Thank you.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Jordan was second.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Uh oh.

We're gonna go ahead and vote.

Do we need to vote by hand for the systems warming up?

If so, we'll go ahead.

Commissioner Kepper.

Uh Commissioner Pochet.

Commissioner Josie Gupta.

In favor.

Okay.

Commissioner Flick, yes.

Commissioner Witchery, yes.

Commissioner Jordan.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Stee.

Thank you.

All in favor.

The minutes, Commissioner Flick and then Commissioner Jordan.

And we all voted to pass the minutes from November 11th.

If so, then we'll go ahead and start with the order of business.

Um, I believe our first two items are up for deferral, but we go we'll go ahead and listen to them.

Um please.

Thank you.

Um property acquisition 00325 is a request for a property swap between the city and Nora, uh, whereby the city would acquire five properties and dispose of one parcel to allow for the development of a public park at the corner of Amira Avenue and Homer Street.

This request came up at the last CPC meeting and was recommended for deferral to allow time for additional environmental sampling on the site to determine concentrations of lead in the soil.

The full phase two environmental assessment showed that remediation is necessary for the site to become a public park.

And due to this, the city has asked to defer the property acquisition until a remediation plan can be finalized.

Therefore, the CPC staff requests another deferral to the January 13th CPC hearing.

The deferral would be in conflict with the city planning commission's rules and regulations, which state that the city planning commission shall render a decision within 45 days of its first consideration.

The CPC first considered this item at its October 14th hearing.

14 45 days from that date was November 29th.

If the CPC defers this item to the January 13th CPC meeting, the the commission will need to suspend the rules so it can be acted on 45 days after its first consideration.

Is there anyone here to speak on this matter?

If not, then we are looking for a motion for deferral.

Would we vote now to suspend the rules or we just would do the deferral to the 13th?

Um it would be the motion would be to defer with the suspension of rules.

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion to defer and then we could suspend the rules to the January 13th meeting so this could be heard.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Making a motion to dis to defer uh property acquisition 003-25 with um exception.

No with exceptions.

No, but what's the word?

Uh suspension.

Suspension with suspension of the rules.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

A second.

Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you.

Any discussion, colleagues?

Commissioners.

If not, okay, let's go ahead and vote.

Should we vote by hand?

So there we go.

Seven years.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next um docket item, please.

Um property disposition 00125 is a companion application to facilitate the property swap between the city and Nora.

The disposition is specifically for one piece of property on Daniel Street.

The City Planning Commission staff recommends deferring this item to the January 13th CPC hearing for the same reasons stated for the property acquisition to provide time to finalize a remediation plan.

Should the city commission city planning commission choose to defer this request to the January 13th CPC hearing, the CPC rules will need to be suspended in order to act on the request 45 days after its first consideration.

Is there any discussion?

If not, I'd be looking for another motion for deferral.

Motion to defer 001-25 with suspension of rules.

Commissioner Flickle second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

All right, let's go ahead and vote.

Seven yes.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next step, uh zoning docket 065, 062-25.

Setting docket 062-25 is a request by City Council motion number M-25-534 to codify the eligibility of for sale affordable developments as part of these small multifamily affordable developments by setting affordability requirements for these dwellings and allowing said developments to be occupied by multiple owners on one lot of record.

And if necessary, to amend the definition for dwelling small multifamily affordable in Article 26.6 to ensure consistency with any proposed changes to the use standards.

The motion requests that multiple owners on one lot of record are permitted in small multifamily affordable.

However, multiple owners may already be listed on any given lot of record.

Given that the requested amendment itself was simply either reiterate or potentially complicate established permissions.

Staff does not recommend any amendments be made addressing ownership in this regard.

Additionally, the motion directs the city planning commotion uh commission to consider affordability requirements for the four sale units.

Currently, the co the zoning ordinance considers small multifamily affordable rental unit affordability requirements.

The affordable rental unit shall be rented to a household earning no more than 80% of the area median income for at least 15 years.

There is not currently an affordability requirement for owner occupants within the small multifamily affordable program.

However, staff believes adding this requirement is not necessary and could complicate a housing typology that has proven successful in its current form.

Finally, the motion requests amendments to the small multifamily affordable use standards to address multiple owners on lot on one lot of record.

While the zoning ordinance does not preclude multiple owners, there should be revised language in Article 20, Section 20.3.3.6 explicitly permit sale units without conflicting or negating existing affordable unit requirements.

Staff included language to ensure all owners sign a deed restriction and made a slight grammatical edit for better clarity and continuity overall for both use standards and the definition of dwelling small multifamily affordable.

Therefore, staff recommend modified approval of zoning docket 6225.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon, Carl.

Carlos Lagos, I'm here on behalf of uh Andronica Morris and uh president of Genoa 4640 um South Carrollton.

Um we are in support of the proposed amendment to the uh zoning rules for small multifamily affordable dwellings.

Expanding eligibility to um include for sale affordable housing and allowing multiple owners on a single lot will help increase attainable homeownership opportunities in our community.

The accompanying updates, such as establ establishing clear affordability requirements and um develop standards within the comprehensive zoning ordinance, create a uh consistent and thoughtful framework that supports responsible affordable development.

Um we believe these changes will positively um contribute to housing affordability and long-term neighborhood stability.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairduo.

Hi, Commissioner's Maxwell Cherdulo.

I'm the um chair co-chair of the housing trust fund advisory committee, and that's where this comes out of the housing trust fund, uh, as you all know, passed the uh last year and um commits the city to uh two percent of their funding towards uh affordable housing.

This is uh one of the um programs of the housing trust fund is dedicating money to that was passed recently by uh the city council.

And there is particularly a really innovative um way of doing small multifamily that some developers have come up with that allows them to do because uh you all allowed us to do small multifamily where there are two buildings, two doubles essentially on the same lot to create what would otherwise have been a fourplex to sell both of those units to income qualified buyers and then have each of them have an affordable rental unit on that uh at each of their properties or at each of those doubles as well.

So two affordable homeownership units, two affordable rental units.

It actually uh cuts down the cost per development uh unit uh for the developers so we can create more of those units at the same time.

Um but there hadn't been anything in the code to sort of like acknowledge that this was possible.

It wasn't something we'd initially contemplated.

Uh it was actually just creative folks thinking out of the outside the box uh in a way that we're really grateful for.

And so that's what sparked this.

So I just wanted to give you that context.

Um and it really is specifically pertains to the units that will be funded by the housing trust fund.

It's not I don't think it's not particularly likely that sort of market rate developers would be doing this.

Um we've seen market rate developers use small multifamily affordable, um, and they are building fourplexes.

They are, I don't think most of them are living on site, right?

They're just renting all of them as rentals, which is also great.

Um, but just to give you that context, help you understand sort of where this is coming from.

We're absolutely in support.

And um, yeah, appreciate you.

Thank you.

I don't have any other cards on this matter.

Is there anyone else here to speak?

Yes, please.

I know you'll fill out a card after unless we have one up here that we can't.

I did actually, I don't know where it is.

Okay, go ahead.

Um Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, town of Carleton Watch.

I'm not paid to be here.

SMFA has been abused in three private dorm developments already in commerce in the university area where developers use SMFA to get around the off-street parking requirements of the university area overlay.

This legislation is unworkable near the universities, and the area should be carved out of the legislation altogether.

SMFA dorms at 7417 Buth, 1808 lower lines, 7000 Jeanette, are operating without a COO, hence without a healthy home certificate.

These buildings should not be rented out at all.

There's no proof that the affordable units at these addresses are actually rented out to low-income residents.

Evidence instead suggests that they're rented out to two line loyal lol Loyola students with high incomes.

Example one, three-bedroom affordable at 7417 Buth has been rented at a premium 4500 a month versus the SMFA rate 1369 a month since June 24.

See complaint on one stop unresolved since 94 2024.

Example two, two bedroom affordable at 1809.

Hillary is occupied by by a four first-year two-lane law student whose income was earned by working for her mother at an LP that does not exist in St.

Tammany Parish.

The neighborhood did the background research, not DSP, publicly advertised for 1600 a month versus SMFA rate for one person, 1064 a month.

Example three.

Thank you.

And let the record note we did find your cart.

Thank you.

Um can I ask wait?

Um Susan, um what would be the specific area that you're asking for a carve out?

East Carleton and uh Audubon Broadway.

Um we know the well enough defined to know boundaries.

Um are you referring to the the area that the university area off-street parking overlay district is?

Is that what it's more limited than that?

It's the overlay is pretty broad.

We're we're really talking about the the area um that's covered by the design overlay, just for the sake of comparison.

It's smaller.

East Carrollton, that's where most of these are um concentrated.

I I have a we have a study that that I can forward after we update it.

These figures as are as of April 2025.

We do have a design uh defined design overlay district that she's referring to, yes.

Yeah, it might help if I clarify that the regulations that are being discussed apply citywide, and this is to make a relatively technical amendment to uh contemplate um for sale units.

So nothing in this amendment changes where or where not the regulations are applied.

So I would imagine that changing the boundaries of the regulations as opposed to their content is outside of the scope of the motion.

Okay.

Um and and if I understand you right, Mr.

Crohl then, since this relates only to sales.

This amendment really doesn't address the violations and the situation that Ms.

Johnson is.

I mean, yeah, okay.

That's more of a matter of A enforcement and B if we want to address it.

Um different uh zoning matter altogether.

That's correct.

Okay.

My apologies for speaking out of turn, trying to grab the mic on this whenever I can.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

If not, then I'd be looking for a motion.

Commissioner Jordan will make the motion for approval.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Fickle second.

Unless this is for modified approval, correct?

All right.

Any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Let's go ahead and let the record note that Commissioner Stewart is present as well because this will change the votes to eight that are in favor.

So the motion carries eight.

Um, and welcome Commissioner Stewart.

All right.

Let's move to zoning docket 063-25.

Uh, this zoning docket considers the uh zoning approval of the sale of uh alcoholic beverages packaged alcoholic beverages at a retail store at this location on North Broad Street.

Uh it's a a retail store that has had an alcohol license in the past.

Uh it was not renewed, and so the uh entitlement to it lapsed requiring this conditional use application.

In general, the staff views uh alcohol sales as kind of being similar to other retail sales and and appropriate for commercial districts where retail in general is allowed, and uh based on that logic, the um staff recommends approval of this request for this site, which is within a mixed-use zoning district that is really centered on the broad and Saint Bernard uh intersection.

Thank you.

We have no cards as well, so commissioners.

Um, if you have any questions, or if not, I'm looking for a motion.

Commissioner Flick will move approval with one proviso I say in the report.

Is there a second?

Commissioner oh go ahead.

Second.

Commissioner Pochet.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

If not, let's vote.

8A's motion carries zoning docket 065-25.

65 or 64.

24.

Zoning docket 6425 is a request for a zoning change from HURD2 Historic Urban Two Family Residential District to an HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use District for properties located at 323 through 343 Jane Alley in the mid-city neighborhood.

The site is being developed by the Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative.

The petition site consists of five lots with three vacant developable lots and two lots developed with existing two-family dwellings.

The total area comp encompasses approximately 14,102 square feet.

The site has historically always been designated residential, particularly single two and small multifamily Sandboard maps document the petition site was developed with at least four two-family dwellings and one commercial out of repair shop around 1951.

The applicant has stated that the intention for the vacant parcels is to develop a 3,600 square foot administrative office for Jane Place operations on the ground floor and construct three one-bedroom apartment units on the second floor.

While the intended development is in keeping with the previous and existing surrounding land uses, the proposed zoning change is not consistent with the master plan, and therefore the staff recommends denial of the zoning change request.

Oh, and can Commissioner uh Flick is going to recuse herself from this docket item.

Ms.

Reed?

Yeah.

Good afternoon.

My name's Veronica Reed.

Um, I'm the executive director of Jane Place.

I'm the executive director of Jane Place, 2000 South Broad Street, suite 204 New Orleans.

We are a community land trusts, and we build and steward permanently affordable rental housing in mid-city.

The address, the four lots that the five lots that we're currently looking to rezone will allow us to better steward and manage the properties that we currently own and have better relations with our tenants.

We have 14 lots and properties in this general area.

It's important when you are landlords to be good landlords.

And Jane Place, we think we're model landlords for New Orleans.

And we want to be model landlords to have inter to have good relations with our tenants.

This building we can only build by having this zoning change.

And we feel that this is not a spot zone because we own five consecutive lots, and we want to change all five of these lots.

And we build rental housing that's permanently affordable, and those rental units will always be permanently affordable as long as we own them.

So we're good stewards of the properties that we own.

We're good neighbors in our mid-city neighborhood.

And we would like to continue that tradition by having our office in that neighborhood, but also by adding three units of permanently affordable rental housing on a vacant lot on these vacant lots that did not have housing on them and that have been um out of use since Hurricane Katrina.

Thank you, Miss Reed.

Mr.

Rivers, do I need to suspend the rules for us to go ahead and look at the um poster that was brought up?

No.

Okay, okay.

Great, thank you.

Um Mr.

Kramer, we would like to welcome you.

You um served the city of New Orleans for how long?

25 years.

25 years.

It's a pleasure to see you.

Thank you.

And um let's see, you have been seated time, so you have a um total of four minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm Paul Kramer, 2244 Kildeere Street.

I'm happy to be here today representing such a great organization.

Not only do they provide a hundred percent affordable rental housing, their houses are kept in very good condition, a mix of historic renovations and new low density construction fitting seamlessly in the mid-city neighborhood.

There's before and after pictures in attached to the report, pages 37 to 42.

They have solid management and excellent fund rising, and many times the CPC staff and commission have both recognized the strong need for affordable housing.

And I think they also recognize the advantages of on-site or close proximity supervision and management of property.

Staff report acknowledges the appropriateness of the zoning change at this location and notes that the application meets many of the criteria.

So we thank the staff for their fair and consistent report and will address the recommendation of denial, which was based on two technical reasons.

First is the master plan's future land use map category, which states businesses, traditional corner stores, and mixed use may be allowed where current or former commercial use is verified.

The vacant land of the subject area was previously used as commercial with both the 1929 and 1949 Sandbar maps showing warehousing and auto repair as the commercial uses.

Additionally, 325 Jane Place contained the auto repair warehouse structure as recently as 2007, and it can still be viewed on Google Maps.

But the building had to be demolished following Hurricane Katrina.

According to the Flum category, there is no requirement that the buildings still exist.

On page eight of the staff report, the staff notes that it is only their interpretation of the master plan that at least a vacant commercial building should be present to allow new commercial development.

Understandably, the staff takes a conservative approach.

The commission, on the other hand, has taken into account the particulars of the situation and considers the overall health, safety, and welfare of the city, and it has often taken a more expansive view.

The second reason the staff gives for the recommendation is the spot zoning policy, and we just disagree that it's spot zoning.

This is an extension of an existing HUMU zoning from across the street, as you can see on the map where the Ruby slipper parking lot is, includes five different lots totally totaling over 14,000 square feet.

Includes five different lots totally totaling over 14,000 square feet.

I think it's important to note that the large parking lot entrances and exits for Ruby Slipper Restaurant are on this same 300 block of Jane Alley as well as Bank Street.

So you do have Ruby Slipper traffic using Jane Alley.

Although not owned by Jane Place, the corner property with banks on the same side as Jayna, same side of Jane Alley is also a commercial structure.

And then across Bank Street are additional commercial structures and HUM zoning.

So to recap, the petition site is directly across from the Ruby Slipper Restaurant parking lot, one block from Broad Street Major Commercial Corridor, generally surrounded on two sides by H UMU zoning and walking distance to major employers, including the VA and LCMC hospitals.

So we ask that you please support the health, safety, and welfare of New Orleans by supporting this petition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bryce Nice.

Thank you, Commissioners.

My name is Bryce White.

I'm at 4629 Cartier Av, uh 7012.

And thank you, Commissioner Whittree.

I uh am one of the founders of this organization, although I'm no longer on the board, so this is me as an individual.

Uh this uh vision for the office to be on Jane Place is really sort of central to the whole concept of this organization that is allowed to both steward land, develop it uh, and uh support tenants and homeowners in the neighborhood, and I think Jane Place has uh shown an ability to do that since inception really, but especially in the last few years under our uh director, uh Miss Veronica Reed.

I think this both provides housing and uh provides resources in a place that uh could really use it.

I lived on this street for more than 15 years uh through Hurricane Katrina.

Most of our elderly neighbors have since either passed on or had to move away because they couldn't afford it.

I think an organization like Jane Place is really founded on the idea of neighborhood sustainability, both for folks who have lived there and also for providing homes uh for folks who want to move into the area through rental housing and other ways.

So uh, you know, to me, this is a very easy choice, and again, it sits right across from uh a parking lot as was already stated by Mr.

Kramer.

So I am uh 1,000 percent in support and hope you guys can support too.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Miss Prosper.

And I'll read a couple of cards there so that we can get through everyone.

Miss Emic Emma Kerr.

Good afternoon.

Oh I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, I'm Tamar Prosper.

I live at 47 Park Timbers Drive, New Orleans, and I just want to speak on in support of this position.

Uh the city master plan goals state um some things, including enhancing livability, retaining residents, investing in high quality of life as an economic strategy, and reinventing the way the city thinks about housing to serve longtime residents with deep roots here.

Also, the master plan looks at what makes a good neighborhood, and one of those things is businesses are located where people want to be.

The residents of Jane Place want to be there and want to have easy access to the organization and have interaction with the organization.

So I ask that you please support this petition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then we'll have Miss Flowers, Mr.

Ahan.

