City Planning Commission.

main library and we'll show that in a minute fourth considering allowing or requiring that medium-sized data centers utilize their own power plants to ensure that they're off the grid staff considered this but chose not to make any changes instead staff recommends that the council and Curo closely consider what types of regulations and requirements should exist around power and coordinate that within the city code set a cap or max or limit of total data center staff considered this but determined not to make any changes setting caps is not a common practice for us in the zoning code we think this could have more unintended negative consequences and benefits overall if a data center would be interested in coming to New Orleans they would be required to go through the conditional use process which would provide oversight for each new data center review institutional allowances or exceptions for universities and hospitals and make sure they are relegated under one of the categories small medium or large the institutional allowances for universities and hospitals would require any data center to go through the conditional use process for small or medium data centers and those would be required to comply with all the use standards including the buffer restriction expand the buffer requirements to schools and residential care facilities staff considered this but maintains the proposal to establish the buffer restriction by zoning district instead of specific uses though we have seen buffers by use type established in other jurisdictions for data centers we looked at the buffer of residential and this is proposed as the proper buffer type and distance okay proviso that all data center information is public and not secret specifically so staff asked legal about adding a provisor requiring all information be public and including some language around rescission of a conditional use approved and then found to have provided information privately but this turned to be problematic the process requires that all materials submitted to us our public record and so are accessible to the public also council retains a right to rescind a conditional use once it's granted and this oversight is included within the proposal require that the city's guidelines exceed the International Building Code guidelines the IBC guidelines for data centers are not yet complete but once they are the city code could be amended to reflect them if necessary the zoning code would not be the proper place to point to the unfinished guidance but we certainly recommend the council to review the guidance once it's available and make any necessary changes to the city code if they are needed. Developing clear utility standards and approval criteria. Staff looked at examples of more specific regulatory standards and concludes that while there could be a benefit for greater more broader review, staff does not recommend any changes to the proposed text. As proposed, the staff does not provide by right permissions for larger data centers that could be negatively impactful, instead only allowing them by conditional use. Staff also requires the request be considered by Entergy and Sewage and Water Board, each of which would issue pre-review statements. Any additional standards would best be managed by City Council. Establishing ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements. Staff did review this and recommends adding an additional use standard to require an annual compliance report and reporting to safety and permits. This would be to ensure compliance with any zoning requirements, but particularly any consumption of water or power that the data center was set to comply with. Clarifying enforcement mechanisms and consequences for non-compliance. Ultimately, the council can rescind a conditional use, which is really the ultimate enforcement mechanism. There are also standard enforcement mechanisms through zoning and code enforcement that could be pursued, but no changes are proposed. Evaluating requiring closed-loop cooling systems. Staff looked at requiring closed-loop liquid cooling systems as opposed to open-loop systems, but staff believes this type of regulation is best determined by the council with advice from Curo. Evaluating cumulative citywide utility impact limits. The council, as the oversight body for Entergy and Sewage and Water Board, is the appropriate entity to review and regulate cumulative citywide impacts. However, staff is recommending an annual compliance report be submitted to safety and permits to include information on any water or power consumption as a means to check if the project complies with the provisions approved by the conditional use process. Strengthening standards for backup generation, backup power generation. Staff look at regulations around backup power and does recommend making one small change to add emergency into the use standard so it will read on-site power generation is prohibited except for emergency backup supply purposes. Developing decommissioning and site restoration requirements. There's some concerns around data centers leaving hazardous materials of abandoned. Staff believes this would be regulated by the Fire Department or potentially Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and does not recommend any changes to the proposed tax. Developing emergency response and shutdown requirements. Staff does not recommend any changes as a result of this consideration. New structures will need to be developed to withstand and maintain current operations through storms that are a threat to New Orleans. Staff is supportive of zoning and city code regulations that require backup energy and encourages the use of batteries and clean power sources in lieu of fossil fuels. We recommend that this language be addressed by City Council. Evaluating whether pending data center building code standards warrant additional provisions.

As earlier discussed, staff recommends future adoption of the data center guidance being developed by the International Code Council likely to be reflected in the city code. Okay, size regulations in a real-world context. So we have some examples of visuals that can be used. This is City Hall, a small data center which would be conditionally allowed would be up to 20,000 square feet which is just under the size of one floor in City Hall. Okay, this is an example of a data center in Baton Rouge. These are just some example photos from literally Google Maps and the website from DART points but it's just to provide general information for the public. This is a 25,000 square foot data center in Baton Rouge. This is another one. This is a just over 5,600 square foot data center by DART points in Shreveport. This is the example of the Lumen data center. That's 1250 Poitras Street and they occupy a suite within that building. This is our real-world example of a buffer restriction which is from the property line of City Hall to the property line of the main library. This is 569 feet but we're all familiar with City Hall and so this is an example of what that distance would look like. All right, recommendations, use standards. We're going to go through these again that were previously presented. A new data center would be required to have a review and consideration from ENTERGY, potentially sewage and water board, certainly building permits, and these would be stipulated in initial considerations as part of the use standards. The 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. 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 industrially permitted use types which are required to comply with the underlying zoning districts regulations for bulk yard design landscaping. Staff includes density and distance restrictions. First, all data centers must be 500 feet from all residentially zoned properties. In industrial districts, data centers must also be 500 feet from one another, and in the CBD, only one data center is permitted per building to limit the potential for multiple units within one building. Any facility that was approved by conditional use must seek a re-approval for any expansion of the use, either by physical square footage, increase in consumption of energy or water, or other expansion. A medical or educational campus subject to the master plan requirements could seek an entitlement to a data center by way of the conditional IMP process, institutional master plan process. That data center would still be subject to all the use restrictions and the distance and density restrictions. On-site power generation is prohibited except for emergency backup purposes. And lastly, a new annual compliance report would be required. It would require that each property owner submit an annual report to the Department of Safety and Permits on particularly water and power consumption. Use permissions. Small data centers would be conditional uses in mixed-use CBD in industrial districts. Medium data centers would be conditional uses in industrial districts, and CBD 7, large and hyperscale data centers would be prohibited citywide. This is a map showing the locations that could conditionally allow small or medium data centers, and this is the map with the 500 foot buffer from residentially zoned districts. That concludes our presentation. Staff recommends approval of proposed languages with language with the modifications, and we're here for any questions. Thank you. Before we get started, I would like to ask if a fellow commissioner could suspend the rules. Uniting and Strengthening New Orleans East Neighborhoods and Businesses submitted additional information. We should all have that up here, but we'd like to make it as part as the public record. I'll make a motion to suspend the rules to accept the material. Thank you. Is there a second? I second the motion. Thank you. Commissioner Jordan and Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Thank you. And any discussion? If not, we'll go ahead and vote. Commissioner Jackson? No. Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Richards? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. All right, the motion carries. Yes. I have a comment. So I'm noticing, well this is October 10th, that was this particular correspondence. Did anyone receive comments from ENOAC on September 29th? Because in that correspondence, and I just want a full disclosure, they had my email because I used to work with that organization. But in that particular document, they had cc'd all of us as commissioners, and I feel that we should have received a hard copy or an email with that information. I believe that all the email communications that we received were included in the packet. Today? I'm sorry? When? When was that? When the packet went out last week. Last week? With the staff report. There's a, there's the staff report and then there's all the attachments, and that includes all the correspondence that we've received. Okay, and the one dated August 10th, that one we received today? Everything that we should, everything should be in there. If it's not, we can certainly make sure that it is in there. I'm just going to request that when it comes, when this is received by the CPC, that it is sent to us on that date and not a later date.

So when, when did we receive the packet? So what the CPC rules suggest is, or require, is that anything that is submitted to the CPC in writing is packaged with the staff report and distributed to the commissioners a week prior to the meeting. So it's been, I think there have been three meetings that this has been on the agenda, so all of the written comments that we received in each, prior to each of those three meetings should be part of the record already, and if there's something that is missing, please let me know and we'll make sure that it is. I'm really, and I'm just referring to the September 29th and this one that we just received on October, well it was emailed on October 10th. So the September 29th one is the recommendations that, or changes in the, in the report? It's, yes. Right, so I know that the staff report did respond to some of those suggestions? Well actually it's a request for extension of deadline for CPC action. Yes, so and I can respond to that if you would like. Yes. So, so as you all recall at the last hearing, Enonac had requested a 60 day delay and the commission adopted a 59 day delay. That corresponds with the 120 day limit that the CPC has set. the City Council put on the motion itself. In other words, the City Council extended the typically 60-day review period for the commission, extended that to 120 days. That authority for you as commissioners to consider this application expires on October the 23rd, okay? So the 59 days that you all granted extended through October the 23rd. Our regular meeting schedule has a meeting on the 13th and the 27th. So we were unable to docket this for the 27th for consideration, because that would have been beyond both the extension that you all, the deferral you all adopted, as well as the extension that the council adopted. So after receiving Enonac's letter requesting the extension, we reached out to Council Member Hughes' office, we reached out to Council Member Morrell's office to see if they were supportive of having the council grant an additional extension based on the request. Both of them directed us to pursue the current timeline, which is to have this hearing today on the 13th. And so that's what we are doing. We do not have the authority to do anything at any later meeting beyond the 23rd. Thank you for that explanation. I think you're also referencing, are you wanting that October 10th notes to have been forwarded to us on October 10th? Yes, I think it's just as important, yes. So I think that's just a point that she wanted to make, is that this was potentially received on October 10th, and she would like for the commission to receive information as they've received it, which is. Wait, and, and. So, let me just say we're happy to do that. I'm just, I'm just, what my hesitation is, is that the CBC's rules of procedure do not allow us to do that. And so that's why I brought it to the meeting today, to have you all suspend the rules, and that way you all could suspend the rules, and have it officially on the vote, and incorporate it into the record. And that's, we don't have the discretion at the staff level to forward things that come after the deadline. Okay, and just for clarification, if we are CC'd on some correspondence, you're going to place it in a packet? If- Because the community does not have our email addresses, so we cannot get it directly from- No, anything, so they shouldn't have your email addresses. We should be the ones receiving any correspondence that goes to the commission. And we package it up, and we send it to you all as commissioners. And the reason for that is that we want to make sure that you all are working from the same information. So, if we are, if you all are receiving things, different information so that different members have different information. No, and I appreciate that, I was just thinking that if CPC gets it, your office gets it, and we're listed on the documentation, that we could be sent it through CPC, and not an individual. So, yes, anything that we receive, we forward it to you as part of the packet. Okay, and anything that a commissioner receives, they should forward immediately to Bob's office? Yes, we will, if it's within the deadline, we'll include it in the packet. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you for addressing that. So, the rules have been suspended. Commissioners have had an opportunity to review this additional information. We are now going to go into the- Can I make one more statement? Yes, of course. So, anything that does come in after the deadline, we don't throw it out. We put it into the transmittal that we send to the city council. So, when they are considering it on review, it includes that as well. So, anything that comes in after the deadline still becomes part of the record, it's just it's not something that is considered by the CPC. Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to our public comment. We have no cards in support of this docket item, and no cards in informational only. It looks like we have straight opposition, and we have several to get to. I'm going to call three names at once, so please be prepared so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Kenyon Smith, you have nine cards seated to you. You get- We have 18 minutes. Well, we have 18 minutes, yeah. Under our new rules, it will be different, but we've not, unless someone's suspending the rules to address this. No, I think we need to get through everything unless- Okay, we haven't necessarily followed those. Okay, Mr. Smith, you have 18 minutes. And then, Roland Barth and Ahmad Jamar, you're after that. Am I on? Yes, you're on, go ahead. Good afternoon, members of this esteemed body of the commission. Thank you for this time, and thank you to my fellow citizens. As I said before, my name is Kenyon Smith. I live at 7033 Lake Willow Drive.

