ron was saying, we need to have strong definitions, we need to have strong lines.

We need to be intentional with what we do.

Because if we don't, we're gonna have more hostels in this town than in the Marin Tramay and Bobwater than anyone ever thought was possible.

So I suggest that we remove hostels from the category, have a street uh from the from the historic core, and have it and have this going straight forward for one that there's no more development of that in the in the Marin and Historic Or.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Queen.

And then a Mr.

John Colford.

And those are all the cards I have for information, then we'll move the opposition.

Please take your name and address Mr.

Quinn.

Hi.

Patrick Quinn at 131 Decatur.

Thank you.

Okay, I've I'll try to make it as quick as I can.

Um I'm in the hotel business, and I'm also in the short-term rental business.

Uh I have the hotel at 100 block of decatur, so I'm very familiar with two, three hundred blocks of decatur.

And everything's that people say it's true.

Twenty-five years ago, I built the Asker Hotel, and part of it was taken the upper floors of four buildings along Canal Street that had been empty for 40 or 50 years, and they'd still be empty if we hadn't made hotel rooms out of them.

And the reason it worked is because one skinny building couldn't really take two jail wells in an elevator.

If you put three or four together side by side, then it made more sense that you can use that before.

And then the one party who opted out of that block between Royal Apartment Canal is still sitting empty.

Wait, invited them to come in and they didn't want to come in.

So the real reason I'm here is because it seems like the way this group is moving.

Did I say thank you for doing all this?

And how about you?

If I didn't, thank you very much to staff group.

It seems like the group is moving toward taking commercial short-term rental and moving them to the toward the hotel bucket and taking bed and breakfast and moving them to the residential bucket.

And which I think is fine.

My short-term rental has five bedrooms, it's 4,000 square feet, it's really large.

And we've been limited to two guests per room.

Which hotels and bed and breakfast don't have to have the same rule.

And it it frankly killed our business when the rule changed.

And we're in a commercial area with no issues about between commercial and no neighbor problems.

But so what I was hoping that when y'all are working on all the other things you're working on, consider taking the cap off the number of people in a commercial short-term rental.

They're basically the same as a hotel.

There's no there's no limit on hotel roofs and bed and breakfast, how many people in a room.

So thank you for the time.

Thank you.

John Cove.

Um 4442 Art Street.

I wanted to ask about the uh there when I came in, I heard uh reading saying there was an exception for maritime industrial zone.

And uh my reflection on that is that there are several places that I know of offhand, uh on Harris Road up on the uh by the new, which is a large uh port area where uh boats hook up and they have uh places to to buy food and to eat and and to presumably to stay.

Um I think and there's also 6200 uh Yanvenu Street in the Lower Ninth Ward, which is an old building, which would be great for a uh some kind of uh facility where people could uh could come under this ordinance.

So it seems to me that even though the port would not like to be not like to have its maritime industrial under the purview of the city, that because of the uses that I think that if they do this kind of use, they should come under the purview of the city.

Does that make sense to you?

I don't see why they can have uh other things that the people in the city uh can have can have but not have the review.

I I don't think there should be an exception for maritime industry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions opposition now?

Mr.

Chapman, Miss Sherman has seen it during time.

I'm not certain in um Mr.

Chapman, you want two minutes or if there's four minutes, how do you all want to divide out?

And see if I can do it in two minutes.

Okay, two minutes and then Aaron and Ms.

Holmes, you may have six.

Uh my name is Nathan Chapman, I live at 715 Earth's lines.

I am uh president of the board of your career property owners, residents and associates.

So uh, like a lot of people here have been coming to short-term rental meetings for a long time.

Um I have uh I I have had a couple of surprises today.

It was my understanding at your last meeting that you directed the staff and the consultants to come back raising the French quarter into the highest level of impact.

And I thought it was a directive and and it was a smart one, it's astonishing to me that they would say, nah, I think it's more moderate.

It's like ask anybody.

I mean, I I don't think I should even spend more of my two minutes elaborating on how much tourism and church uh transit rentals for every type that we have in the French Quarter.

That's that's astonishing.

Uh the other thing is there there are people who live in BCE one, and there could be more.

It's there's a demand for apartments in the French quarter.

And if there's a problem, because a lot of the property owners have bars down there, and if that's creating a crime problem, let's call out the police and let's have meetings on that.

Let's not throw defenseless tourists from the Midwest if they're gonna solve our crime problems.

And I think that's a terrible idea.

So I've been doing this a long time.

Exceptions always create exceptions.

So when the idea was said, oh, well, Bourbon Street, the the commercial part of Urban Street, that's okay.

Nobody's lived there since Lindy Box.

So we said, oh, wait, somebody also used that as an exception, and here we are today.

And I assure you, if you say, okay, VCE one, that's kind of like Burden Street, then somebody will be here next saying, well, VCC, that's uh commercial districts, and we have a lot of people living there too.

So anyway, uh the city wants to see the French Court protected.

I ask you to do so and send it unambiguously to the city council.

We know this is going to be decided.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Miss Holmes, you've got two individuals in seeing their time, so you would have six minutes.

Um thank you.

I don't think I'm gonna need that much, but um good afternoon.

Um thank you for all of your time and your continued attention to this issue.

I think we're going on 10 years now, so we do appreciate the commission, desire line, and the CBC staff for taking a closer look at the French Quarter, which notably does not fit into the study's neighborhood typology.

We have already we already have an outsized number of hotel rooms, very few permitted short-term rentals, many illegal ones, and a residential population that is engaged but shrinking.

Um you can make a meaningful meaningful difference today by affirming that the French Quarter has reached its carrying capacity for transient lodging.

Any effort to create more will have a direct and negative impact.

This is a very small neighborhood, and every change does have a ripple effect.

Despite this, staff and desire line continue to recommend treating the VCE one with parity to the VCE.

The updated report states that the recommendation to expand commercial short-term rentals in the VCE1 district is an effort to reconcile inconsistency in the CZO by aligning similar zoning districts.

But these zoning districts are not the same by design.

If inconsistencies were truly meaning reconciliation, then the VCE one should also allow adult uses and bars by right rather than be a conditional use.

It does not because the CZO intentionally excludes these high intensity uses from the VCE one, and that distinction matters.

CSTRs are an intense use.

Unsupervised hotels are not only livability killers for nearby residents and incredibly in incredibly dense environment, they're a fire hazard.

I cannot stress how disastrous fires can be in the French quarter.

Furthermore, how are you going to regulate what is legally happening in a large private building versus what is not?

Public feedback could not be clearer.

In the full 614-page report, there are two comments, two written comments in favor of short-term rentals in the VCE one, both from the same person.

In opposition, there are 26 comments that are opposed to any short-term rental expansion in the French quarter.

I do realize that we've heard from some others today, but I am citing what is directly in the report that people engage with and send in their comments.

People are tired of this fight, tired of repeatedly coming to City Hall or an issue we have not gotten right in 10 years.

I personally feel that creating new opportunities to fail feels like the very definition of insanity.

BC Poor does not claim to speak for everyone in the French Quarter, but our mission is not to fear mocker, is to advocate for the long-term health of the neighborhood and to encourage residents to speak for themselves.

As an aside, I have owned my house for almost five years now.

My insurance has gone up 300%.

I have not looked for any relief by asking the city planning commission or city hall for any type of commercial uses.

That is the risky run when you invest in property.

So lastly, please recommend that no new hotel or short-term rental uses in the French quarter can expand.

As we have seen, a lot can change between here and city council.

Once it gets to the council, it's one little one little spot here, one little extra unit here, one little extra block here, no density caps, exception systems, and then all of a sudden it opens up other zoning districts.

So please send a clear message.

No more for the French quarter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can you please take your address, please?

Oh, yes, sorry.

Aaron Holmes, executive director of VC Corps 860 North Rayport.

Thank you.

Miss Mitchell Muller.

And then Miss Eleanor Graham and you have at least one person seated to you next.

Yes, please remember that your name and address.

Hi, my name is Dr.

Melanie.

Yes.

Dr.

Melanie Mitchell Muller.

I live at 232 Decatur Street with my husband and family.

My husband and I searched for over a year to find the perfect place for us in quarter.

We chose, purchased our home in 2022, specifically because of the zoning, not wanting our quality of life affected by a constant turnover, noise, etc.

that SDRs bring to a building.