Good afternoon.

I'm Edith Amiker.

4919 South Robertson Street.

Um I'm speaking in support of this bit of this request.

Uh, as a as a community member that's interested in making sure that there is that it that affordable housing is the affordable housing problem that we have in this city can be addressed, and this is a great organization.

They have a very good reputation, and their proposal includes on-site management, which you know just speaks more to how they're responsible landlords for this landlords, and also as has already been stated, you know, something like this is in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of our community.

And uh my son went to school in this neighborhood in this neighborhood, and so I kind of know a little bit about how about how this neighborhood flows.

There's a lot of different there are a lot of different rental properties, and what they're doing here at Jane Place is really wonderful for the community.

Thank you.

Ms.

Flowers and Ms.

Rahan.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lucinda Flowers.

I'm at 318 Arris Avenue in Mettery.

I am speaking here, and I am a consultant on this project, but I'm also speaking as a former senior city planner here at CPC, focused on housing issues, and also a long-term affordable housing advocate here in New Orleans.

So I'm speaking from that experience to really just shout out to say how important it is in as an affordable housing management best practice to have an office on site.

It really makes sense for the residents, for the neighborhood, and for the managers.

It just makes sense.

And that's exactly what this is.

A few reasons why this is such a good best practice.

When management offices are right there and easily accessible, it's easier for residents and managers to get to know each other and importantly to build mutual trust.

From the resident side, if a resident has a concern, it's easier for them to go to the office right there and reach out for help.

Likewise, from the manager side, managers are more present to observe and anticipate and resolve resident issues early.

In terms of helping with property maintenance, having an office where the housing is increases the manager's ability to identify and remedy budding problems before they get worse.

Or if something needs immediate attention, the management is on site right there to do something about it.

And finally, the benefits to the neighborhood.

As you know, this is a dense neighborhood.

And it's important, especially in neighborhoods like this, for neighbors to feel that they have somewhere to go to talk about any concerns that they have.

The office is right there, it's clearly visible, they know right where to go, and this gives neighbors a level of comfort and a peace of mind.

I should note that uh the CCO actually kind of are you saying stop?

The CCO acknowledges this as talking about having office allowing offices for multifamily dwelling accessory uses.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your service and coming back to City Hall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Johnson and then Miss Angela, Mr.

South Hall, and Mr.

Maxwell.

That's who I have to speak on this matter.

Please go ahead.

Sure.

Good afternoon, y'all.

My name is Ella Catherine Strahan.

I'm with the Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center.

We're located at 1340 Poja Street, suite 710.

We're here today to provide support for the Jane Place Sustainability Initiative and their proposed rezoning ordinance.

This measure to zone the area as a mixed-use development aligns closely with both of our organizations' goals to provide sustainable and economically just neighborhoods across New Orleans.

We've worked closely with Jane Place over the years, and we are excited for this new opportunity for them to serve their clients while providing new housing opportunities that are affordable within the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Town of Carleton Watch, Historic New Orleans neighborhoods.

I am not paid to be here.

Thank you.

Hi, Angela Ozarek.

Speaking as a resident of the area for the past eight years, I've lived previously about four blocks from this address, and I currently le live less than half a mile from this address.

I also work at Jane Place, and I just speak in support of our effort for this zoning change.

I really just want to highlight how unique our housing is and how we need this change to be able to build the housing we have planned.

We have many of our residents in our land trust who have stayed with us for many years, specifically because of the high quality of services we provide to them with local management, and this zoning change would only allow us to do that much more.

We would literally be right under, right next to, and right across the street from multiple properties that where we provide deeply affordable housing.

Many of the people living in our housing come to us with significant needs, just not only in their financial position, but in terms of things they've experienced in their lives.

And they're looking for Jane Place not just to be a home, but to be an engaging community that they are a part of, and we would like to see this building help us help them accomplish that.

I will also say as a resident of this exact chunk of mid-city, it's very discouraging.

I walk to work both on Canal Street and on Bank Street almost every day to see the amount of vacant lots and blighted properties that litter mid-city, and it would be meaningful if we could take even a small amount of them as we do at Jane Place and take them from vacancy into important use.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, good afternoon.

Uh why Frank Southall organized and can engage to manage our chain place.

Um I'm also rest in mid-city, 311 Palmara Street, so four blocks away from uh where we're gonna be building this office.

Um it's a pretty crucial piece for us to be able to build this uh office in uh three units of affordable housing, in part because many of the tenants I work with in Manchester Education Program Um need to be able to get to centralized location, and that is some proximity to several different transit lines, Canal Street, um the Sheffman tour bus, which I forget the name used to be 94, but they the number nine I think is now.

But um BC is central loc uh centrally located uh spot for us.

Um the other thing that's really important is that something's reflecting all bodies of our work is that our communication will work informs how we build.

And what we've noticed is that we need a lot more one bedrooms.

The people that I help organize into tenant units and apartment buildings across the east and Algiers um largely need it.

And and that's often the biggest problem our city that we have lots of tennis stuck in slum lower buildings because they can't find affordable units.

And that's one of the reasons why we're shifting our housing development strategy to providing one bedroom units.

Um yeah, that's basically uh why I supported beyond the fact that I work there.

Um I've been involved with the organization not as a staff member since 2012, I think, when I lived in the building that founded Chain Place when I was Brice's roommate many, many years ago.

Um so thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Mr.

Maxwell, Maxwell Chardulo, uh 3702 St.

Claude Avenue.

Um I'm no longer involved with Jane Place, I was a board member.

Um I want to add something um unique about community land trust here that I think is relevant to this, which is that um there is little to no risk of this land being sold to someone else, and that is because of the unique bylaws of community land trusts, which make it incredibly difficult to sell land, and that's because the whole point of a community land trust is to own as much land as possible for the benefit of the community.

Um and and I can also tell you that Jane Place um and its founders have been trusted neighbors in this community for decades.

Um, so much so that multiple neighbors have actually sold Jane Place land below market value because they wanted to make sure that those properties were maintained as affordable after they moved on or left the neighborhood.

Um it was that important to them.

Um then also, you know, I think folks have mentioned this, but this really benefits the whole neighborhood, right?

It benefits the tenants to have management near nearby.

It benefits neighbors that you know if an issue comes up, property management issue, it can be taken care of quickly because there are managers uh and property managers nearby.

Um and then lastly, if anyone's visited this corner by um the Ruby Slipper and by the gas station there, um, it really is a commercial area.

Um and and before this, it was blighted lots across from a commercial area.

Um, so sort of visually and from a practical sense, I think it just makes sense.

So thank you all.

Thank you.

We have no other cards.

Ever and we have no opposition.

I have a question.

I have a question for staff.

Uh staff could if we were to go against the your recommendation, what provisals would be necessary to move this motion forward.

There's no provision necessary since it's a zoning change.

Okay.

Uh well, I'll go ahead and make the motion against staff recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

No, I just want to say, you know, we often talk here at the commission about ensuring that there's affordability, and this is a great opportunity for us to push against some of the current uh zoning to make sure that we are making it happen.

And I might add that the last speaker's point was very helpful because uh with a zoning change, it lasts forever, and to know that there are difficulties.

A lot of times we turn down zoning changes because property can be sold and uses can be changed, but knowing that uh the land trust regulations make it very difficult, um, eases that concern, so that was a very helpful point to make.

And we talked about visionary planning, this docket item is.

Um, so hopefully we can move it forward.

And 73% of New Orleans is actually living um alone, and we really need one bedroom housing.

It's such a need throughout the city.

So this could actually really fill that niche as well.

A small percentage of it, but we need more planning options and tools in that nature.

All right, any other comments?

If not, let's go ahead and vote.

We have a motion on the floor to go against staff recommendation.

Um you have a first and a second, so let's vote.

Second uh Commissioner Steag.

The motion carries with seven yes.

Uh thank you.

Congratulations.

Let's move on to zoning docket.

Welcome, Commissioner Flick.

And 06525.

Am I on track?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh zoning docket 065-25 is for a property located on Washington Avenue within the HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use District, uh, which consists of two lots totaling approximately 3,068 square feet and contains a former apartment building.

Uh the applicant's request is to renovate the existing structure into a six-unit hotel utilizing the existing residential units as guest suites.

The proposal meets applicable bulk and yard requirements and qualifies for parking exemption under the comprehensive zoning ordinance as a total floor area is just over 5,000 square feet.

And the property is on street parking along both uh along both front and right-of-ways.

Uh the most recent use of the site was residential rather than commercial, uh, which did have a conflict with the future land use map.

However, staff did find that the property had a history of commercial uses from the 1980 sandboard map.

Uh so prior to it being developed as an apartment complex, these uses would support the conclusion that the proposed hotel is consistent with the master plan.

Uh the future land use map states that businesses, traditional corner stores, and mixed use developments may be allowed where current or former commercial use is verified, and that the conversion to multifamily neighborhood serving commercial or mixed use may be allowed for historical institutional or other non-residential structures.

Uh therefore staff finds uh this conditional use is consistent with the master plan and recommends approval of the zoning docket 6065-25, subject to three provisos found in your staff report.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jimmy Brown, would you like to come speak?

If so, you have two minutes and you can state your name and address.

Well, um you pretty much said everything I needed now.

I was interested in.

And uh I was in an auto accident and got my teeth knocked out, so I'm gonna go with what he said.

Okay.

You look great.

All right.

Any um questions for staff or no Mr.

Um Brown was the only comment card I have.

Move approval in accordance with staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Flickle second.

Thank you.

Any questions or discussion?

If not, let's vote.

Eight yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we're moving on to zoning docket zero.

6625.

This is an application affecting the dat dog location on Fred Street.

Um, I've got the wrong thing here.

Uh the the business has been there for about 10 years.

Um and kind of has if you've been there, a combination of the indoor, outdoor uh dine in an environment.

There's a proposal now to expand it uh within the existing boundaries in a way that increases the amount of indoor space.

Um and what that does is it brings it over the 5,000 square foot limitation uh for restaurants which are otherwise allowed by right in the district, and so that uh requires conditional use approval.

Uh again, this the staff finds that this is a fairly sort of low impact proposal.

It's it's really just kind of uh changing the the structure of existing restaurant space as opposed to intensifying the restaurant in a meaningful sense, and so the staff finds it to be appropriate, uh certainly given the commercial corridor along for Ferret's rate within which it exists and recommends approval with standard provides this.

Thank you, Mr.

Gunnar Gedry.

Gunnar Gidry 320 North Carrollton.

Uh yeah, so this the existing square footage uh is not gonna change uh the existing square footage being used for the actual building.

The only thing changing is from when you walk in from Ferret Street, uh you notice that it's it's a lot of just open it's open space, it's it's open to the environment.

And so with the covering, but all we're gonna simply do is just is to enclose that uh and make it uh conditioned space, and it's will actually contribute uh very very much so to the actual street for uh street frontage.

So the the new design coming up is gonna be really really sharp.

It's gonna change the uh the that street area.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Amonica Mark Amber?

Amaka, sorry.

Please tell me how to pronounce your name so I can correct.

Oh, it's uh first name Editha.

Last name, Amiker.

Amiker.

Thank you.

Yes, I reside at 4919 South Robertson Street.

I'm about two blocks away from that dog.

And um I was also part of the group in our community that did a lot of work after Hurricane Katrina to try to bring back Ferret Street, and that dog is probably one of one of the best things to show up on Ferret Street.

So and I can also say that I am definitely in favor of them having more interior space, um, because my my son is a big fan, and so we have actually sat out there in 45 degrees outside because their hot dogs are really that good, and our son is a really big fan.

So I'm definitely in support of this proposal, especially in anything that involves debt dog uh further further cementing themselves on Ferret Street.

Thank you.

I have no other cards and no cards in opposition.

So if there's uh any Commissioner Cove move approval in accordance with staff recommendation.

Commissioner Flickle second.

All right, any discussion.

If not, let's vote.

Yeah.

We move approval per staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Zoning Docket 067-25.

Zoning Docket 6725 is a request for a zoning change from an OSN neighborhood open space district.

So an H U R D2 Historic Urban Two Family Residential District.

This land is currently developed with the Harriet Sutman Elementary School and was previously included in the park land designation along with the adjacent Berman Park, creating a situation where the zoning district and the flum were inconsistent with one another.

So the flum designation has been rectified under PD 1202.

This request will rectify the site zoning, which as an OSN district does not allow the current use of the school at the site.

This proposal is also not a spot zone, as it would convert two OSN neighborhood open space zone parcels that are not used as parks and that are not owned by city, owned by the city, into our residential districts, which matches which matches other properties in the vicinity.

Staff is supportive of this request.

However, staff recommends deferral to the January 13th, 2026 CPC hearing, so that proper notice can be provided at this site.

Thank you.

I don't I don't believe I have any cards on this matter.

Is there anyone here to speak?

No.

Then I then I'll make the motion for deferral to the January 26th.

13th.

13th, sorry.

The January 13th meeting.

Commissioner Fuckel second.

All right, any discussion to defer this till January 13th.

If not, then let's vote.

Motion carries.

We're going to defer to January 13th.

Thank you.

Now we're going to move into the transent lodging study presentation.

I'm assuming everyone here is to listen to that, or we have cards for this.

Desire line is here to be able to present first, and then Mr.

Rivers, you will be.

Okay.

And why they get settled, we have we seem to have cards in opposition, we seem to have cards in support, and then we seem to have cards in both opposition and support.

So I'm going to take a second to think about how best to move forward this and um while we go through the presentation.

No, you cannot after the presentation.

And if I call your name and you're not, just please let me know, and then we'll move into information only, and then we'll kick over to the opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um Witchery.

My name is Alex Carter.

I'm the same.

Oh, go ahead.

I'll just eager to get a question.

Um thank you, Alex.

Uh, good afternoon, commissioners.

Today you will hear an in-depth presentation from Desire Line, the local consultant who was hired to complete the transient lodging study.

Desire line spent this entire year compiling data, conducting public outreach, and crafting recommendations for possible policy changes for hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, commercial short-term rentals, and timeshares.

At the October 28th CPC meeting, Desire Line presented a high-level overview of the recommendations.

The full study was published the following day, providing the commissioners and the public over five weeks to review and digest the findings and recommendations.

The Desire Line study is accompanied by a city planning commission staff report containing further considerations for the city planning commission.

Bob Rivers will present the supplemental report after Desire Lions presentation.

And before we begin, I want to thank Desire Line's tireless work on the study.

It was no easy feat.

We are extremely grateful for the dedication and care you put into the work.

I've really enjoyed working with your team.

Thank you.

It's our pleasure.

And uh, I just want to extend a thanks to the city and for all the participants in this study.

Um, we did sort of start with data collection and analysis, and then realize that we would need more outreach and engagement, which was not in our original scope.

We just really had one public meeting in our school and some interviews, and so just know like the surveys, the website, all of that was sort of in addition to sort of get more people engaged and and get more feedback in the study itself.

So as I mentioned earlier, I'm very eager.

I like to do this kind of work.

So I'm glad to be here this afternoon.

I just want to thank everybody who has come today to listen to the report and to discuss with us their thoughts.

I also want to thank Tara Lambeth who's sitting next to me and Evelyn Campo, I think is in the back, and um the rest of the the desire line team for you know analyzing and reanalyzing because we had a lot of changing conditions during the study that we adapted to.

Um and so, and for anyone who who read the report in its entirety, I just want to thank you for your attention to detail and time.

Um, with that being said, as as Rachel mentioned, the timeline is here.

We sort of coordinated across both internally with the city, it's all the sort of um stuff in gray outwardly with the public, which is in you know dark blue, and we also incorporated a city working group throughout the study that was formed in April and met mostly monthly.

We originally thought we would only meet one four times total, and we ended up meeting a lot more than that because we we kind of ran into some data limitations, and we knew we would need city staff and department heads to to sort of talk with us and verify what we were seeing and finding.

Today, you know, we're at the point where we're meeting with y'all to offer our recommendations in more detail.

Um, we're gonna go over the study process and the land uses over time, the goals and objectives of the study, some background and data analysis findings from the outreach recommendations, um, and then we're gonna provide a spatial neighborhood analysis and then some long-term recommendations.

And even though this is sort of more detailed than our October 28th presentation, I do want to note that it's still super high level when you go dig into the report itself.

If you're like, I want to know more, there's a lot more in the report.

Um, and so just for any folks that are new to this, or just you know, I know we had to adjust to the city's process.

Um, it's important to note that this is a about policy recommendations for the city's planning commission.

Um, that y'all are maybe, you know, maybe gonna make a decision today about whether to approve or approve with amended amendments, um, the policy recommendations, and then after this, the city council can consider those recommendations, and they may draft a text amendment in fulfillment of those recommendations, and then that text amendment then has to be approved by the city council for it to become law because we have gotten a lot of questions about what does this mean if the city planning commission acts on it, and we just want to make sure people know that there's another step to this, and you know, I know you'll have a few uh new council members, and so there may not be an immediate effect.

Um with that being said, on a very high level, um, when we looked at y'all's history with transient lodging uses, um, you know, issues started to really emerge with short-term rentals, and there was more of a permissive approach as that use kind of came online.

Um, and over the last 10-15 years, y'all have slowly and and regularly updated your laws and clarified the standards.

Um, with that, you've had you know more buildings renovated, you've had some increases in tourism, um, but with that, also we saw higher costs uh and a loss of community character from the overproliferation of some transient lodging uses.

As we worked on this study, I think it's important before to just get to the meat of it.

Um, I think a lot of times we bury the lead, we talk a lot about the data.

