Comments are to be addressed to the chair or specific member of the commission.

These hearings are recorded and broadcast on public access television, audio tapes, and other relevant public records are available in the city planning office or on the city's website at www.nola.gov.

The first order of business is adoption of the minutes of the July 14th, 2026 meeting.

Move to approve.

Second.

Great.

Can we vote our machines or are we voting by um hand?

I don't have a screen.

Let's go with hand.

We have okay.

Let's go.

Short agenda, and uh we can we can all raise our hands.

So a motion and a second for the minutes.

All in favor?

That's five.

Any opposed?

None.

The minutes pass.

The next docket item is docket item 07326.

Um zoning Docket 07326 is a request for a plan development to permit the adaptive reuse of the former Franciscan Port Claire's monastery into multifamily residential dwellings within the HURD2 district and the CPC character preservation corridor design overlay district.

This request was deferred at the July 14th meeting to allow additional time for review.

The petition site is located at 720 Henry Clay Avenue and occupies an entire city block bounded by Magazine Street, Henry Clay Avenue, Constance Street, and Calhoun Street.

The site is currently developed at the St.

Clair Monastery campus, which contains the historic monastery building, an infirmary, accessory structures, surface parking areas, landscaped open space, and masonry walls on the perimeter surrounding the entire property.

The proposal would preserve and rehabilitate the historic monastery building while constructing two new residential buildings, the demolition of select non-historic accessory structures, new internal circulation and parking areas, and landscaped open space to be accessible to the public and other associated site improvements.

Together, the three buildings would provide 24 residential units, eight in each building organized around a central landscaped courtyard that is proposed to function as a publicly accessible park.

The planned development process is intended to facilitate the adaptive reuse of historic institutional structures by allowing flexibility from certain zoning regulations where appropriate staff finds that the proposal preserves the monastery as the defining architectural feature of the site while returning a long vacant institutional campus to productive residential use.

The proposal includes new residential buildings with a maximum height of approximately 49 feet, where the underlying underlying zoning district permits a maximum height of 35 feet.

Staff finds that the additional height can be appropriate provided the new construction remains subordinate to the historic monastery.

As discussed through the HDLC process, staff supports refinement of the building massing so that the taller portions of the new buildings and oriented are oriented toward the interior of the development and are further differentiated from the historic structure, reinforcing the monastery as the primary architectural feature of the campus.

This proposal also provides 61 parking spaces where 65 are required under the University Area Off-Street Parking Overlay District.

Staff supports these exceptions because requiring full compliance would reduce the site's planned green space in landscaping, which are central to the design concept and public benefits of the plan development.

The proposal for 720 Henry Clay is consistent with the master plan and preserves a designated local landmark and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Were there any um provisos or um waivers included?

Yes, with three exceptions and one proviso.

Thank you.

Um I have one card, Ron Lazell.

Ron Lazel1000 South Norman C.

Francis.

Um thank you, Commissioners, for coming here today and for all the work that you do.

I'd like to give a little background on this project, if possible.

Uh first of all, uh acknowledgement to the sisters who have been guardians and and great keepers of this property for so many years.

Um I am sure this is an emotional day.

Uh but they have been working very hard to see that their legacy is kept in this pro uh property moving forward.

I'd also like to acknowledge Tony Elderman, who is our developer of this property.

You know, we're here today on a very big project, and you see what's behind us.

You know, uh Tony met with the neighbors numerous times before the conditional or use or the text amendment process came into play.

So he had worked hard with the neighbors.

Uh everyone that's been involved in this is CPC staff, numerous meetings, zoning staff, housing staff, safety and permits, council office, HDLC.

We aren't just showing here coming up in front of you.

Um hey, here's what we're doing.

This has been highly vetted and has been worked on tremendously, including the council office.

I don't want to exclude the council office.

Uh so this has been all hands working together to see this project move forward.

And in your last CPC meeting, you were the first key part of moving the legislation forward when you approved the text amendment, which allowed this process to move forward.

Of course, all goes through the city council, but again, it has been a collaborative effort.

This is an excellent, excellent addition to the city of New Orleans, and we look forward to your uh approval on this.

I would just like before I end that we make sure and clarify what the provisos and the exceptions are before we vote.

Thank you.

Great.

I'll ask when we're done, I'll ask you to read them out loud.

Um are there any other speakers in uh support?

Um I don't have any cards in opposition.

I have one other card.

Um Ms.

Johnson, you said you didn't want to speak.

And do you want me to read into the record?

So I'll just enter your card into the record.

Okay, great.

So there's no opposition.

Anyone else in opposition here?

Or anybody in opposition, because Ms.

Johnson was for information.