There are 20 units in our six-story building, which dates to the 1800s, and the last time we had a vacancy was 2023.

Our condo association documents govern long-term leases of no less than six months, should an owner wish to lease out their unit.

We enjoy a quiet, friendly building, and over the years we've developed a cohesive social community, including ages from two years old to 90.

There are timeshares.

Sorry.

Some of the buildings I heard mentioned earlier in this meeting on our street are in deplorable condition.

Therefore, they should be vacant.

I invite you to take a look at them if you have the time.

If there's an issue with regarding vacancies in your building, perhaps repairing the building, updating the units, and aligning rental prices in order.

Or convert those units to condos.

Use the current restrictions in place and entice buyers such as myself and my neighbors who want the fun and convenience of living in the quarter without the bother of constant noise, disturbance, and destruction of property and community.

Domestically and internationally, an overwhelming move to repeal or scale back the use of STRs as seen.

I've searched for valid research that shows actual improvements seen in quality of life or residents, and I cannot find anything.

There are a lot of utopian suppositions with ifs and what could be, but I found no hard results.

I think it is vital for all stakeholders to be informed, and all voices should be heard before moving forward with any proposed change.

We've come a long way in our neighborhood in the past few years, working with each other and the fabulous women and men of the 8th district in the French Quarter Task Force.

That is your time, so if you could just read the last sentence.

Okay.

And we'd love for you to come see us sometime in the neighborhood and see the faces of those you're making the decisions about.

Thank you very much.

I have a question, just because it seems like you live on the block that is.

I live on the block full time.

How many condo buildings are in those blocks?

I'm not sure about condo buildings.

I don't have that number.

Do you know when your condo is actually developed?

I believe in the 80s.

I believe.

And then Mr.

Cantalino seated his time too, so I just want to make that straight.

You've got four minutes.

Four minutes.

I'll tell if I can do it.

I know you'll stop me if I can't.

I'm I'm Eleanor Graham.

Uh I live at 900 Bartholomew Street, New Orleans, uh condo unit 408 in the Sax City condominiums of the Bywater.

I am also a board member of Neighbors First for Bywater.

I am advocating today on behalf of the hundreds of neighbors from Neighbors First for Bywater, along with my the president of our board, Julie Jones, who is here today.

I am advocating also for dozens of resident condominium owners, and also I stand strong, a strong coalition.

All of us, Aaron, Alan, myself, Julie, we're all part of strong coalition.

We promote housing for all.

And we also promote the most mindful, simple zoning code we can get.

And we don't have it in this proposal, despite the great deal of effort and the staff's attention.

What you have proposed is too complicated.

We don't need neighborhood hotels.

Why do I know we don't need neighborhood hotels?

Why do I know we don't need commercial short-term rules?

You've read what I wrote.

The public doesn't want them.

We've been exploited.

It's been a 10-year experiment and it's been disastrous.

Mr.

Al, the man today I'm speaking for.

He had to go to a hearing crime threat to try to stop commercial short-term rental.

And an HOA government, convenient regime.

Myself, I have to wear earplugs at night.

And I'm constant, you know, I'm exercising constant vigilance in my building to stop hot smoking and the nuisances.

That is just my small world.

The bigger world is this.

We are aligned as historic neighborhoods, and I cannot tell you the imperative to eliminate commercial short-term rentals a category.

It is an absolute imperative.

We hope that you will not only reject neighborhood hotel as a concept for reasons provided, and in my memoranda and letters, but also the commercial short-term rental category.

It's time to let it go.

There's no need for it, it does not serve the public good or welfare.

We don't need, even if we were to have it, we don't need the complex tiered scheme for commercial short-term rentals.

You can see the people opposing from the court all the way through Marini and beyond.

And more speakers will speak today, saying we don't need it.

We have a void in Bywater.

If you were to retain the category, and if you were to bite on the idea of grandfathering and recommend that to the council, in Bywater Intramay, Marini, the quarter, we will be dealing with not just illegal ones, but legal commercial short terminals indefinitely.

So I ask that you exercise some restraint.

You think mightily about simplifying the commercial zoning ordinance, and you eliminate the commercial short-term category.

You reject neighborhood hotel.

You maintain a strong line between what is a bed and breakfast and what is a hotel by limiting it to five and simplifying the garden breakfast category.

I cannot tell you that there is no, I can only emphasize there's no way commercial short terminals can be regulated.

I am not convinced ever.

If I did, I'd be up here recommending it.

I can't.

I've lived it in my neighborhood.

I walked the streets of the historic corridor, I live in my building.

It is not possible to regulate it in multiple family homes, apartment buildings, condos, and anything you want to call it, small, medium, or large, when you get off that street and you don't have an operator and you don't have the hotel license and that front-end uh you know marketing scheme of a hotel and those protections, you cannot regulate what's behind those doors.

It is impossible.

I don't believe it from I and I I just want to let you know I'm confident that if you were to stay clear of recommending grandfathering, you would be on solid legal ground.

Um I I think that the 2018 study and that opinion is quite old, it is inconsistent with the case law I've cited.

So I really argue here for restraint, like all the fellow speakers in the neighborhoods.

Keep the zoning ordinance simple.

If you do this, you will also be consistent with the master plan.

You will help us in bywater in the Marini and the French Quarter to fulfill the vision of our neighborhoods.

Lastly, you need to define or recommend a definition for hostels and to treat them like hotels.

Otherwise, Mr.

Johnson is correct.

We lived it with every other category in our neighborhoods.

Thank you for allowing me to speak, and thank you for reading my members and letters.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gardner, and then Miss Johnson after that.

And then you've got another person seated to you, I'll have four minutes.

Good afternoon, members.

We think your name and address.

I'm Jacob Wardner, and I'm at 1441 Jackson Avenue as well.

Um I'm here almost a volunteer with the Garden District Association.

And I'm here to talk about specific provision within the uh within the study, um, which seeks to remove the prohibition for the short term levels that the garden district currently enjoys.

Um it caught us uh by surprise as a neighborhood association, and it's certainly not something that we had all requested.

Um in fact, when I was first getting involved with the garden district association about 10 years ago, um we went through um a very long process um in order to present studies um to this organization and to the city council and to obtain the current prohibition that's in place, and um we think that it's worked well.

Um we continue to be a residential neighborhood, and we think that's also what attracts so many millions of tourists to come see us, um see us during the day.

Um they get to see a national landmark district, one of the one of only a few in the country, but it's actually lived in and where people are raising their children and uh neighbors know each other and families over siding.

Um, and so we would like to um we would ask the commission to uh leave leave it is leave it as as things have been.

Um we think it's been working, and um and we certainly didn't seek out um seek out this uh this change, and so we ask you to uh reconsider that that aspect of the uh study.

Um there's a long history of the city treating us a little bit different because of our residential uh character, and I will point out that even 20 years before um the short-term rentals uh before short-term rentals um became such a hot button issue within the city.

Um there to get a ban put in place on new bed and breakfast within the garden district in order to try and help it maintain its uh residential character.

So this is um this this change is um is is seeking to overturn um years of uh of precedent, and again it's not something that the uh neighborhood association requested wanted or sought out.

So I thank you for your time and uh listening to me for a few minutes this afternoon.

It's nice to see you all.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, yes.

Can I before the next speaker again asked staff can you refresh our memory on the recommendation uh for the garden district?

The prohibition being lifted and which categories being allowed and in what way?

That's a good question.

I don't have all of the zoning districts in front of me, so the commercial short-term rentals would affect mostly the periphery of the garden district, they would not be allowed within the interior, which is mostly residentially zoned.

Um the desire line in their report that was posted, I think in the last meeting did suggest removing the language to um that prohibits bed and breakfasts and commercial short-term rentals in general in the garden district, which was a recommendation of the city planning commission staff in our reports that we've done and studies that we've done in the past.

Um whatever would be allowed in the periphery, um like HU So according to the zoning district.

It's according to the zone district, yeah.

And then one other clarification uh we heard a comment about grandfathering, but if I saw your slides correctly, the current recommendation that's on the table is to not have things be grandfathered and only be considered a uh a non-entitlement.

Well I interpret that.

It's not it's not necessarily a recommendation.