I am the interim president of the East New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Commission, affectionately known as ENONAC, representing over 80,000 residents and representing a square mileage area, which represents 65% of the city of New Orleans. So this, as you will certainly understand, is a critical issue, particularly because these types of developments need land. And so while this is a city-wide issue, it impacts certain neighborhoods in a prescribed way. I'd like to start first with a couple of just procedural notes. And I wanna commend, again, the staff, Mr. Rivers, for their work. And please don't take anything that is said as disparagement on your dedication and commitment to the citizens of New Orleans. However, as a trained lawyer and a law professor, that was admonished one time in the past by a fellow professor who said, you can't get to your substantive argument if I tie you up in procedure. That being that procedure is an important part of everything that we do. Those who watch football know that if you have a false start, you can never score your touchdown. And so we have to make sure that we follow our procedures. The Planning Commission has to follow its procedures. The City Council has to follow its procedures. Enonag has to follow its procedures, so on and so forth. And so with that, I know that the letter that I sent most recently was considered under your rules after the deadline for submitting public comment. There are some comments that we would have in another frame regarding any tweaks that you would make to your rules, because we believe that we have some insight and input that we would offer there as well in considering what is public input or public comment formally versus other submitted communication. But we'll hold that for another day. One of the things that I stated in my letter for everyone's benefit was that we found it unfortunate that this matter was placed on this agenda last week. However, if you check the City of New Orleans website, the City Planning Commission's website, the public notice for this meeting did not contain this item. That agenda, that item, that public notice stated in it that any public comment had to be submitted eight days prior to this meeting. So the agenda was amended to place this item on the agenda after the eight-day time limit for public comment had passed. We find that to be fundamentally unfair. We believe that that does present some legal issues. We strongly encourage you to consult with your legal counsel regarding that matter, and it is one of the primary reasons we believe it would be premature for you to move forward with respect to this matter. To our second point regarding the 59 days, it is my understanding and my reading of both the law and policy that if a body votes for a particular time period, it is not within the purview of the administrative staff to shorten that time. And so even though the minutes of the meeting of August 25th were not provided publicly, which is another matter that we'll address again at another time, my view of the video that was made available, as well as the CPC staff report, they both cement and they both reinforce the fact that this body, as was noted, did vote to defer this matter for 59 days. And so a plain reading under the law of 59 days means 59 days. It does not mean 39 days. It does not mean 49 days. It does not mean 69 days. Now, I understand and do accept the explanation that was given to you that to defer this matter beyond the time limit given by the city council would have legal implications for your consideration of this matter, but I would respectfully suggest to you that that is not germane to the primary consideration for you as an independently appointed body that you do your job and let the city council do its job in a separate matter. My reading of the zoning code is that this body, if it does not consider a matter like this report in a particular time frame, then it is considered a denial by this body. So you do not get arrested, you do not go to jail, you do not have any other consequence if you do not move on this matter, if you do not approve it today, other than it would be an effective denial. I'm happy to be corrected if I am in error in any way there. With respect to any direction, admonition, or other advice that was given by the city council or any members thereof, who are good friends, but we did request that that body extend your period to allow that we did not or have not as of today received a response to that. We will address that with them in a separate consideration, but that does not change what the law and what policy provides, that when this body acts, that straps us into the time periods and that straps us into the procedures that are to be adhered to in that particular context. There was... Oh, man, there was another... Got to let my phone lock up on me. Hold on. I'm going to get it back. It won't take me too long, either. My other note. Come on. There we go. point also that was that precipitated this there were as I appreciate it two council motions one council motion as you all to study this issue and to consider it make your judgment and then send the judgment to the city council there was a separate there was a separate city council motion that that that provided for interim zoning district or an I.Z.D.

and those who don't know what an IZD is it is provided as I appreciate it and again I'm willing to be corrected if I am in any way in error provided under our city charter as well as under the city code of ordinances for essentially a moratorium per the per the charter and per the the code that moratorium exists for one year that IZD was put into place on January twenty eighth meaning that that that IZD will be in place until January twenty eighth or twenty seventh depending on how you want to count of twenty twenty seven the charter and the code as I best appreciate it allows the council should they should they see in their judgment to do so allows them to extend that IZD for an additional six months meaning that should the should the council exercise its judgment not only would we have until January twenty seventh or twenty eighth but six months beyond that in order to make sure that we have the appropriate public input make sure that we have the appropriate exchange make sure that we have the appropriate give and take that is the hallmark of our democracy again I do appreciate the work that this that this staff has done however us as we as a public being able to view it a couple of days before the meeting we believe is not sufficient I will acknowledge that I did receive a call and a couple of emails to meet with me and to meet with Enonac regarding our concerns and the like and I do appreciate honor and acknowledge that however we do not believe and I've always learned in my in my life I like to think of it as a short life but as longer than I than I than I'm willing to admit at times that this is not about me when I worked in public service in a previous life I had to learn that and I and I and I hold that as a dear precept now this is not about Kenya Smith in fact this is not even about Enonac this is about how we as a citizenry will move forward with setting policy that will have very serious consequences to our residents we see our friends our family our neighbor and our fellow Louisianians across the state and we see Americans across this country struggling with this issue how do we deal with these types of matters and so even though I will suggest and I will admit that these are all well-meaning people who have put together this packet that sits before you as I've said before having the sewage and water board having intergy having the council offices and having and having your staff to be the ones who decide and meet about this policy and you with two minute increments from the public unless somebody loans their time to somebody else but I'm sure after today is definitely going to change the with having that type of public hearing I would respectfully suggest is not adequate I did listen to the listen to staff respond in many ways to very serious concerns that were expressed by members of this commission I listen very intently when you express those concerns I listen very intently when you ask the staff to to analyze those in the like we in the public would have loved to have had the opportunity to review those responses to you our representatives on a commission like this prior to you having to make a decision like this and so hopefully and I'm and I promise Madam Chair I'm not actually going to take all of the time is going to be a surprising remark not going to filibuster you lawyer and a son of a preacher there's going to be probably a brand new thing but with that I do believe you know son of a preacher they closed like four times but Jackson is this is a bad thing but this body has its own judgment its own discretion that it is to exercise I was admonished again as I was doing research and we were preparing for this regarding the history of the City Planning Commission and I say this as I as I take my seat for real that I look back or it was some research was handed to me as to a change a fundamental change that was made to the structure of the City Planning Commission under former Mayor Moon Landrieu as a state representative and then a council member and then being mayor and like certain other certain other boards this commission as I appreciate it was once under city administration but it was determined in that infinite wisdom that this needed to be an independent commission and it needed to exercise judgment that without fear or favor would be able to speak its will in ways that then other bodies could respond to they could agree with they could disagree with one of the points again that I make in the letter so I close with an encouragement to you in the words of a new hip-hop song given everything that I have said and hopefully that you will consider what is the rush let's work together we are not opposed to what you are trying to do we believe that we are better working together to do something that we can all be proud of let's do it right together let's not just do it fast thank you for your time Roland Bartay 6416 Pines Boulevard New Orleans Louisiana president of Pines Village Association it's kind of hard to follow that attorney right there but what I am here he asked me to speak on some environmental issues because I'm a retired engineer 40 years and what I'm trying to explain to the to your body is unintended consequences I know most of y'all haven't been the engineering school so you don't really know the consequences of a decision made prior to having research done if we use cooling tiles and I use an example to this City Hall building they have a cooling tower on top of this roof if I took all y'all up to that cooling town let y'all stay up there 45 minutes I guarantee within six to eight months all of you have respiratory troubles and that's the point I'm making I don't need the whole two minutes I just you need you all to consider the time that it takes to do the research before you approve a community data center and I thank you good afternoon I'm Ahmed with the Party for Socialism and Liberation and take back the power campaign let's talk about medium