So there's no need for rebuttal because there's no opposition.

Um can you read the the uh provisos and the and the waivers?

Yes.

The there are um two exceptions included in the report.

Um the first one speaks to the off-street parking.

It says the developer shall be granted an exception to Article 18, Section 18.30 point B, off-street parking requirements of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, which requires 65 parking spaces to require only 61 parking spaces to be provided.

The second exception says the developer shall be granted an exception of Article 22, Section 22.7, required off-street loading spaces of the comprehensive zoning ordinance, which requires one off-street loading space to require no loading spaces to be provided.

The third exception that we spoke to in the presentation is regarding the height.

Um the proposed height is 49 feet, while the HURD2 district only allows for 35 feet.

And so we'll we will be including um the third exception in the final report.

And then the proviso that is in the report is the Department of Safety and Permit shall issue no building permits or licenses for this project until final development plans are approved by the City Planning Commission and recorded with the Office of Conveyances.

Failure to complete the conditional use process by properly recording plans within one year time period or failure to request an administrative extension as provided for in Article 4, Section 4.3H of the comprehensive zoning ordinance will void the conditional use approval.

Great, thank you.

Um that closes the public hearing.

So um I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve, subject to the provided the exceptions in the proviso.

Thank you.

Second.

And second by Commissioner A.

Bear.

Commissioner Kepper made the motion.

Uh there's a motion on the floor.

If there's no discussion, we'll call for the vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's any opposed?

Any nays?

None.

Five to zero.

The motion passes.

It looks like a great development, so congratulations.

Um, and then let me just note that uh Susan Johnson submitted a card, has a comment on the back, and the comment will be entered into the record.

Um move on to the next docket item.

Okay.

Zoning Docket 03626 is a request by City Council motion for a text amendment to the CZO to define data centers and any related uses to consider whether these should be permitted or conditional in any zoning district or overlay and to implement appropriate use and design standards for the uses not limited to density requirements, soundproofing and safety measures, and other regulations necessary.

Zoning Docket 03626 is a request by City Council motion for a text amendment to the CZO to define data centers and any related uses to consider whether these should be permitted or conditional in any zoning district or overlay and to implement appropriate use and design standards for the uses not limited to density requirements, soundproofing and safety measures, and other regulations necessary.

Staff quickly concluded that the data center use is an atypical one from what usually goes through CPC, and that there is a large variation in intensity based on the size and scale of the use and the impacts from data centers are not just hyper-local land use impacts like occupancy traffic, building design, and lighting, but can be much broader, impacting local supplies of energy or water, and potentially creating major air quality, noise, or water quality issues for nearby residents.

And the greatest impacts come from the really large facilities with power generation on site and/or liquid cooling facilities on site, mostly called hyperscale facilities.

So to inform the recommendations and reports, staff reviewed zoning and land use regulations across the country, either from county, state or local governments.

Staff found that regulations vary.

Some cities or states or counties have moratoriums on data centers, either entirely or beyond some kind of threshold like 10,000 square feet or 50 megawatts of power.

But there are different approaches across the country as the demand for data centers has significantly increased in the past few years.

So recommendations.

Staff recommend setting a scale for data center based by establishing four main categories based on square footage and energy consumption.

Staff looked at data center regulations from other places to inform the thresholds along with research on existing data center providers.

So the categories would be accessory, small, medium, or large or hyperscale.

Accessory data centers would serve a primary use at a site and would be no larger than 2,000 square feet and would take up no more than 25% of the gross floor area of the primary use.

Small data centers are would be allowed up to 20,000 square feet with no greater than 5 megawatts of power.

Medium data centers would be allowed up to 100,000 square feet and no greater than 20 megawatts of power consumption.

Large or hyperscale is anything beyond the medium threshold, which would be prohibited citywide.

Okay.

Use permissions.

In the commercial center areas and institutional campus districts, small would be conditionally allowed in C1, C2, C3, EC, MC, MS, or LS.

Okay.

In Article 16, centers for industry, small and medium data centers would be conditionally allowed in LI, Light Industrial, HI, Heavy Industrial, MI, Maritime Industrial, and BIP, Business Industrial Park District.

In Article 17, the Central Business District, small would be conditionally allowed in CBD 1, CBD 2, CBD 3, CBD 4, and CBD 7, and medium would be conditionally permitted in CBD 7.

We can take a look at the map on the next slide.

Here you can see in red and blue the commercial center areas that would conditionally allow small data centers.

The purple color includes LI, HI, MI, and BIP districts that would support small or medium conditionally.

And the gray area on the map shows the areas within and around the CBD that would permit small as conditional use.

This gray area also includes the CBD7 area, which would allow medium size data centers conditionally.

