City Planning Commission.

So this The Retail sale of tobacco nicotine and hemp covers this portion for larger establishments that do not sell this as their primary product With that we also redefined the retail goods establishment to include language that prohibits the sale of tobacco nicotine cannabis and consumable hemp unless those uses are allowed within the zoning district and comply with all applicable regulations So that was just some background so at the April 14th meeting the CPC and members of the public provided some recommendations as far as other ways to amend the The text amendment just because of the fact that there was a large concern for disproportionate concentrations and you know other areas as well as members of the public being concerned that Proximity to residential is a very large concern. So The first recommendation was limiting the hours there was no specific set of hours that Were defined at that meeting, but staff noted that the proposed distant requirement increases Which I'm going to get to in a moment This would offset the need for limiting hours as the reported disturbances and what could take place Those areas would now become legal non-conforming where these current establishments are So there's unfortunately no way to go back in time and revoke any licenses or you know altering current business hours for these establishments, however future Establishments that would obtain permits. We would not see in that staff finds we would not see any Disturbances to residential or child child-friendly zones because of how far and few between these businesses would be With that that also gets the point of having a distance requirement between medical marijuana and smoke shops from residential zoning staff fully concurs with that agreement and therefore is adding the Recommendation for a 500-foot distance not only from child-friendly uses but from residential zonings as well and that's also with The point that smoke shops cannot be within 1,000 feet of one another as well So that you're basically increasing the distance to where you it's it's physically impossible unless someone rezones a large chunk to just have a Large concentration of them. It's it still wouldn't be as dense as what is currently allowed and That brings us to point number four, which is to ensure careful consideration of potential Disparate impacts in certain neighborhoods if the distance limitations are increased. It's the same thing This was a big concern with properties that are located in New Orleans East Especially that have large amounts of land that have the potential for either that are currently zoned commercial or could be zoned commercial the Distance requirements would alleviate those concerns staff finds just because of the fact that It is not possible to have such a large concentration of these retail establishments With that council also Had as part of their motion that they sent to CPC for this text amendment was to increase the buffer to 750 feet between residential zonings and child-friendly locations, but we noted that in our study, a large portion of the municipalities that we found of similar nature of uses, they had a 500-foot average, and with the 1,000-foot distance between the other smoke shops, that 500 feet was the more comfortable number that we could stay with, just because I don't think an extra 250 feet would make a difference, especially when you're considering the proximity to the residential zoning. So as far as how zoning districts were permitted or considered, staff proposes permitting all three uses by right in districts where retail sales of packaged alcohol are currently allowed, either as permitted or conditional uses. Each use will be subject to distance requirements that limit potential locations and establish parameters to protect public health and safety. So where you have alcohol allowed, whether permitted or conditional use, you will have the sale of cannabis, tobacco, or ancillary uses such as that. So by creating new language to address the increasing population of smoke shops and marijuana retailers, the text amendment puts the comprehensive zoning ordinance ahead of ever-changing regulations and would prevent sensitive areas from being affected by these uses in high concentrations, while also allowing these uses to still function as commercial establishments. This keeps the comprehensive zoning ordinance in line with the city code and the Smoke-Free Air Act, which is intended to be amended also to increase their 300-foot distance to 500 feet, and this would also make it easier for safety and permits to have more enforceable measures for licensing and land use. With that, staff recommends modified approval of Zoning Docket 098-26, and we are happy to answer any questions. Good job. Thank you. Staff, do you have any questions right now? I mean, commissioners? If not, then Ms. Daisy Ellis. I remember we learned a lot from you when you came and spoke in April. Yes, hello, thank you. I'm Daisy Ellis. Do I do my address here? Okay, I live at 1717 South Dupree, 70125. I am here representing NOHHS, our Health and Human Services Department. Similarly, as I was in April, Health and Human Services is supportive of these zoning changes. We are particularly excited about making it more difficult to sell tobacco in child-friendly locations, and we think that having buffers of tobacco, cannabis, and nicotine away from child-friendly locations is going to be very beneficial over time in reducing youth initiation of use of these products, have less youth exposure to advertising of these products and point-of-sale exposure, and overall just help make our city a healthier place. We know tobacco is still one of the major causes of chronic disease in New Orleans and across the whole country, so I just want to say thank you to the CPC staff for their work on this, and NOHHS is supportive of this zoning change. Thank you. I don't have any other cards to speak on this matter.