Um it's that those that are in existence currently would be grandfathered.

So the recommendation isn't not to change that because that is just inherently what would happen.

Um, but the recommendation is to move the new regulations for commercial short-term rentals to define it as a temporary use and put it in Article 21 that would mirror the non-commercial short-term rental regulations where those are temporary uses and they do not have vested land use entitlements.

That would be the same case for if you know this recommendation were to be codified for the commercial short-term rentals.

Where's going forward?

Going forward for future commercial short-term rentals, those would not be grandfathered.

Okay.

So does that mean that the ones that are grandfather are instead of safety and permits renewal process or license?

They would be.

Is there currently or will there be something in place for addressing the bad actors, if you will, in the commercial short-term rental world?

You know, we and the CPC don't enforce, however, we do have someone here from Department of Safety and Permits that maybe could speak to that.

Um, but that is not part of our jurisdiction.

And one more, if I may, on the grandfather.

So is it this might be a legal question?

Is the is the position that what already exists under existing law is as it is.

The rules that we're considering can only be applied on a going forward basis.

So in other words, if something that is correct.

So any short term any commercial short-term rental that was licensed legally permitted under a prior regime of regulations will be able to continue operating under those regulations.

I think the the confusion here is that there are two layers of regulation.

One is the licensing portion, and then one is the land use entitlement portion.

The land use entitlement portion is what the non-conforming use speaks to.

And so they were permitted by right under the prior regulations, so they are still considered by right uses because they're still regulated under those uses.

So my understanding about how the license the city cannot just unilaterally revoke licenses, but they do have a right, and my understanding is that the courts have ruled that if they meet all of the licensing requirements, then the city is obligated to issue the license.

Yeah, because we had sets of regulations in 2016 and 2019, then we had the ITDs, and this is all moving forward.

Great questions.

You've got forms.

Four minutes?

I think I have just two, but I'd love to have four.

You have two.

Thank you.

Susan Johnson, 2822, the Page Street Town of Charlton Watch.

I'm here to uh with a strong coalition.

As an advocate for the university area, I will comment on two particular transient lodging uses here, the two-lane Loyola uptown campuses, hotels, number one, both residential and in DC zoning, and then two rooming houses.

As for hotels, applicability for my comment is the two uptown campuses, CPC staff recommends hotel development in quote neighborhoods and corridors immediately adjacent to the university campuses, close quote.

Objections to this recommendation are A, staff points out that visitors to university campuses are quote less disruptive than tourists, closed quote with no data in support.

I mean, really.

Affordable model which allows developers to lease affordable housing units to students, and these rents are confirmed to be above the stated AMI stated in the legislation.

Safety impairments does not enforce violations.

C as for uh hotels in EC zoning, here's an example of an attempt uh in the April 2025 Loyola University tried to develop a 57,000 square foot development at 1772 St.

Charles Avenue.

Neighbors were strongly opposed.

Um restaurant and swimming pool right on St.

Charles.

Am I done?

Finish your last slide.

Okay, yes.

Um two months later, the proposal was deemed not viable and dropped.

I also have a section on rooming houses, which I'll have to drop.

Just we've got actually over 75 private dorm housing units with five unrelated persons or more, and the study says there are just 11 licensed uh rooming houses in the city, so that's a big violation.

The safety impairments does not enforce it's like it's like a big unknown.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Keene.

And got four minutes.

Kim Keene 1201 Canal Street, even though there isn't an entrance to 1201, we enter near 147 basic.

Um I'm here to oppose STRs and buildings that have mixed owners and corporate development development uh apartments.

What's happening in 1201 Canal, which of course made the media and people aware of it, is that the developer owns about 50% of all the condos in the buildings, so he controls everything.

It is impossible to regulate.

I also think that because of 1201 developers' behavior that the city council asked them to send their application for an STR, they should be banned from applying for it again.

They are a bad actor like we're flicks at bad actors who wasn't able to get that, but I appreciate you looking into that.

I also would like the council, and I guess whether it's the planning council or the city council to re-look at 30-day rentals because what we're seeing now is they have 30-day rentals for 1250 a month, so you can rent it for a week and bring seven girls and have bachelorette parties in the French quarter, and then there's no one regulating it, so uh owners need to try to figure out how to regulate it, which is not really what I want to do in my life in my home.

So I thank you for the time.

I just think that we need to look at there are a lot of corporate developers that are working in between the laws, in between the layers, and you mix them with regular owners, it's not fair, it's not what it was supposed to be.

We're supposed to be a full-time resident, and the rents they're not getting the price they want for their condos, sell your condos and let's get affordable housing for people to live long term in near French report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike Inca?

And C.

I think you may have left.

Mike NC.

No.

Okay.

Uh Miss Shelley Landry.

Landrew.

And then Miss Montgomery.

After that.

And then Miss Plan.

Good afternoon.

I'm Shelley Landry representing the Garden District Association.

My address is 1332 Washington Avenue.

As several people have said, we've been working on this for over 10 years now, and we're all pretty tired about it.

But we finally got it right, at least within the garden district, which I which is my only purview here.

And I would like for the recommendation apparently from the City Planning Commission to be ignored in lifting the ban on short-term rentals in the barn district.

As uh Jacob had said earlier, the ban is working for us.

We are a heavy impact neighborhood with, according to our tourist commission, five million people a year in the neighborhood.

Um I think that number's a little high, but you know, say it's three million people in the neighborhood, it's still a lot of people in the neighborhood during the day, all the time.

And we have, as Jacob said too, that we do have a sort of a living museum there, if you will, with a very small neighborhood with a very high concentration of historic homes that have been renovated and kept up, and it's it's working for us right now.

We don't need the extra impact of having small hotels, bed and breakfasts, and short-term rentals in the neighborhood in order to push us over the edge of stuff that we can't handle anymore.

So we ask you to keep that ban in place, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Montgomery.

Thank you for looking at these important issues.

My name's Lyle Montgomery.

Um address is 625 South Rochelle.

Um there's a couple of issues I wanted to speak to.

Um I'm a member of the strong coalition.

I support my other members who have spoken today with their concerns.

I'm a resident of Lowerville City, also known as Tulane Gravier, and it's been particularly damaged by the overdevelopment of commercial short-term rentals.

Um which I live in are primarily residential neighborhoods that have supporting businesses, yet they tend to get lumped together with commercial areas when in these discussions and also in the regulations, um, which has allowed the overdevelopment of the CSTRs.

Um neighborhoods such as mine, as well as those located in Central City, the Lower Garden District, and other places have particularly been affected by the overdevelopment of CSTRs.

Um they really CSTRs really provide no benefit to the neighbors and the only detriment.

And it's really unfair to consider concentrating additional CSTRs in mixed-use neighborhoods while completely banning them and others.

We all deserve to live in a neighborhood that protects our quality of life.

And I'm just asking you all to treat all neighborhoods equitably.

The other issue is grandfathering.

The previous regulations have allowed incredible overdevelopment.

In the block across the street from me, the square block has 20 commercial short-term rentals going all the way around the block.

There's maybe six units that have actual families that live there.

The quality of life has been severely eroded.

If this regs um are not if the existing units are grandfathered in the old regulations, then you know it'll be decades before we see any meaningful change.

Those 20 CSPRs will stay, and you know, I'll be dead and gone by the time something changes.

So I'm asking you to really reconsider the grandfathering issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul Bland.

Mr.

South Paul, Mr.

Mayorship, and we'll move to Ms.

Stokes and Ms.

Jones.

Hi.

I'm Andrea St.

Paul Bland.

I live at 1216 Jackson Avenue.

And I am president of the Guard District Association.

And I have a great deal of sympathy for our other historic neighborhoods, but I'm not knowledgeable about them.

I am knowledgeable about the garden district.

And we have 400 to 450 member families who generally for the most part, and the entire board oppose short-term rentals in our neighborhood.

We have a very delicate neighborhood.

It's only six streets wide by 13 streets long.

It's a very small area.

We have 951 historic structures out of 1100 that are we have national historic landmark status as a neighborhood, which is very unusual and very special.

So I'm here to ask you to ignore the staff recommendations to lift the ban on short-term rentals and maintain that ban.

It is important for our neighborhood.

An additional factor that we have is that an estimated 5 million visitors come and walk our streets every day.