data centers where they would go and who they would impact as defined in the proposal a medium data center can consume the electricity of 20,000 homes or a small town each the proposal places them in industrial districts near communities such as desire Lower Ninth Ward New Orleans East historically black working-class communities that have lived alongside industrial development and hold their negative consequences for generations and now that same history of environmental racism that concentrated industry around these communities in the first place is being used to justify putting even more of it there you yourselves raised serious concerns about this proposal back in August you sent the proposal back to staff to address those concerns and seven weeks later what do you get a couple minor changes and many pages of excuses you asked staff to look into the combined strain these facilities would put on our utilities they rejected putting limits on it pass the buck to City Council saying that it's their problem and suggested monitoring consumption after data centers are already operating you asked about protecting homes and schools staff rejected that too because it would give developers fewer sites to build data centers on you asked for solutions instead you got explanations on why you should leave them unresolved you recognize something was wrong with this proposal months ago and staff has not given you a single convincing reason to think otherwise City Council asked you to determine where data centers belong in New Orleans nowhere is an answer to that question you are not obligated to find a place for them reject the staff recommendations advised City Council to establish a total ban on new data center construction in New Orleans and stop making me take time of work to time off of work to come here and tell you the same thing over and over I do want to I do want to remind everybody that you need to state your name and address prior to speaking Cecilia pause Deborah Levy Perlman and Kendall Barry good afternoon my name is Cecilia pause I reside at 141 South Gayoso Street in New Orleans I'm an organizer with the Louisiana Party for Socialism and Liberation as well and the take back the power campaign to stop energy from getting permits to build power plants for this giant data center and Richland Parish one aspect of the report is really trying to draw a distinction between these hyperscale data centers and the data centers in New Orleans I read y'all's new report which as others have pointed out is very difficult to find online it's not linked in the main agenda on the NOLA.gov website which is a violation of people's democratic input on what's being built in our city and I can only assume that was on purpose because we know the playbook of City Hall but since the last meeting the CPC consulted with East New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Committee which is good but that's not consulting with the people of this city and even then you rejected most of that body's considerations the people of New Orleans live all across the city people don't want data centers all across this city and these two additional changes really do not reflect that fact an annual compliance report that should be the bare minimum for us to know what's happening in our city it's not because of lack of democracy that really permeates across the institutions of New Orleans and a stipulation that backup generators can only been used in emergencies you know we're not opposed to that either but again this doesn't alter the negative impacts of data centers on working-class people and the environment and it doesn't change the fact that data centers can be built 500 feet from black working-class communities in New Orleans East and the industrial canal under these recommendations that they will suck up our water resources they'll suck up our grid our power it doesn't change the fact that data do not create needed economic benefits for the people of New Orleans. I'm almost done, but I want to point out Entergy should not have any say in what is being built in the city because we do not trust them at all and they suck. Good afternoon, my name is Devora Levy-Perlman, 3343 Esplanade, I'm a volunteer with the Take Back the Power campaign and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. And I'm mobilizing here today because we all see this change in the zoning code for what it really is. Although it's cloaked in technical language, we understand it's an attempt to bypass democratic processes and silently steamroll over working class black communities in our city. We remember earlier this spring the targeting of New Orleans East for a data center project that only got a moratorium on it because the people showed out in opposition. This is environmental racism. Why is it these communities always face the most industry, have to be faced with the biggest inconveniences? Communities of the system is already neglecting and oppressing and squeezing and putting these things in without their input. Is it not enough that we already have Cancer Alley? Is it not enough to have millions of Louisianans, especially working class black Louisianans, forced to live and barely able to breathe with petrochemicals in their backyard, an oil rig in their front porch, and now a data center? Anyone in this city can plainly see that this entire process has been characterized by a total lack of transparency and concealment or denial of the already limited channels for community input. Why is the commission reconsidering this zoning docket when the people of the city already came out nearly unanimously to loudly oppose it? It's because the city would rather prefer to quietly pass this amendment without our input. It doesn't go unnoticed that the commission waited until October 6th, the day after the public comment deadline for this meeting, to publicize the proposed change to zoning. The agenda item is also missing from the website. It's on the main NOAA.gov website.

So the people's voice has been effectively canceled. And yes, we have elections, we're supposed to be happy and stay quiet because we get to vote for public officials every few years, but what working class people got to vote on data centers? What working class person got to vote on our utility bills going up? What working class person got to vote on their community being abandoned? Hello, commissioners. My name is Kendall Berry. I live at 2230 Bienville Street. I'm an organizer with the Take Back the Power campaign and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm a local artist and taxpayer and I'm here today, also missing work, to urge you to vote no on this text amendment. As many others have stated with wonderfully extensive research to prove it, this text amendment is nowhere near sufficient enough to adequately protect the people of New Orleans from the harmful effects of data centers of any size. New Orleans, bless her heart, already has water filled with lead and PFAS, forever chemicals, a power grid that fails all the time, and a totally outdated water system with pipes bursting regularly. We already have infrastructure problems here, expanded only by the looming threat of another big hurricane, and more data centers in our cities will only make them worse. And 100,000 square feet constituting a medium data center is shocking to hear you all consider. On top of all this, as people have pointed out, there's been barely any transparent public process for this whatsoever. There's not even a live stream of this meeting right now. People care about this a lot. And for this very meeting, like Devorah said, the digital public comments were due October 5th and the revisions weren't out until the 6th. And undoubtedly there would have been more public comments commenting on these very minimal revisions. It's clear that we have a long way to go before anything defining data centers and how they should be handled in this city can be approved by the City Planning Commission. That is if they are truly concerned with the well-being of the occupants of their seat. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Eloise Rustin, Keith Graham, and Laura Zander. Please remember to say your name and address. You each have two minutes. Eloise Houston, 4026 Murray. I'm just a citizen. We are witnessing people across the country and here in Louisiana experience the negative impacts of data centers on the communities they are built in. From environmental impact to strain on infrastructure to excessive consumption of limited resources, data centers wreak havoc on our communities and these are only the immediate consequences. We have no idea what will happen in 5, 10, or 15 years. The situation calls to mind coal mines, refineries, and other industries whose greed left lasting impacts on the land, lives, and bodies of the citizens in the areas on which they were built. Here in our city, you are the barrier to that same horror occurring here. It is your responsibility to ensure we do not befall yet more disaster in New Orleans, Louisiana. I see no consideration of heat generation on your ordinance. I advise you to please consider that. 500 feet is not limiting enough. It is not enough. I appreciate all you have done. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Keith Grady, G-R-A-D-Y. I live at 346 39th Street, New Orleans, 70124. I grew up in New Orleans. I'm an old man. I've been gone for a long time. I came back a little over a year ago. I was shocked to hear that the city was considering data centers of this size. When I was a child, I heard a lot about the character and the historic nature of the city of New Orleans and how we would do everything to preserve our heritage here, the historical heritage, the architectural heritage, the other things that make this city a unique and wonderful place to live and for people to visit. Then I hear 100,000 square foot data center is a medium data center. Sounds pretty big to me. The heat generation aspects that Ms. Houston just mentioned are significant. The noise, we've all heard stories on, well, like I said, I'm an old man. I listen to the radio. I hear on the public radio that the noise levels coming off of these data centers are just unsustainable. The neighbors living near these things are hearing the noise all the time and it's destroying their quality of life. Having that sort of thing going on in areas that are historically underserved and historically discriminated against just perpetuate what I've seen all my life here. I grew up at a time where we had separate water fountains here. The city was segregated and I witnessed the changes through the Morial and Landrieu administrations. Don't go back and what's the rush? Like Professor Smith said, what's the rush? There's no rush to put these. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. After Lauren Sander, it's Frederick Ball Jr. In Bailey and Cortez, Darrensburg. Okay. Hello. My name is Lauren Zander. I live at 7806 Belfast Street, 70125. I also was raised and born and everything happens here for me. As a resident of New Orleans, first I want to thank you all for the time you have dedicated to this issue. But I also want to urge you to put forth more thought before moving forward. In agreement with local guidelines, I want to remind you that most of the legal requirement I want to remind you of the legal requirement to engage the most impacted community members as you make this decision. Truly economic development is vital in this area, but experiences across the country demonstrate both the consequences of an adequate oversight and the benefits of thoughtful regulation. These investments must be carefully evaluated through transparent long-term planning that considers existing community needs, future demand and opportunities to expand access to affordable clean energy.

Importantly, large energy users must bear the costs of necessary transmission upgrades and additional generation rather than passing these expenses on to New Orleans residents. New Orleanians need greater clarity on how developers will account for these costs and there must be protection for residents already facing significant financial burdens. I urge you to allow additional time for research, community engagement and careful consideration before moving forward. Finally, as a consultant and representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would love to offer y'all support moving forward. The Union of Concerned Scientists has great technical resources and I would be happy to connect with you and provide more information as you take on next steps. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, y'all. Before I speak, I wanted to mention Darren Sberg. He ceded his time to me. Thank you. All right. Please state your name and address. Yes, ma'am. My name is Ian Bailey, 2000 Lake Shore Drive. I graduated from the University of New Orleans with a Bachelor of Science in Planning and Urban Studies. First, I want to thank you all for the fact that we have been going back and forth about this issue for months now. It seemed, at least in the last two meetings, that there was a lot of energy towards actually implementing some of the things that we talked about, because we've been talking for months. But when we look at the recommendations that the staff put out in this last week, they glossed over a lot of the things that we talked about. So I have a few notes that I wanted to share. One of them, I think, first and foremost, we should just go back to the basics. I really like the example that one brother gave where he was talking about if you were to just stand by the cooling tower, what would the impact be on your health? I want us to think about the fact that data centers are literally, as the definition said when they put out that proposal in January, was a data center is a prefabricated office building for computers. So it is a building for computers. Y'all have laptops in front of y'all. Y'all probably have a console at home. Somebody has been around a computer enough to know that when you get on really intensive software, it gets really hot, and it also makes a lot of noise. You hear the fans running when you have your computer running. So think about... Building a 100,000, you know, 100,000 foot 100,000 square foot building filled with computers that makes a lot of noise and it makes a lot of heat and 500 feet is not Acceptable and the only reason that must exist is because y'all want to make it to where there is enough space to put these In multiple areas of the city. That's just because y'all can make the buffer bigger. That's just plain on simple. So Yeah basically it's just a computer and you have a room for the computers is going to create these issues and we need to be Looking out for residents when we do these things. I'm gonna wait till the next thing starts Did you reset the time two minutes For the people who were here the previous meeting. Thank you, by the way for the people who were here the previous meetings For the past year have been working on a project independent study where I was looking at Sewage and water board and how many times they've had to issue bore water advisories I found that between February 2025 and March 2026 that they had to issue 10 bore water advisories Six of which were in New Orleans East So we already see and this is just a regular year without any of these new industrial size uses We see that the city can barely provide clean drinking water for the people who live here In fact Venetian Isles, which is in the far corner to east. They went 14 days 14 calendar days without drinking water as unacceptable shameful it really is and then y'all y'all go on to say in y'all's report that the Pre-review is needed from the council utility regulatory office Entergy and the sewage and water board through procedures created by those entities. Y'all trust these people I'm sorry, like seriously y'all trust these people to make actual policy that will protect the residents here. I don't believe it. I don't Y'all trust these people to make fair ethical equitable and transparent policies that help residents I don't and that goes back to the question of what's the rush? We also heard from Brother Kenya that per the City Council motion The moratorium is in place until January and can even be extended further another six months. I read that too So I agree we have at least until January to continue to have a calm collective discussion about what this looks like for residents More research is needed There's a point on page 9 of y'all's report that says given the city's locations Adjacent given the city's location adjacent to water bodies. There's a Ample access to water. That's just not true and I want you to go and look at aquifers because if we continue to pump water out whether it's from the lake whether it's From the river or the gulf or wherever else y'all want to get water from it's gonna cause the aquifer underground to Deplete which leads to subsidence aka sinking and the city is already sinking. Please save us Thank you Frederick fall And archer Abraham after Please say your name and address. Thank you. Good afternoon.