Is anyone else here to speak? If you would, please come up, and if you didn't fill out a card, please fill one out after. We filled out cards. Cards in opposition? Yes, Ms. Susan Johnson. Thank you. I had you in the wrong pile, but you remember to state your name and address. Appreciate it. Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Town of Carrollton. Watch, I'm not paid to be here. In opposition, the suggested distancing requirements and hours of operation are insufficiently strict, and marijuana retailers should not be permitted use in mixed-use zoning, but my objections will follow in a letter of public comment because I missed the commenting deadline. Apparently, along with the rest of the city, with one exception, the DeVilliers Law Group, seeks in a two-page letter to assert the vested rights of their client, NOLA Cannabis Company, the powerful medical cannabis lobby that runs a full-page ad almost every day in the Journal of Record. That's $13,000 to $14,000 per ad in the print version alone of the paper. And, in fact, Georgia's media group has never linked their good friend, Boise Bollinger, to the NOLA Cannabis Company ownership in their content, never. So while attorney John B. Davis claims that the stigma of the use of medical cannabis has been vanquished, it's plain that the stigma of a sale still persists. So what about these ads and the billboards on Canal Street and Loyola Avenue? Why does the company that markets itself as the only game in town for THC cannabis need to advertise so intensively because they actually do have a competitor? Cannabis that's available on the street, which is known to be better and cheaper than the legal cannabis product. And, in short, the use standards suggested by the CPC for Orleans Parish are too favorable to the one business in control of legal THC cannabis cultivation in Louisiana and in New Orleans, the distribution also. This is no accident. This lobby is exerting its influence on the Moreno administration, which has been publicly linked to Good Day Farm and Boise Bollinger since both of these parties co-sponsored the mayor's inauguration ceremony. Please deny. Thank you. Thank you. And, Mr. Ryan, you have a card ceded to you, so you have four minutes to speak. Please remember to state your name and address. Hi. Thank you. My name is Ryan Boehm. I live on 8009 Willow Street here on my own behalf. You may remember me from the last time we met on this issue. I'm a next-door neighbor to 1407 Carrollton, which is the dispensary that is next to the Nix Library and borders eight other residential houses and lots, no other commercial space on that block. I am here in opposition solely because while I realize and I appreciate that this would be grandfathered in, essentially, there are lots of outstanding issues with that property. I share a 120-foot property line with them. They have not been good neighbors or honest brokers. And one very specific thing in the way that this is written is that by not regulating hours, by not putting anything in about hours, you're actually giving them license to extend their current hours. The current hours of that business are nine to nine, seven days a week. And it's been really difficult for the neighborhood because there's no time away from the noise, the traffic, the trash, and the use of cannabis, which is illegal but not enforced in any way. And so that's a very concrete point. I still think while I know that there's very little this body probably can do in terms of reinforcing something that has already been permitted, that the city government, which arrived late to this issue, I think that that's stated clearly in your report, it is incumbent upon them to try to do what they can to remediate it as much as possible. So it takes the burden off of the neighbors, off of the residents. I'll remind you I have two small children. It's a daily occurrence that not only are people consuming marijuana in the parking lot, which blows into all of our yards, and they are also coming now especially that it is in the wake of the Act 305, which has made it illegal, a felony now to smoke cannabis within 2,000 feet of a school, which they are in. They have been a little more strict about enforcing in the parking lot, which has then resulted in people sitting in front of my house or a neighbor's house, smoking pot, 9 a.m. school hours. Kids are being dropped off across the street to the Brennan Behavioral Group. My kids are getting in the car, et cetera. My wife is coming home alone from walking the dogs. There's people sitting in front of the house smoking pot with their bags, clearly. I regularly see their employees get in their cars, roll a joint, whatever, smoke something, and then drive off. They drive onto our street, onto Willow, often make a left-hand turn out of the parking lot, down the wrong way of the street, where kids are playing, et cetera. The city has done nothing to enforce the violations. There is no patrolling. When we have talked to NOPD or TUPD, because people have entered our property and gone partially into our backyard and down our alley, they have sort of said, well, it's legal now, right? So what are we supposed to do? There needs to be pressure at least put on by whether it's this body, council person McCarran, the Moreno administration, whoever, in coordination with the quality of life officers of NOPD, to do something about the adverse effects. And I think the most concrete thing that would really affect people's lives in the neighborhood is hours, is limiting the fact that it's open seven days a week, the fact that it's open late at night. They are also leaving often much later than 9 o'clock. So people, the security guards, the employees, they will leave at 10, 30, 11, right? And they are often blasting music as they leave the parking lot, right? They're waking up my kids, they're waking me up. It's a real problem, and especially neighbors in Carrollton have seen a lot of increased traffic.