They walk through our neighborhoods, five million.

If you just divide it by 365 days a year, you'll see that we have enormous impact.

I mean, our lives are affected every day by our visitors, and it's fine, but it would be way too much stress if they were driving all driving cars in and staying overnight.

So we have got a beautiful historic neighborhood that is vibrant and it is made out of residents that really protect and have restored their homes and made significant investments, and it's a big draw for the city to have this beautiful historic district that people actually want to visit because of the residential historic neighborhood status.

Dogs, you know, it's it's families and it's special, and we ask you to ignore the recommendation and keep short-term rentals out.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon, everyone.

Um, my name is Justin Frank Stoffall.

I'm the organizing communication or Jane Clay's.

Um we are a proud uh family member along with Union Neighborhood Groups, a strong coalition, short-term rental opposition neighborhoods group.

And just want to say thank you all for your hard work and service and patience in this issue.

Um first C B D 3, um C B D5.

I believe there should be a total prohibition on any sort of transit lodging.

Um I've remember friends living there 15 years ago.

That's not like sort of in chain place.

I just think there shouldn't be expansion training lodging in those areas.

There's extreme amount of transit lodging options all the other CBD uh zone district.

The mirror and French quarter.

Why are we spanning uh transit and lodging one of the last residential areas of the CBD doesn't exist?

Um I know the US don't focus on the forcement, um, but Jane Clay's position is that we should examine um the weaknesses of our city and how we uh you know do land use uh decisions going forward.

And right now we can all acknowledge there's a lot of issues with enforcement.

So why would we be expanding transit lodging options at a moment in time in which working class people are not able to live closer jobs, right?

Like our taste figuring new bus routes due to the extreme levels of displacement.

So that's just something that we're thinking of.

We also believe that there should be unique on-site operators in all translated lodging options, regardless.

And there should never be any SCRs that should be able to host 20 people or more.

That's just that shorter pads.

And so we just should have that, right?

No one wants to live around a 20-person SCR in the house.

We really need to bring in and limit the explosion of CSCRs, any translation lodging, amid-scene central city, some districts in Urand.

Again, I've seen displacement, I've lived in mid-sea for 10 years, and see more and more tourists.

I live next to illegal short-term rentals even around the decker and get them uh stuff.

Um lastly, no very fathering uh short-term rentals.

Thank you very much, and have a good day.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ray Scar.

John Rayershad, 1430, Aladama Street.

I'm opposed to removing prohibition, short-term rentals, and bed and breakfast in the garden district.

Garden district is a national landmark district.

We already have a lot of stress on our neighborhood, all the visitors that come through on the day-to-day basis.

Allowing any type of transient lodging in the garden district diminishes its historic value.

No changes are needed.

Prohibition, short-term rentals, bed and breakfast has worked well in the garden district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Dokes.

And then Miss Jones.

And those are the last two speakers I have, so you were planning this time.

I have one.

Okay, we'll go ahead and I'm Sandra Stokes.

I represent Louisiana Landmark Society at 1440 North Street.

I want to thank everyone for their hard work on this.

I too have been at this for 10 years or so, and it's been a long, a long slide.

As Louisiana Landwork's Assembly, we support neighborhoods.

We also support the French quarter position on this, the VC Poor position on this.

We are a member of the strong coalition who have made excellent points.

And we we support the garden district and the ban on short-term rentals care as well.

We're worried about the terms, the definition of hostels.

I think it's a slippery slope where people can slide into the next category without much problem.

We are we need to ensure that there's on-site management for any transient lattice lodging.

I think that's a safety issue that we all can get behind.

We are against any grandfathering, and I think there are ways around it, and um I'd I'd love for the staff to explore that.

We believe that one size fits all in a weird way, that um classifying small, medium, and large just complicates everything, and that it makes enforcement impossible.

And I think enforcement is key to all of this.

Um anything that can make this simpler for enforcement will simplify all of this.

And then in terms of CBD five, we do not want that expanded.

CBD 5 is described as a tr is um explicitly designed as a transitional zone to encourage long-term residents.

So expansion of short-term rentals and more hotels, which have happened over and over again, um, erodes at the at the liveability of the community.

Um this is particularly desirable area due to its it's close to downtown and it's close to transit.

So this is exactly what we're looking for for our residents.

Um, in terms of short-term rental, we are against them, and we would hope this would one day go away.

It erodes community, it limits affordability affordability and availability, and it impinges on the quality of life.

We need to protect our communities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Two minutes.

Jones and then Mr.

Goodman.

I am Julia Jones.

I live at 827 Louisa Street in Bywater.

And I am the president of the neighbors first for by water organization.

I speak not only for neighbors first, as their president, but also as a member of the strong alliance.

You just heard from Frank about what that group does and its feelings towards CSTRs and STRs in general.

We are opposed to CSTRs and STRs in general.

We have enough transit logics now, more than enough.

They serve no neighborhood need whatsoever.

In fact, they damage our neighborhoods by taking away housing and destroying the character of those neighborhoods.

And the historic districts, as you no doubt know, the commercial corridors are cheap by job with residences.

Our frame houses in most of the older districts are porous.

Noise pours into them.

And these days the color for us is you know too.

At least as I've found out.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Jones.

Mr.

Goodwin.

My name is Jim Goodwin.

I live in 537 Red Street, which is in Algiers Point, Vice President of the Algiers Point Association, and if I listed every other organization I'm affiliated with, I'll be here in my full two minutes.

Just summarizing everything I heard, that's why I was leaving turning it in.

There's one statement in the study that talked about granularity of the regulations and everything, and that a fine level of granularity was needed to be able to spread out and address all these conditions.

I disagree with that.

I'm a six-sigment deal belt amongst other things.

If you just go ahead and eliminate all these categories on STRs, roll them up like operator required and everything, and then eliminate all the exceptions to come up to the highest level of regulation and then enforce them.

You solve that whole problem.

So that's just a quick bottom line that I come to at the end of this thing.

So thank you very much for your work.

I appreciate it.

And uh hopefully we can get somewhere that we all can live with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter that didn't turn in a card?

Okay.

And we will one more question for staff.

Help me with some math.

Um last week we did geometry, we did trapezoids.

Today we're gonna do math.

Um neighborhood hotel recommendation is 16 keys.

Maximum of two bedrooms per key.

So that's 32 bedrooms.

I got that far.

How many people that translate to in terms of people?

What's the limit of people per bedroom?

I don't think it's specifies an occupant number.

Um I think it's just as a bedroom number.

Let me confirm.

It's gotta be state law, but you would have thresholds where you might need more work sprinklers or more things, but there is nothing that says how many beds per bedroom.

You could have eight one.

Yeah, that's okay.

I mean, I know I'm putting you on the spot and there's an occupancy number.

I can defend the building.

It's not like I see it's not a maximum or minimum, you would just need to build things differently or have more systems in place.

Okay, I accept that.

So we're going to conclude the public portion and the commissioners can go ahead and um deliberate and ask questions.

I do think we need to have some clarification on the grandfathering.

I feel like there's misinformation, and so I would like for us to have a better understanding of that and moving forward.

I mean, I feel like the touch points here are definitely the first couple blocks, you know, in the quarter garden district, the grandfathering, enforcement, and I'm seeing the threads throughout.

So if we could just maybe get some clarification on the enforcement, yeah, I would hunt it over to Ed Law or Bob to talk about that.

So which one?

The grandfather?

Correct.

So I think it goes back to um.

And you hear?

From the very start of the short-term rental conversation, um, if you recall, there were commercial short-term rentals and there were residential short-term rentals.

And even well, actually, even before that, there were temporary uh short-term rentals that were 90 day that turned into whole home rent residentials.

So the first regime we had was the commercial short-term rentals were regular land uses, which means that they were entitlements just like any other land use, residential, single-family home, multi-family home.

Um it is a land use entitlement the way it was put into the zoning ordinance.

The residential was a temporary use, and so that it didn't confer that land use entitlement because it was defined as a temporary use.

Then the second regime went into place and it was commercial and residential, and both were um identified as permanent entitlements.

Okay, then the Hignel case hit, and um the um determination was made that the uh homestead exemption requirement was unconstitutional, so that applied to all the residential, but it didn't affect the commercial.

So the commercial remained as entitled properties.