My name is Frederick Bell jr My address is 4 to 2 0 North Johnson Street So I first just wanted to say I'm here representing The lines for affordable energy and energy future in New Orleans as well as a concern rate payer Thank you guys for all your work on this report I want to acknowledge that's no small feat, but still we have work to do and we need to defer this Definitely in support of, you know, NAC and all of their recommendations a couple reasons why you know this the scheduling the revised schedules that came out or standards that came October 7th, and then October 5th was the last time that people can make a comment for it And so, you know two days to take into all those comments Then also only a couple days this meeting doesn't give folks who are really with community all the time Adequate time to address some of these things that are going to affect our communities in the future obviously, we see a lot of people here in opposition to this and so that's a clear sign to the Commission that something's not right and as an independent body, I really urge all to really embody the spirit of why this body exists and exists to make sure that there's experts and community involvement with all stakeholders in the community The Alliance for Affordable Energy did meet with the staff and we asked that That some of the folks in the community that have been working on these types of energy or issues have been included into these working groups Seems like that didn't meaningfully happen But like others have said there's no rush. There's still time right now There's still time to get this right our country Is investing like 1 trillion dollars in AI and data centers this year? and so we need that appropriate response on the other end to make sure that we regulate these these powers and make sure that The community is not negatively impacted by future data center and AI usage Thanks so much. And yeah, please defer this Thank you I Don't do it today. I'm archer Abraham resident of Littlewoods 13 1 2 3 I 10 service role representing myself Support for email neck and our other groups concerning not having a data center in the East the East wants development Excellent development. Well at this moment of time as we are addressing the politics of the state As we know the clandery that is happening here in the state in a having legislators sign NDAs concerning development the transparency behind the quality of life that residents need here is almost nonexistent and It's very important to state those things because we understand that the Department of Quality of Environmental Quality since 2021 in 2026 has not helped enforce any of the pollution standards in the state and That's just for Charles going in that week have have recently documented Concerning cases going case by case throughout the state So when we address the quality standards that is dealing with New Orleans East from everything dealing with droughts in Bayou Sauvage to water quality Advisories that have been happening within the East to dealing with infrastructure Mind you that sewage and water board. We've been doing the study for over 10 years. They have not upkept their maintenance concerning the catch basins And they have over 10,000 catch basins in New Orleans East alone, so when we address these things concerning the conquest of many nonprofits that corporate large nonprofits that look to expand their Their their stake in data centers to other Entities that look to expand energy centers in the East in other areas of New Orleans We need to fight for residents and we need that motion from you all that support to in opposition Thank you so much for your time. Thank you Miss Johnson, are you wanting to speak? Okay, is there anyone else yep, okay, just making sure I just Tracking all the notes. Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter because I don't have any other cards If someone could bring them up so that we could Thank you, so it looks like we have two more cards Samantha Holland And Lizzie Pitts, please remember to state your name and address you've got two minutes My name is Samantha Holland, I live at 5805 Laurel Street in New Orleans I'm a working-class musician. I moved here about a year ago from Lake Charles, Louisiana So I'm no stranger to industrial devastation but I am so disappointed to find the lack of transparency that my new City Council operates with I Much rather be at the studio improving my ability to play jazz and blues right now and not having to spend my time fretting over Whether this city which I already love so much will be sold to big tech for the slaughter The people of New Orleans overwhelmingly do not want data centers We want lower utility bills clean air and water and investment into the restoration and preservation of the infrastructure We have we want investment into our education health care and jobs generative AI and privacy violating surveillance tech are consistently and intensely opposed by the people in this community if you're paying attention and Neither do we want to be financially exploited by energy fund such a monstrously unnecessary Development and it is your jobs as elected officials to make sure this does not happen We want and need zero data centers. We are in a worldwide climate crisis and potable water shortage Louisiana has no extra water to give and the global climate is steadily heating towards a life-annihilating point Water guzzling heat producing environment polluting data centers is the opposite of what we need right now The fight against data centers is important everywhere in the country But as others have pointed out today, New Orleans is quite specifically unequipped to host these parasites None of us will be immune to the devastating climate effects data centers bring Regardless of how small or large they are.

We the people of New Orleans are saying absolutely not to data centers Thank you Hey, I'm Lizzie Pitts, I'm an uptown girl up at 1623 Bordeaux Street I'd like to do just a quick temp check in this room on the evaluation Entergy and SWB are going to be a part of the group to assess anybody in here. Trust those two groups Didn't think so. Anybody in here had an electric bill that you're concerned about Anybody had their energy go out in the last year anyone have to filter their water Yeah, so I think we're we're out on having them a part of the council to see if this is a good idea That's our environmental impact on heat generation. I will say we had a pretty cool summer I know some of you may disagree last year. I got an already text of a hundred and twenty degree days this year We only had a hundred and eighteen degrees. So maybe the climate crisis is ending guys Whether or not this data center is on the city's grid, it will use an exorbitant amount of energy It'll further perpetuate the climate crisis of which we're bearing the brunt How can you in good conscious approve a facility that will ultimately disaffect our cities and its residents on water usage? We're only drinking lead and we're drinking the the cancer alley water But not only that in 2023 if you will remember we suffered such a drought that the Gulf Salt water pushed up into the Mississippi, South, Louisiana lost potable water. We almost lost it We had to engage with the National Guard to create a plan about how to bring in a million water bottles a day Because we almost did not have enough Data center being 500 feet from residential zones. Y'all said it's 500 feet to the library I could yell about this loud enough from the library for y'all to hear it in here That is not far enough. These homes are 120 25 years old, I can hear my neighbors on the phone through the wall of my double shotgun. On the economy, this will not create substantial jobs, AI calls 10,000 layoffs at my company this year. On size, just because you make your data center have what you seem to think is a pretty design and landscaping doesn't mean it won't have grotesque impacts. Fines, we can include a penalty fine for violations, but to me that sounds like a subscription fee to violating our rights. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. There's no other cards to speak at this time. So we're going to close that portion and move on to commissioners. Do you have any immediate questions for staff? Yes, please. Commissioner a bear. So in reading who you met with, it was the Sewage and Water Board, Entity, Department of Safety and Permits, City Council Utility Regulatory Office, the Information Technology and Innovation, Department of Property Management. And I'm not reading what any community members were involved in any of these discussions. So I'm also wondering, also after the study referred to what should be done, your study is actually referred to what should be done if they're in operation. So also the staff meetings that were held May 13, June 17, and July 8 to discuss concerns or oversight of the use of data centers. I'm wondering, since this was so important that these entities were in your convening, why are they not here to actually make any comments or to discuss their findings? I would say that the reason they were convened is because we were tasked by the motion with creating a working group that would help essentially fill in the gaps in the planning commission's knowledge. We are experts in land use and zoning regulations. We do not... Can you speak up a little bit? Sure. I can say that our expertise is in land use and zoning. The planning commission staff, the zoning regulations we implement do not generally touch on issues of infrastructure availability and utility availability. So the point of the working group is to bring in stakeholders that are going to deal with permitting on the water side, on the electrical side, and regulating those considerations from the perspective of the council. And so, I mean, to answer your question, that was the purpose of the meeting. They are not required to be here. This is a set of regulations that we've developed based on their advice. And so that's why we're here and they're not. And I appreciate that, but in reading the study, did they have any concerns, any of these entities about data centers coming into a community? I mean, I think a lot of it... Yunga? I mean, I can respond to that. Yes. And I think that what we have recommended is in recognition of what Steven had said, that we are not experts on electrical usage. And I understand that. We're not experts on sewage and water board and, you know, I understand the skepticism about those two entities, but under the law, those are the two entities that govern and regulate energy usage and water usage in the city of New Orleans. I think the city of New Orleans is uniquely situated because the city council is the regulatory authority for electrical utilities and they are moving towards being the regulatory authority for water utilities. And so unlike any other or most jurisdictions in the country, the municipality has a unique opportunity to put in regulations that address the specific concerns of New Orleans. We are not those experts. And so what we are recommending is two things. One is I absolutely agree that there is more work to be done. And I think that the council should be directing sewage and water board and energy to come up with, and safety and permits, to come up with specific recommendations about how data centers can be regulated. I'm also okay with the idea of, I think it was raised by Enonac, that there be a delay. I think the way I would envision a delay is to have the delay be on the effective date of the regulation.

Because I think where we are right now, and I understand concerns about the timelines and the deadlines and everything else that is built into the city planning commission's rules and have been for a number of years, there is a way to ensure, land use and zoning are a part of the puzzle. They're not the entire puzzle. Utility regulation is certainly important. Building code regulation is certainly important. Enforcement is certainly important. Water regulation is certainly important. All of those things live outside of the CZO, certainly, and outside of the CPC's authority. But they don't live outside of the council's authority. And so what we are recommending is that study be done prior to the effectiveness of these regulations. The second thing we're recommending is that because these issues manifest themselves differently depending on where you are in the city, we are not recommending approval of anything by right. We are recommending, we are very aware of conditional use processes and how in a lot of cases they put an undue burden on things that are approvable and should be approved by right. This is not one of those cases. This is the type of land use that conditional uses are meant to address. And so in every case, anybody wants to do a data center, they are going to have to go through a conditional use process, which is a public process before both the city planning commission and the city council so that the impacts and the issues that are raised for each individual proposal can be addressed in real time as they are going. Again, we are not recommending approval for anything. So I would push back a little bit on the idea of that we are not being transparent. I think we are within the confines of the regulations that we have to follow in terms of procedure. I think the worst thing that could be done is to do nothing. I think the council is counting on recommendations from this commission and under the limitations that we have, and again, we reached out to Enonac, I have 10 emails that were copied me to set up meetings. It never happened. We have reached out to both council offices to forward the request to put the brakes on consideration of this. Both council offices said no, we want to move forward, we want to get this moving forward. So we are doing what we can within the limitations that we have. It is not a recommendation for approval here is not the final piece, obviously has to go through city council. I do think it is important as everyone has been saying that the water issues and the electrical issues do need to be thoroughly examined. We are not the ones to do it because we are not the experts. I just want to say that I understand Mr. Smith that he does not represent the entire community. So I'm thinking that he was leaning more toward the CPC needs to use their platform to reach out to the community and have a community meeting to discuss this. But also I have one last question. Does any neighborhood or community have a ban on data centers in Orleans Parish? No, there is a citywide ban through the Interim Zoning District and then these regulations are based on zoning district and not geography, not a specific neighborhood. Just a quick question to staff, can we get more insight on what happened in terms of the public notice? October 5th and 6th have been brought up a couple of times and I'm just wondering what happened in terms of the public notice and then communication? Sure, I think there are two things. One is the public notice requirement, which is a requirement of every application that we need to publish notice in the city's official journal three consecutive weeks before the first meeting that an application goes to. What we do in conjunction with that is we post a public notice, we post it online on our listserv so that everyone who is signed up to our listserv gets that notice. The requirement exists only for the first time an item goes to a meeting. The agenda is a different thing. The agenda is what are the specific items that are going to be on the docket for consideration on that given day. The city planning commission's rules determine when we release that information. So the public notice again has to be three consecutive weeks prior to the meeting. At that point we do not know what is going to be on the agenda because there's usually an intervening meeting where something is going to get deferred and put on that agenda. So we have to wait until a week prior to, according to the rules, before we send out the packet. Now there's been a lot of questions or a lot of concerns raised about the fact that written testimony or written comments are due the day before the packet is sent to the commissioners. I understand that and it's something that has been debated for as long as I've been here. The commission is consistently. directed us through the rules and procedure that they want to have everything in their hands that they are gonna use to consider a docket a week prior to the meeting. So that they can take the full week to read the extensive staff reports that are submitted by the staff, as well as all of the letters, all of these supplemental materials, all of the site plans. They have a significant amount of work that they need to review for every meeting. And so they would like to have a week, a full week to do that. So what we have is a requirement that if comments are going to be considered by the commission at a particular meeting, they have to be submitted prior to one week before the meeting. And all that material gets sent to the commissioners, it gets released to the public. Everybody has the exact same information at the exact same time to review in anticipation of the meeting. Anybody who has concerns with the staff report and the findings, as you all have done, are certainly welcome to come and testify in person. And the commission is, as they did earlier, able to suspend the rules and introduce things into the public record at the meeting.