As we were looking at the data center use type, we realized there are a series of procedural considerations for the use that are atypical.

A new data center would require a review and consideration from entergy, potentially sewage and water board, certainly the building permits division, and so we decided to stipulate these initial considerations as part of the use standards.

So first, all data center applications for conditional use must be pre-reviewed by CURO, entergy, sewage and water board, and a statement of review by those agencies must be provided to CPC before an application can be made to us.

Second, each application would be required to include a general impact assessment to provide information on electrical load, water usage, expected noise levels, and a description of the mitigation efforts to be undertaken.

The building and site design is largely similar to other industrial permitted use types, which are required to comply with the underlying zoning districts regulations for bulk yard design and landscaping.

Staff includes density and distance restrictions.

First, all data centers must be 500 feet, which is roughly three blocks from all residentially zoned properties.

In industrial districts, LI, HI, MI, and BIP data centers must also be 500 feet from one another to limit any proliferation in a certain district.

And in the CBD, only one data center is permitted per building to limit the potential for entire buildings becoming into data centers.

There are some examples of use university campuses seeking to construct data centers nationwide.

Staff includes an allowance for universities and medical facilities subject to the institutional master plan requirements in Article 15 to seek data centers as a use allowance within their master planning process.

Lastly, on-site power generation is prohibited except for backup purposes.

So staff recommends approval of the proposed language.

However, this morning, we realized a noticing issue whereby the description of the zoning docket described the interim zoning district that was previously considered instead of this text amendment to create a definition around data centers.

And because of this, I think we will recommend deferral.

Can you repeat that last part again?

Right.

The discovery this morning.

What we found this morning is that while the zoning docket case number was listed on our public notice documents, the description actually referenced the interim zoning district that you all reviewed previously instead of this text amendment.

And so for that purpose, I think we would recommend deferral.

So just to follow up on that, something we've done in the past when we've had a noticing issue and it's really kind of a belts and suspenders thing that we want to make sure that there's no possibility that somebody's going to challenge an ultimate decision based on a procedural uh mistake.

So again, I think what we are going to suggest, and uh Laura, can you just refresh on the timing?

We have to notice it three consecutive weeks, so we're not going to be able to make the August 11th meeting.

Is that correct?

Sabine, you would probably.

Yes, the notice for that meeting actually just went out at the end of last week.

Right.

So we would suggest the August 25th, I think would be the earliest that we could defer it to.

And do we hold a public hearing, so to speak, if there's anybody here, or do we defer it from vote on a deferral before that?

I mean, I'm comfortable with having if people are here to testify to have them testify.

Yeah, that's usually what we do with the deferral.

Okay.

And then when we hear it again, does the report get we pick up where we left off, or do we uh read the staff report again and go through this whole process again?

I think what we've done.

We want to hear Laura again.

We've read it again.

Um there's uh just a handful of people here, so um we'll probably do it again.

I'm assuming there will be more people in the audience.

Um is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak on this issue?

Yeah.

Great, coming up.

Did you fill out a card?

Terrific.

And then uh while while we're getting your card, I have a card from Susan Johnson, but again, you don't want to speak.

So we have one speaker.

And that is Jesse George.

Yes, and that'll be very brief.

Thank you, Jesse Jordan on behalf of the Alliance for Affordable Energy.

Just want to say uh thank you for to the Commission staff for their work on these recommendations.

Um also for including the recommendations that the Alliance provided uh in their report to the Commission.

Uh and we uh are in full support of a prohibition on hyperscale data centers in New Orleans.

Um they represent a major threat to communities around the country and around the rest of the state.

Um, so this is an important step to protect the ratepayers and the citizens of New Orleans.

Thank you.

And then Mr.

George, I'm just gonna your address is 4519 South Claiborne, and you're with the Alliance for Affordable Energy.

That's correct.

Great, thank you.

If there's nobody else in the audience who wants to to uh speak um we had a couple of comments from the Commission.

Commissioner Abeer Yes thank you.

On page four could you pull that up it was the one with the map of the you had the the red shading and like two different colors.

For opening the report like before that you had mentioned the three types of data centers that would be allowed.

So that's the one.

So the red what type of data center would that be in the zoning for those areas is that industrial or um the red area is commercial center it's uh the C1, C2, C3 and then some medical education uh areas and that would uh allow conditionally small data centers.

Okay.

And they would all be conditional use.

Because I just want to I wanted to ask that question because the community is kind of confused you know with the term data center now we have the different categories.

So that needs to be um actually explained so that the public will understand you know what will be allowed if it's going to be allowed.

Okay.

Okay.

That's it.

Thank you.

I had a question.

Um so hyper size is not allowed anywhere?