Um the residential were found unconstitutional, so when the new regulations were being put together, um the determination was made that because these were rights that were granted unconstitutionally, that they should not be continued, and that was upheld in the courts.

So the next regime that went in was commercial short-term rentals again as a designated land use and NSTRs, which were defined specifically as a temporary use.

So the cases that have happened since then that have focused on the NSTRs are focusing on a temporary use, and so the the I think the the Hignel case most recently that spoke to licenses not giving an entitlement.

That's absolutely true.

The license itself does not confer a land use entitlement, but the land use designation as a permanent land use does, and the court didn't address that issue.

The court even said that the plaintiffs may very well be able to establish a land use right, but they didn't in their pleadings because they relied on the issuance of the license to trigger the um the land use entitlement, and the court found that that was not sufficient to establish a land use entitlement so that they're um so where we are right now is there's we are recommending that as we move forward that both the NSDRs remain well the NSDRs remain as a temporary use because they're not going to be affected by these new regulations, but the commercial short-term rentals should be moving forward as temporary uses.

As to the ones that already exist, those are subject to the non-conforming use laws, which apply to the use entitlements that existed at the time that the new regulations come into place.

So they are allowed to continue with the entitlements, the use entitlements that they have as non-conforming uses unless they lose their nonconformity in some way.

So that's so we're not making a recommendation that we ought to make a decision to grandfather these the the grandfathering is by operation of the non-conforming use laws that are in state law and in the zoning work.

Oh question.

How does this apply to, for example, an SCR operator that owns multiple lots adjacent to each other and is operating and has a commercial short-term rental license?

They have one license for five lots in a residential district.

Are they also grandfathered in with the commercial short-term rental?

It depends on the license that we're talking about.

If they have a valid license and they've continued operating in a residential district on a residential property and zone.

Again, if they if they have a legitimate license, they have a they can't just do one illegally and then claim that they are entitled because they've been doing it.

If they have a valid license, and that license is maintained, and they the use is maintained continuously, then they can continue operating as a non-conforming use, even though the zoning regulations change.

I guess I just, you know, we put so much emphasis on residential SCRs to cap at one per square block in this almost punishing way for residents on the commercial side, we're like, I buy all of these, buy all of these lots, and let's make commercial short-term rental, and now you can keep it.

And now it's going to remain that way until you have some non-conforming use or people stop staying there or whatever the case is.

I just don't I just don't really like the feeling that commercial SCR just sort of gets a pass because it wasn't acknowledged by the courts, and then on the residential side, it's one per square block, good luck to everyone else, whilst people can literally live surrounded by commercial STRs, and the the answer is too bad it's going to stay.

So the just that distinction was again goes all the way back to 2016 when the first regulations went in place.

And the philosophy then was these are commercial uses, they ought to be steered towards commercial districts and away from residential districts.

What ultimately was adopted by the council, of course, was not that.

But the original philosophy around that was that these things belong in commercial districts and not in residential districts.

So that's that's why the permissions were much less in commercial areas.

So really it's it's you know, as those are going to remain because it'll affect me essentially, it's gonna be up to enforcement, right, to say whether or not these STRs are doing what they're supposed to do in being well.

Um has any thought been given for a live back period so for uh was this on commercial residential syllabus, those people who live with a license labs, any particular reason uh due to the rules of uh pending changes that we do their license, because we want the people that we thought about period for those people who the legal license is for us to do that, or we're gonna just move all with grandfather as it is.

So there's nothing in this study that does that, there's nothing in our recommendations that do that.

The one example where that did happen was in the NSCR legislation where there was the special exception process that was put in place by the council.

Um commission had recommended that they look into that, and that was because of a lot of concern by former owners that they were good operators, they were gonna lose their licenses potentially because of the lottery system, and that they ought to have an opportunity to continue to be good operators, and so the uh that program was put in place and it's now been discontinued, but um there were that was if that's what you're suggesting that that was what was done with the NSER.

There's a ton of people that die in that where they weren't able to renew.

So yeah, and I I think that the the difference also is that in that scenario, anyone who had an operator, anyone who was an operator was going to lose their license because those licenses were issued in an unconstitutional manner.

So they were going to lose them in this case with the commercial short-term rentals, what is being proposed would not affect any existing operators' rights so long as they continue to operate as a non-conforming use.

Are you suggesting then that uh based on the background of the legal challenges in court that if the council were to develop an ordinance that eliminated grandfathering that it wouldn't hold up in court or it would be going to court?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Based on what the previous cases that have defined how we must execute the what the council can do is eliminate language in the CZO, but the CZO is entitled by state law.

And so there's state law that basically says what the city or any other municipality can do with respect to the grandfathering issue.

And so there's the definition of a nonconforming use for those are all that's all comes from state law.

And so I haven't looked into whether or not there's an opportunity, but the very nature of a non-conforming use is that it is a use that was legal as it was operating, and then the laws changed, and the laws changed in a way that would make that use illegal.

And so the state law says that those uses can continue.

Um unless until they get to a point where they lose their nonconformity, and the state allows the municipalities to put together the defined details of how those processes work, but the the basic definition of a nonconformity is what it is.

May I address a member of the public who spoke?

Ms.

Grant.

They'll have to come up there.

Forgive me, forgive me if I'm mistaken about what you said, but you you made a comment indicating that there's firm legal standing if we were to eliminate where you're talking about the grandfathering?

Yes.

Do you have a legal background?

A big one.

I was a deputy city attorney for land use and zoning before that an assistant city attorney, and I prosecuted the landmark case of City Morlands versus Orleans Parish Labor Board, acknowledging and preserving our charter rights as a city.

So what's your personal response to what I actually respect uh his background and his history?

Um I have been a federal administrative judge for years, so I've been out of the game, but I can tell you as an advocate all along the way, though, I am very familiar with these laws, and there is some confusion, even among staff and safety and permanents and lawyers.

This is the confusion that when the council enabled both what we call now non-commercial or residential, and then they enacted commercial, is it somehow they gave to commercial a land use or property right, something vested when that ordinance was passed.

If you read our zoning ordinance and the city code, what you're going to see for both commercial and residential through the series of amendments is something quite simple.

These are permits, they're just permits, they're temporary permits allowing a commercial use of any structure, right?

If you look at the non-conformity law in our zoning ordinance, for the back of the ordinance, you will see how zone uh non-conformity is associated with a property right or a land use right that the property owner has to establish.

It is never presumed.

Okay.

A classic example of that, and you had it before, is the old corner store that no longer conforms with a more modern neighborhood, right?

Um, in that instance, that has been there for so long, uh, either by a historic structure and or by use, that that structure and conceivably the business associated with it for a long time is allowed to continue operating in a non-conforming way.

Okay, and it can do so as long as the license is retained and there's not a six-month lapse, right?

Okay.

Commercial short-term rentals under the Hignel case, and this is what governs, not the 2018 opinion, not the city law and interpretations now, okay?

But your executive director is, I understand the state of this, okay.

What happened is, and I'm pleased to see it, the Hignell opinion recognized that all short-term rentals, when it looked at the residential, were just like hotels, essentially.

They're functioning in a commercial capacity.

And what they really are is a permit.

So when the law changes, the regulations change for non uh commercial short-term rental, uh, somebody did not have a property right to operate indefinitely and be allowed to retain their short-term rental license, okay, um, despite uh not getting the exception.

Remember, there was the whole lottery system, and so that person had no property right, there was no constitution constitutional violation for denying that person a renewal.

In this case, with commercial short-term rentals, since it is a separate category still, my recommendation to you is to eliminate it as the category.

Because it is just, if you read the code, you can pause and look at it now.

It's just talking about permits.

It's all it's talking about.

You can eliminate this as a permitted right for use of any structure.

And when you do that, the city department takes your permits reporting.

What are the proposal the council give?

And you're just recommending it, right?

The council has to come up with a law.

You'll see in my my one of my letters, the early one, I recommend what the proposed law would be.

It would be to rescind in part the 2016 and 19 CSGR legislation, and we can amend the code to eliminate the commercial short-term rental category for permitting for permitted use of any structure.

The only reason it's in the zoning ordinance at all versus just in licensing in the city code, is that it's allowed in many many districts as a use, right, of a building.

And so it makes sense for commercial in residential or what we call non-commercial short-term rental to be referenced in our zoning ordinance.