We've seen a lot on Willow, too. They also have a huge amount of trash that they're dealing with, and so these are all concerns. And that's why I'm here. Otherwise, I fully support all the good things that this report does. It's just this issue of the... Do you all have any questions for this gentleman? Is there anything else that you'd like to add? Those are my main points, and I just want to thank you for your time. I really appreciate this report and a lot of the good things that it does. I just think it is leaving a real... It has no teeth for the one business that is currently... The one medical marijuana dispensary that is currently in a residential neighborhood. It's the only one. While I really applaud it, I'm just not sure what it accomplishes. I appreciate you coming back to Chambers. I've definitely been driving by the property more and more and realize what a nuisance it is, particularly right there in Carrollton, and then to be able to live next door to the property. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is anyone else here to speak? Yes. I just want to apologize. There was one discrepancy. So I said in my presentation that we wouldn't be adding hours of operation. It's the changing of the hours of operation. So they're proposed for the use standards to be 7 o'clock AM until 10 o'clock PM on weekdays and 8 o'clock AM until 10 o'clock PM on weekends. And that's for marijuana retailers. And it's the same for smoke shops. So I know, obviously, that's not addressing the gentleman's primary concerns. But I just wanted to clarify that there are hours included with the use standards. But these are extended hours than what the current property that he's speaking about are operating on, since that's 9 to 9? Correct. But that's with the understanding that they are going to be not in proximity to residential or child-friendly locations. But obviously, if the CPC finds you want to change the hours, you're within your right to do that. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Hebert? I have a question. If the property is sold, would the new owner be grandfathered in or not? So the way it works is that there is an occupational license for what would not be a legal non-conforming use. The new owner would have six months within the original tenant's departure to basically have that window of being grandfathered in. So they would have six months. Is that correct? Great question. Is there a reason or consideration for not having all marijuana retailers as conditional use versus permitted, regardless of the district? I think I'll defer to Ms. Rachel on that. It's because there is such a limit in the number that can be allowed in the state. It's 30 total for the entire state. It's 10 total and then two satellite locations each for a total of 30. So they're already severely limited. And then with the 500-foot distance requirement from child-friendly locations and from residential districts, we felt that that was sufficient. And what happens in the future if somehow the state becomes much more lenient in this application? Would we then modify ours to be a bit more stringent? Because we don't know what the future will hold in that respect. Yeah, it's hard to predict the future. I would imagine that should it become more lenient, that there would be probably a tax amendment that would modify the regulations surrounding that use. Great. Thank you. Is anyone concerned about the hours that would be moving forward? It'd be 7 to 10 and 8 to 10. I think just given the limitation of where it is, I think the hours would seem appropriate, in my opinion. But in the case of its existing and where it's currently located, that is problematic. Yeah. It wouldn't apply, right? Would these regulations then apply to that existing? Right. It doesn't, right? Correct. You're correct. I was just thinking in general. If there's no questions, then for staff, that would only be my one concern, would just be shortening the hours. I mean, I understand people work all sorts of hours. But I don't understand what you're saying, but there should be some regulations that a quality of life officer, for example, could assist these neighborhoods with problem dispensaries. So is there anything in any of the offices that would control these types of businesses? Top of my head, I mean, obviously, NOPD would have to, any disturbances would have to be reported to NOPD. But if they're not typically a retail goods establishment, from my understanding, everything has to be contained on the premises, inside the premises. So if there's exterior issues, certainly maybe the Department of Code Enforcement would have to address those. But like I said, the gentleman's concerns, obviously, they have not been addressed. Not that I'm aware of, unless. Commissioner Flick? I was just going to say maybe there needs to be some regulations in place, not through this body, but in terms of enforcement with steeper penalties. I'm sure there are very few. Would anyone like to put a motion forward? I would ask Ms. Ellis, as far as health, would the Smoke-Free Air Act, with the increased distance, would that help alleviate the concerns of individuals smoking outside the premises? Or does it only apply to tobacco? Is marijuana not included? That's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. Thank you. The Smoke-Free Air Act does apply to smoking marijuana, as well. It currently prohibits smoking marijuana in any indoor places where smoking cigarettes is prohibited, as well as near certain public spaces, like Lafayette Square and some of those kind of park areas. In our intended updates to the Smoke-Free Air Act, we are working to add a buffer of marijuana We are working to add a buffer of no smoking within 25 feet of the entrances or windows of places where smoking is prohibited. So in that sense, I do think that would probably address that man's concern. Sorry, sir, I don't remember your name. OK. Thank you. All right, commissioners.