We do not have the authority to do that because our rules do not allow us to, okay? Does that answer your question? Yeah, so I have a question for Brian. Can you repeat the dividing lines between small and medium, and the dividing line between medium and large hyper? The criteria, so we've, am I right that the dividing line between the ceiling on medium before it becomes large is 100,000 square feet or 20,000 watts? 20 megawatts, yeah. 20 megawatts. Yeah. What's the dividing line, and, yeah, and? Right. And what's the dividing line between small and medium? It's small is 20,000 square feet and 5 megawatts. Oh, do you mind just leaning into the mic a little bit? Thank you. Small is 20,000 square feet and 5 megawatts, and medium is 100,000 square feet and 20 megawatts. Are any of the 100,000 square foot examples that you gave us, were those located, that you showed as examples of 100,000 square feet? Any of the examples? No, they were not 20, they were not 100,000 square feet. 100,000 square feet is about, is just over half the size of a Walmart supercenter. I don't know enough about the electric use to know what might be a different dividing line, but in the research that you did, are there other cities that have a smaller, have more restrictive limitations on electrical usage? In other words, are there other places that have medium stops at 10 megawatts? There are other places that have all different types of restrictions on electrical usage, and they don't always categorize them the same way we're proposing. You have some cities that have moratoriums over 10,000 square feet, or over 2,000 megawatts. It really varies from city to city. And Commissioner Steeke, if I can add on to that. Part of what we looked at, because you raised the question last time as to whether that dividing line should be where it is, you sort of took the regulations about where small and medium centers would be allowed, and figured out if you can build an office building by right, what sort of energy draw would it be expected to have? And so if you look at pages 24 and 25, there's some rough estimates that speak to, in this district you can build to x square footage, and that would be expected for an office building, for example, that would be expected to have a certain energy draw. So generally speaking, the 20 megawatts, or actually five, so in most of the CBD you can do well over five megawatts worth of development by right through the form of an office retail or some combination thereof. And so generally there seem, I mean data centers are certainly more energy intense per square foot than a lot of things, but given what the zoning permissions are in those districts already and the allowable energy usage, we found that the small and medium limitations were consistent with that. So help me out a little bit so I don't have to go find page 23. The typical office building you found to be megawatt usage of, give me a range. Yeah, so office buildings, 100,000 square feet are generally within 1.5 to 5 megawatts of range. There are some very crude district by district estimates that estimate that a maxed out building in the central business district could have far over 20 megawatts of energy usage by an office. There's a lot of assumptions that have to be made there, because you're assuming there's no parking decks, everything is used in office space, that the buildings are built to the maximum allowable height and setbacks. So there's going to be a little bit of an overestimate in terms of the power draw compared to what you'd probably see in real life. But it says generally these estimates are consistent with the power draw that you'd expect for development already allowed. But you said an office building was typically 1 to 1.5 megawatts. For 100,000 square feet, which is about four stories of office space. But you could have a medium sized data center of 100,000 square feet and 18 megawatts. But I guess the thought is a lot of these zoning districts allow 12, 14 floor office buildings. So if the zoning permission allows for that, then you're talking over 10, over 20 megawatts for the development for the office building in its entirety. So there's already sort of an implicit allowance for that amount of energy usage. In the same location, you could only do four floors of data center. But just to be clear, I don't believe the medium data centers are being recommended for approval. Right, yeah, I'm sorry, you're right. In the CBD, for example, you can only do one floor, essentially one city hall floor worth of data center. So only five megawatts. Right, no, I understand. I'm more thinking of medium in, honestly, in New Orleans, which just seems to be the place we saw the map where more of the potential sites are. So my reason I'm asking you this is I'm inclined to think that those limits are too generous, but I don't have the knowledge to pick an amount of megawatts that's more appropriate. Although, one approach could be to pick a lower amount of megawatts and let the city council decide and get expertise to figure out whether a lower amount is appropriate. Yeah, I mean, I think the thing I would say to that is that these are creating general thresholds that are the starting point for consideration for any particular application. Every application is going to, number one, have to have a statement from Entergy that either the infrastructure exists or that it can be put in at the expense of the data center developer. And then there's going to be a site-specific evaluation that takes into effect the specific geographical context, who the neighbors are, what the infrastructure availability is. And then the council, which, as Bob said, is also the city's utility regulator, is going to have to make the determination.

So what we're trying to do is give, again, what we've found is that our regulations seem to match up with the approximate energy draw of the things that are already allowed in these districts, but that doesn't mean that there will be a buy-write permission to anything at any level. It's going to have to go through a site-specific evaluation, ultimately, through the council. I will add to that. Since the last meeting, we did have a conversation with Entergy, and they suggested that 15 megawatts, is this correct, may be more appropriate because I think what their explanation was, 15 and above typically requires infrastructure improvements. Is that correct? Yeah, that's roughly. In addition to the infrastructure, so the transmission load is typically able to be handled at 15 megawatts as opposed to 20, and that 20 would require infrastructure improvements generally. But again, it's a site-by-site analysis of what is available at a particular location in the city, what the grid, what the existing infrastructure is, what is possible at any site. So, at least from Energy's perspective, they were comfortable lowering that to 15. Right. Okay, good. So should we make it 50,000 square feet and 10 megawatts? I think so. 100,000 is entirely too much. Do you have anything else, Commissioner Steeg? I just wanted to make a few points. Go ahead. I wanted to address the noise consideration and the idea or the statement in the docket that there's going to be noise levels at the property line. I think we need to insist on a noise abatement plan and insist on acoustical studies in some form of regulation that can be documented. There are acoustical consultants that does their job where they're looking at not only cooling equipment, sound levels at property lines or within, you know, maybe there's an operational setback that can be considered so that you're not allowed to install equipment. Right now, it's like three feet from a property line. Maybe that should be 100 feet from the property line, depending on, you know, where these developments are happening. data and then also just evaluating low frequency and that seems to be the one item that really is characteristic of these data centers that you hear over and over again is this low res issue that's really uncomfortable and there are ways of mitigating that and there's documents about what that looks like but I feel like we shouldn't be doing anything even on a conditional use without a plan in place versus saying just tell me what your noise is at the property line I think it needs to be a cohesive noise abatement plan that we can hold to and you know we have a New Orleans noise ordinance we can edit that right now the first offense is $50 for any noise offense we should certainly update that or you know requested at the administration look into that to edit for data centers if that's something that goes forward thank you do you have any other recommendations besides the medium density being too high it was really just oh I do have one more which was that you know we talked about looking at the International Building Code for their data on you know on data centers but the reality is that that's just the minimum so whatever they're doing we should be requesting that they be more efficient than that and that could just be a percentage threshold it says baseline efficiency for a data center cooling is X you say improve on it by 5% or 10% and that's going to give you better efficiency so Commissioner Flick if there were to be a motion and if it were to include modifications can you could you put that last recommendation into words that would be part of a motion remember to speak in the mic yeah can the staff again repeat the 500 foot which category was that relating to the 500 foot buffer is for from residential zoning districts so it would cover the it would be citywide and it would reach within the areas that would conditionally allow data centers and so we have the map I see the map but is that for low medium and large data center that buffer so large is is prohibited citywide it would be for medium and small so I I do think that should be larger the buffers buffer yes because I do feel that it should be at least 1,000 square feet because 500 square feet you can see it you can you can feel vibration through the ground I live on a very busy street and you can feel vibration through the ground so I think it should be at least 1,000 Atlanta Georgia has I think one of those counties there has 2,000 in the report that you have yeah I I would have to look that up directly I think they're 2,000 square feet or 2,000 feet distance was near a specific type of infrastructure but yeah they do less 2,000 Laura could you do we have the 750 and the 1,000 accessible I it's in the report at least a minimum of a thousand let me just remind commissioners our job here is to define the data center and we are not saying anywhere in the city this is this is a conditional use and so we're getting into the details of what that looks like so let's focus on some of the changes and be able to answer our questions on what we want to be able to actually put in a motion yes and as just as a you know fundamentally I feel very strongly you know opposed to data centers but I do understand a data center for example for City Hall or for a hospital to have its own personal data centers those I am okay with and I understand the need for that but anything other than that I'm not sure if I feel comfortable or not so madam chair yes sir yes mr.