But just by reference and just by the legislation that the executive directors referred to does not mean it had a land use component in the sense of a use so attached to the land that it is presumed to be non-conforming.

You get me?

Like that old corner store.

Okay, that is a license.

The Hignill opinion distinguished these kind of licenses from other licenses under Louisiana law.

And it was quite clear, these licenses are more like liquor licenses and other commercial licenses in many different kinds of buildings.

And if the regulation changes and they're eliminated, the property owner that had that license doesn't have an indefinite right or to claim non-conforming status or to get the renewal of a permit.

What I have recommended, the most simple uh path forward is this as an old land use lawyer.

We've got we all agree on this.

We've got to simplify this zoning ordinance, okay?

To me, the best way to do it is to take chop off the the one that they thought about next, the commercial short-term rental that has invaded our neighborhoods and caused problems with huge swaths of land being devoted to commercial short-term rental and all kinds of structures, right?

But whatever they are, they could be homes or apartments or condos.

I think I'm gonna cut you off there.

You've answered my question.

But do I do you understand what I'm saying?

That they don't they don't vest their property right, they're only permits, they're in the zoning ordinance for reason.

And the confusion is the belief that somehow they're attached to the land, like old properties.

And I can tell you that I'm confident that you would prevail, and the council would prevail, is because in the Hignell decision they were spot on about the constitutional law, which I know a whole lot about, um, and because that's what I do civil rights law when I left the city.

And I just want to let you know that I'm really confident that there would not be treated the ones that exist today when they couldn't get the permit, when the permits eliminated, like it can go on for everyone.

Thank you.

Sorry to keep talking.

Do you understand?

Oh, sorry about that.

Okay.

I'm sorry for it's too much.

What other questions that you may have for staff?

I have one question for staff.

So can you clarify, and this is on any of the specifics for us today, is we now have a specific set of recommendations from staff.

So our task is to vote yes, no, or to propose our own amendments to your recommendation.

That's correct.

And then it will be transmitted to city council.

Yes.

And yeah.

So my recommendation is you know to try to move the study forward with the response that CPC had to many of our questions that we had in the last summit meeting.

Um, and then anything else that is important to hear today to be able to share the terms of recommendations.

And then once city council gets it, they don't necessarily have a time frame, right, to respond to us.

So there's an existing IZD for commercial short-term rentals, which is a year long.

So they have another generally if they don't act by then, then the law reverts back to what it was prior to the original ICD.

So is that until January or December 20?

Um, it's from the time that they act on it, and I don't know that they have acted on it.

They haven't acted on it because we just actually just went ahead and recommendations for approval last year.

I think they did it.

I think they did a note a few months ago, I'm not mistaken.

No, we made the motion establishing the IZD, but it doesn't, the year doesn't start until it goes through the entire zoning process, and they ultimately do the ordinance, and that's what kicks on.

So one year.

So our goal is that the study goes there with additional recommendations, they digest it, and then if they have a text amendment back to us.

Right.

So this is not the last opportunity we'll get to be able to discuss it, but at least at this point, um, we want to try to move this study forward with um any changes.

So I have a the most picky in the question in that question, but one of the old staffs um dealing is what if we were to retain the neighborhood hotel, how do you feel about changing it to small?

Because we have heard the suggestion that we said, yeah, but is there a reason that was called neighborhood?

I know that's a team between the middle.

I believe it was called neighborhood because I don't know, this is already um, so that the scale of it was more in aligned with what you would find in a neighborhood.

I understand that these would largely not be in neighborhoods and in commercially zoned locations, so it would make sense to change the name from neighborhood to small.

Uh question is that uh there was a lot of feedback about definition of hostel if you speak to what conversations have been on the back end about defining the terms of policy.

It so hostel wasn't changed much as or the recommendation wasn't to change it much.

Um and that is because it wasn't a real discussion point in all of the public outreach efforts.

Um they did recommend that it goes uh that it's a permitted use in the HMC2 district, which Mr.

Allen um referenced, and um, and I think if there is concern about it being located in that district, one of the modifications could be to remove hostels from the HMC2 district.

It is largely prohibited in most other districts except for um Article 15, which has the most heavy commercial districts in the CZO.

Um so that I would sit recommend that Mike maybe would be something to consider.

Thank you.

Was there any consideration to have the on-site operator all of the commercial short-term rentals that moving forward?

Um that wasn't a consideration because it's the clear distinction right now between commercial short-term rentals and non-commercial short-term rentals.

Um what was suggested in one of the recommendations in actually it was a suggestion suggestion of uh further consideration in the CPC staff report, and then it was something that the commissioners wanted us to reevaluate.

Um it's more of a policy question, so if that were to be decided that operators should be on site at commercial short-term rentals, then the combining the two into one category makes more sense.

Um but right now it's kind of the distinction between the two.

And that was on the last page of your all's response to the last page, right?

And and part of that is because you have you know the the small is it's one room or one unit, and so it's uh how do you have an operator on site in one unit?

Um or you know, it goes up to four units in the commercial short-term rental medium.

Um, so that was a consideration as well, like how to act like logistically, like how does that actually like manifest.

Do you all have any other questions for staff or anyone in the audience that part of a point that you want to do further information on if not I'll make a motion to get as part of this?

So it's an incredibly complicated topic.

And there's so many good suggestions that have been made by people in the audience.

But I'm going to start by making a motion to accept the study as presented, including the most recent staff recommendations.

But otherwise accepting the staff recommendations as present.

Is there a second on that?

Okay.

Well then we can open up for discussion.

I would like to include the nouncil coordination of the state fire marshal's office and safety and permits.

I agree, please.

And I mean I'm fine with that.

So make the okay.

Technically, how do we do that?

Um Commissioner Flick asks for an amendment and I accept it.

So I feel like can you state it because that you articulate it better than that?

Yeah, um, just that I want to make sure that we include the the the council of knowledge of the coordination that needs to happen between the state fire marshal's office and state farmers safety impairments as it relates to whatever the council adopts as ordinance or coast through as ordinance, there are implications that may contradict what's required from the building departments to take farm market.

The ordinance doesn't necessarily reflect what's required in the votes.

Well then I would I make another amendment then I mean I I want to keep the garden district the way that it is.

Um I feel adamant about that.

Um I'm also adamant that the hostels should be looked at, and I think that that is a potential loophole that could be created as well as I mean the limit the transient uses in the CVD5.

I agree to that as well.

Um and then really just to leave the French quarter the way that it is and not make any changes the current regulations I have more notes.

And that's that's including the BCE and VC one as so I'm not accepting those amendments.

Any of them go through them, but so far.

How about then we can vote on it, and then obviously if it looks down, you make a motion.

We'll need to consider them separately.

Okay.

Oh, so one at a time?

Amendment?

Okay, so um to keep the garden district the way that it is and and not go ahead and move forward with any changes.

Okay.

That's the hardest one to me, but no, I'm not I let I'd rather keep my motion where it is, and if that's the commission feels differently, then we make a different motion.

We have no more transient um no more transient.

Uh what about CBD5?

Not encouraging any more.

Yeah, no, I was sold by what the staff reasoning on that too.

And then the French border.

No, I yeah, I thought um I was previous like Miss Becker's comment, so no one have that I would differ on that too.

Sorry.

What about hostels being staff?

Um I'm yeah, so state your amendment, but I'm totally that was overfolded.

But hostels need to be considered in the city council decision making process.

In the HMC2 district.

Correct, thank you.

So I'm good with that.

Okay, good the first one and the last one.

I think it's just important to note that this is that this recommendation and this is going forward to council is not policy.

This is just the approval of a study with our notes.

And it goes to council and they do the same activity and then decide what language from the study they put in the wooden things.

Can I get a clarification on motion on the hostels?

What is is it just to remove them from HMC2 in the country?

They should also be looked at.

I know that the study shows that there wasn't a lot of discussion about them.

I feel like there's going to be discussion sort of visionary thinking ahead on where there could be a planning tool to benefit or not areas.

And Rob, if you're thinking that's okay with anybody, three hours or something.

We didn't consider it.

So who seconded it?

Um second is so you're saying we they need to vote on each one separately?

So vote on each amendments.

So starting with the um Commissioner Flick's for the fire marshal.