I'd like to make a motion to approve Zoning Docket 098-26 with the staff modified approval. Thank you, Commissioner Hebert. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Flick. Any discussion besides adding better enforcement around in the city as a whole? Especially, we see this with short-term rentals. Now we see this with this particular cannabis situation. I would just say, just for the record, I think we should maybe do some outreach to the council person just to elevate this as a singular spot issue. I mean, I can only imagine navigating this as your own residence, your family, and the kind of volume of usage because there aren't many sites right now. So it makes it even more intense. So hopefully, where we move forward from here, we'll open up more locations. But also, we need to figure out how to triage this one thing. So Commissioner Whitry, we could talk about what outreach looks like there. Yeah, I think the neighbors comment about there's no rest from it, right? It's constant, and that can affect so many things in your lives. So thank you for coming today. Yeah. All right, we're going to go ahead and vote. Commissioner Steeg? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Yes. Commissioner Cady, yes. Commissioner Whitry, yes. Commissioner Flick, yes. Commissioner Hebert, yes. Commissioner Poche, yes. Commissioner Jackson, yes. All right, the motion carries for modified approval. Thank you. Thank you for coming today. Thank you. Are you there next time? We're going to move on to zoning docket 002-26. I do want to welcome our Councilman Green. It's rare that we have a council representative at our meeting, so thank you for coming. I wanted to acknowledge your presence. And I know we have some individuals here to speak today. Street name change 002-26 is a proposal to rename Piety Street, founded by Carver Ramsway and Florida Avenue, to Robert H. Tucker Street. The street is approximately 3,686 feet in length and would affect 117 lots and 149 addresses. 11 street signs would be affected, costing about $153 per sign, or a total of $1,681. Although the proposal would rename only a portion of Piety Street, this particular section is physically separated from other sections of the same named street by train tracks along Florida Avenue and by a shift in the city street grid pattern along Carver Ramsway. The CPC street renaming policy criteria state that streets may be named after a person who has made a demonstrable and significant impact on the city, state, or country. The staff believes that Robert H. Tucker meets the standard as someone whose actions as a prominent civil rights activist and community leader made a significant positive impact in New Orleans. Robert H. Tucker passed away in 2023 and therefore does not meet the criterion that no street shall be renamed to honor a person who has been deceased for no less than five years. However, in a previous study of the street renaming policies, the city planning commission noted its intentions to change its street renaming criteria to delete the positive impact criterion, as well as a deceased for no less than five years requirement, and to leave that evaluation to the city council. With the exception of this criterion, the request meets the rest of the CPC street renaming policy criteria. Therefore, the staff recommends approval of street name change. 00226 with a waiver of criterion number one of the street renaming policy to allow a street to be named for a person who has not been deceased for over five years. Thank you. Ms. Tucker. For Councilman Green. Please remember to state your name and address for the record. I'm Eugene Green, member of the New Orleans City Council. 1300 Perdido Street is this address, but 4939 Saint Rock Avenue. I'm pleased to be here. I want to start off by thanking you all for the work that you do. It's so very important to keeping our city, a city that is growing, a city that is enhancing the quality of life for so many people who are here. And the work that you do at no pay with all of those meetings is something that I want you to know that I recognize and everybody else recognizes who knows what the City Planning Commission does. So thank you very much. Today is an example of coming before you to ask you to do something that I feel enhances the quality of life in a particular community. The Desire community was devastated after Hurricane Katrina. The Road Home Program failed that community. And unfortunately, there's lots of negativity throughout certain parts of that community. But there is hope. There are people who are building new, for example, Gail Benson is going to be building a new school. We have a new Ninth Ward Stadium going in the Desire community. We also have a Desire Multipurpose Center, which opened within the last two years that is very, very busy. And we also have millions of dollars of street work. And that's been a deliberate effort on my part and also on the part of the previous mayor and our present mayor to invest publicly in a community that is so important, so historic to our community. So one of those investments has been in recognizing the history of that community and recognizing what the people of that community feel proud relative to. One of the things that they feel proud relative to is the Desire community has played such an important role in enhancing social action and justice in our community through its great George Washington Carver High School and through other means. So at this time, I'm asking and I'm pleased that the staff has recommended support of naming a portion of Piety Street from Florida Avenue to Johnny Jackson Boulevard, a community that has been devastated. There are 179 lots, but unfortunately there are probably just 30 houses. And I'm just so pleased that the family of Bob Tucker, led by I.M. Tucker, is saying that we're going to look at a street that isn't fully developed right now.