Um, there are very clear divergent perspectives that are represented in this work.

Um, we knew this coming in.

Um, and so the study goal itself really is to develop policy recommendations specifically for commercial short-term rentals and other transient lodging uses, and the goal really is to balance the need to safeguard neighborhoods and permanent housing opportunities to preserve and enhance the tourism industry and create opportunities for business growth and support business sustainability.

When you hear all that, they they can be actually at odds.

And I think what we found in working with um the community and with um stakeholders, it's that it's the very exceptional character in New Orleans that drives um the tourism industry and increases demands for short-term rentals.

Um, and for this reason, you'll see in the report that a lot of our recommendations support protecting community character first, and then asking where could these go where they don't sort of infringe on that.

Um, and so with that in mind, we work to really more closely align what you have on your books already, you know, what your what your master plan already supports, and that's your zoning rules.

So align those things, focus on protecting character, and balancing that with reasonable land use allowances that promote economic opportunity when then economic opportunity is unlikely to have negative impacts.

These are really important goals is really to start, you'll see this in the recommendations is to try not to make this more complicated.

To try to sort of, you know, sift through it all and make sense of it.

And so this kind of goes over in a more detailed way that initial flow chart, just looks at those studies in 2016, 2018, 2019.

And what we're finding is you know, this this flow chart gets at how much work y'all have really done on this issue, and it has been a very, I think, stressful and changing regulatory environment, which can be challenging for everybody involved, but it also shows that the city has consistently risen to the occasion, acknowledged there's more that could be done and has done more.

Um keeping in mind that there's different sets of regulations, just even now today related to short-term rentals and transient lodging uses.

We had during the course of the study an interim zoning district that was in place from November 7th to November 5th from 23 to 25.

We were actually not under contract until February of this year.

So I just want people to know.

I know there was some frustration at the last council meeting, but the work actually has been done in less than 12 months for this report.

Um, and keep in mind there's another interim zoning uh district uh regulations that went into effect in October of this year.

Those are temporary, right?

So for the purposes of the report, it's important for people to know what we're looking at is the existing permanent regulatory conditions, and those are in Articles 7 through 19 where you find your zoning regulations, Article 20, where you find your use standards, and Article 26, where you have your definitions, and we're really focused on these core definitions that get at what is a transient lodging use.

So you have your bed and breakfasts, currently you have accessory and principal, your hotels and motels, your hostels, your rooming houses, short-term rentals, non-commercial and commercial, or some people I think would prefer us say residential and not residential.

Um, but that's fine, like everybody I think understands, um, and timeshare buildings.

And so it's important to know that we're building on a lot of previous work, and it can get confusing.

So talk to us, you know, our door's been open throughout the study.

We're also building from, I would say, a strong master plan that speaks to these sort of divergent views.

Um, it's hard to find the middle line, and I think that's what we tried to work towards with this study.

You'll see chapter five and you know, focused on neighborhoods and housing, and it's all about you know, neighborhood needs, you know, preventing displacement, preserving and expanding affordable housing and supporting quality neighborhoods.

Then if you flip to chapter nine, it's all about enhancing the tourism industry and sustaining and growing small businesses and revitalizing downtown downtown New Orleans and Canal Street.

Um, and I think what we find with transient lodging uses is sometimes these schools can be at odds with each other, and how do we how do we work through it?

We did an extensive community comparison to see what other folks were doing.

Um I think what we saw was similar to New Orleans, short-term rentals have just exponentially grown in the last 10 to 15 years.

Um, so the growth rates are staggering not just here but in other places.

We looked at 19 jurisdictions.

These were the same jurisdictions that y'all looked at in 2016, 2018, and 2019.

So we're building on previous analysis.

And we found that eight municipalities, they only permitted owner-occupied short-term rentals.

So your non-residential or sorry, your residential or non-commercial short-term rentals.

So they just said none, no commercial short-term rentals at all.

Um, 12 jurisdictions do did permit commercial short-term rentals, and altogether 18 added additional standards for other transient lodging uses.

And I think what we found was these are pretty generic.

There's density caps, you know, they're tagged to their zoning districts, um, and it's all about neighborhood compatibility and mitigating the negative impacts of these uses based on their intensity.

Um, for the data analysis, I think it's really important that we talk about that in the scope of work for this study, there were specific things we had to look at.

It was in the scope of work, you have to pull these data sets, you need to look at the specific thing, you need to answer these questions.

So, if anyone's looking at the final report and they're like, why are they looking at all these things if it didn't contribute to the recommendations?

We had to.

And so we had to do that, we had to turn over these zones, they were listed in the scope.

Um, and so we had to look at the tourism economy, we had to look at housing redevelopment opportunities, occupancy, affordability, this comparison to other cities, the land use analysis, um, we looked at eviction rates, we looked at poverty, um, all of those things, and it it makes for a very robust analysis, but it's kind of disappointing when you go back and ask just the land use question, right?

When you go back to what is what is the use, is it appropriate for this location?

Um, and so what we found was in looking at all this data and asking all these questions, there were major sort of challenges associated with the data sets themselves.

So there was disruptions in city permitting data from cybersecurity attacks.

Um we found that transient lodging uses have not been consistently monitored in nation nationwide state or local data sets.

And I mean, when we tell y'all they're so you know, we'll look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its hospitality, you look at census and it's you know, bed and breakfast and hotels, we look at some places they just call them vacant because they're not permanently occupied, right?

So a short-term rental might just be a vacant building, and so we don't see the terms, commercial short-term rental, non-commercial short-term rental, live independent of each other in these data sets, they're all commingled.

And so when you're trying to think about what are the potential impacts of one use versus another, a lot of this data doesn't really help.

And so, what people will see in the report is the permit data from the city, which does differentiate, but it is notably incomplete.

We had a lot of people tell us, what about this hotel here?

And we were like, we know it's there, it's just not in the permit data.

So we know this is challenging, um, and that's why we we shifted and did a lot of the outreach and engagement in addition to the data analysis to help fill those gaps.

Um, and keeping in mind that the the city itself took additional steps to enforce the regulations and put more resources towards enforcement, and we talked about then this in the report, and so even during the report, people's attitudes towards short-term rentals and transient lodging uses were changing.

So it was a very kind of turbulent time.

I want to make sure everybody notes that this data set is from March of 2025, right?

So keep in mind these are time stamped.

So this looks at from just a high level, the distribution of short commercial short-term rentals, uh, non-commercial short-term rentals, hotels and hotels, and bed and breakfasts across the city as of March, which is when we were sort of really doing a deep dive into the background and data analysis.

Keep in mind at the time and during the course of the study, we were we were our scope of work does not include analysis of the non-commercial short-term rentals.

So if we're if you're if anyone's talking about a residential in a neighborhood permit that's not on a commercial strip and is permitted as a non-commercial short-term rental, we were not looking at that as part of this.

And I know that's hard to hear.

It was hard for us to hear, it's just not in the scope of work.

Um, I do think the the city has recommendations in their staff report that we agree with in terms of aligning commercial and short and non-commercial short-term rentals.

But for the purposes of what we're talking about today, think about the blue dots that you're seeing on this map, right?

That's the commercial short-term rentals.

Everything that's in pink, we were not analyzing, or we were analyzing with it together.

So it's tough because sometimes the data commingles these two together too.

So sometimes we're talking about all short-term rentals because there's no differentiation in the data set.

When we look at this data, we started to sort of blur the lines and look at where there were overlapping data sets, and we do see where there's more short-term rentals, and this again is short-term rentals both commercial and non-commercial because this data set didn't distinguish between the two, more 311 complaints, but also there's a broad distribution of 311 complaints in the city between 2021 and 2025.

This is another really big elephant in the room that we noticed right when we started working on this, is that we were looking at city permit data, which is shown here, but what we weren't seeing were all the non-compliant SDR.

So these are all non-compliant data points that we really couldn't tell the story around.

This is back in March of 2025.

You can see here over the summer, the city increased their enforcement efforts.

The number of non-compliant SCRs across the city went from, you know, 7,552 to 905.

Now keep in mind, every time I say a number, I'm really hesitant to say a number because the data sets and how they're analyzed, it just every step of it matters.

And so if you're coming up with a different number, talk to us, we might have made a different decision in the process.

Um, and so we saw this 88% decrease over the summer, and that is what I meant by earlier.

People's sort of attitudes towards short-term rentals were shifting.

Um what we could definitively say after the data analysis, and I want to just refer to appendix A.

If anybody heard something I said, like tourism economy or poverty, or they're interested in those things, please do see appendix A in the final report.

But we know we know for sure that transient lodging uses provide revenue for residents and businesses.

We know these uses help the city return to pre-pandemic levels in tourism and spending and revenue.

They have positive attributes to them.

With regards to housing redevelopment opportunities, occupancy, and affordability, it's a lot harder to connect these things together because it's so the data is so commingled.

And so it's really not conclusive that SDRs directly contribute to poverty rates, evictions, or housing occupancy rate.

And it's because during this time, keep in mind we're looking at COVID, we're looking at federal policies about evictions, subsidies for housing.

It's really tough to pin down.

We also look at rising flood insurance rates, rising unaffordability.

So there's lots of different factors that that are coming into play.

We're not saying that short-term rentals are not an important factor, they're not the only factor, right?

Um, what we did see was increased redevelopment activity across the city.

So we saw permits go up, but we did not see a shift in the number of permanent residents or affordable housing that was significant.

So there is a lot of activity and there's limited positive result.

Um so if you want to sort of say at the same time, SDRs were increasing, that isn't creating a better situation.

I think that's a fair thing.

And so that's where we end up here that SDRs did not improve the current housing affordability challenges.

Now the data didn't tell the whole story, right?

Because there's so many caveats to what we're looking at.

So as planners and certified floodplain managers, uh, we always go back to the basics and bring your zoning map to the forefront.

Um, it's built from community engagement, it's built from all the hard work that y'all do here every single day.

Um, and so we did a comprehensive alignment based on the purpose and function of each zoning district.

So we went to each purpose statement, and this is also in the final report.

You can look at each purpose statement, the current permitted uses and the proposed permitted uses.

We looked at the existing development patterns.

It helps that most of us live in the city.

I live in Metary.

I'm just gonna give it a full disclosure here, but Tara is is in how's yours.

Um we're looking at existing development patterns, we're really familiar with the city, um, and we were flagging places where zoning districts may hopscotch from one district to another or one neighborhood to another, and and trying to understand better, or you may have adverse impacts on another area if you were to permit it in one zoning district.

We we monitored that at a high level though.

I think y'all know this is that the city has a very complex zoning district framework, and we don't want to make it more complex.

We did not, we heard a lot in community engagement.

Please don't make this harder, please don't add more things.

And so, as much as we could, we wanted to leverage what you already have, and there's 71 zoning districts mapped across the city.

Of those 52 currently allow transient lodging uses, you have unique districts for unique development patterns, and we can add use standards that provide sufficient mechanisms to regulate transient lodging uses citywide, but in order to do that, you've got to have more specific definitions, um, and you've got to have a clear understanding of when, where, and why these different land uses are permitted across the city's residential, mixed use, commercial, entertainment, and special zoning districts.

Um, and then we also added density limitations to avoid over concentration because we did find that where SCRs generally are permitted, there is typically a demand for them, right?

They're gonna go where they can.

Um, and so protecting neighborhoods from being overrun is is an important objective of the study.

I've mentioned the public outreach and engagement a couple times, so we kind of said we need more input.

The data was kind of scary, like to be totally honest.

Um, and so we went out and put the yard signs up at every firehouse, launched a website, um, and we knew we needed to know what people's lived experience was with these.

So we had more focus groups, we had 68 people participate in um over eight, I think, focus groups all together.

We had over 1200 community survey responses, and we had 31 individual stakeholders and 21 individual stakeholder meetings, and stakeholders were identified by the city, self-identified through that website, and also you know, if they were in the focus group and they wanted to talk more to us about something, we would follow up with them in an individual stakeholder interview.

Um ultimately, if you want to look at the outreach and engagement, there's a lot to look at.

It tells a lot of different stories depending on what you're interested in.

It's all in appendix B.

Um, this kind of summarizes what's in there.

So you have a whole community wide outreach analysis, you have focus group analysis, the survey analysis.

A lot of people asked us, they were like, well, how are you looking at that survey data?

Can you sort it?

We could and we did.

We sorted it by cohorts.

We looked at renters versus homeowners.

If we had over 300 renters and more homeowners were represented.

We looked at CSDR owners and non-owners.

I think CSDR owners were overrepresented.

And we're really clear about this in the study and as we do the analysis we talked a lot about impacts of SDRs to both renters, owners and non-owners.

And then we looked at neighborhood typologies.

So we sorted responses by where people lived and tried to understand where we were getting the most feedback why we were getting the most feedback like why people people were driven to take the survey and then you have an interview analysis.

And so this just looks at the spread the yellow dots are survey responses.

The blue dots are where we had signs with QR codes to go take it so we tried to as much as possible to be fair and distribute these signs at all the firehouses across the city and again I just want to mention we highlighted this in a in April so there was a lot of time for folks to take this survey we sent it to over 700 individuals who signed up for the mailing list on the website.

And we just want to flag again that the survey population likely overrepresents SDR owners as compared to the city's total adult population by more than five times we've also heard eight times I think the idea is they're overrepresented significantly and so we knew that going into this and so just keeping in mind from a survey response if you're interested in community outreach we had over 58 of the city's 71 neighborhoods represented we couldn't go to individual neighborhoods it's just not how the scope of work for this was designed and with the short amount of time that we had to analyze the data collect the data and then produce recommendations it would have been really difficult to just pick which neighborhoods to go to when it's a citywide study.

So what we did was we we grouped responses based on responsiveness right so lower moderate and higher impact neighborhood categories were created we had four neighborhoods that were the most responsive and represented over 20.5% of all the responses.

This is the Marini, by water, French quarter and seventh ward 13 neighborhoods received no responses which it was consistent with their very low levels of SCR activity.

Keeping in mind just because we didn't hear from folks and there weren't a lot of SDRs happening in that area or transient lodging uses we still felt like there was a level of protection that was afforded to them in the future so I don't want to downplay lower doesn't mean lower priority it just means that they had less responses and less surveys this looks at those neighborhood typologies kind of colors if you're wondering where they are so the higher impact or dark blue moder impact are light blue and the lower impact were yellow and I mean I'm gonna be crazy and flip back like a lunatic to this map.

It does correlate to the concentration of where these SCRs are in terms of their locations and so we're where we're seeing concentrations of SDRs we're seeing people concerned about them and looking to restrict them further.

All in all you know while there are divergent perspectives all agree that enforcement was a problem and it was interesting that the city took action to move on this over the summer so I won't take too much time on this for the recommended focus for CSDR regulatory improvement I think it's interesting when we look at owner and non-owner preserving housing for people who live in New Orleans all year this is a core component of this is like the permanent housing argument.

The renters are are really overrepresented in that because they're looking for these units and I think that's an important component of this this this study is providing spaces for renters to find rentable space on the flip side homeowners experience more of the positive impacts renters experience more of the negative impacts most agree that reforms were needed and so this is more information about showing those two perspectives what we ended up doing because there was many many survey questions which are all analyzed in the report we started to see narrative themes across them that were also represented spatially one of them was this quality of life concern where there's this worry about increased housing and rent costs a loss of neighborhood character and more vacant or investor owned properties over overlapping with the density of those short-term rental and transient lodging uses and so you can see that happening in the Marini Bywater garden district those are those areas that are kind of highlighted with the heat map here this is another narrative theme that we heard a lot where the people were really worried about the density of short-term rentals in their community and that impacting their stability and community character these were mostly Pinewater Marini Bay St.

This is another narrative theme that we heard a lot where the people were really worried about the density of short-term rentals in their community and that impacting their stability and community character.

These were mostly Pinewater, Marini, Bayou St.

John, Mid-City, Irish Channel, Lower Garden District.

And then there was this other theme that I think goes back to the core questions that were in the scope of work, which is this displacement due to unaffordability.

This has a twofold side of it, right?

I want to be really upfront about that, right?

Increased property values can mean a really good thing for property owners who are maybe looking to resell or reinvest.

But if you're renting or you're trying to buy, it has the flip effect.

So it's it's neither a positive or a negative.

It depends on your perspective.

But I think the displacement component of the unaffordability is, I think, a big concern.

That's someone who's living there now has to pay higher taxes and maybe can't afford those taxes, then has to sell and move.

And that's your loss of affordable housing and your weakening of neighborhood identity.

And that's where we're seeing these things happen in Biowater, Marini, by U.

St.

John, and mid-city.

The last piece here is again just regulation and enforcement.

You can see this as more spread.

Most of this focused on stopping the illegal operation of STRs and preserving housing for year-round residents.

Again, Biowater Marin, Bayou St.

John, Garden District, and Irish Channel.

When we look at all these things, I think we came to sort of a moment of we have to make a decision about which direction this study should really go to.

And I think a lot of public officials and y'all have struggled with how do you address this.

We dug into, you know, what does community really mean?

You know, a lot of people talk about my community character, my fabric, it's being compromised.

And this is a very real term.

It's a real thing, it's not just a feeling.

And so the American Planning Association identifies three characteristics that contribute to the perceptions of community character, the urban form, the natural features, and the demographics.

And it's important to know that demographics are affected by whether people live there permanently or are not there, right?

If you're in a house and you live there and you go and pick up your trash can every day and you talk to your neighbors versus a different person is there all the time, that is a demographic statistic that changes the way a community operates, feels, and thrives or deteriorates.