Yeah, do we have a second?

Okay.

Do we have a second part?

Um proceed second.

Wait, let's be clear that we know what's going on.

So there's a motion.

You're already accepted.

Right.

Yeah, you accepted it as part of the second.

Yeah, so at least the second call of it.

Would it be easier to rescind the motion and just resay it?

Because it's if we go.

Okay, so it's clear.

I remove my so can you restate your motion, Ron, with those changes?

I'm sorry, say again.

Can you restate your original motion with those changes?

I can restate my original motion, but so my motion is to accept the staff recommendations, including the most recent recommendations from the staff based on the meetings that took place and the reconsiderations that took place with what one change of um neighborhood hotel being called small hotel instead.

And I accept, I can't totally restate, but I accept Commissioner Flick's amendment relating to coordination with fire marshal.

I accept Commissioner Whittree's suggested amendment concerning hostels.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Well, I will not be voting in favor of this.

Um is there um any other discussions?

No consideration with the garden district on your motion.

I'm just we've we've been people tr don't get to travel the you know outside of the country and they come to the garden district to be able to see it, or you need to be the French border as well, of course.

Um but these are really I and I don't want to do neighborhood preference, and I know that I mean that's really but I understand, but I I do feel like there's got to be and although it to me it's so close, but it is the neighborhood preference aspect.

I mean if if the commission wants to vote the other way, great but you're not going to add it right now.

School will vote and then we can see what you want to restate it.

Um would you like me to reach that?

Yes, I would like you to do that.

So the motion is to accept the study, including most recent staff recommendations, um to change neighborhood hotel to small hotel to um have council acknowledge that the need for coordination between department of safety departments and the fire marshal.

Commissioner Flick revoting that well, I guess we'll vote on this motion and then I readdress.

I'm gonna support the motion of stated.

I do I would I am not opposed to removing um VCE and the garden district, but again, this is the first recommendation to city council, and there are multiple other opportunities for city council to make that adjustment based on public system.

Um now that we have a no, maybe we can work with a motion on the things that we are substantially an agreement and make changes.

So at this point, if we have that necessarily does it just move forward through city council as is if there's no other motion, I don't I don't want this to go forward city council with no determination and none of all of these things that we talked about, at least parts of them.

Um if we can find a little ground to pass some of that looks like as chair I can't actually present a motion, um but we can move have discussion and on the things that were have some differences, which it seems to be French border as well as garden district.

Are there any other pain points that obviously enforcement that's obviously a huge issue that we would like to be able to have a magic one and move forward that definitely in our studies we need to factor in some type of enforcement language that's recommended, Mr.

Commissioner Push, I think that you have no?

I was just saying I I would like to consider modifying grandfathering.

Yes in addition to district and CP5.

Do you want to articulate about the grandfather?

Based on my understanding of the case law that was presented, how we implement the CCO, um I feel like it would be a reasonable uh risk to take to eliminate grandfathering.

Um I don't feel compelled to this is of course outside of the legal landscape.

I don't feel compelled to um provide continued use of these commercial short-term rentals based on previous legislation that we are now reforming or suggesting to a remote.

Can I ask you a question about that?

I totally agree with that, but I don't think we have the legal power to do that, and that's I mean if it if it's if uh Ms.

Graham's position is correct, and the people only have a license, and if what um Mr.

Rivers said the is correct, uh not that if they were greatly at odds, but if if they have a leave a legal right, they have it under prior uh law and Ms.

Graham's right, then they don't have it under prior law, but we don't have the power to say the whatever you have under prior law, we're gonna retroactively reach back and change its status.

I don't think the legal recommendations because I don't think we're gonna resolve the legal issue and say that you know I am a former chief deputy city attorney um who was in charge of zoning and planning um so what I would suggest is that there be a recommendation for the city council to consult with the law department and its own council on the issue of grandfather.

Um what I would suggest is that there be a recommendation for the city council to consult with the law department and its own council on the issue of grandfather.

That is my recommendation.

Thank you.

So we would like to have so is that an independent separate motion, or does that get proven that you're not?

Well, I there's a new motion that is being formulated right now.

So if that issue is if grandfathering is part of it, I would suggest that that be the language that is used.

Okay.

What else?

We need to discuss garden district and C B D 5 as well.

Garden district, CBD 5, and French Quarter and French quarter.

Can we clarify what the outskirts of the garden district would be?

I mean, that's Jackson, St.

Charles, Magazine, and Louisiana.

So are you saying um can you can I just um also just make sure we're all on the same page about what we're talking about?

We're talking about commercial short-term rentals, and we're talking about recommendations that are only allowing commercial short-term rentals in certain districts, and as it relates to the garden district, the only district that is affected would be the MU1 district, and that appears in two places.

Um one is the Chase Bank site at the corner of St.

Charles and Jackson, and the other is the um fresh market site at the corner of um St.

Charles and Louisiana.

Those are the only two that under the recommendations put forward by desire line would be have a possibility of a commercial short-term rental, and that assumes that the grocery store and the bank are gonna go away.

The rest of the districts in the garden district are not recommended to have any short-term rentals.

So what are here from the garden district association?

What has been your interpretation?

Maybe the presidential speech is impacts on the garden district and what you're opposing today.

Our interpretation of what the recommendation was was to lift the residential commercial residential STRs in the right, lift the ban on the on the short-term residence.

So technically, I understand it's correct.

Right?

Technically, the ban would be lifted by the residential.

That's how that's how we interpret it in the recommendation.

Okay, so community commercial as well, but on residential, that's so with the other residential.

Yeah, and that's what we don't want.

Thank you.

Maybe you could just reinforce that there would be no list in the bank.

One of the sour line had recommended not in the study but in their supplementary report to cross out the language where that exemption lived.

The recommendation, if you are inclined, would be just to keep that statement that says no commercial, no short-term rentals or bed and breakfast are permitted within the boundaries of the garden district.

Thank you.

I reread this over and over.

So I appreciate you clarifying that again.

So we're just reiterating.

Yeah, and I think just a double emphasis because based upon it the notes that we got back about one typology are really one emphasize recommendation of we have to know that ultimately this is the council's decision to bring up one type of so I don't want to get the motion will carry to emphasize one type policy.

I'm confused.

Is there any understanding this is all only commercial short-term rentals, and there's nothing residential before us at all?

Am I wrong?

No, you're you're correct, but the language that was proposed to rip be removed would open up the garden district to short-term rentals.

Mr.

Speak, if I may clarify, interpreted the stuff.

Okay, come on up.

I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Um we interpreted the uh the recommendation as being was to strike through the language which effectively prohibits residential uh short-term rules in the garden district.

And so therefore that language is struck out.

We think that that's an elimination of our ban, and that's why we came here too often.

Just to speak to that.

So is the garden district association?

So is the garden district association we've heard two different name residential.

Leave that aside for one second.

Our executive director tells us that as far as commercials concerned.

The only two distributed districts affected.

The only two properties affected are the two properties he cited, the bank building and the and the fresh market because it's only whatever the zoning district was MU1.

Yes.

So how does the garden district if we were to clarify that the residential band is not lifted?

I don't think anybody intended that.

Um how does the garden district association feel about lifting the ban as far as commercial is concerned because the only because it only affects ME1, which is only those two properties.

I don't want to all I don't want to speak out of terms, so I do want to um consult with shelving.

But we've also had some concern that the commercial they may have some impact on Parsons magazine street, and that was that was all that was also part of our concerns about the commercial button.

So as far as short-term rentals.

Is it not only managed?

Commercial short-term rentals, those are the only two sites that would be affected.

The I believe the recommendation was for conditional use for the neighborhood hotel or the small hotel on the uh HUB1, correct?

Um we think it should be a conditional use and not a right out of a given rights.

But there's a third property, mansion at the corner of Virginia and Jackson, which has been an ongoing bad neighborhood.

If you just retain the language, it would it would retain the ban in time in its entirety.

If we just retain the language and you could tell us that Magnolia Mansion is at the corner of Jackson and Magazine, yeah, down or lake side.

So if the if the border of the district that we're talking about is Jackson Avenue, then that would be outside of the district.

It would be outside of the garden district, as it's defined in the study.

Can you remind us which about the language?

Yeah, so the language it exists in.

Let me restate that.