It's not a heavily trafficked thoroughfare, but because in the spirit of her father who wanted to do something very positive for this city, she is looking to invest in her her father's name being added to a community whose future is much better than its recent past. So we've done some things in the community such as renaming Johnny Jackson Boulevard from Louisa Street, renaming Higgins to Carver Ramsway, and those have worked out well because the members of the community are very, very pleased. But in celebration of the continuing efforts to recognize the history of that community and to encourage investment, we are proposing the name change to Robert H. Tucker, who was one of the first African Americans in a position of extreme executive importance in our city. He was a model for community involvement when there was a conflict involving the Black Panther Party and the New Orleans community, if you will, the New Orleans Police Department. He was called upon to do the negotiations that resulted in that conflict being resolved in a better way than it would have been resolved if it hadn't been for persons like him who were motivated by our community. But the reason I'm asking to name it for Robert H. Tucker Jr. is because he is very, very much a representative of what makes our city great. There are many people who are successful in our city, such as he, who was an entrepreneur and a family man who raised a great daughter who is here today. But actually, at the end of the day, he was also committed to our community. And during the 82 years of his lifetime here on earth, he made a tremendous difference in our city of New Orleans. So I appreciate the staff recommendation. I appreciate the time that you've given me. And again, I appreciate the work that you've done. And I look forward to continuing growth in the Desire community by recognizing those who have made a difference in our city and in that particular community. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Green. Do you want to speak? Okay, come on. Remember to state your name and address. Good afternoon. My name is I.M. Christian Tucker. My address is 4298 Elysian Fields Avenue. It's where my company, my business is. I just want to, while I can't recite my dad's history in New Orleans in two minutes, I do want to thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking this under consideration. Thank you, Councilman Green, for your leadership. My father was a businessman, he was a civil rights leader, he was a political activist, he was a political strategist. He did a lot of different things in this city. I could go on and on about all of that, but more than anything, my father was about business. And when I say business, I mean about equity and equity in the city of New Orleans. And my father was the very first African-American aide to Moon Landrieu, the very first African-American aide to Moon Landrieu. Very first African-American aide to any mayor in the city of New Orleans. And when my father joined hands with Moon Landrieu to integrate New Orleans, it wasn't just about bathrooms and lunch counters, it was about economic integration. And so when it comes to his legacy and his legacy in New Orleans, he served on so many different boards and commissions, all the way from the Superdome, when the dome wasn't even there. I used to make fun of my dad, I said, 130 years old. I don't even know how old the dome is, but he's twice as old as that. But he was a part of all these different initiatives to integrate New Orleans and to ensure that not only black New Orleanians were allowed into the fold, allowed into power, allowed into contracting, allowed into business, but all of New Orleans to progress, economic development-wise, business-wise, and just doing business for the right reasons. So for these reasons, I have begged, begged, begged for a portion of New Orleans that seems forgotten to some. And I'm not asking for a St. Charles Avenue street, we're not asking for anything. We're asking for an area of the desire where my father was instrumental with a group of other men around the city who have big names like Charles Elwha, like the gentleman that owns that hotel on St. Charles Avenue. Don Hubbard, thank you. These men were instrumental in bringing that conflict to a close without as much bloodshed as there could have been, and it was all about that community not being recognized then. So what a great way to honor that instance and to find more ways to be able to uplift this community and to remind the community of where they've been and the resiliency of where they've been and where they can be. And so I thank you for the consideration, I thank you for the time, and thank you again, Councilmember. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor and support? Okay, if not, we have a card in opposition. I don't have a name here, it just says street name change, so if you're here to speak, please state your name and address. I love hearing that. Right, we've all smiled because we've been in these chambers before or not. Well, thank you for coming here today and for working it out right in chambers, that's beautiful. Okay, um, any questions there, commissioners? I will make the motion. Okay. For approval of street name change 00226. With one waiver. With one waiver. And is there a second? Commissioner Jackson? Okay, we have a motion on the floor for approval with one waiver. Any discussion? What a great opportunity to be able to honor somebody who has given so much to our city. Thank you for considering this as a way to memorialize it and to plant some more seeds in the desire. Commissioner Jackson? Yeah, I know the family very well, personally, and when I was coming out of college, her dad motivated me a lot to do voter registration drives and just advocate for young people and think about the legacy of where we came from. He used to always say, if you know where you've been, you know where you're going.