And so when we talk about preserving community character, this is what we we need to focus on as a measurable thing.

And you know, so that's where I think if you're interested in this, check out the report.

There's a lot more in it about this.

We also found that residents and business owners alike are impacted by the changing regulatory environment.

I mentioned this earlier, everybody's really stressed.

We're so sorry for this.

We don't want to make it worse.

We're trying to help here.

Um we're also seeing that SDRs are likely to continue to locate where they're permitted, right?

So where there's an opportunity, there's very likely going to be one.

Um, and community concerns directly correlate to areas in high concentrations of SDRs.

And so I'm not gonna belabor this because I've been emphasizing it as we look at the data.

Uh, but I think you'll understand.

And so we're we're balancing this.

You know, we're trying to find a solution between community character and economic opportunity that makes sense so that you don't end up in another lawsuit, which I hope Bob is the case.

No more lawsuits.

You make everybody a little upset and everybody a little bit happy, it's much less likely people are gonna sue you.

And so we're we know a simple solution on this, like an outright ban or broad approval is is not likely gonna solve all your problems.

Um, it's not gonna resolve those divergent perspectives, which both have valid points, right?

If you look at different chapters of the master plan and you argue from one of those chapters, you're you have a strong position.

Um, and so we have to find a reasonable compromise to try to put this to rest as much as we possibly can given the challenges of the changing environment.

And so what we're recommending is establishing a land use management system that that first off just compares apples to apples.

In our outreach and in the data, we kept coming across this problem that when I say commercial short-term rental, I cannot guarantee the person that I'm talking to is thinking about what I'm thinking.

I might be thinking about a double with one unit on one side.

They might be thinking about a mixed-use building with 35 units in it, right?

And if you're talking and you're thinking about two completely different things, there's no way you're gonna get to a reasonable understanding to make an agreement or move forward.

And so the terms, while they may seem detailed, it's because we have to sort of think about these the same way in order to streamline and clarify uses.

And so we're defining those to better distinguish between them, and then to figure out where they may or may not be appropriate, where they may or may not have negative impacts on the surrounding environment.

So once we have those terms, we can actually look at the zoning district use permissions and make more informed decisions about where things may or may not be appropriate based on the zoning district purpose statements, which are consistent with your master plan, um, and then adjust those zoning district use permissions based on significant community input.

So where the purpose statements are very general, and we know we have received a ton of feedback from the community.

We toggled those use permissions to reflect that, and we acknowledge that that might change over time.

You might need to go back and look at these use tables, but that's a simple thing to be able to adjust over time.

Um, and so with that, then you can spell out minimum standards for each lodging use definition because you know where they're going, right?

You know how they're gonna affect the environment, you can be more consistent in describing minimum land use standards, and we recommended that you include management room and density standards.

So where the uses get bigger and they have more impacts, we do uh recommend your 24-hour operator.

So all right, we're at 30 minutes, so I'm gonna try to be faster.

So we're getting on the same page.

Um, if you have a chance and you've picked up a handout, this is in there, right?

These graphics are in your handouts.

Um we needed to sort of set the table and have bed and breakfast, commercial short-term rentals, small, medium, and large established because these are all very different.

Um, and they may be appropriate if they're managed right in or near residential areas.

Okay, so your bed and breakfast, this is we streamlined this.

There was originally, or today there's a primary and uh an accessory use.

We pulled it together to be one use with a five-bedroom maximum.

Um we also acknowledge that the host lives there and they're hosting them, and people told us, you know, we don't have problems with these, you know, bed breakfasts don't give us issues, they're owner-occupied, five maximum, one per block block with um existing SDRs.

The commercial short-term rental small, this could be one unit in a multi-unit dwelling, two guest rooms, four max occupants.

Think about a family four singing to be in the city, wants to be in a commercial mixed-use neighborhood.

This isn't a party house.

It's you know, I don't think you need a 24-hour operator for something like this, and so we don't recommend that.

We we think it's it's it's a manageable use.

Um, this is another example of this.

We did include that an operator must be on call and available to address neighborhood complaints or guest questions 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We heard neighbors clearly communicate to us that they were like, it's not our responsibility to manage these SDRs, so make sure someone is there.

Um this is one per building, lot, and block across all uh CSDRs.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna keep explaining the definitions before I get into the density because I think that that can get challenging.

Um the commercial short-term rental medium, this is four units within a multifamily dwelling or mixed-use business building limited to no more than 25% of the building.

We heard from a lot of people and from the city that's 25% max works, but we didn't allow it to be up to an infinity of 50 units.

We capped it at four, so it's much smaller in terms of its level of impact.

So when we say 25% of a building, we're talking about no more than four units in a 12-unit building, right?

And if it goes beyond 12 units, it's still four, still limited to four.

Okay.

I will say for these in the CBD one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, the ECMC MS and LS zoning districts, we've bumped the density for commercial short-term rental medium to up to 10% of the building, or four units, whichever is more, so you can go higher, and that's because the buildings in those areas are just much more dense, four units seems kind of ridiculous, and we acknowledge that that that cap could be risen or raised.

Okay, the management again reflects the same management as the small.

You still have your maximum two guest room best room bedrooms, I'm sorry, and six occupants, so you bump bump your occupants up just a little bit.

This speaks to that density limitation.

Note that the standard requirement is four CSDRMs or 25% maximum, whichever is less.

That's the important piece there, whichever is less, and then where you have the exception, it's whatever is more.

So in the higher ones, you can go up to 10%, which could be a lot more units, but it's a much more dense area.

For the large, we heard a lot about people not wanting whole home CSDRs, but the reality is there are some areas in the city where people want to go on a vacation rental with their family, rent the whole house.

It's an opportunity.

So the definition is there to also say where it could go, but also where it can't go.

Um the hotel motel categories you split into two.

This is where you have your introduction of your 24 or seven on-site operators.

You sort of hit a scale after five bedrooms with bed and breakfasts that you you push into needing an on-site operator.

Keep in mind the neighborhood hotel or motel has a two-guest bedroom per unit max.

So you're not gonna have someone with one key and five bedrooms, you're gonna have one key and two bedrooms.

So it sounds like a lot, but it's still scaled down, it's meant to support you know, families and small scale visitors, not large groups, unless they're renting multiple rooms.

Okay, and then the large is anything over allows more than two guest bedrooms per unit.

And I think one of the questions we got, and I want to be clear because hopefully we can anticipate some things.

Um, is that if you if you're over that, you just get pushed into the large category.

The hotel motel neighborhood, this goes into these standards in more detail.

I'm um I know I'm over time and I want to hear from folks.

So we do have 70 comments.

Yeah, so I'm gonna film through the next couple of things.

I mean, we have 35, right?

And then we still want Bob to be able to speak.

So great.

So I'm gonna wrap up here in just a minute.

Um ultimately, I think we talked about these, these are just more detail on the management.

I think the key for folks that engage with us is the 24-7 on-site operators required for these.

In terms of how we recommended these uses in the city's zoning districts.

Again, we had the initial recommendation based on the purpose statement.

The residential uses are targeted to residential areas, the commercial uses are targeted to commercial areas and industrial areas, and you'll see the lower moderate impact neighborhoods are regulated by use in zoning districts and the higher impact neighborhoods.

We restrict and prohibit transient lodging uses.

So we really look at how we how we engage the community input.

And I think refer to tables five and six in the report or page 76 and 101 and the handout if you're interested in this.

The density limitations, I just want to be clear about this before we get into comments.

Is that we have we separated the residential, so the small commercial short-term rentals, the bed and breakfasts, these are on a city block in residential districts.

You can have one.

If you're on the same city block in your commercial short-term rental, and a bed, you you can have another, you can have two of them in one block so long as they're separated by commercial and residential.

Does that make sense?

So the commercial and residential do not cancel each other out.

And the hotels and motels do not have a density limitation.

So when you overcome that threshold, you and you get bumped into the hotel motel, there isn't a density limitation.

They're will only apply to the ones that are small that are kind of being mitigated near and around residential neighborhoods for non-conforming uses.

This is an important point in that we're recommending that they remain for people who have come in, went through the process, got their license, um, that they would have their non-conforming status as long as the license remains active.

Um, and we recommend extending the CSDR permit expiration time frames from one to two year renewals to shift more administrative time and effort towards enforcement and permitting.

This just looks at the biowater neighborhood and how this would occur.

I think I can defer this.

What do you think, Rachel?

Like, should I defer going into this?

Because I want to be respectful of y'all's time, but it just goes over where everything is, how we were doing this analysis, looking at the other uses, where they're located, um, understanding the sort of what's on the ground versus your zoning districts, and then how proposed recommendations would affect available blocks because where we're saying you could have a commercial short-term rental, small, medium, large, and where they cancel each other out, you want to see like what blocks light up, and is this being too permissive or is it reasonable?

And so this is where you see Ben Breakfasts districts who hostels permitted by right, available blocks or um small SDRs.

There's just not a lot when you factor in what's already there.

Um, medium SDRs, again, not a lot when you factor in what's there, depending on your perspective, um, and then the CSDR large.

All right, large hotels, timeshares, and then I think the city staff and Bob can speak more to long-term recommendations because I know Bob, your your staff report covers this.

We already talked about the next steps.

I want to thank everybody for their time and attention today and for indulging me in explaining the work that went into this, and I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone else has to say.

Thank you.

Mr.

Rivers, would you like to comment?

I'm gonna try to be very brief because I do want to make sure we get to everyone's comments.

If we could skip forward to, I guess it's page five.

Um and I'll go ahead and start.

I think from the staff's perspective, again, um, very appreciative of the work of Desire Line.

Um they um they spent a lot of time and effort, they dug real deep, um, and they came up with some really good um recommendations and perspective.

Um, as staff, we wanted to just lay um out our own perspective where we think we can add value, not in a uh in a critical way, but it in a in a supplemental way.

So the first main point is um the staff feels it's really important for everyone to understand the history of the city's approach to short-term rentals.

Um that from the very beginning, you know, 10 years ago uh when the city planning commission first took this up, um, there was a clear distinction between commercial short-term rentals and residential short-term rentals as they were known then.

And the city planning commission's recommendation at the time was effectively no residential short-term rentals and to steer the industry towards commercial areas.

Um so the the regulatory regime on commercial side was much, much, much more lenient than what ultimately was recommended by the city planning commission on the residential side.

The council adopted something else, and um and the city had a lot of uh issues related to the residential.

Um, and I think getting to today and to the impetus for this study, um, this study did not it was not focused on neighborhood commercial short-term rentals, the NSTRs, but I think the sentiment in the broad community sentiment that was heard was in large part because of this city's history with the neighborhood commercial with the residential uh commercial short-term rental um episodes that we've had over the last 10 years.

So I just want everyone to keep that in mind.

Um, and I and I think you know, as we're looking at recommendations on this study, you know, and I think the premise for this study really called for us to take to make a very big kind of policy change with respect to how we view commercial short-term rentals.

Um that, and as I'll explain in a minute, it seems like the issues and the regulations that apply, and the um you know the public sentiment, there's less and less of a distinction between the residential and the commercial in terms of impact, in terms of how they're regulated and how they're how they're recommended to be regulated.

Um, and so one of the main recommendations is um, and a lot of this comes from some of the litigation that occurred over the last year, um, and the the just the things that were um the regulations that were put in place by the city for residential short-term rentals or non-commercial short-term rentals, which the court found to be non-constitutional.

So those things can't be done, and accordingly, the the way that we can regulate um is going to be much more similar to how we can regulate commercial short-term rentals.

So, you know, ultimately, as the council gets into this and starts looking at one of the things that I think they should look at is does this distinction between commercial and residential short-term rentals, does that even need to exist?

Um, if they're if they're moving so close to each other in terms of impact and in terms of um in terms of what the regulatory structure is being recommended, um, I think there's there it's worth looking into having a single regime for short-term rentals, much more simple, uh, much more easy to keep track of.

Um in terms of the specific recommendations, starting on page seven, Rachel.

Um, and I'll just go through them real quickly.

Um, with respect to bread and breakfasts, um, and I know that uh the the study calls them out as more residential in character, um, and we're suggesting that they are also compatible with mixed-use districts, and so their further consideration should be um given to um allowing them in mixed use districts as well.

The idea of neighborhood hotels in the historic core non-residential and the historic urban non-residential.

And this is said in light of a lot of recent debates that we've had about very large hotels in these areas, where the impression that we've gotten is that smaller hotels that are designed to be in keeping with the neighborhood character are much more palatable in these neighborhoods.

And again, we're we're talking about in commercial districts, which are largely in areas that are that are intended for commercial uses, and certainly not as impactful as the commercial short-term rentals proliferating throughout the neighborhood.

Making sure that commercial short-term rentals are contemporary uses.

This is a distinction that was made with the neighborhood within non-commercial short-term rentals.

If they are privileges as opposed to entitlements, they are much more easier to enforce.

Those are allowed to continue under the city's nonconforming use regulations.

So they will continue as non-conforming uses.

If they stop operation for six months, then obviously they will lose their nonconformity, but if they don't, they will be able to continue operating indefinitely.

And then obviously the third group is going to be the group of commercial short-term rentals that would be approved under the new regulations.

So again, we have three separate types of commercial short-term rentals that are going to exist in the foreseeable future.

What this suggests is like we did again with the NSTR versus residential short-term rentals to create that distinction between what they are and what regulations they were subject to it may be worthwhile considering some sort of a nomenclature distinction between those three types.

Aligning NSTR regulations where appropriate, I spoke to this earlier about the distinction between NSTRs and CSTRs.

Again, that takes that merits a further look.

Avoiding conditional uses where possible.

So if they are used, the city planning commission staff would recommend that approval standards not be the generic approval standards found in Article 4 currently, but that they be tailored to the specific uses, whether it's hotel, whether it's commercial short-term rental, whether it's any other transient lodging use.

Next page.

This raises an issue as far as the ongoing moratorium on hotels that exist that has existed since 1969.

I wrote a little bit about this in the staff report, please review it.

I don't think that the impetus for that moratorium was more about demolitions than about tour about transient uses, but there is a long standing history of a complete moratorium on hotels that I think is worth being mindful of.

Those, as I said, will continue to be able to operate as legal non-conforming uses, and they will be subject to I believe it's Article 25 of the of the zoning ordinance in terms of how they operate and what happens if they cease to operate for certain amounts of time.

Let's see.

One of the things that we and I think this is a slight difference with the approach that desire line is taken, and just to recap, desire line is recommending to look to the zoning districts and put the regulations that would apply to everywhere that zoning district exists, with the with the understanding that those zoning districts are there for a reason, they're there to reflect the existing character of the neighborhood.

City Planning Commission staff thinks that another approach may be warranted, and that is to be a little more strategic in terms of where.

Large vacant former industrial sites, those that are located in areas that were not be impactful to residential areas, sure certainly could be places for them.

Hospitals and universities, you know, the in many places around the country hospitals and universities create a different demand than tourism.

People going to visit families who are in the hospital for a long time, visiting students, attending or going to conduct research temporarily.

Those are all uses that are that are a lot less impactful, and could be an area which could provide some benefit to those institutions.

The examples that we have right now are the small multifamily affordable and the recommendations along Canal Street to revitalize the upper floors of Canal Street and short-term rentals may be a way to accomplish those.

Finally, and this is you know, going back all the way to 2015.

There are a number of applications of short-term rentals that generally everyone found to be acceptable.

And it's kind of like the comment that was made about bed and breakfasts.

And so this city has a history of what we're calling Mardi Gras rentals, which are rentals that are event-based homes along the parade route.

Typically, you know, very commonly and historically have rented out those homes while the owners go on vacation.

It's usually to people they know, it's not something that's advertised broadly.

So those are things that in past debates people have generally said were acceptable, but they didn't make it into the current regulatory regime.

Being able to rent out a room in my home to be able to stay in the room.

Again, in past debates, people have you know the the discussion is universally identified those as being acceptable and non-problematic compared to home home rentals and party houses and things like that.

So again, as the city gets to a place where it's where it's wanting to reconsider its policy approach to short-term rentals, we think it that a much more strategic and targeted approach is would be warranted.

And then finally, just a few quick steps about next steps, a few quick thoughts about next steps.

The plan is for the commission to consider this today.

If it's approved or if it's adopted in whatever form, it'll be transmitted to the city council.

The city council we're in this transition period, so it is unlikely that the current city council is going to take this up before January 12th when the inauguration happens.

And so it'll be up to the new council to be able to come up with regulations in response to this study.

We have already scheduled and worked with the council staff to schedule an opportunity for desire line to meet with and advise and give an overview of the study to the current council staff, many of whom will be staying.

So because of the city's financial constraints, I don't think it's likely that we're going to be able to extend their contract.

So it's going to fall upon the city planning commission staff to kind of take the ball from there.

So we're going to make sure that we transition with desire line to make sure all the information that they've compiled is going to remain available to the public and then you know we will take the will we'll carry the ball forward to the new council and work with them to craft new regulations.

And then you know we will take the we'll we'll carry the ball forward to the new council and work with them to craft new regulations.

The timeline is really up to the new council.

They're going to require some time to uh to get settled and to become familiar with the issues, so it's going to take a while before those happen.

There is a year-long IZD in place.

So hopefully sometime within that year we will have uh new regulations that will then come back before the city planning commission and back for back before the council for uh for final approval.

So I think I'll stop there.

Thank you, Mr.

Rivers.

If there's no questions from the commission, Willie will move into the public speaking portion, public comments.

I know that we have the report, and then we have CPC's recommendations.