Steve I'm I'm gonna make a motion to try to put something concrete on the table and encourage fellow commissioners to make amendments of anything that they might be concerned about so I'm gonna make a motion for modified approval with the following modifications that the 500-foot buffer be increased to 1,000 feet that the dividing line between small and medium be reduced from 20,000 to 10,000 square feet and from five five megawatts to three that the dividing line between medium and large be reduced from 100,000 square feet to 50,000 and that the megawatt age be reduced to 15 commissioner Steve would you mind just saying that again my handwriting can't keep up dividing line between small and medium 10,000 square feet instead of 20 and three megawatts instead of five dividing line between medium and large 50,000 square feet instead of a hundred and 15 megawatts instead of 20 buffer of a thousand feet instead of 500 a requirement that any application for a conditional use and I think it is important to note that every single data center that wants to exist has to come back before this whole process where the conditional use that every application for conditional use include a detailed noise mitigation plan and Commissioner Flick if you want to add when I'm done add some language to that miss Brian I don't remember that there's a phrase in the in the report of some particular reports I don't remember their names that have to be done through procedures established by energy sewers and water board etc I agree with the comment that I don't think we ought to entrust them to make those reports my amendment is to say that those things whatever they are I don't remember the technical name be developed by the City Planning Commission and the City Council in consultation with those other entities but but that the final those were those reports be done by City Council and City Planning and last I'm going to suggest specific language that no data or information that has not been presented to the City Planning Commission as part of the conditional use application may be presented to any other governmental agency or individual with respect to the data center that is the subject of the conditional use so and what I'm trying to get out there is that nobody will be in energy's office or in some other safety and permits office and tell them something present them with data that they haven't presented to the City Planning Commission to be part of the record for the conditional use application okay so those that's all I got but I would welcome I think we should add the item about the energy improvement above code please for energy efficiency and that can be five or ten percent and I'm not sure what would make sense but there is a line item in the energy code for data centers and their air conditioning so it would just be a more stringent I shouldn't see rating for the equipment so I accept that amendment thank you and then I think if I don't know if you need to expand on the noise abatement plan but just as stated to the requirement of a nose of a noise abatement plan that includes noise mitigation measures for cooling infrastructure power systems and acoustical studies of low frequency noise I don't have a second Commissioner flick if you wouldn't mind I would love to second thank you all right so we have a first and a second discussion yes another point of discussion now that you have redefined the medium data centers and do we feel comfortable with us with the large data center or should we continue with the band oh no I would so the so this still is the band on the large data centers mm-hmm pretty wide correct I just want to make that clear yeah that is in the report my motion is not trying to change that we're talking about is the small and medium okay correct commissioners if there's notice other discussion then I'm going to call the vote madam chair yes one of the proposed additions is that the city Planning Commission prepare the report is that correct so give a guideline I think the report says that energy does has to provide a statement and I believe Commissioner see suggesting something a little more involved than a statement I think we need to hash out what that looks like so what I would was going to suggest is what our recommendation is is that the applicant commit to a certain level of energy use and a certain level of water use that that commitment gets reviewed by the regulators who exist which is energy and sewage and water board and is reviewed against the regulations that they come up with in terms of performance standards and that those performance standards are enforceable by Department of Safety permits I think the concern that I have with and I you know thank you for your trust I just don't think that we have the expertise for the same reason that we are not making recommendations that are specific to energy and water consumption to draft in any credible way a water standard and I you know I just want to impress upon it you know we could get it completely wrong because of that lack of expertise and be allowing much more than is warranted and I I don't think that that's our intention and I certainly you know, but I I think when you have City officials who are not experts in certain subject matters being the defining So wouldn't a City Council at the end so so the City Council is ultimately the thing we are more than happy and we will comment on Them in our recommendations to the City Planning Commission, but I what I thought I heard was that we were going to be Producing. Yeah the reports in conjunction with the City Council, and I'm just not Comfortable with taking on that responsibility because we don't have the expertise. Okay, miss Brian Miss Brian, could you read the language that? Talked about the things being prepared by Entergy and Sewage and Water Board So I can answer that Commissioner Steeve just because I pulled up the language.

So it's Essentially requires a pre-review application by Curo Entergy and Sewage and Water Board through procedures printed by those entities And so what I took your comment to mean is that the CPC and the council should draft rules affecting those procedures? Yeah, could the procedures Be drafted by City Planning and the council not the report but the procedures I'm happy to contribute in any way to that. I would ultimately be the council's call I thought what I heard was that we were actually preparing the report on a site-by-site basis No, but I'd like I would like the procedures The wording that you use the What you read the procedures Developed by was that the language that so but that those procedures be developed by City Planning Commission and ultimately, you know adopted by the City Council CPC provides the framework with which everyone find the information and there's plenty of time to get this hashed out as Once I get it come to council and I'm presuming that When you use CPC in that language you're talking about you all as the Commission and not staff, is that correct? We will review it and recommendation, you know make recommendations and prepare their draft. Oh, yeah, but you all would be approving that right? Thank you. Um, yes Comment Research was done with the information that was sent from Ina In fact, it's like starts on page 84 I believe but they did also a lot of research that I think would be helpful in you know, making some type of decision Agreed all of the public comment today has been very fruitful in this decision-making process Thank you for taking another day off of work All right. We're gonna go ahead and vote Commissioner Jackson No, Commissioner a bear no Commissioner Josie Gupta Yes, Commissioner flick. Yes, Commissioner, which were yes, Commissioner Jordan. No Commissioner I see. Yes So we have four yeas three nays so The motion does not carry It's an effective denial or we need a new motion Yes, Commissioner We don't like effective denial because then we have no input as it goes council. So what is it that we can do to? Make it a yay To go to council So I'll speak on my vote of no for me primarily This is about taking the time to get the process, right? Like we've been here before navigating short-term rentals. And so I don't want us to give a set of recommendations that are well intended and like really thoughtful from our standpoint But also put us in a bind that then we have to be the arbiters again without the teeth to change policy right, so if there is more room for us to be able to Engage and get more consultation not just from energy But you know, there are organizations doing this work already like lines for affordable energy that can give us data. So that was a comprehensive assessment that we're taking data points from not just a regulator, but We have a second source. So I I don't think the majority of the recommendations I'm not against but I just want to make sure that we get it, right? And I know that council means well in terms of the timeliness of this because we watch other things go on and on but we have a little bit more time and I'm Cautious, how much more time do we have? We yeah We I was under the impression. Well, I'm speaking specifically because of the moratorium. So if the Commission wants to Delay consideration of this and work on something before it goes to the council would have to be done by next Friday If If no action is taken You would be presuming that the council would take a step back and send it back to you all or further consideration So let me ask you which is which is fine. It's just not something that If a motion were to be adopted it wouldn't Override the IZD the IZD would remain in effect until next January, right? So the IZD is in effect till January 27th. Is that correct? Right. So so but just be clear. We're in we're in October Anything that we send to the Commission is or to the council they have Stephen correct me if I'm wrong 60 days to act on the motion They will have 60 days to act by motion and then once they adopt the motion they have 90 days from that period of time So we're talking five months past whenever we send it which takes us well past the IZD deadline unless they Extend it which I haven't received any Consideration either way from the council that they would be willing to But it strikes me that If the council shares that concern that the easiest thing for them to do would be to extend the IZD and then Yeah, but but but work on on on these issues and but with But if we don't Commissioner flick to Commissioner flicks point if we don't advance something then Then they're working from from a clean slate they get it they get a denial It seems better to put something in front of them and say if you don't like it extend the IZD and work on it well, what about the the previous practice of Adding comments are our denials or moving forward like does the effective denial preclude us to add comments that get transferred to council Because I think those recommendations could be set up as well So an effective denial is a Lack of action, right and so in order for there to be a Statement it would have to be something that is acted upon Got it. So if the motion were to deny with statements, absolutely You can state your reasons for denial But and that would be tied to the action of the Commission if there's no action taken and there's no nothing So, I know Commissioner Jordan wants more community input is there any other Motion that we could put on the table to have an answer Sent to City Council today and before other commissioners respond Director Rivers, do you mind just repeating because folks said they didn't hear so the effect of what I Reflected and if there's anything you need to add it feel free. But basically if we don't take an active vote Either of denying or approving our comments are not transferred to council That is correct.

Okay, so what? So You're saying by us giving a vote with a framework for the council to work with is useful in their decision and possible extending the moratorium My fellow commissioners if we recommended that they extend their ICD, is that something that would be an agreement? Yeah, not indefinitely, but I mean some I know It's part of the recommendation Okay, look make a suggestion. Yep That It sounds like you all want to take a lot more time which is absolutely fine Your recommendation could be For the council to extend the ICD So it's you know, and then to Send a new zoning docket back to the Commission for consideration after public comment after Consultation on the technical issues that you all agree So We would remove mr. Commissioner Sieg would consider removing his motion My motions been denied so it's gone Commissioners could we get Moving forward if there was a motion on the floor I can't call one but potentially to make a recommendation to extend the ICD That we need more time For denial Um with the recommendation to extend the ICD so that we have enough time to Take all matters into consideration That we have discussed today Is there a second? Okay I have a question. Yes for discussion What happens in? In the event this goes to council so a theoretical Situation could be it goes to council and then council says well I love this report just the way that it is and they they can and they have the ability to approve it, right? Yes. Okay, so we could state what we want to happen. But the reality is is that the council can still Do whatever they'd like as they like as they see fit for the city and their constituents. So that's just as a statement. But if we add these recommendations into our report with the recommendation for denial, with all of these recommendations are added to the report, we are still giving that to council, am I right? Yes, that would be a statement made by the commission that is acted upon as a denial and essentially the recommendation would be to start from scratch. But factor in the recommendations that we have made. Yes, but also I wanna just ask if, are there specific things that you all wanna see in terms of public engagement? In terms of, because typically with a zoning docket, that's not something that we do and the NPP process is something that is initiated by the applicant, which is in this case is the council. They elected not to do so. So my understanding from the conversation is that you would like the city planning commission staff to step into that role and initiate a broader public engagement. So the question is, since we have no standards for that, what do you all want to make sure that that looks like? I think that is very important that they meet with the community to make those, so that they can give their input. Because even though we have many people here and I appreciate you all coming, there are many community people that are still wondering what is going on and would like to give their voice as to how they feel about this coming into their communities. So, but I have a question. So are we going to vote on number, on the 03626 or are we just going to do the... Well, we have a vote. We have a first and a second on denial with all of our recommendations packaged in on that. So we are going to vote on that, but we're still just discussing and I'm going to rely on Commissioner Jordan to make recommendations on the community engagement process. Yeah, so... And then those amendments will have to be moved and seconded to attach to the underlying motion. Yeah, I mean, we need to make sure that public comment is available for folks like we talked about. This deadline I know is a big thing. So if nothing, we need to have a method for folks to be able to submit public comment ahead of the next hearing. And by that, I'm assuming you mean between the time the packet is issued and the time that the hearing is done. So sending them the day before the hearing is okay with commission? That's when we received comments that you all voted on today. Yeah, and I think, well, I think right now folks will have enough of a heads up to know that this is ongoing. Obviously, council will take our recommendations and do what they can with it. But the intention there is to make sure that there's no misunderstanding from the folks who have shown up today and folks who haven't been able to be in this room that there's malicious intent in terms of receiving public comment as a body that rides itself on trying to be an arm of community engagement for the city. Madam Chair. And I'd just like to make a, I think this is something that the community needs to know. When you get the agenda for the meeting, you do not have the preliminary report. So you need to go to the CPC website and look at that agenda for the day that you're coming to read the entire preliminary report. Because that has more detailed information. Can I make a specific recommendation? Sure. On the engagement. One is that you all identify a number, whether it's one, two, of in-person public meetings that we will meet with the community as an open meeting. And we can coordinate with the Internet to set that up. And then two is spending the rules to allow for written comment to be submitted after the packet is released, up to the point of the meeting. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor for denial. And the recommendation is going to be to extend the IZD. And the IZDs are extended within a year capacity. I know that that's part of the rules. And then we need to be able to include our recommendations. And so I'm gonna maybe ask Commissioner Steeve to read through. Or Commissioner, I'm sorry, Mr. Kroll. Yeah, one second. Do you want me to read those now? Please. So it would be a 500 foot buffer that would be increased to 1,000 foot. The dividing line between small, or I should say the maximum amount for small would go to 10,000 square feet, not 20,000.