So I wholeheartedly support the renaming of the street change. Thank you. So great to hear. Good news is wonderful. We need more of it. All right, Commissioner Poche? Yes, an enthusiastic yes. All right, Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Whitry? Yes. And how cool about your dad? So exciting. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. And Commissioner Steeke? Yes. All right, motion carries. Next, we're going to move on to the Transfer of Development Rights Study. We've had this one for a while, haven't we? Okay, since 2019. 2019. Okay, so we started. All right. Thank you. And I don't have any more cards here to speak on any other matters, so if you're here to speak, please make sure to bring a card up. All right. Thank you. So New Orleans City Council passed Motion M-19-195 on May 9, 2019. The motion directs the City Planning Commission to conduct a study providing recommendations for a Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR, TDR mechanism and the comprehensive zoning ordinance. This policy was a recommendation that resulted from the Canal Street study that the City Planning Commission completed in 2018, and again in 2025 when it was updated. The recommendation to implement a TDR program was intended to facilitate the renovation and maintenance of historic structures along Canal Street, specifically between Claiborne Avenue and the Mississippi River. The motion directing CPC to complete the TDR study was received in 2019. Significant process was made, but ultimately delayed due to the 2019 cyber attack, COVID-19, and competing projects. In 2024, the study was resumed with new stakeholder meetings and an analysis to reflect the post-COVID landscape of the CBD. Now, what is TDR? Every lot has a maximum legal developable area of structure on a lot. Many historic structures are not developed to the limits of their zoning envelope, especially as that envelope has increased with more permissive zoning regulations in the years after these historic structures were developed. The difference between a parcel's actual building envelope and its allowable zoning envelope constitutes its unused development rights. A TDR program allows these unused development rights to be transferred from what we call sending sites to receiving sites, where the owner of the sending site relinquishes some or all of the development rights, all of their development rights, and the owner of the receiving site gains these rights to develop beyond the receiving site's original zoning envelope. Often, the development potential of historic structures is limited by regulations or structural considerations, rendering their development rights perpetually underactualized. Jurisdictions can require that all or some of the sending site's profits are reinvested into the historic structure. Conversely, the additional development rights purchased by receiving sites can sometimes make a development financially viable. TDR is a market-based mechanism and typically requires a strong market to be a feasible and desired program. The motion directing the CPC to study TDR resulted from the Canal Street Study as a way to facilitate renovation and maintenance of the historic structures along Canal Street from the Mississippi River to Claiborne Avenue. A TDR policy was recognized as one tool to address the numerous vacancies and underutilized space above the ground floor commercial uses along the Canal Street corridor. Although the Canal Street corridor has a significant number of historic properties in need of renovation, there are contributing structures and historic landmarks throughout the CBD that could benefit from this type of program. So there is precedent for this type of program. State-enabling legislation was passed to permit this type of program in Louisiana back in the 1970s. It limits the sending and receiving sites to just the CBD. The policy was included in the 1970 CZO until the current CZO was adopted in 2015. For the 45 years the regulation was in place, it was never used. The staff researched TDR programs in other jurisdictions throughout the country. Perhaps the most robust TDR programs exist in New York City. The city implements TDR in one of four ways, zoning lot mergers, landmark transfers, special district transfers, and large-scale development plans. Landmark transfer programs, the Landmark Transfers Program is most closely aligned to a potential TDR program in New Orleans. The Landmark Transfers Program allows owners of landmarks to sell unused development rights to nearby properties in exchange for the landmark to be maintained. In 2023, New York City of Yes Program expanded eligibility and made the approval administrative, reducing the barriers to participation. Atlanta also has a TDR program that started in the 1980s as a way to preserve historic single-family homes, but has since expanded to preserve natural resources. Lastly, San Francisco has had a TDR program since 1985 that focuses on its downtown and adjacent areas to help offset development pressure on historic buildings and as a way to maintain these structures. They require a preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance plan, and the receiving sites are concentrated in the downtown commercial districts. In San Francisco, TDR credits can be bought and owned by a third party, including developers, brokers, or financial institutions. Utilizing a third party means the timing doesn't need to be perfect for a TDR transaction to transpire. A sending site can receive the funds when needed, and a receiving site can obtain the additional development rights when the development plans are ready. The state legislation that provides the framework for a municipal TDR program in New Orleans defines the areas for sending and receiving sites to that of the CBD, not just Canal Street, and staff believes there are other structures within the CBD that could benefit from this program that are not located along the Canal Street corridor.