So if you could just voice if um when you speak about what you're in support of, and then if you have any opposition as well, and we will try to keep track as best as possible.

Um we are two minutes.

And if we call your name and you would like to not speak, please note that your card is here, and then we'll be noted as well if you're just here for informational purposes.

Um I will start in support.

Um Ms.

Nicole Weber.

And I'll call three names at a time so that everyone can be prepared.

Mr.

Andy Braun and Miss Suzette Teledano.

Yes.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um, Nicole Weber, 2131 Bienville Street.

I'm here on behalf of the Greater New Orleans Hotel and Lodging Association.

Um we just wanted to make a few points.

We reviewed the study and the staff's recommendation.

Um, all in all, I'd like to thank Desire Line and like to thank the staff of City Planning.

I know this has been a long arduous process.

Um there are some things that we wanted to point out that we're concerned about, and for that to be taken into consideration, and we'll continue the conversation with city council.

Um, first off, we are concerned that things need to be simplified from an execution to uh to uh um enforcement standpoint, having very simple terminology that people can follow is very important.

We're also concerned that it will create um that various designations will create more nonconformities, which also cause confusion and make it hard for for the city to enforce non-conforming uses.

Um, although I see the point and I agree with staff that a non-conforming use does create an ability, especially with commercial short-term rentals to be able to eliminate commercial short-term rentals because then it becomes more of a temporary versus an entitlement right, and I agree when we agree with that point that getting rid of this conditional use for commercial short-term rentals allows for the city to have better enforcement of them and to eliminate the bad players because they all become nonconformities essentially, or that would be the point.

Um, something I wanted to point out is with that neighborhood designation for hotels, customary lodging services, which have been recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court and upheld for many years, um, is that customary lodging services and amenities, hotels by right are allowed to have, even though the underlying zoning district may not allow for it, hotels by right are allowed to have alcohol sales, restaurants, bars, ancillary uses that are customary lodging services for their guests.

Um and so in creating that neighborhood um neighborhood hotel use, we are concerned that that would cause further confusion, and we may have some legal issues with that.

I understand that the terminology is supposed to be applied for neighborhood hotels that only what is allowed under the underlying district would be a permitted.

However, I we are concerned that um that would be hard to apply because of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision that has been upheld and used in the policies of the city for many years.

Um that's our time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Andy.

Good afternoon.

Um is Andy Braun, 1203 Washington Avenue.

I am on the board of and I'm here on behalf of the Garden District Association.

Um, as you all know, the the primary function of our organization is to protect the historical integrity of the garden district while maintaining the neighborhood as a viable residential community.

And we f we've reviewed in depth both the report of Desire Line and the staff recommendations, and they they both raise some very fine issues that have merit, especially insofar as they recommend defining better some of the terms and simplicity.

There are a number of terms of provisions that we are adamantly against, as you might expect.

Number one, we are against the allowing STRs and bed and breakfasts in the garden district.

Think um if you all were interested in purchasing or improving your house in the garden district, would you want to uh spend the money and do so knowing that somebody can come in next door and put a short-term uh or a bed and breakfast type facility right next to you or even down the block.

Um, one of the other things that we are opposed to is um the uh bed and breakfast provisions in the desire line um recommendations, um, it um allows them by right in residential communities and does away with the conditional use process.

Uh we would be against that.

We think that that is a mistake.

Um, and uh in fact, what we like better is the provisions uh uh that are recommended by staff, which would make short-term rentals temporary uses so that if they are sold or they lose their licenses, they have to apply all over again for the right to operate short-term rental.

Uh we think that um should also apply to bed and breakfasts.

That's your time.

Thank you, and um we wish you all um happy holidays.

Thank you.

Ms.

Taledano, yes.

Uh my name's Suzette Taledano.

My address is 215 Decatur.

It's in the VCE one.

I represent 215 hyphen 225 Decatur LLC.

I live above the house, House of Blues, and I live above a nightclub.

Um, it's been acknowledged by the city council and by city planning and the resident associations that the only appropriate place for a short-term rental is above a nightclub.

It's a consistent with the master used to have short-term rental uses and intense environments of entertainment districts.

I want to thank the commission, the city planning commission, for its studies in 2016, 18, 19, and its latest staff reports and the desire line study, they've all recommended that short-term rentals are logical strategic expansion of commercial short-term rentals.

Uh staff report does mention a market feasibility analysis that it painted a bleak picture for the New Orleans real estate economy.

It concluded that due to population decline and increase in cost of insurance interest and construction, it's not feasible to build new apartments.

I understand that.

For us, it's population decline, earning level decline, the increased cost of the insurance maintenance and compliance, and despite keeping the amount of our rents close to the rents that they were in 28 years ago, there's no demand for VCE1 apartments.

It noted that the feasibility analysis noted that the demand in the housing market is stagnated by while demand for hotels is very strong, and it's frustrating to maintain beautiful unused assets and not be eligible to meet the demands of tourism.

Meeting the demand of tourism with existing VCE1 properties only makes sense.

The VCE there does enjoy a buy right permitted use.

VCE1 has been denied any rights.

The reality is that short-term rentals um don't destroy residential neighborhood in either the VCE or the VCE one.

And the blanket um denial that's powered by self-interest and fear are not really valid reasons to breach the policy of being consistent.

Our our optimal request would be for the two-block VCE to be considered for non for legal non-conforming use in the court, exactly equal rights as eight blocks VCE.

Thank you, Ms.

Taladano.

Okay, thanks.

Oh, can I talk about the 60 day?

No.

Yeah, I'd like to hear the rest of them.

I just wanted to say that the definition of a French court of rental as being uh short-term rental is less than 60 days.

The Pentalba's apartments, those leases were all month to month.

Every every lease that we have, if it's not renewed, it converts to month to month.

And since 1870, which was 150 plus years ago, Louisiana Civil Code, when it was enacted, is always provided for a 30-day residential term.

So I just wanted to say I think 30 days is enough.

Thank you.

Mr.

DePlante.

Mr.

Goodwin and Mr.

Reed.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Michael Duplanchier, A20 Barone Street.

I'm here personally as well as representing Louisiana Landmark Society.

We submitted comments timely as part of the record, and I would urge you, if you haven't done so, to review those comments.

I think they're apropos to everything that was discussed today.

The one omission that both the Brantport excuse me, the landmarks report and mine pointed out was with regard to CBD5.

I'm not aware that there were any stakeholder meetings downtown or any interviews downtown.

If there were, I'm not aware of it.

And it'd be surprising to me that I wouldn't be aware of it, considering how actively involved I personally have been in this issue and all matters of zoning issues downtown.

CBD 5 under the comprehensive zoning audits is treated differently.

Although I don't see where this report treats it any differently in terms of uh transient housing.

I I'm not aware that it has.

The extent to which the report may be recommending that we simply unload all the transient housing on downtown because it's the right place to put it.

If that's effectively what it says, uh, then I must take issue with it.

At least with respect to CBD five.

Um I've as you probably know I've been before this commission many times complaining about the growth of not just short-term rental but also hotel downtown.

We are not supposed to have too many of those in C B D 5, but we have them.

And I sure certainly don't want to have too many more at this point.

A couple of other random thoughts if I have 30 seconds left.

Um it's probably beyond the scope of the report, but I wish it had taken a deeper dive into the whole tourism issue.

We're just sort of presuming that short-term rentals are always going to be here, and that's not a bad thing necessarily.

Uh and it may even grow.

I don't know that that's the case.

Honestly, the whole tourism industry nationwide has gone through a bit of a shakeup, as you probably have read.

I have, uh and locally with regard to the hotels and hotel pricing.

Um room pricing, and I think that these are threshold issues that probably needed to be looked at.

Um I think I'll stop it there.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Goodwin.

And then Mr.

Reed.

My name is Jim Goodwin.

I live at 537 Verette Street in Algiers Point.

Uh I'm here on behalf of the Algiers Point Association.

I'm a vice president with that.

I am also a member of the board of Louisiana Landmarks, Old Algiers Main Street Coalition Corporation, and also participate with the Riverfront Alliance and the Strong Coalition also, amongst many others.

Um I'm just gonna read off the bullets because I'm limited in time.

So uh APA would like to see a limitation of the density to one per square block across the board, regardless of categories.

Okay, we're a residential historic district, so we're real worried about the density.

Uh whole house STRs without amenities and safeguards should be forbidden.

Full-time on-site staff should be required, not on call.

Uh, same safety standards across the board.

Um policing and enforcement, as we all know, will be critical.

And uh we need to increase fines for repeat offenders, ban those using serial reincorporation to avoid restrictions or penalties.

Um we need to optimize the consistency of the guidelines for historic districts and minimize the subgroupings, making enforcement difficult.

In other words, all these subgroupings and categories make the enforcement much more difficult.

I'm a six sigma yellow belt.

Get down to standard, try to standardize across the board one way or the other.

Um a big wish list here.

Uh no exceptions to the new rules by the city council, which would undermine regulation.

That I know that's a fat chance.

Um wanted to note to you also that the Algiers Point uh perimeter does not end the southern border, is not Opalousis.

It is Newton Street.

So that was excluded from the report.

So that might torque some of your data.

Um I just want to say that the study appears to uh prioritize real estate investment over community livability and affordability, and STRs are detrimental to availability, affordability, safety, and quality of life of the residential community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Reed, and then after that, Miss Strahan, Miss Johnson, and Robbie, Mr.

Blee speak.

Uh John Reed, 1218 Burgundy Street in the French Quarter.

As to the French Quarter, the recommendations essentially to allow hotels for the first time in 57 years, and to allow short-term rentals, commercial for the first time, so far as I know, is fundamentally flawed in terms of the analysis that's in there without getting to discussing the policies.

The report breaks down neighborhoods into high impact, moderate impact, and low impact.

If you are in high impact, and that's at page 48, and there was also a slide.

If you are in high impact, it recommends at page 78 prohibiting and restricting transient lodging use expansion in higher impact neighborhoods.

Prohibiting and restricting expansion in the French quarter would mean no change at all.

The error here is someone's decision to place the French Quarter in a moderate impact category rather than a higher impact category on page 48, although acknowledging in the appendix that it has the most transient use of any place in the city, as we all know, the most intensive use.

What it does is it defines higher impact in a curious way that eliminates the French border from its definition by saying in this category are neighborhoods where the STR units are in the highest number.

Well, there are no STR units legally in the French Quarter, but there are 2,000, 4,000, 5,000, 7,000.

I don't know how many, but thousands of transient uses in the French Quarter.

So I could get into the policy, other people will do that.

But if you just look at the definition they chose for high impact on page 48, and realize that it's narrow and miserly and doesn't contemplate a place like the French Quarter, and realize the quarter belongs there, then the report answers the question, which is no expansion and no uh further uses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Strahan, uh Ms.

Hohnson, Mr.

Um Robert Beck.

And after that, Miss Wendell, Mr.

Frank South Hall, and Miss Margaret Walker.

Hello, sir.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Um Robbie Beck.

I live at 840 Spain.

Yeah.

And the Marini.

And I'm here to speak in support of the uh the report that was submitted uh by uh desire line, and as far as it uh addresses the Marini, the Bywater, and Tremay, as being high impact areas, and there should be no further expansion in those areas.

The staff report would allow expansion in our areas.

We don't need any more expansion.

We are a high impact area, and I understand there may be some other parts of the city that have you know have some different issues, but it's clear our issue is we've got too many already.

We don't need any more.

We don't need and the one the one part I would agree with on the staff recommendation is anywhere in the city, if you're gonna allow commercial STRs, they should not be a forever thing.

They should be always temporary and have to be reapply and reapply and reapply.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Wendell.

Say you miss Wendell, okay.

Um Mr.

Soft South Hall, Frank?

Okay.

Uh Miss Margaret Walker.

And then Miss Jennifer Wickham.

And Mr.

Jose Rambu.

Thank you.

I'm Margaret Walker and I live at 1526 Pogger Street.

I want to remind you guys that last year about this time we had a guy drive a truck down Bourbon Street, right?

He was staying in illegal Airbnb.

There was nobody there the night he stayed.

So you really need to relook at where you have people staying on the property.

I think this is if there was somebody actually staying at that place while he was there, which it was supposed to be, then this wouldn't have happened.

I think we should have no commercial short-term rentals.

Where I live, they're buying up whole blocks.

St.

Anthony's bought up 2100 uh ramparts brought up, and they're making up I'm a hotel, I'm a short-term rental, I've got the license.

I'm looking at one now that I'm having real troubles working on.

I don't think we should grandfather in the any of the commercial short-term rentals as well.

Like I said, and a definition for hostels, because these people are, these investors are coming in and just finding ways to get around the rules.

And I live around the neighborhoods where that's going on.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Ms.

Jennifer.

Hello, uh, my name is Jennifer Wickham.

I live at 2927 St.

Peter's Street.

I'm here with uh workshop WDXL.

We're an architecture and development firm.

Uh we do a lot of hospitality projects.

So uh I just want to ask about the background of what led to the two hotel definitions.

Uh New Orleans and company says we have over 26,000 hotel rooms, and the neighborhood hotel room or hotel definition says up to 20 keys with two rooms each, which would be 40 bedrooms, which is pretty large.

But why, why do they have to be set up that way?

Why why is that different than four units of 10 bedrooms or 10 units of four bedrooms versus 20 of two?

But then the large definition starts at a minimum of 21 keys.

It's for commercial areas, franchise hotels.

But um, it also says, quote, it includes larger hotels having more than two guest rooms per unit.

So why are large suites only allowed if you're like Marriott but not allowed if you're a small operator?

Um so then um I'd like to remind you that hotels in general is anything over 16 occupants, and they're required to be ADA compliant, they need a sprinkler, they need a fire alarm, they need emergency lighting.

They're a lot safer than an STR.

And so, you know, if if the intent was to prevent like a whole home being turned into a one-unit hotel, you're already gonna have to have all of those things and have a 24-7 manned lobby.

So I'm just I'm curious what led up to that, what market research might have led to that.

Um, it's also easier to turn something like that into multifamily if in the future, as someone was saying, maybe STRs are not as popular.

Uh you already have a sprinkler that you would need, you already have like a living room and probably a kitchen of some type versus a bunch of two bedrooms.

Um so I don't know if the solution is more like a medium size or if it's like a bedroom or square footage count, but it feels like we're leaving off this kind of middle ground of like family reunions and weddings and things that are acknowledged by the South Report in terms of like hospital and university areas.

Um then one last thing just about STRs and in relation to this is you do say that an STR with large with seven bedrooms can have up to 20 people, and a medium can have um four units with six people each.

Those are both over the 16 occupant requirement for fire marshal review and for having to meet all the building codes.

So just you know, it we already have issues with kind of is it commercial, is it not?

What does it have to apply to?

So thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jose.

Oh thank you for allowing me to speak.

Uh my name is Jose Prado.

I reside at 57 Mettery Court in Metary.

I am uh one of the two owners of uh short-term rental in the Marini.

Uh uh EOPILLC.

It is a single unit home.

Uh it's got four bedrooms, two and a half baths, two parlors, etc.

Um in my block on my side of the street, there is a bar restaurant, my home, uh double SDR, a rental that's uh owned by the folks that are uh on the next three lots, which has been approved to be a commercial hotel.

On the other side is a bar, multiple unit uh home that's owner occupied that mainly rents out all the other rooms, and then there's a city parking lot.

Uh mine, uh my home does not fit into any of those.

Uh, in the sense that uh being four bedroom and uh approved right now, currently according according to the current rules for eight folks, uh be it the large, uh, which would make absolutely no sense, in my opinion.

Uh it does not come even close to qualifying for affordable housing, just between insurance and property taxes.

We pay over 20,000.

Uh we're a single operator.

Um I've owned it for eight years.

Uh for the uh prior seven years before that, it was short-term rental.

It would make no sense to change it.

Uh I I would hope that uh the planning commission and um all of the staff would understand that uh you need to make exceptions for how it is.

I mean there is no residence uh in my block whatsoever.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And did I call your name?

And okay, then please go.

Apologies for the mix-up, y'all.

Ella Catherine Strahan with the Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center at 1340 Porter Street, suite 710.

Our organization is a 30-year-old civil rights nonprofit dedicated to enforcing the Fair Housing Act and ending housing discrimination across Louisiana.

We have also been at the center of short-term rental policy discussions since they were first brought to the city in 2016.

Short-term rentals of all kinds continue to drive the displacement of working class New Orleans.

This ongoing pattern combined with the lack of enforcement and legal challenges from corporations who benefit from the proliferation of short-term rentals.

Leave us with the following concerns about the study.

Number one, the recommendations for three size-specific commercial short-term rental licenses require a more thorough plan of how these categories will be both verified and enforced.

Secondly, neighborhood by neighborhood bans result in both winners and losers alike.

Under the current recommendations, white and wealthier neighborhoods, especially those that have already been gentrified, will be protected, while black and brown areas such as Tulane Gravier and Central City will be exposed to the same chilling impacts of displacement and segregation that we have seen in the bywater and Tremay.

Lastly, prioritizing real estate investments for tourists over residents will only make the city less affordable, leading to further population loss and fault and the hollowing out of rich and vibrant neighborhoods.

We are due to view our city's neighborhoods not as an investment for tourists, but as a home for families across the city to live, grow and thrive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think what we'll do now is move in to opposition.

If you feel like you don't fit into that category and you feel like you fit in the support or at least one of the reports, um, please let me know now.

Otherwise, we'll move into opposition.

And desire line, are you gonna comment on any of these?