It is the downriver side of Jackson.

My apologies.

I'm sorry.

It does include the downriver side of uh Jackson Avenue.

So it would include bank only mansion, which is MU1.

Um as well as the uh all of the other uh properties on that block.

Uh the French school, the office building, and the apartment building.

Right.

So this section that um prohibits short-term rentals and bed and breakfast in the garden district is section 20.3.1.I.

And these exists under the short-term rental general standards, but they also refer to bed and breakfast as a prohibited use.

Um so that was what was proposed to be eliminated, consistent with City Planning Commission staff former recommendations, but in doing so, it would open it up from my understanding to residential or rather non-commercial short-term rentals.

So then let's retain the language.

Yes, that's that's that's why we're here.

My recommendation, yes.

I mean we need to retain that language.

Yes, uh we still have other things that we're gonna do.

Yeah, we still have other things.

Oh, just to keep track, I think I would like to keep Steve's record Mr.

Steve's recommendations in the very beginning, state fire marshal, oh, in terms of the neighborhoods.

The grandfathering review, the review of the hostels, um the language about the district.

And then emphasizing this a single topology.

So Mr.

Jordan is an interpretive review having city console.

So then the two other pain points it seems to be as the French quarter and C B D5.

HMC2.

Yeah, I was gonna ask about the hostels, yes.

Oh, and that's under hostel or hostile.

Yeah, but to get it out of HMC2.

Correct.

We would want to remove those.

That zoning district.

So the I mean I think we're in agreement for not that we always have to be an agreement here, but I feel like we've discussed several of these except the C V D5 and French quarter.

The last one of the hospital is the hospital.

The hostel was uh had two parts.

One was that what was the explosive recommendations?

That the uh hostels be removed as a permitted use in HMC2, and that the council um reconsider or revisit the uh land use permissions for hostage hostels generally.

So C B D5 as well as French quarter.

Yeah, I think exactly thank you.

So the C V the recommendation I would make is that C B D5 does not permit small and large houses by that.

CSD all these we recommend disallowing both small and large hospital hotels, excuse me, because of primary use in this district.

And C B D five just per prohibit them all together?

No, no, not by them a conditional use.

I'm gonna speak for that.

I used to live in C B D five and then it completely has changed over the last 10-15 years.

I rarely have any neighbors anymore, and it's just only um and that's not with the neighborhood design for secondary.

I think we can address the French quarter.

Yeah.

We have not addressed five.

Is there a recommendation where we maybe make a motion on these items and then maybe discuss the French quarter separately?

Or are you all wanting to discuss the French quarter as well?

One file was here or came.

So right now short-term rentals are being that we all have small and medium.

And then we've heard from both sides in regards to you know tenants and having actual people there, and then we've heard about crime and how to reduce that just by actually having people there, and then heard about people putting those spaces back into commerce and having money to be the ones who develop that business purposes.

So I mean there's you know, that's definitely the balancing act.

So perhaps the um recommendations deeper dive on this issue too, that we don't have a perfect solution for it.

Can you restate what the what the uh staff's recommendation on VCE one and VCV is yeah, so staff recommends allowing small short-term rentals, small commercial short-term rentals in both the VCE and VCE1 district.

Currently, commercial short-term rentals are a permitted use in the VCE one district.

The new regulations.

Sorry, the VCE district, which is along Bourbon Street.

Um these recommendations would be more restrictive in the VCE district than what currently exists by having a block limitation, one per block, and they would then be allowed in the VCE one district, which is similar in nature to the VCE district and has been a recommendation on our N in both the 2016, 2019 studies that we've done.

And that's small only?

Small only and the block limit is what?

One per block.

The CPC staff agree that allowing small and medium commercial short term.

That was a change.

We no longer recommend medium, yeah.

Can you just first are remind us with small issues?

Yeah, recommendation.

One unit in a building, um, so that building can be a duplex, it could be dwellings above the ground floor, multi-family, just one unit on that lot on any lot.

And one per block.

One per block.

How many blocks in DC in VC?

There are like six blocks.

Right.

It's one per square block or one could be.

One per one per square.

Not block face.

So how many square blocks is the DCU one?

It's like seven.

It's two.

Well, it's not it's more than two.

There are so it's the entirety of the block doesn't need to be in the VCE.

Right.

So there are there are blocks that are split zoned where you have you know one side is V C E one and one side is whatever it is.

One per block.

And well, and that's that's across the board for all of these.

Yeah, I I have no modifications to some list iconics.

Any other list?

I'm not bored with all of the motions except the bench quarter.

I'm struggling with that one just to be clear.

I want those upper buildings, um upper floors to be renovated.

I also want the upper floors of canal to be renovated.

Um, but I just I'm struggling with that.

Um I don't know if Mr.

Quinn's here, but I can speak to that.

But that was incredibly complicated to build the Astro Hotel is Mr.

Um Those buildings that are from the upper floors have to have a stairwell.

The architect.

So they have they have to have a stairwell and the buildings are 30 feet wide, and two stairwells are two stairs.

So you can't do it building by building on the narrow buildings, which is why the Astra Hotel was unique in that it knocked down the walls in between the buildings and allowed a corridor and allowed you know a couple of stairwells for you know a hundred foot or two hundred feet on.

So I mean but how many owners own all of those, like if we'd have to look at all of the buildings, right?

Is that that was one owner?

No, no, that was all separate owners.

Like four of them.

Anyway, my my feeling about VC is it's one per block, which is the same that we allow in residential.

How deleterious to the neighborhood can that be?

We allow that in residential neighborhood.

Yes, we were moving to that direction, though we need to there needs to be a lot of emphasis on enforcement and a uh strong recommendation to council because just like we made a recommendational per block base that we had over the lottery system.

So I just want to be very thoughtful about that, even though I am allowed to be just gonna be careful even with our planning meeting last last month where developers were saying I don't think I only have four neighbors.

Well, we actually have a whole block, and it's not just maybe four people living there, and maybe they're not counting someone that's vacant.

It's just it's more impactful.

Um just to be mindful of that.

But it is the only, I mean no one's come to support the garden district in terms of their support of STRs in garden district.

I I realize that it's interesting.

Approval to move the transient site for it forward to city council with the amendments provided by staff and these additional notes to scratch near near the hotel.

Um review um say fire marshal coordination safety and permits in terms of what is permissionable to permissible for these given commercial S TRs.

A review of hostels in terms of this implication on neighborhood districts.

Um C D D five?

Is that right?

HMC2.

Retain the language for the garden district.

Right.

Um as as currently stated now as in the report.

And then that's what C B D five.

Oh, removing um the C D D five for small and large hotels by right instead of having it as a conditional use.

I think there's one more about the single typology.

Oh, and oh, correct.

And then having this uh council review an emphasis on having a single typology just for enforcement and ease of enforcement.

Second is that is that both CTC staff reports or just the latest.

That is the latest.

Okay.

So there's no change, there's no discussion order with this motion.

We have a bullshit.

Move the question.

So who's seconded?

I'm sorry.

Oh Commissioner Cochet.

Is there any discussion?

Is there any discussion on the chef translator in this motion of discussion?

You all are looking at me.

I mean, I think you can't even call this question.

Yeah, the call was all right.

Commissioner Fleck, yes.

Making sure y'all are paying attention to that.

Commissioner Pochet.

Yes.

Commissioner Stewart.

Yes.

Commissioner Steve.

Yes.

Commissioner Jordan.

Commissioner Witchery, yes.

No more, just another note.

Uh just to emphasize the concerns around uh the French quarter of the CE and I know we talked about currently the count is up at the seven because it's a seven additional use of currents, but I want to emphasize to council to stay away from uh an additional lottery system.

I don't think they want to go back there.

You know, I just I just wanted on the record just in case it's back around in case anyone.

Is there any other business?

There's a question.

Oh yeah.

Before you all race out of here, thank you for spending your time in this afternoon.

I I want to make it very clear, you see all of the notes and all of the effort that was putting it.

I think it's very very important study.

All right, subdivision recommendations.

So I will tell you that you provide it in your background.

There's a lot of chaos.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Uh not really.

I am seeing my favorite doing this.

Oh my gosh.

That's why I say that's why I think it's on the same thing.

Let me know what I just think about.

Um I don't know yet.

Thank you.

Let me know.