The current and previous zoning ordinances both included programs similar to TDR in the CBD. As I had mentioned, neither have been used. Speculation can only explain why neither program is utilized, perhaps the ease of obtaining waivers through the BCA process or a lack of development interest in building beyond zoning permissions. Best practices and other cities' research indicate the critical elements to a successful TDR program center around clear regulations, alignment with market reality, and predictable outcomes. TDR works best in strong markets tied to a specific purpose, such as preservation of historic structures and where transfers are administratively approvable and therefore more predictable. The 2025 mandatory inclusionary zoning market analysis assessed development in the downtown area and found a significantly weak market. The study concluded that additional incentives may be necessary to encourage even market-rate residential development if the city seeks to increase housing production. Despite this knowledge of a weakened development market downtown, staff recommends codifying a new TDR program in two phases to allow for the potential transfer of developable rights in case it proves helpful, both for the preservation of an existing significant historic structure and for a new project. Some of the recommendations will need to be fleshed out at the text amendment stage. Unlike the existing and previous tools, staff recommends including all significant and contributing historic structures designated in local historic districts and all landmark structures as sending sites within the CBD and establishing receiving sites as any site outside of the historic districts in the CBD. The staff recommends codifying a means of ensuring that owners of sending sites are limiting their development rights in perpetuity by requiring either a deed restriction or filing under the property in civil district court. Downtown is regulated in some places by height allowance and by floor area ratio and others, and staff will need to clarify and confirm the calculation to translate both measures into a standard measurement, square feet. The staff recommends setting a limit on the receivable site's height, or FAR, to maintain relative scale and neighborhood character, likely a 20% maximum over the base zoning district's HEIDR FAR requirements. This parameter should help ensure continuity within the areas where receiving sites build beyond their zoning envelope. The staff recommends a requirement that sending sites submit or a historic structure report of the current state of the building and its needs to understand how funding should be used for structural integrity of the building. The owner of the sending site would also be required to submit a plan for how the proceeds of the sale will be used to preserve the historic building, including how the proceeds of the sale will contribute to the needs assessment of the building. Any proceeds from the sale of a building Any proceeds not necessary for the preservation of the building may be used at the owner's discretion. Lastly, the staff recommends requiring that receiving sites submit development plans to the executive director for review by the Design Advisory Committee and to prohibit development credits from being used for the construction of parking as a principal structure. Sending sites. Staff recommends defining the sending sites Staff recommends defining the sending sites as all significant or contributing structures within local historic CBD districts and all landmark historic properties. These are the yellow areas on the map and the red dots are the landmark properties but within the study area boundaries. Receiving sites. The receiving sites staff recommends defining receiving sites to all sites outside of the designated historic districts within the CBD. All non-historic areas of the CBD are in the shaded gray. Areas outside of the shaded areas would be ineligible to receive additional development rights through the TDR program. Existing preservation programs. The program's goal is to create a mechanism that helps preserve historic structures. It should be noted that there are existing preservation programs that building owners can take advantage of. The DDD has a facade grant program which offers funding to improve facades along Canal Street. Another is the Historic Preservation Easement Program through the Preservation Resource Center whereby the property owner grants a portion of the development rights to a non-profit and receives a federal tax benefit. There are also historic tax credits available that buildings can qualify for. And there is an existing tool in our zoning ordinance called the Landmark Transfer Program which is specific to historic landmark properties. So, next steps. So, today is the public hearing for this study. Then it will move to the City Council. The City Council can decide if they want to move forward to enact a zoning ordinance. any changes to the zoning ordinance, and if so, they'll request a text amendment to the CZO by motion. That action begins the CPC staff process to develop the text and put it in front of this body for consideration, which would then be transmitted to the city council for their final review and decision. That concludes our presentation. Thank you so much. I really enjoyed that. I love hearing strong markets and preservation over and over, so that's great. Commissioners, do you have questions for staff? Just wondering if staff could maybe give a little bit more insight about the MIZ kind of definition of our market weakness or strength, if you have any additional context. Specifically from the MIZ study? Yeah, so the MIZ study found that even market rate, and it specifically looked at residential developments, that even market rate residential developments weren't feasible in the CBD in the current state of the market, which indicates that the market is weak.