Or um, I mean, I'm taking notes, I'm sure you are too, but just trying to figure out how we want this.

Because there's definitely questions here that probably need to be answered.

Absolutely.

I mean, I think we can speak to just a couple things really briefly before we'll move on if you're comfortable with that.

Let's let's do this.

Let's um finish up the comments and then um it'll go to the commissioners and then commissioners can address comments and ask questions.

Um however they feel thank you.

Um Ms.

Kim Kerner.

Ms.

Kin Keen.

Thank you.

I'm Kim Keene from 1201 Canal Condos.

I'd like to talk about modifications to the study.

Dy I really request that we deny developing corporate short-term rentals where there are individual owners.

An example of this is 1201 Canal Condo, where the developer who currently owns 40% of the building of a 200 over 200 plus condo has been running on a monthly basis due to uh their approval for short-term rentals being denied.

They rescinded it based on an outcry of evicting several um renters because they got the short-term rentals permitted, and then the city council, and you probably saw the news report, told them they were going to rescind the approval, which happened with the unanimous vote for city council.

The developing corporate uh corporate units are advertising on a monthly rental at a rate lower than you can get your own personal rentals.

So, what they do is the rent's so low, people rent for a month, but they only stay for a few days, so it doesn't eliminate the party atmosphere that happens.

This needs to be uh regulated and stopped.

Currently at 1201, the developer units are allowed to be rented on a monthly unit because the developer developed the HOA rules and the owners cannot change it because the current bylaws were developed by them and completely under the control.

There, this would be a roadmap for future developers to convert uh uh corporate rental into uh what they need to do when it affects pair citizens.

You need to establish significant penalties for developers or corporations that abuse it because they if you're only charging a thousand dollars or so, they'll pay it because they're making close to 40 or 50,000 a month on the 91 condos that they can run on a monthly basis on the short term.

And they need to be enforced.

The study recommends a creation of three commercial, um, three commercial short-term rentals based on size, but one of them is 20 overnight guests over seven rooms without any on-site staff.

How can that be a force and who's who's counting the guests?

So there's a common wall now, it's not a house.

I know a common wall.

That's my home.

My bedroom is on the common wall.

So please don't let this happen to the other uh people who work at short-term.

This is our home.

Please consider it's a big problem.

70 people are complaining about it.

Thank you.

Hi, Nathan Chapman, Renee Franson, and Aaron Holmes.

And Miss Holmes, you have uh seated time.

Good afternoon.

I'm Nathan Chapman, I'm president of the Viewquarry property owners, residents and associates or VCPOR would call it for short.

Uh Libit 715 Earth's lines.

Um, you know, I appreciate that you're tackling this really important topic.

I will confess I was deeply disappointed in the study itself.

Um I um I appreciate that there's recognition by the city planning staff that this the prohibition against transient rentals in starting over 50 years ago is important and we should preserve it for hotels.

Uh but that same 1969 change also stopped what today we call short-term rentals.

So I ask you to continue that moratorium, so to speak, for for all of the quarter.

You know, I've I've been volunteering for the quarter for over 35 years, and I'll put my credentials up uh with any uh consultant in terms of what works and what hurts.

And so we made an exception for short-term rentals on VCE, Urban Street, and the ink wasn't even dry before VCE one said, Oh, if they get one, we should get one, you know, and I will tell you we will be back here again when the other areas, the VCC and uh the Royal Streets and the Dauphines and say, Oh, we're technically commercial, we should have it also.

You know, they did the right thing in 1969, and oh my god, has not our tourism industry blossomed since that time?

What problem are we fixing?

This is not a case of the one percenters their insurance is going up and they can't make their mortgage, and we need you know, some sad story, like maybe we hear in some neighborhoods.

This is rich people with big properties who want to get richer.

I was there, I've been volunteering for so long.

I was there when we created the building that allowed the house of blues, and her parents said we want to restore apartments in there.

Let's stick to the apartments.

That was the promise that was made when rezoned for that family.

So it's a system that's worked.

I asked you, please amend out.

You know, don't allow any short-term rentals as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Franson, did you seat your time?

To Aaron Holmes.

Okay, so Ms.

Holmes.

Madam Chair, but before we start, um, just a point of order.

Um, I think we've already extended our rules for time.

So should we allow seating for vote for the opposition?

And I don't know if seating was allowed for the anyone in front of opponents who spoke as for the seating additional time.

We have um we have several people that have ceded their time to others, and I'm sorry.

What are you asking?

So, my question is for the the first group that spoke in support.

Were they given the same right to seed time?

I don't think that we really had anybody seat their time for the first round of support.

Right.

It just seems to be that we've had a seated time in opposition.

Right.

Okay.

Well, then, Ms.

Holmes, you have um eight minutes.

I did not need that much time.

Y'all know I'm short and sweet.

Okay.

Um, my name is Aaron Holmes.

I'm executive director of UK property owners residents and associates.

A lot of the points that I was gonna make today have already been made.

Um, as you may or may not know, we have worked on short-term rental policy for more over a decade since actually 2013, before we even had regulations, short-term rentals were popping up in the French quarter.

Um, and we were working on kind of tracking all those down and starting the legislative process to bring to rein them in.

So I can't say that I'm for or against 408 pages of you know, hard work by desire line and the community that has come together to advocate for their neighborhoods.

I just happened to fill out an opposition because today I'm gonna talk about the French quarter.

Um, and I fully support all of our neighbors that are fighting the damaging impacts of short-term rentals in their own communities.

So the transient lodging study recommends two major changes for the French Quarter's VCE1 district, which is allowing one commercial short-term rental by block and allowing an unlimited number of small hotels.

We oppose both, no exceptions.

So to elaborate on Mr.

Reed's commentary earlier, um, I want to point out that the neighborhood typology method, you know, there might be a certain way of looking at something in terms of how many commercial or um illegal short-term rentals were there or how many people responded to a survey.

The fact is is that the French Quarter was classified as a moderately impacted neighborhood of transient uses, and that's frankly absurd.

We were compared to Algiers Point and Gentili Terrace.

Um I love both of those communities, but they are nothing like the French Quarter.

So we also, and I do like data by the way, so I did my own little data search, and we found that some of the findings of the study were inaccurate and incomplete.

They identified 43 hotels, but the city's own data set at uh datanola.gov identified 57, which is a 32% higher count, and the study does not analyze room counts.

The difference between a 10-room inn and a 250 room hotel is enormous, but they are treated as equivalent in the study.

By our count, the French Quarter already contains more than 7600 hotel rooms.

Far more transient density than the report suggests, and the idea that there are only six noncompliant short-term rentals is just not credible.

You can all pull out your phone right now and look on Airbnb right now.

So, second, the study provides no analytic justification for adding lodging to the French Quarter.

In fact, it concludes that the existing ban has been effective and that limiting future development may be appropriate, yet its recommendations contradict its own findings.

The city knew hotel and lodging expansion was damaging to the livability of the French Quarter and chose to act with a prohibition that was over 55 years ago.

Um, to uh Director Rivers' comments, he said there was concern about buildings actually being removed, which was true.

But when buildings are removed, so is community, and we all know that protecting a community is more than just protecting its buildings.

So that was 55 years ago, and suddenly I'm not sure if we're getting the visitor count that we got in the 1960s, but I don't know, is it comparable?

I don't think so.

Um, and lastly, or third, because I have more.

VCE and the VCE1 are not the same district.

The VCE1 was created in the 90s as a limited expansion entertainment district, essentially to create the House of Blues with the explicit promise of upper floor residential units.

It has approximately seven block faces and around 70 buildings.

So you can think of what an expansion of neighborhood hotels without any type of density cap would do to those 70 buildings.

It was never intended to mirror the intensity of Bourbon Street, so applying VCE level lodging permissions to the VCE one breaks the promise and pushes transient uses deeper into the mixed-use residential blocks, setting up yet another resident precedent into the neighborhood of the VCC 1 and the VCC2, where there are thousands of residential units.

Finally, and citywide, additional transient lodging threatens the remaining community fabric of the French Quarter and other historic core neighborhoods, its housing supply, neighborhood serving businesses, because these are a crucial need for uh for communities and the stability of the nation's most fragile historic districts.

Across Europe, major destinations that are fighting the effects of over tourism, I'm thinking Barcelona, Florence, Madrid, they have similar visitor counts as ours.

They're tightening restrictions.

They're phasing out short-term rentals completely in their historic course.

It just defies logic that we think that we could expand these uses to benefit our city and the French Quarter, especially when our hotels are unfilled.

So for these reasons, we urge the commission to reject any expansion of transient lodging in the French Quarter, correct the baseline hotel and short-term rental data, and maintain even strengthen the protections that have allowed the View Corre to survive just barely as a living neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Now.

And then we have five cards seated to Eleanor Graham.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh, Mary Nell Nolan Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center at 923 Chapatula Street.

Uh first want to thank everyone for their hard work on this study and the staff report.

The Preservation Resource Center has consistently supported sensible measures to limit the negative impacts of short-term rental proliferation across the city, including advocating for simple, straightforward and consistent rules that protect guests and neighborhoods alike.

The French Quarter, which is a national treasure culturally, architecturally, and historically, already experiences a concentration of transient lodging uses as stated in the draft study up for consideration today.

We agree with the previous comments from VCPora and others that additional exceptions in this historic core neighborhood would set a damaging precedent.

The PRC is opposed to expanding commercial STRs or reintroducing hotels in the VCE1 zoning district, which encompasses the five blocks around the House of Blues.

We agree with the CPC staff report, which concludes that the introduction of hotels in the French quarter, even smaller neighborhood hotels would further erode the tenuous residential presence in the quarter.

Additionally, VCPOR's analysis of the data regarding the number of hotels and rooms existing in the French Quarter that was just referenced and was submitted online, differs from the figures presented in the draft study, so we would ask that these numbers are revisited for accuracy.

Thanks for everyone's time with this.

Thank you.

Miss Graham.

And then Christopher.

It's a beautiful last name, I know, but I won't be able to pronounce it.

And then Lyle Montgomery.

How much time do I have?

Is that 10 minutes?

Four or five, even ten minutes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

I want to thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to also thank Bob Rivers for reading my my memo and executive summary.

Um I am Eleanor Graham.

I live at 900 Bartholomew Street in Bywater.

I represent as a board member neighbors first for by water, uh, dozens of Saxony residents, uh, five of whom are uh with including me are here today.

They're Jay Gensburg, you may know him as a civil service hearing officer in a hearing officer in other areas.

Um we have Peter Murphy, we have Judy McGorman, and we also have our president uh Julie Julie Jones for Neighbors First for Bywater.

Um we have Al Catalano also in the back for the Saxony.

These are real people, and together we believe we have a vision.

After listening to everyone else, as well as this report, which is extensive and laudable for its deep dive.

We must respectfully oppose both the uh findings and conclusions of the study as well as the staff's report.

The report from our perspective represents a response perhaps to my memo and other concerns, as well as what we consider to be a legally untenable spaghetti or scattershot approach.

Uh you have to ask yourselves why do we even need commercial short-term rentals?

Why?

The answer is we don't.

The law says we don't.

As my memo explains to you, there is absolutely no legal distinction between what we are calling commercial short-term rentals and what we called residential, now call non-commercial short-term rentals.

Under the law, they're treated exactly the same.

Therefore, I must agree with the suggestion implication of uh Mr.

Rivers that in fact we need to simplify.

And what we need to do is we need to simplify now, not later, because it's easy and it aligns with the current case law.

Why would I say we need to do it now?

Because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is already indicated and basically tipped, tip to you that they are the same.

If residential or non-commercial short-term rentals are in fact commercial equivalent to a hotel's, we already have the same thing with commercial, and there's no reason to complicate with regulations to continue with this distinction.

It is a it's a distinction without a legal difference, and it is nonsensical.

And you don't see another city doing it.

They can't point to one.

Why else are we opposed to commercial short-term rentals?

Not just based on category.

They have caused tremendous harm in my building, tremendous harm in 1201 canal, tremendous harm in the Saxony.

Um, our building is 100% residential, uh covenant restricted by declaration, residential hotel, and yet the Department of Safety and Permit continues uh to issue commercial short-term rentals in that building.

We have suffered uh property damage, physical threats, damaged our cars, countless trash, many, many nuisances.

Mr.

Catalano was fought a hearing against the director and succeeded.

Only one out of 75 units at one time that were short-term rental in that residential building.

Now we're down to 21.

It is a dogfight.

Without simplicity and this notion that we should grandfather something which can which really shouldn't be grandfathered and but when you understand land use law, you understand it couldn't be, literally grandfathered, because what are commercial short term rental permits?

What does the law tell us?

In my memo, I'm flagging it for you, and it's always been the way, even when I practice here in the city hall, they're just temporary permits that provide for commercial lodging.

That's all they are.

They renew them if they can and meet the requirements every year.

And they provide no property rights.

There are no vested property rights in a commercial short-term rental.

So everybody up here talking about we want this, we want them to be temporary, we don't want them at all.

This is the solution, and I've laid it out to you.

If somebody had asked me to advise you or advise the council, this would be it.

Eliminate the distinction now.

Propose it now.

Be brave.

Why?

Because we need a vision.

There is not one IOTA of data in the study or in the staff report or anything that has come before you today that supports the perpetuation of commercial short-term rentals.

They serve no public good.

No one says you provide a public welfare.

There is a constant reference to providing or satisfying a demand for tourists.

When, if they are in fact functioning as hotels, why can't we just have what we already have?

Hotels.

Keep it simple.

We don't need commercial short-term rentals at all.

Given that the residential short-term rental process is now being deferred for further council consideration.

We can just eliminate all of the talk and the other staff references to that.

Let the council deal with that as a policy matter.

But for today, you should feel comfortable in proposing my simple solution of eliminating that distinction.

We have some areas where we do agree with the study's findings.

We agree, based on the high impact in Bywater, and of course in Marini as well, there should be no more permitted commercial short-term rentals.

We agree there should only be five simple rooms in simple bed and breakfast.

I was dumbfounded when it passed.

There's no reason for principal and an ancillary bed and breakfast.

It's just, it's just nonsensical to me from a land use perspective.

Five is enough, the other bed and breakfast that exceed five.

Technically, they will reapply, and unless the council does something else with bed and breakfast, in theory, they could grandfather if it has been a common use that's long enough.

Commercial short-term rentals, will they grandfather?

If I tell you, make it simple, what are we gonna do?

Are they gonna grandfather?

That's the biggest myth in City Hall.

The answer is no.

Why?

The law says they won't.

What are they?

They are simple privileges.

Commercial short-term rentals are just permits to operate commercial lodging.

They are privileged, privileges.

They do not vest a property right in the permit or a property right in the use of that property, which was built as a home or some other multifamily purpose, and then they went out and they got a commercial short-term rental license without complying with hotel code, uh building code requirements or other hotel licensure requirements, and did so without operation.

It was a great game, and it has been a great game while it lasted.

Skip operations, don't have hardly any employees, bring in the sheets, bring the maid, do a key fob, and let's roll them out into the neighborhoods.

It is destroying by water, destroying it.

It is a fragile neighborhood.

It is as fragile as the French Quarter, and I will fight this all the way.

I'm prepared to fight it all the way.

Do I want litigation against commercial short-term rental operators?

Absolutely not.

If we have to, then let's say go ahead and fight us.

Because what I am proposing to you insulates you and will ensure survival of the legislation.

If you eliminate the distinction, you will win because the law says so.

Okay.

If you propose to eliminate them, and then revise the corresponding CZ article 20.311.1, as I suggest, eliminate 20.31.2, as I suggest, and the corresponding provisions in Article 11 of the City Code, you will be on sound footing.

I assure you of that.

All right, and that's free advice.

Um I do want to say that it is really important to understand you can't have grandfathering.

What I recommend in the next to last page of my memo is very important to consider.

Everyone here is opposed to grandfathering.

Their proponents, I mean, we're really opponents.

Um they don't want them to continue.

How do you ensure they won't?

This is how you ensure they won't.

When the legislation is proposed, and the STR categories are merged, and the council can call the ultimate last one, whatever it wants.

Residential, non-residential, or just STR, if they survive the next round of review of those.

You see a period where the applicable department no longer issues the permits, and then a date where they are deemed void and never issued, and therefore after that they are prohibited.

Okay.

If you do that, the you will give the next city attorney the Department of Safety and Permits great breathing room.

They will be able to manage uh transient lodging uses in STRs much better.

Addition, you will provide them with the ammo they need to go after the 1201 canal and the other people that are flagrant violators of the 30-day rule by advertising it one way and doing it another.

I prosecuted uh we didn't have short-term rentals I was prosecuting, but the city attorneys could actually prosecute those or help the neighbors get the advocate that's necessary to bring that developer to municipal court.

Um, and that's where we need to see enforcement.

Do I think the city's doing a good job?

There's been a lot of data thrown about, which means it's likely unreliable.

Uh no, I don't think they're enforcing very well.

I've given you the examples.

There are three examples in my memo that stand out.

You should assume those are multiplied many fold in our historic districts.

Um, and I want to thank you very much.

We hope that you will consider the simple solution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Christopher Milinkovich.

Oh, thank you.

Lyle Montgomery.

Followed by William Dunkrovitz.

Is that right?

Good for me.

And then Joseph Don.

Please say your name and address.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Lyle Montgomery, and I live at 625 South Roche of Lave.

Um, I'm just representing myself.

I I live in a mixed-use neighborhood.

Um, it's primarily residential.

Um, I have basically four or five concerns.

The first one, the biggest one is I'm opposed to um what Ms.