Yeah yes it's prohibited larger hyperscale so anything greater than a hundred thousand square feet or greater than twenty megawatts would be prohibited.

And that's really based on our conversations with a lot of the different people that we spoke with from a lot of different entities um twenty megawatts is considered a pretty high power draw um as as we understand it's a very like high industrial type of use and so um beyond that is you're getting into a realm of of something I think that didn't seem appropriate um for us even to conditionally consider.

And I had one more question but so hypersize brings to mind hyperdrive from Star Wars which is an alternative dimension across the galaxy at millions of times the speed of light and we probably don't need that in Orleans Parish.

Why did you allow um uh conditional uses in the C B D seem it just strikes me to be inappropriate to have a uh data center for in the midst of um yeah um so what we found is you know there are existing data centers in the C B D that are taking up small office spaces.

We really tried to find out exactly how much office space they were taking up and we were unsuccessful in that endeavor.

But we do know that they there are data centers that exist downtown that offer different services to different types of clients maybe they're hosting their data they're they're um doing other things.

And we felt like that could be an appropriate use for some empty office spaces.

I mean it's a way to use some office existing vacant office space and we talked with other cities and saw use case examples um where they did you know sort of entire building rehabs and they were putting data centers in.

We didn't feel like that was necessarily appropriate for New Orleans as you really want um to to keep those office buildings as like as office buildings and to be utilized that way but this seemed like potentially an appropriate sort of interim use for vacant spaces and so that's why maybe you limited it to one one per building that's why we set a limitation of one per building so 2000 square feet is is roughly oftentimes like the square footage of entire floor.

So we found that to be sort of the high end and then you know it was the sense that um you know you would only have one per building so you would limit that.

To add to that there's one um one category which is the C B D 7 district which is the biomedical district.

And then the electric uh I'm just envisioning a data center that sucks a lot of electricity and some big office building goes dark, which is you know admittedly a um so that would be up that would be part of the enter G review process before it's even submitted to CPC.

So the idea, and that's why we had that first use standard is that that all these applications would sort of be pre-reviewed and pre-approved.

And so entergy would be able to say, oh yes, we can support this type of entergy draw this new facility.

And so we would have proof of that throughout the conditional use process.

So um that would come first.

Great.

Any other oh, Commissioner Pochet?

I just have a comment.

A thank you to you and the team that put together this report.

I you're you're tackling a very complex issue.

And I'm happy to know that we're actually deferring this because I'd hope there'd be a lot more public participation um in in this particular docket item.

You've done a great job of a thorough analysis um of a very complex issue and presented it very plainly and clearly with rationale and justification that is very simple to comprehend.

I'm saying that because for the record, I encourage anyone who has an interest in this case to thoroughly read this report because it clearly defines what we're dealing with and what we're not and answers a lot of questions that were in my mind prior to being here today.

So um great job with this.

This is the kind of work that I know is hard to tackle, and um you've set us up for success, the public and the commission in terms of having an honest dialogue and debate debate about moving forward with this.

I also know that this is a an emerging industry.

Um it existed on some microscopic level for a long time, which is what what we identify here in the report.

And you all have uh worked well with some uh comparable cities to learn from their mistakes and devise a set of recommendations that hopefully can be um uh uh a trailblazing as additional cities begin to develop their regulatory environment around this.

So thank you for the work that you all put in this and I again really encourage everyone to read this report very thoroughly.

Thanks.

Yeah, I echo that as you were speaking.

It was easy to follow your rationale going from zoning district to uses.

Um it was clear that you thought about all that.

Um other comments from the commission?

And then we uh would need a motion to defer.

I'd like to move to defer to the August 25th CPC meeting.

I seconded.

Commissioner Abe or seconds.

If there's no discussion, uh a call for the vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Five eyes, no nays.

Motion passes.

We'll be back on um the twenty fifth.

Um Mr.

George, you're welcome to come back on the twenty-fifth.

But if not, your comments are in the record.

Um ratifications, they're do we have any?

Yes.

Uh it is in your package.

It is up there.

Uh it is a list of minor subdivision that we are in the process of approving administratively your ratifying or decision that those subdivision can be reviewed and approved at administrative level.

So can we get a motion to approve the subdivision ratifications?

So moved.

Commissioner Pochet.

A second.

Commissioner Abear seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Five eyes.

Any nays?

None?

That passes.

And do I need a motion for adjournment or can I just declare it adjourned?

Always wondered about that.

Can I get a motion for adjournment?

Yeah.

I move to adjourn meeting.

Commissioner Abear.

Commissioner Jackson Seconds.

All in favor?

I've eyes.

Motion passes, meaning adjourned.