And to a max of three megawatts of energy usage, not five megawatts. For medium, the regulation would go to 50,000 square feet, not 100,000. 15 megawatts, not 20 megawatts. There'll be a requirement of a noise abatement plan with noise mitigation measures included. There would be a requirement that the data centers be held to energy efficiency of at least five to 10% higher than is required by the building code. There would be a requirement that pre-review procedures be developed by the City Planning Commission and Council to inform the city of the requirements. To inform the submittal requirements included in the regulations. There would be a requirement or statement that no data and no information not presented to the City Planning Commission as part of a conditional use application may be presented to any government agency or individual related to the subject of that conditional use application. I believe that's all of them. And then we need the two pieces. Thank you, Mr. Kroll. The two pieces on the community engagement to be able to one or two meetings. Two meetings? Commissioner Jordan says two meetings. And then we also need to suspend the rules to allow public comment. To be submitted after the deadline and up until the time of the meeting. After the deadline and until the time of the meeting. I believe from my notes and what everyone that's, we've covered it all. And the motion on the floor, just as a reminder, was Commissioner Jackson. And then Commissioner Josie Gupta. Oh, Commissioner Josie Gupta made the motion. Commissioner Jackson seconded it. I'm just gonna comment before we vote. I'm gonna vote against the motion. The reason is we're denying and then we're putting the same recommendations that we didn't approve. And to me, that is less forceful. We're saying we deny the report, which leaves it totally open. For example, that otherwise we would be approving the ban on large citywide. Now we're denying the ban on large citywide because we're saying we deny the report. And then some recommendations which we could have put in a motion. And I realize people might disagree with that, but that's my reason for, I think sending something affirmative when the council has the ability to reconsider and adopt is stronger on our part and more expresses our recommendations than a denial with a, we deny, but please, please think about this. So I'm voting against the motion. I would say that the reason I feel a denial might be a little bit more effective is because we have the public engagement portion of it part of our recommendation. And that's a very big part. And I think it sends a message that we're denying until you take public recommendation into consideration as well as all of our other recommendations. And that's the only reason I feel that denial might be the answer and the position for us to take. And Commissioner Steeke, I totally understand your point to want to send something affirmative, but I think because our, because hands are tied and we're trying to be as specific as possible and be city planning commission, we are not, we are land use recommending body first. And so for us to then be making recommendations without enough insight and engagement that ultimately then will be volley back to us in terms of whether folks, council leans in or leans away, I think unfair to our staff and the hard work that they do and trying to legitimize recommendations and to our commission, trying to be able to resolve something that is really crushing our country and our environment. So I just, I want to make sure that we do it right the first time. As again, just to remind us, the short-term rental policy era that we're now coming to a close on, hopefully has exhausted commissions. And I want to make sure that we're not exhausted with the volley back and forth. Commissioner, Commissioner Seeg, we're going to vote. Commissioner Seeg? No. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Wittry, yes. Commissioner Flick? No. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Okay, so we have five yeas, two nays. The motion carries. Thank you all for your time, your input, your energy. And we're going to move on to our next zoning docket. Zoning docket 9126 is a request by West Wrigley's Lighthouse LLC for a zoning change and conditional use approval to support the reconstruction of a replica of the historic West Wrigley's Lighthouse. The site's current NA natural areas zoning designation is intended to preserve natural areas and thus permits very limited development. The proposal includes a replica lighthouse that is considered a cultural facility and two fishing camps that would be used as commercial short-term rentals. Because these uses are not permitted in the current NA natural areas. District, the applicant is seeking a zoning change to an MMU Maritime Mixed Use District where they are permitted with conditional use approval. The staff acknowledges the merits of preserving the maritime cultural heritage of the site. However, the staff finds that the proposed zoning and use do not meet standards for approval in Article 4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and are inconsistent with the master plan. The main reason for denial is incompatibility with the Natural Areas FLUM category. The FLUM lists only one compatible zoning district, the current Natural Area District. Further, the proposed conditional uses are not consistent with the goal and range of uses for the Natural Areas FLUM that excludes structures other than low impact amenities such as trails, overlooks, and rest areas. The requested conditional uses to allow commercial short-term rentals and a cultural facility are not low-impact amenities. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of both the requested zoning change and conditional uses. My name is, good afternoon Commissioners, my name is Vincent Marcello. I live at 508 Barracks.

I am requesting a zoning change to MMU from Natural Areas and I would like to clear up a couple of things that are a little bit inaccurate with the place, the placement of the camps. There's a, I intend on building a replica of the West Regalese Lighthouse that was blown down in, during Katrina. The, thank you, could we just have time please? I just want to make sure that your time, thank you. And the camps, I have a servitude from the Department of Land that runs all the way to the piece of property. My piece of property, that road, some of it is in lower areas but most of it is uplands. It, the project has been referred to, it's all on wetlands. The, the camps themselves will be placed up on uplands. I have some photographs of the area and, and I wanted to demonstrate what's, what's happened over the last hundred years with, with the piece of property. We need to suspend the rules. Is there a Commissioner that would? I'll make a motion to suspend the rules. Yes. Hi. Thank you very much. This, these photos are in the packet. This is a drawing from 1927 and shows the shoreline in 1927. This, this is a satellite photo of the site pre-Katrina and you, you had quite a bit of land still existing. It certainly wasn't as much as it was in 1927. Every storm that comes by really creates a lot of erosion and, and now this is after Katrina. You can see at the end of the, where the original lighthouse used to be, is no longer land there. It's, it's about a hundred feet of land has, has disappeared. The, this is from 1921 after Ida. The, the, the land has eroded even, even farther. Can we extend the time so that we could then hear the rest of the presentation, please? Hopefully it'll... My, my point is, is that there's a lot of erosion in another, I don't know what's happened to the, haven't been out to the site for the last hurricane, but I know there's a lot more erosion. These, these are photos that aren't in the packet, but this is from a drone photo of me driving to the end. So where, where if it was wetlands, I wouldn't be able to drive to the end, and this is the location where the two camps are going. The lighthouse will be out further, and we've been negotiating with the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Land, and the Corps of Engineers to, to find a suitable site that would be less invasive to the wetlands, and, and we have, we have done so. So we have a lot of community support for the project. The New Orleans East Business Association has no opposition to the zoning change. The Lieutenant, Lieutenant Governors, I have letters from the Lieutenant Governor's office and a high recommendation on, on the project. The Pontchartrain Conservancy is in favor of the project. Now, some of the reasons why they like what I am doing is I am going to provide riprap to protect the shoreline and wrap the whole shoreline for any further erosion. There's also plants, right now we have 26 yopine plants that seem to be doing very well in holding some of the soil back from the erosion, and I plan on planting, there's, there's a, there's a whole variety of native plants that I plan on adding to the project. So the, the lighthouse is the only thing that's going to be under wetlands. The walkway is going to be an elevated walkway, and we've, we've negotiated with the Department of Natural Resources to do a grid system, so the sunlight will come through the, um, the, the walkway. Thank you. Okay. Do you have any questions? Commissioners? Does Miss Laurie Toups, would you like to speak? Okay. Well, you've had your four minutes. Um, any other questions? I think we understand what you're trying to achieve. Um, the staff recommend recommendation is denial. Um, staff or commissioners? Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Even though it's in denial, I kind of see the vision a little bit, and I'm interested to see what that model would look like to bring, you know, for the future to the state. Thank you. So you've got a motion on the floor to go against staff recommendation? Absolutely. Is it, is there a second? I second that. Thank you, Commissioner Stieg. All right, we have a motion on the floor to go against staff recommendation. And just to clarify, that's for the zoning change and the conditional use, correct? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Can I ask staff one tiny little question, which is, is that the least, is that the smallest zoning change that would allow him to get a conditional use? Yes. Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and vote. There's no other. Oh, did you have a question? Okay. Commissioner Stieg? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Flake? While I agree and do like the idea of renovating and putting back the lighthouse, I have to stick to my commercial short-term rental limitation guns. I'm going to vote no. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta, there was a motion on the floor to go against staff recommendation. Would you like to vote? You're in agreement? Okay. So we have one, two, three, six yeas, one nays. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. All right, we're moving on to docket item, zoning docket number four, 029, or 09526. Okay. Yeah. Zoning docket 09526 is a request for a conditionally used to permit a minor motor vehicle service and repair shop in an SB one suburban business district. Subject properties located at the northeast corner of Downman Road and Dwyer Road is currently developed with the gas station and convenience store along with an attached tire shop. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing gas station and convenience store while converting the tire shop into a full scale minor motor vehicle repair shop. The proposed repair shop will occupy approximately 936 square feet and will provide two service bays with four vehicle parking spaces proposed or provided sites already established as an auto oriented commercial property and is located along a commercial corridor with other nearby retail uses.