Historically, the CBD has been the strongest market as indicated by the strong subcategory for MIZ, where initially it was found to be the strongest market and could support a set aside of affordable housing. And when we updated that to assess the post-COVID landscape, it was determined that it was, not only could it not support the mandatory inclusionary zoning set aside, but it can even support a market rate residential development. Oh, that's helpful. Thank you. And for context, the reason I was asking was just thinking about how this, this becomes a development incentive. I'm thinking about the stack of other development incentives and what it's gonna take to kind of push the ball in the court to strengthen the market, specifically in the CBD. So thank you. It's gonna take stack capital and different investments across the board. All that layered. There's no one here to speak, correct? No? Okay. No, not at all. I see the DDD representatives, you know, but just thinking about the context and I know this has taken some time to get to this point, but it's exciting to see us add more tools to the toolkit and really get a bit more creative knowing that we need to be competitive with cities across the country. So thank you for your hard work. I have a question. Is this something that would be applicable later on? I know that we've gone through the, all the flum designations, you know, a few months ago in terms of a number of areas being now deemed, you know, medium density, you know, really changing what that landscape looks like. It seems a bit far off for this, for this study, but just to understand if that's something that was considered. From my recollection, I don't believe any flum designations were changed in the CBD and due to the state enabling legislation, it's specific to the CBD and it can't be outside of those boundaries. Maybe one of the recommendations that we had contemplated was like lobbying the state to expand the area, the eligible areas. But right now, as it stands, it's tied to the CBD for both the receiving and the sending sites. So the flum designations, it's not as much about the zoning as it is about like the historic districts and the nature of the structure itself. And so the flum designations didn't play into our recommendations that much. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's try to move this forward if we can. We need a, don't we need a motion to transmit it to the city? Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to, what's the, what is the formal language for moving the study forward? So it's just adoption. So I'll make a motion to adopt the transfer of development rights study. Thank you. Is there a second? I second it. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor for adoption of the transfer of development rights study and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Jordan made the first and then Commissioner Aguilera made the second. So there's no discussion. Let's move for votes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Witry? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Steeke? Yes. All right. The motion carries. Thank you so much for doing such a great study and sticking with it for six years. Now we're going to move on to subdivision docket 098-26. Yes. Subdivision 098-26. This is a resubdivision for a property that's located in the HURD1. Do you mind moving to a different mic just because we're not hearing you on that one and we'd like to hear you? Hello? Yeah. All right, good. Subdivision docket 098-26 is a resubdivision for a property that's located within an HURD1 historic urban two-family residential district. The reason it's before you today is for a couple of reasons. This is a single property that contains a church and a two-family dwelling on it. The reason for it is to basically separate the two structures. So the first is that it creates a lot with multiple frontages. So this has a lot of frontage and two more perpendicular streets. And then the second is that this is an irregularly shaped lot. This is a L-shaped lot essentially to allow the church to be on its own independent parcel and for the duplex to be on its own independent parcel. Staff doesn't find that there are any, there would be any issues to the surrounding area. It's just so that the house and church can remain on their own independent lots. So functionally, neither sites would be altered too much. Staff recommends approval just because there's, excuse me, I'm not doing great today. You're doing great. Take a deep breath, we got this. Like I said, there would be no intense land use changes. There would be no increase in intensities. Therefore staff recommends tentative approval of the subdivision subject to one proviso found in your staff report. Thank you. Anyone here to speak? Any questions commissioners? All right, let's make a motion. I'll make a motion for tentative approval, one proviso for zoning docket 9826. Thank you, Commissioner Flick. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Poche. There's a second on the floor for approval and let's go ahead. Any discussion? Commissioner Steeke. Yeah. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Commissioner Witry. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Flick. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Poche. Yes. All right, the motion carries. Thank you. Subdivision docket 099-26. Subdivision docket 099-26 is a major subdivision request to resubdivide lot M, square 405, address 2900 South Claiborne into two distinct lots. Presently on the lot is a large commercial property with multiple commercial tenants and a detached fast food building. The applicant's intention is to have the main building and the detached fast food building sit on separate lots of record. Staff finds that the request is complying with the master plan and based on our findings, staff is recommending approval. Thank you. Is anyone here to speak? Great. Any questions, commissioners? If not, I'll be looking for a motion.

Make a motion for approval of zoning docket 099-26 for approval with one proviso. Thank you. Is there a second? I second. Thank you. Commissioner Flick made a motion for approval with one proviso. Commissioner Hebert does second. Any discussion? If not, let's vote. Commissioner Steeg. Yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Commissioner Witry. Yes. Commissioner Flick. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Poche. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. He's not here. Okay. We have enough, so the motion carries. And now we're going to move on to subdivision ratifications. Mr. Perl. Yes, there are five subdivisions that meet the criteria for administrative approval and you would be ratifying that determination. Thank you. So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Flick. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan. Any discussion? Commissioner Poche. Yes. Commissioner Hebert. Yes. Commissioner Flick. Yes. Commissioner Witry. Yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Commissioner Steeg. Yes. All right, the motion carries. We don't have any other votes. That was Commissioner Flick and then Commissioner Jordan. Any other questions, comments? If not, I'll look for a motion for adjournment. Motion to adjourn. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. Everyone is good with this. Thank you.