Graham was just talking about, that these um existing short-term rentals should be um grandfathered in to be allowed as legally nonconforming because a lot of damage has been done already, and this damage needs to be undone soon.

Um my biggest concern as far as what damage has been done to my neighborhood is the density.

Um in the eight-block area that I'm uh that I live in, there are 64 commercial short-term rentals.

Um that's a lot.

It's eight times the number that the study is recommending, which is one per block.

There um there's there's an average of eight per block currently.

So I'm quite concerned it's destroyed the fabric of our neighborhood.

Um it allows 51 commercial short-term rental guests per block uh in my neighborhood.

Um, and in fact, the 600 block of South Tanti, the entire side of one block is totally short-term, commercial short-term rentals, 10 all in a row, consuming the whole block.

It's not a vibrant or welcoming place to live.

I didn't expect this to happen when I moved there in 2017.

Um it's a ghost town, it's filled with empty houses that sometimes are occupied by um people who are there a few days.

The other um three things I'm we're near the hospital, and I think the hospital area could use housing and could use a vibrant neighborhood with restaurants and things that serve the the hospital staff.

I'll stop there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

William My name is William Dunkervoot.

I live on 1120 Dauphin in French quarter.

Uh I'm here to speak as a resident.

You hear all these other groups of talking, but also I met with my local uh neighbors to talk about this report.

One was we weren't informed that there was meetings going on.

Uh it was thanks to the VC4 for distributing this report that we got engaged on a neighborhood.

But uh one story for you all quick.

I'm a newcomer to French Quarter, moved in in October 2020.

First question, my lived in a double shotgun.

First question, my next door neighbor asks are you gonna be renting this out?

Because we had people who rented out, they'd have parties for three days and then leave, and it would be trashed up and all that.

So we leave their concern that way.

But that's the issue that people think of when they hear short-term rentals for uh the neighborhood.

We're a residential community.

We are not here to look for economic development.

So the summary was that myself and the neighbors do not uh support the uh consultant's recommendation.

We believe that there was land use and code changes that need to be improved to support both residential development and commercial district and the neighborhood, which is non-bar, small businesses in the lower district.

This report does not address any of that.

The recommendations within will continue to permanently um deteriorate the residential population of the French quarter, and we see that all the time.

I have off street parking, and I can tell you the enforcement of short-term rentals on Dauphin or that area is pitiful because every weekend there's a different car in that lot.

Thank you.

Joseph Donaldson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Angela Zarek?

Oh man.

Are these the are these yours, sir?

Oh, sorry.

Hi everyone, Angelo Zarek here with Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative, which is at 200 South Broad, Suite 204.

I have so many things I could say.

So many of my um comrades here already said them.

I do want to emphasize the extent to which this study did not consider the city as a place that people live, as so much as a place where land could be used various ways to suit tourist demands.

And I agree with some of my previous commenters, like Miss Graham.

Where did the idea that we need more tourist lodging come from?

I participated in two focus groups, an interview and did the survey for this study, and I can say to a certain extent, it came from how the data was collected.

At the first focus group I went to, there was a question that said, given that in current increasingly survey data indicates that everyone agrees we need more transient lodging.

How should we accommodate for that concern?

Multiple people in my group said, hey, where did this come from?

You've already said that 10% of the people who completed the survey at that time either owned an STR or 40% of them knew someone who did.

That could be the spouse of someone who managed the property.

They are benefiting as well.

There was no acknowledgement of the extent to which this skewed the data in the study itself.

There's no further mention of the results by people who knew someone who operated an STR.

They're not separated out as a category in the study.

We can't see the extent to which that warped things.

Where did also the desire for 20-person STRs come from?

I don't see that narrative logic in this study.

It just feels like it kind of fell out of the sky.

We already have 10-person STRs that many neighbors have found absolutely intolerable to live next to, and many 10-person STRs are on a solid block.

I'll also add all the questions of displacement and housing costs are based on opinions from the survey.

Concerned about displacement.

Okay.

What about Courtney Keller?

Followed by Richard Pollock.

And then Mark Meluse Melluth.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Um, hi, my name's Courtney Keller, and uh I live at 615 Gallier Street.

And um I'm going to be piggybacking my support for what was just said by the Janes Place people completely.

And uh by my uh neighbors in the bywater at the Saxony who are having such a hard time.

I'm our neighbors uh again, we're all working people, nobody could be here.

I'm not even I shouldn't even be here.

I'm missing work to be here because we had to represent somebody in it from our neighborhood.

Um I cannot believe that existing CSTRs are going to be allowed to operate or grandfathered in as they have been operating in the interim time that it takes.

And I again I appreciate the study.

I think there needs to be way more studied from on a ground level, but um, we are fighting a particular conglomerate named State Heirloom, and uh they are not just uh Airbnb owner, they are not just a CSTR, they are massive.

And they for them to be able to have uh attained property near us without any any oversight, without any input from the neighbors, and to be able to keep doing this.

Uh I just don't understand.

I again I agree with the non-distinction, the like combining why have STR C STRs and STRs.

Why are C STRs somehow immune to having to have an on-site operator?

Like I just again designate them as hotels or not.

And I'll say this I I I love I loved that sweet spot for a second when really good people could actually have a short-term rental in their home and they were on-site operators, they lived there, and maybe your cousins or your family who lived on the block could come and stay at their C STR or not C I'm sorry, STR in their house because they are good people, and like we're neighborhoods and we take care of each other.

So when I'm talking tourists, I'm not talking about tourists that come here to party.

I'm talking about our neighbors and friends that we love to have visit, and we don't live in places that are big enough for them.

I don't know.

This time that's my one exception.

Sorry, thank you.

Thank you.

Richard Pollock.

Dr.

Julie Jones.

And then our last card is Alan Johnson.

Hi, I'm Julie Jones.

I live at 827 Louisa Street.

I am president of Neighbors First for Bywater.

Um is a high impact area as desire line has recognized.

We are overwhelmed by unregulated CSTRs and by residential um STRs.

Bob Rivers has suggested that commercial corridors are good spots for CSTRs, and by water, those commercial corridors are burgundy, for example.

They are cheap by jol with houses.

Backing up on side.

With my fellow board member, Eleanor Graham, I urge you to eliminate CSTRs as a category that don't make sense.

Um we're talking basically about hotels, but hotels that don't have to have an operator on site, and to make sure that the city regulates the residential STRs and protects the residents and helps us keep bywater in the other residential areas of New Orleans neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Johnson.

Hello, my name is Alan Johnson.

I live at 1418 Charters, and I'm with the Phobic Marity Improvement Association.

I'm here to speak to you today in opposition to this proposal, which might strike you as surprising because I was in favor of it last time we met.

Two things I wanted to talk about today have been substantially addressed.

The issue with having to enforce percentages and build in private buildings.

Almost impossible.

We've learned that in the past.

And this concept of a neighborhood hotel.

20 rooms, two rooms per two beds per room, that's 40 beds.

It's just gonna go on and on from there.

Devil's in the details.

My major concern today is this supplemental staff report that was submitted by the staff and Mr.

Rivers.

The residents of our city met with desire line, and they heard our complaints how STRs have been allowed to consume our neighborhoods, not just by poor enforcement, but by the zoning that was done in the past.

While the garden district and French Corps have received moratoriums, rightfully so, except for VCE for hotels and STRs, the historic core was given no such courtesy.

And we have seen the damaging effects that had on our neighborhoods.

Everyone in the city has acknowledged it, which is why our neighborhoods turned out in large numbers, larger numbers than others.

We participated in good faith, and we were heard by desire line.

They brought a fresh set of eyes to this process and recognized the overabundance of lodging in our neighborhood.

And they determined that going forward, there had to be no more CSTRs and hotel development in the historic core.

We were pleased to finally be heard, only to learn of a supplemental report.

We didn't reach out to staff to discuss this because we didn't know of this report.

This report's main focus was to preserve more hotels and STRs in the historic core.

As the heat map showed, our neighborhoods are overwhelmed.

We spoke against more STRs and hotels.

We need to preserve our remaining commercial spaces to serve our residents.

The supplemental report states these are the areas with some of the highest demand for transient lodging uses.

False.

Not by the citizens of New Orleans, but by developers.

These are areas that are overwhelmed by SDRs.

By basing your decision on this statement, you are insulting the residents who participated in this study.

And furthermore, you're telling us that with no facts presented, you're willing to silence the voice of the historic core.

Mr.

Johnson, that's your time.

Why?

To continue to chase the fool's gold of the tourism industry.

Mr.

Johnson.

Extra time, Mr.

Johnson.

I do have one more card, and it's uh Nikki Zwinski.

That'll conclude our public comment portion.

Philip, um hard um like Aaron said, it's hard to be in support or oppose something that is this long and in and encompassing.

But um, if I had it my way, there would never have been a short-term rental business anywhere in on the planet.

It has destroyed more communities worldwide than anything in recent history.

Um an entire town in Ireland was destroyed.

It got on a Chinese Airbnb type thing, and now people walk into random houses as though it is a tourist destination amusement park.

That is not what we want to happen anywhere.

Now the whole thing has exploded into um even into suburban neighborhoods in Texas of all places.

Why would you want to be in an Airbnb 45 minutes from downtown?

I don't know.

But I um digress.

Um I oppose any expansion at all in the French quarter.

We have way too many hotels already.

They aren't always full, so why are we um thinking of expanding it?

Um, in my experience, the the upper floors on Royal Street used to have a lot of residents.

That went away actually with the pedestrian mall.

And what we've seen is landlords chose not to make those apartments that were desirable for residents, which has contributed to our affordable housing crisis.

I think a lot of people would rather live above a bar in the French quarter than along um certain areas on Claiborne, which are not very safe.

So I would like to see no expansion in the French Quarter at all.

I don't like that the data seems to be very inaccurate.

I think I can count six illegal STRs in spitting distance from my house.

Um I'm doing on time.

Um I think that's it, but um no expansion in the French quarter.

Thank you.

Okay.

That'll conclude our public comment portion.

Um are there any questions from the commission for desire or staff at all?

I I had one question.

Um can you comment on the discrepancy in terms of the the neighborhood hotels in the 20 and the 20 rooms as it relates to the life safety and building code implication, how those are not aligned?

Yeah, and so um the scope of the study focuses on the comprehensive zoning ordinance, which is under y'all's purview.

The building code standards and the requirement for hotels are in the comprehensive zoning code, the or code of ordinances.

And so right now, if you look at land use standards, hotels and motels don't have any land use standards at all.

And so while we're looking at our land use standards for hotels and motels that are new to incorporate into the comprehensive zoning ordinance.

So the discrepancy happens when you look at the code of ordinances versus the zoning code.

There are two different sets of standards.

It's a building code and a zoning code.

I do think that given that it's been brought up, I think this engagement is important.

Like we're not looking at that.

We can't change the zoning, we can't change the building code, but I think it's important to be in alignment with it.

Um I think it's important for the CPZ to take that into consideration.

I would incorporate it into this study and align the recommendations for commercial short-term rental large and for the neighborhood um hotel to be consistent with that.

I think it's a great suggestion.

This is what this process is all about.

Um while we look at all these things, this was a very quick study.

And so I think we need to listen with open ears tonight.

I'm making notes on things that I I think y'all should take into consideration.

Our job is to provide you with the best information analysis we can give you in the time provided with the data that we have.

Does that answer your question?

I have a question.

Um, can you explain your classification of the French quarter as medium rather than high impact?

Yes, I think that the methodology that we use, we were really prepared.

We wanted to make sure that everything in the study was defensible and that it was consistent.

Do a citywide study, you really don't give sort of specific attention to one neighborhood.

You're looking at the entire thing and you're trying to treat every single neighborhood the same way.

And so because of the history of not having all these permitted licensed uses, it didn't have that concentration of CSCRs that would have triggered both a concentration of CSDRs and a concentration of feedback.

And so both of those things came together to create high impact neighborhood categories.

I'm not saying that what we've heard today is not valid.

I'm just saying the methodology, the sort of defense in terms of how we categorized everything was consistent.

Um again, I think we looked at the zoning categories first.

We didn't hear as much from the French quarter, we're hearing from them today.

I think it's in y'all's best interest to incorporate what you're hearing today.

I think we would, you know, as much as we heard from folks, um, you know, the last thing we want to do is to grade community character in an area with recommendations presented today.

So what's the next step on that one issue?

I think as we move forward in your recommendation today, I think it's appropriate for y'all to consider removing the commercial short-term rental small, medium, and the neighborhood hotel.

We had at one point in the study had a boutique hotel category that was smaller, but it was consolidated in favor of making things more simple.

And I think sometimes when we move towards things being simple, you have a lot more unintended consequences in the way those app those terms are applied.

And so I would caution the commission in simplifying this further is every time we move towards simplicity, it actually makes enforcement harder because enforcement they're asking questions if the categories are so broad, kind of anything goes, right?

And so we're trying to tighten the belt on where things can go and what is X and Y, right?

So they can reach a solution, issue a violation and be done with it instead of debating whether or not it is a violation.

Um but but I think you know, having heard from the French Quarter, we knew this was gonna happen when we did plan for it, but we can't we can't make up feedback we didn't hear, right?

And so we've got a little bit of feedback from them in letters, but up until this point, I think we needed to get to today to hear more of where they were at, and that this was not appropriate, and ultimately we're looking at the zoning district's intent.

And if you read the zoning district's purpose statements in the Vu Corey, it says to support visitors and tourism, and so we pushed to say okay, maybe the small commercial short-term rental, which is a double, and the medium would make sense, and the neighborhood hotel would make sense in the commercial mixed use districts within the French border if you all disagree, and if the community disagrees, this is an important decision for the commission.

We want to give you all the information that you need to make a decision that's informed.

I have one other question, if that's all right.

So um which category can have up to 20 people?

This is the yes, this is the neighborhood hotel, which keep in mind we had one point we had a boutique, which is up to 11, and then we had a neighborhood a middle traditional, which was which was the what is now the neighborhood hotel.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, no, I would talk about the 20 people, not the 20 rooms.

You you you had a diagram up there, it had seven rooms.

Yes, that is right.

Thank you, Rachel.

Yes.

That's the commercial short-term rental large, which is basically like if you if you go to the beach, it's a beach house essentially.

So what and what's normal?

What's the regulation now?

Is that allowed now anywhere?

I believe the maximum number of people you can have is 10 in a couple of years.

Yeah, I thought it was smaller.

Yeah.

So other than at Lake Catherine where everybody wants to drink and go swim in the lake.

Um we don't have anybody from Lake Catherine who's objecting, but where else are you proposing to allow a party house with 20 people?

So it's mostly it's the more intense commercial and industrial districts.

But I think again these recommendations sort of shifted throughout the process and the study.

We had a first cut that was super restrictive, and a second cut that came in that was like we don't want as many conditional uses, we want more by right approvals, we need to streamline permitted uses, and so it became more permissive.

And so I think this debate is critically important.

Um and so ultimately, to your question, right now it starts in the commercial center in institutional campus districts, is where you start to see these larger um whole home commercial short-term rentals, and it is in reflection of the idea that you might have a family stay next to a campus or a hospital, or you might have um a fraternity house or things like that that you know could be translated into, you know, we have a wedding and we want our whole family to stay on this commercial short-term rental.

And so it's but it's not in the only, yeah, they're not in the residential districts, they're not in, they're only in the commercial industrial.

Thank you.

And if you if anyone is following in the report, I would say look to the very end, very end of the full report on page 20.

Or in the handout, it's also in the handout.

You can see where it's existing and proposed uses.

So I had a couple of comments.

Um, I like the idea of simplifying commercial and residential into one SDR, just to make it one, you know.

I think it's great, but I feel like the report and everything we've been looking at has always been through the eyes of commercial STRs and not the residential SDRs and what the what are the implications of residential SDR?

What is what are the implications on a historic district?

So I don't think we've really really even looked at it that way.

Um so if we made it all into one category, then what does that category have?

Like what are the what are the restrictions?

Like, do we just do away with all commercial SDRs?

You know, you're you just get one permit and you have to stay on site, you know, like a residential SDR.

Um so that that is my um take on it.

And just looking at cities like even something like New York, like they did away with their SDRs, and they're very, very restrictive for such a big city with so much tourism.

So their SDRs literally have only one permit for maximum of two people, and you have to live on site.

So they're doing it, and they don't allow Airbnb, they don't allow, you know, process payments through Airbnb and Verbo and all these.

So I think like when if we are going to combine it in one category, we have to look at it from the eyes of the residential situation.

And one other comment I had is that yes, we don't want SDRs, but in terms of a historic districts, we have these large homes, especially near you know, two lane and hospitals, like these large homes that people are struggling to keep up or whatever.

So there should be some mechanism that they're allowed to have some sort of a rental, but everybody who rents should live there, whether they live in the house or in the accessory dwelling unit, they have to be on site.

Like these commercial SDRs with huge properties, like the 20 people, and that's too much on any neighborhood.

Yeah, and I think these are important points to me.

It seems as though for the commercial short-term rental large, you would drop the occupancy down to it to no more than 15 or 10 to what was a what was previously recommended.

Or in place.

Um for the the grouping of the the non commercial and the commercial, we did throughout the course of the study had to we had to look at both because their their data sets are so commingled.

Um but we weren't looking at the non commercial regulations as much.

But I do think when we came to a point where we were like the commercial short-term rental small is more restrictive than the non-commercial short-term rental, you know, and so it's it's actually restricting the number of you know bedrooms and people more so.

And so I think that there was a question of how do we move that.

And I I think we agree with this the city staff's recommendation that you know, as the city council considers this and y'all think about it, it would make sense to have one set of just short-term rental.

If we're being more detailed, you could just have instead of the C, you just take off the C and it's just short-term rental, small, medium, large.

And you know that those are the uses that are sort of in and around residential districts, and everything else to to the folks that were here today.

I agree, we agree that anything bigger than sort of four units in a building in a mixed use building is a hotel, and that's where you bump into either a bed and breakfast, which is perfect for those those homes that are big and in two lane, those bed and breakfasts are permitted by right.

The owner lives on site and just hosting people from out of town.

So we're we're tracking the same way.

I think it it the regulations have to be implemented, they need to be in play, they need to be used for people to really see that what we are imagining would manifest.

The whole home that was four units, it doesn't fit anything.

It it is it is more of a hotel.

No one's there, right?

And so if no one's there, it shifts into that neighborhood hotel category because it doesn't meet any of the C S CR small media and large criteria.

And to clarify that the report had not address not residential short-term rentals with only commercial short-term rentals.

No, exactly.

But I'm saying not part of that study.

Yeah, that if we combine, then you were looking at it only from the commercial, but when we're combining residential and commercial.

Um the other question I had was the one per block situation.

You know, and I know um it has kind of become a thing where we're accepting it in Louisiana.

Um, but I think it's kind of weird that for commercials, you don't commercial short-term cut rentals, you don't care how many are in a block, and for residential one per block.

So that's a huge discrepancy in how that's um, yeah, and I think regulated.

Throughout the course of the study, we shifted it to three, we shifted it to zero, we we we we went to just the zoning districts and started setting density regulations within the zoning districts, which became very complicated.

And if you can think about the different uses and then different densities, so in an effort to be consistent and to be simple, we mirrored the non-commercial.

Um, and so I think where there were opportunities to to not create a new tool and to leverage what was already there, that's the case.

But I would also just acknowledge for anyone who's in the room and is thinking about one per block, know that a lot of these uses are prohibited in a lot of these zoning districts.

So just because we're saying one per block, it's not like the non-commercial where you can do it.

It's gotta be in the zoning district as a permitted use or conditional use in order for you to even look at the block and see if there's anything else on the block that would eliminate your opportunity.

So it's it's meant to sort of balance um the scales a little bit and sort of level set the the environment.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Um executive director rivers, what in terms of processes, um, we're we're gonna vote on this, but also are we are we able to make make changes, make edits, take things out, request clarifications.

So um the answer to all those is yes.

Um this is a study.

Um this is a um just like any other study that we have when it comes to you, um you all are perfectly able to, you know, you're going to adopt this as your own study.

So it it should reflect your opinions and your thoughts on um what what information should be transmitted to the city council.

So absolutely, if you feel changes should be made, absolutely, you know, include them.

Okay.

Thank you.

And in terms of the like the discrepancy in terms of the number of hotel rooms and how that study was addressed, and how obviously your results are directly um affected by that.

Yeah, so we have to just keep in mind that throughout the course of the study, the data sets are constantly changing.

So the city's permit data is live.

The granicus data that's the illegal units, a lot of people are seeing commercial short-term rentals in real life that are illegal.

I want to just clarify to everyone that we're not recommending that those become non-conforming, temporary non-conforming, but that the ones that are licensed, which is a much smaller pool of commercial short-term rentals that have followed the rules, got the permits, and submitted their plans, those are the ones we're talking about recommending the temporary non-conforming uses.

But to your question, I'm forgetting what your question was.

In terms of the discrepancy between the number of that is that is because the the data sets literally change.

They're not complete.

They're not complete.

We know this.

There wasn't this wasn't a study where we were going out in the field and doing survey work to collect the data.

We do that.

We had to use the data that was provided to us by the city.

And so everything that y'all are seeing is city data, and we got multiple data sets throughout question the data sets, work to make them improve, but we know they're not perfect.

And that's why we ended up doing more community outreach and engagement to validate what we thought we were seeing in the data.

Thank you.

I have a type of question.

I was just going to add that um it also could be due to the boundaries that were used.

Um so the French quarter, the way that like we um define the French quarter is different than what you would typically think of the French quarter.

It's opposite Iberville rather than goes to Canal.

And so there's a lot of hotels on canal.

If those are counted, that would add a lot more.

So that could be part of it.

Thank you.

I think so.

I think my question is really directed to Mr.

Rivers.

Um we've heard a lot about grandfathering, you know, non-conforming uses.

I had understood your comments to be that that was not part of this, that was under the applicable law.

In other words, there's a somebody has a license, uh, whether that becomes a non-conforming use, that was that was that wasn't within the ambit of this study.

Am I right about that?

So I think um there are two kind of layers of regulation that are at play with all of the short-term rentals.

One is the licensing side and one is the land use entitlement side.

The way that the commercial short-term rentals in the 2015 or 2016, the original law, um, they were written into the zoning ordinance as permitted by right land uses.

So that doesn't that's a different thing from the licensing, and the licensing is a privilege, but it's the way I understand it, it's kind of like an ABO.

The ABO has that kind of dual layer of licensing as well as land use entitlement.

And my understanding, and we will, you know, by all means, I and I think a lot of these questions, um, we as staff should be directed to follow up and have answers by the time it gets back to us um as a um as a zoning docket.

But my understanding is that um when you have a land use entitlement, but the use requires a license, that as long as all the license requirements are met, then the city is obligated to issue the license.

So I get and that goes to my next question, which is we may not know the mechanism to accomplish a particular thing.

I I might want to make a motion or someone might warn us uh anyone um to say uh we don't want to see short-term rentals in the French quarter, but we don't know the exact mechanism to accomplish that.

That's months and months of a study and hundreds of pages.

I don't know whether that, for example, is as simple as saying we vote to change it to high impact, or we have to do something else.

Isn't it more appropriate for us then to direct staff and or desire line if if if we were as a body to say we don't want short-term rentals in the French quarter to say that's our recommendation now, go get it done in the right way.

Yeah, we don't know how to how to do it in the right way.

I think there are kind of two categories here.

One is the you know, should we have them in the French quarter or not?

That's kind of a yes-no question.

Right, and I think it's something that you all can weigh in on and make a decision on and direct us to make sure that the information that is transmitted to the city council reflects that decision.

I think there are some things that have been raised, for instance, the grandfathering issue, where it's a question, you know, is is it possible to kind of eliminate have the city unilaterally eliminate the land use designation in the zoning ordinance just by doing it?

And to me, that's a question.

My understanding is the answer is no, but I'm open to um exploring that further and having a conversation um with those who brought it up and having conversation with the law department and getting a final, you know, kind of legal like um so that would be again us making a general statement that it's the you know, if that's how we were to vote, that we think it should be a license, not a right, uh something that gets renewed and something that's not a vested right.

So that would be again us making a general statement that it's the you know, if that's how we were to vote, that we think it should be a license, not a right, uh something that gets renewed and something that's not a vested right.

That's about as far as we can take it in terms of of officer.

And you know, on that particular issue, yes.

Right.

Going forward, that's that's not a question.

Whether you can do that retroactively is the question.

Yeah, and that's not okay.

Well, and just to be clear, that is one of the recommendations in the study as it's a good idea.

And I was gonna ask you.

Because I didn't get to that part.

Yes.

Uh Mr.

Rose, I have a question.

When does the desired line contract actually end?

January 13th.

January 13th.

And that's the day of our next CPC hearing.

Are there any other comments or questions?

What about what about SDRs that what about SDRs that we don't want in other neighborhoods besides the French border?

We'd have to have to state them, right?

State each neighborhood or state.

Yeah, if you actually land use.

I would say if if for instance, let's talk about um the recommendation about bywater mariny and the neighborhood hotel.

I think the recommendation in the plan is that none of that exists in that staff has a recommendation that it that the neighborhood hotel ought to be considered.

Um if you all disagree with that, then your adoption of the study should say without that recommendation.

Uh I'll just like to state on the record for my fellow commissioners, um, and I'm kind of taking up the stance of Commissioner Steve.

Um, I don't know if it's actually appropriate for us to kind of move with hearing so much dialogue and so much to digest for this.

Um I think some of my questions hinge around land use enforcement, um, and particularly also the French quarter.

Um, and if Mr.

Rivers is saying that desire line is going to be on contract until January 13th, is it possible that we could defer this and then necessarily come up with those questions to those answers that we need from them uh to move forward?

So I can commit to the staff doing that.

I know that you know, when you get to the end of a contract, um the the contract says what you know obligations the vendor has in terms of the work they're supposed to do.

I I just need to verify where we are at this point in terms of the end of the contract.

Um if they've checked all the boxes and they've done everything that they've you know the contract requires them to do, then I would say that's gonna have to be a city planning commission staff lift um if there's room in the contract or if there's willingness on the part of the vendor to um then you know I don't want to presume that, but um, but we can certainly you know work with them on um getting uh information or or changes or um clarification for you all.

Okay.

Well well, Commissioners, if that's the case, I will actually uh move for a deferral on this into to January 13th.

Second Commissioner Pochet.

So does that mean that everybody does that mean that that we all these people have to come back again or don't have to, but does that mean we have another public hearing with where lots of these people are gonna feel like they have to take off work and come back and and remind us of what they said, etc.

etc.

Yeah, I and I my only comment would be is if you all could give us some specific direction about what we should be looking into between now and January 13th, um that so that we know what to spend our time on, um, and more importantly, what the the vendor is is going to be able to spend time on so that we can come back to you and give you the answers that you want um and clarify whatever things that you think are um unclear at this point.

And I don't know if it would be appropriate, and I guess it would depend on if the commission approved to modify that amendment to to remove some language that we feel I can't speak for everyone, but uh seem to agree on in terms of removal of the neighborhood hotels as an example um and moving the French quarter into a high impact area versus a moderate impact area.

Um Commissioner Flick, I'll say also stating clear distinct boundaries of what what that looks like.

So is the right legal way to do that that uh Commissioner Stewart makes the motion, it's been seconded, and then do we make suggest amendments that he could accept that would be the specific things that we want?

Or is that the right legal way to get it done?

Um, if we can then forward um questions, comments, and the concerns to the executive director um in the meantime so that he can communicate with the contractors on uh getting those answers.

I I'd also like to just request on record uh the to understand the the legality of the grandfather business in terms of land use and how that applies to the commercial short-term rails.

Or we are we right now giving you our wish list?

Is that what I'm seeing this to which is fine with me because I have a few things to add.

Okay.

So then we should really each say what the things are that but but I just want to be clear.

Are we having another public hearing?

And I just want to make sure that it sounds like we're deferring the motion is to the defer to the next meeting, but the idea is that we're giving our our our list of items that we sure agree that we'd like to have addressed.

And and you know, once we have a complete list, um you know it may be that we can address all of them as part of an approval, and you can just say no, you don't want you know, neighborhood hotels in the Marini, and and that's kind of a definitive decision that we just do.

Um if you could go through and kind of thought that you want us to do that.

So I want to make sure that number one, we have a clear idea of what issues remain with the commission, and then the next step is what do we do with those concerns?

Some of them can be just decisions that you make that you don't want to see this, and then you know, we will make the changes in whatever information is transferred.

So do we need to vote on those things, or is just we just say them out loud, and if nobody objects, well, yeah, I think if you go through and then have a conversation if anyone objects to anything that's said, otherwise, you know, just adopt them all and we'll move forward with it.

So these are technically amendments to Commissioner Stewart's motion or supplements to it?

Yes.

If I mean there are two ways one that the mover and seconder can withdraw, or the mover and seconder can just agree to um amendment.

So just uh point of order to the to the chair.

Is it should we just go ahead and move forward on the motion that's on the floor, then if whatever happens with that motion, then come back and then we can state that for the record for the executive director to then go back and do the research for those items.

I think I think we can't because once we move to defer, it's deferred, and then we can't go back and revisit it.

That's I think we should include the list.

Okay.

That's the only reason uh commissioner stewart that I was trying to pin that down because I wouldn't want us to inadvertently um uh prevent ourselves from coming back and doing it.

Right.

Okay, so as we as we move forward, um I don't know.

I mean, I've stated some things.

Yeah, so I guess yeah, go go ahead.

Okay, so uh my items were to move the French quarter into a high impact area and to eliminate the neighborhood hotel designation.

Um I would also love to not have grandfathering, yeah.

Any sense.

Um, but again, to just research the legality of that and how that plays out with the commercial short-term rental.

And and in that connection to have it be a clearly a license and not a vested property right.

Correct.

Okay.

Can I can I add a couple?

Sure, please.

Um I would like to see the commercial short-term rental large be lim be limited to a number smaller than 20 people, either 10 or 15, and I would like to see it eliminated from as a as a permitted use in all of the Article 17 central business districts.

I understand the um maritime and the industrial, but um urban core neighborhood mixed use CED five uh et cetera.

I I'd like to see it eliminated as a permitted use in all of the Article 17 districts.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yeah, I think this is already in there, but the combining into one SDR designation, whether it's commercial or non-str.

Um and um I also agree with the removal of the large S CSTR from all districts except for the heavy intense.

Um is was this said already the temporary status um that you issue, you take out all of the permits are now would be temporary so that you can monitor them for a period of two years.

Okay.

Anything else?

Uh akin to eliminating one of the categories here, I would just love to see an alternate plan for standardizing all the lodging into simplified categories, maybe three separate categories, owner-occupied commercial, commercial, and traditional lodging.

Um I I'm really concerned about the the complexities that will get passed on to the citizens and the confusion around understanding who to call for what and why.

Thank you.

I'd like to, if possible, incorporate the eviction data that was mentioned earlier today.

I think I you know I really want to emphasize and recognize that residential short-term rentals is not in the scope, and there is no there has been no capacity and there's been no scope provided to focus on that.

And I know that this doesn't feel so black and white in terms of impact.

However, I would encourage people in here to encourage your your representatives, your council people to invest in this kind of deep dive so that way we can be more rigorous and be clear, but for the time being, the best way I think for us to think about the folks who are most vulnerable folks who aren't homeowners who are renters, we should be looking at eviction data as best as possible.

So thank you.

Okay, with that, we have a motion and a second, and if we're amenable to the statements that are you want me to recap do you want me to recap?

If you like, sure.

Yes, that'd be great.

Well done.

I have everything.

Um make sure uh we get more specificity about boundaries.

Um, especially I'm assuming as it uh relates to data.

Um one is uh the grandfathering issue, um explore whether or not it's uh possible to get rid of the grandfathering, and I I'm hearing that the preference is that we get rid of the grandfathering if possible with respect to neighborhood hotels, no in the uh well, basically no to the staff's recommendation about neighborhood hotels.

I'm assuming that doesn't mean eliminating it entirely, because there was a there was a statement um I think from the um hotel industry that we should get rid of that distinction.

Is that the preference?

Is that what that's about, or is it just the Marini and core districts?

I I think in general, okay.

Well, my preference that's up for discussion a little bit, just because hotels do offer the all of the building codes and checks and balances that a whole business not gonna offer.

So I don't think she's talking about eliminating hotels entirely, but the distinction between the distinction of a neighborhood hotel.

Okay.

Um making the French Quarter a high impact area and making recommendations accordingly.

Um the CSTR large reduced to 10 to 15 people and eliminate it from all Article 17 districts.

Um recommendations about combining into one designation and STRC STRs.

Um making sure the CSTRs are temporary uses.

Um I guess that not only for future ones, but for um any that remain from uh prior approvals, um simplify categories and on eviction data.

Are you it the issue came up um with Jane Place?

So you want us to engage with Jane Place to make sure that we have their data incorporated into this.

Perfect.

Anything else?

Yes.

Um perhaps this is out of the scope of this study, but uh we there was nothing about enforcement addressed, right?

Is that out of the scope of the study?

I'll just say for for for brevity, if it is not outside of the scope of this study, I think we should consider prioritizing enforcement um in this conversation so that before we even consider new policy, period.

Yeah, and I and I guess the way we can respond to that is we can kind of identify all of the changes to enforcement policy that have been made over the last year.

Um maybe even see if we can get uh short-term rental bureau here to give an overview of of basically how the city enforces that would be great.

Is it is it um can you add in terms of enforcement that you have a requirement for an on-site operator for any short term rental?

We can um we can provide information about that.

I know that's one of the issues that was um brought up in the recent court issue.

Um this was with respect to NSTRs that the court decided or determined that um requiring somebody to be there 24 seven in a short-term rental is not constitutional, but requiring them to be there while it's being rented is constitutional.

So we can certainly give you that information.

Um and and then you know the question is does that apply to CSTRs as well if there is a distinction?

Thank you.

Okay, is that what they have have one more addition to that?

We've heard this multiple times for from people who live in a CBD.

Um D corridors, um, what type of glitterals can be in place against uh short-term rentals so that it is actually a livable and workable place for the residents who live who want to live in a CBD and not necessarily be surrounded by just hotels but also additional short-term rentals.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Stewart.

If there's nothing further, no further discussion, we will vote on a motion to defer to the January 12th, 13th meeting.

Okay.

Okay, let's vote on machines.

Motion to defer with the amendments passes.

Thank you.

Our last item on the agenda is the subdivision ratification.

There's a list of subdivision ratifications in your packet.

Looking for a motion.

So move Commissioner Stewart.

Thank you.

Second, seconded by Commissioner Poche.

There's their discussion will vote on machines.

Thank you all for coming and speaking and staying.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

Stuart Pauche.

Yeah, we will vote.

And is one final order of business looking for a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn, Commissioner Pouchet.