The addition of the repair shop is not expected to materially increase traffic or adversely impact the surrounding area. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the master plans neighborhood commercial designation and with the general purpose and intent of the SB one zoning district. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of zoning docket 09526 subject to two provisos. And just as a reminder, this case was deferred from the last CPC meeting that it was at, uh, with the commission recommending to the applicant to reach out to the community and have discussions as far as engagement and improvements to the existing facility. Um, staff is in receipt of some emails from the applicant's representative that shows some improvements have been made. However, the applicant, I believe, would like to speak on. Um, I'm not sure if we're not okay. Okay. The, uh, I think the applicant was intending on requesting, um, for you to defer further the item. However, the deadline for CPC action is November 7th. Uh, so we could only defer it to the 2nd October meeting, which is October 27th. Recommendation is for approval. It's Mr Brown here. Jimmy Brown. Staff. Are you finished? Yes. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record that I believe that the community engagement discussions had taken place, but I think the applicant was to give themselves some time wanted to recommend deferral. Okay. And we have Mr Brown is here, and then we have some cards in opposition. So before you speak, sir, did you have a question? Gordon. We got that question answered. Okay. Mr Brown. Okay. Welcome. State your name and address, please. My name is Jimmy Brown and I live. I had a 48 oh one Mark Street and beautiful down in New Orleans East. And I'm here representing a client that has done everything the city asked us to do. And we've met with, uh, uh, the two, um, neighborhood associations about this, uh, this project. And we and they gave us their concerns as to what they'd like to see done at that location. And we've already started, um, the improvements. Um, I'd like to comment to the associations, even if, um, they haven't been good neighbors in the past. My client is trying to, um, reach out and be a good neighbor. That's why we already before we got any approvals, we had already started improving property. The only thing that's left to do is the painting. And I couldn't have that done before this meeting, but everything else has been done. But, uh, we asked for your approval. That's it. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Jordan. Mr Brown, do you mind just naming the theories of, uh, recommendations and improvements that have been made to date? Minus the painting. So they were asking for landscaping. They were asking for and we've started that they were asking for painting, and they were asking that there won't be any loitering around the building, especially, um, uh, after out. And we we're gonna do that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have no other cards in support. If that is correct, we're gonna move to opposition. Um, Miss Mary James and Roland Barth and Mr Smith. And Mr Barth, you have four minutes because time has been ceded to you. So, Miss James, please remember to say your name and address. Mhm. Good afternoon. My name is Mary L. James, and my address is 65 11 4th Road in New Orleans, Louisiana. And I'm here in opposition to the situation that exists at, uh, the grocery store where it was. There has been a lot of watering. It has been, um, yeah, a mechanic shop, and we're asking that they discontinue those activities because it has a effect on the appearance of the of the of the neighborhood. We want to be able to go out if we use that store and not be confronted by vagrants on the streets. So we're asking and we want to be good neighbors and that they be profitable in the neighborhood if they can be. But don't disregard our request for the things that we need done. So are you in support of a denial of a deferral? If that is if they can make the proper improvements, then I'll have to be in accordance with the approvements. I'm not. I won't deny them the opportunity to work there on that business, but they have to abide by the request request of the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr Barth. And you have four minutes. Yeah. It is my understanding that there was a request for a postponement of this. This particular item. It appears so. Okay. All right, then let's have the postponement because the reason why is because our people got worn down because of the lengthy data center because we had people here in support of it and that we will want to speak primarily. I don't want to speak. I'm the president of the subdivision, but I'd rather have my people here speak themselves instead of me speaking as one individual. So I request that we have that denial. Deferral. I'm sorry, Mr Barth. Can you just state your name and address for the I'm sorry, Roland Barth a 64 16 Pines Boulevard. Please state your name and address and you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll try to give you 30 seconds back. Can you Smith 70 33 Lake Willow Drive, interim president of the East New Orleans Neighborhood Neighborhood Advisory Commission, otherwise known as, you know, and they're gonna stand here in support of one of our neighborhoods. It is my understanding from my research that there are some specific flaws with the notification process, as I have reviewed that that provided the neighborhood engagement part of the process. And so, as I said before, I do encourage you all to check with your legal counsel because we do plan to hold hold this body accountable for that. Should the neighborhood not be satisfied, they have expressed their opposition to this, their willingness, their willingness to work with this gentleman with all due respect to Mr Brown, my neighbor in New Orleans East. I am not paid to be here. In fact, I've sacrificed a lot to be here, and I don't want to be here very often. But I'll close with this.

I usually ask my students how many of them are parents. If you raise their hand and I asked how many have parents and then everybody raised their hand. I said, Well, the side of the line you're on. We know that we would never allow a kid to start cleaning their room and then go to the party and say, I promise I'll finish the rest. With that, I'll give you 45 seconds left. Thank you. Okay. Um, yes, Mr Smith, before you go sit down, just really quick question. So there was this question about proper engagement. Basically, your comments. What I'm hearing is that there hadn't been engagement by by by your understanding. I just want to make sure that we clarify knowing that there was a MPP. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. Uh, so there are two things here. There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. As you all well know, the spirit of the law indicates that we want to make sure the neighborhood is their proper engagement. The letter of the law says there's a particular process by which we go about doing that. You all provide that process for the applicant. My contention is that as I read that that process and the way in which this applicant has followed that process, they have not followed to the letter. And so our point is, until this applicant satisfies this neighborhood association, we contend that we plan to challenge any ability to move forward with this based on your rules. Thank you. Well, Mr Smith, what are the specific ways that they didn't follow the rules? There are certain there are certain emails and I'm not gonna tip my total hand in case we have to litigate this thing. There was certain you're mentioning challenge. So give us the facts. Don't give us generality. And I will answer your question, Mr Stig. You and I are both lawyers. So we know in a situation like this, I will. I will. I will answer your question to my satisfaction. Okay, as a member of the member of the public and certainly just like after two minutes, I'll cut my Michael. I withdraw the question. No problem. All right, Mr Brown, you're allowed to rip right. You have two minutes to but so we did have the means. We did follow the law to the letter. Uh, we met with them recently, actually, like a week ago. Uh, but what they said to me was, uh, there's so many tire shops along, um, the quarter that are not doing the right thing. I said, Well, I can't speak for those, but I'm going to do the right thing. You can deal with them, you know, later, but I'm going to do the right thing and I'm going to do what you asked me to do. And I've done that. The only thing left to do is is to paint my building. And the only reason is not paying it now. It's because the guys tonight, but I've done everything you asked me to do, whether it's to their satisfaction. I don't know, but I've done it. Are you open to it for all Mr Brown? Yeah. Well, to be fair, yes, because, um, at the very first meeting, he had people there that were interested in how their neighborhood look. So I think that's fair. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Jackson. Yes. Okay. So basically, as I listen, everybody give their perspective as a new Orleans resident. I just don't want another business that has been in the district so many years to not be there or to leave the district based on a certain level of expectation. Um, because again, as Mr Brown said, there are many tire shops in New Orleans East, and I just want us to find a way where we can have common ground to where the community is satisfied as long as the business owner. And also, I want to ask, is it the loitering or is it the presentation of the building? I just want to know, based on from the opposing party, what is the real objective that we need to fix? So just to make a comment about procedure because we are in rebuttal and we may not be able to invite the comments in that way. Gotcha. Okay. Um, but I'll go. I'll say because the applicants mentioned being open to a deferral, uh, and we only have one date that is available. Um, it seems like there's one other item that could be worked out prior to then. Uh, I would support a deferral. You want to make a motion? I'll make a motion for deferral of zoning docket 0 9 5 to 6. Okay. Thank you. And that's October 27 meeting. So we meet the November 7 deadline. There's a motion on the floor for deferral to October 27. Commissioner Jackson. Yes. Commissioner a bear. Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta. Yes. Mr. Flick. Yes. Mr. Which is a yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Mr. C. Yes. Right. The motion carries. We hope that you all can get together and talk and come back, um, to this body. All right, we're gonna move on to zoning docket. It's number five. Was it? Oh, nine. Oh, Sorry, that's me again. Zoning Docket 099-26 is a request for a zoning change from an HURD2 Historic Urban Two-Family Residential District to HUMU Historic Urban Neighborhood Mixed-Use District for property that's located on the northwest corner of Petania Street and Melpomene Street. Present structure is an historic commercial building that is presently of illegal nonconforming use. This zoning change to HUMU would bring the site into modern compliance with the current CZO, but also allow for the site to continue the trend of mixed-use zoning within the larger surrounding area. While the rezoning is technically inconsistent with the site's residential low-density pre-war flum designation, staff finds the inconsistencies are less relevant given the property's historic commercial use and surrounding area's trend towards mixed-use development. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Zoning Docket 099-26. Mr. David Glazer? My name is David Glasgow. I live at 1833 Esplanade Avenue. The building in question, I'm the architect for the owner, and they're going to do some renovations on it. They recently purchased it. I was in conversations with the Zoning Board about the fact that there is a, there's all sorts of nonconforming use issues.

And given that the properties across the street adjacent to it along Britannia Street are all this more intense, slightly more intense zoning, and that would address the current use, which has been in effect since the mid-century, at least. That's what we're requesting. Thank you. Do you all have any questions for the architect? No. Thank you. I don't have any other cards on this matter, so if not, I'll be looking for a motion. I'll move approval. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Flick moved approval. Commissioner Jordan seconded. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Whitry? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Great. Thank you. Zoning Docket 126 is a request by City Council Motion M26284 for a text amendment to Article 21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that would add two Lakeview communities of Lake Oaks and Lake Terrace to the list of neighborhoods regulated by the fence height requirements outlined in Article 21, Section 21.6.N.2.A. This section currently states that the fence height requirements for Lake Vista area are those two zoning districts is 1.5 feet for front yards and 5 feet for side and rear yards. It would essentially just eliminate one section, the section that particularly is specific for Lake Terrace, and it would add that to the section that's for Lake Vista, and it would add Lake Oaks as well. That's basically what it's doing. It's just to eliminate redundancy. And we don't have any cards to speak on this matter. Is there a motion? Let's do it. I move modified approval. Thank you. Is there a second? I second. Okay. Let's vote. Or any questions? Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Witry? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. All right. The motion carries. We'll move on to Zoning Docket 101-26. ZD101-26 is a request for a conditional use permit to permit a bar located at 50 Tenferret Street in an HUMU district, an AC-2 arts and culture diversity overlay district. This request comes as part of a development which will include two distinct businesses, the aforementioned bar use and a social club. The site is currently used as a casual takeout restaurant. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent with the master plan, the intent of the HUMU district, AC-2 overlay district, and is consistent with the trajectory of development and character of the Ferret Street corridor. Within this year, a bar across the street at 5039 Ferret Street closed, therefore this approval would not intensify activity on the block beyond previous levels. Based on these findings, staff concludes that the proposed use is appropriate for the site and surrounding area and recommends approval. Thank you. So, I have a couple of cards. Eric Hoffman, you have two names, and Ms. Laura Barth, do you want to start? Yes. Okay, please go ahead. Laura Barth, 1000 South Norman C. Francis, I am paid to be here. We would like to thank commissioners and CPC staff. We do agree with staff that this proposed business is compatible with the mixed use zoning and specifically the commercial Ferret Street corridor. As stated, there is a bar that closed down earlier this year. There's only one other bar in the vicinity. It's more of a high-end bar cure. This bar is going to be more of a casual small neighborhood pub. The bar itself is under 800 square feet. There are going to be revised plans submitted where there's actually not going to be any form of an internal door for the two commercial units. Entrances and exits will be from the outside where you can only enter one you can't go through. So, I just want to make that distinction. We have had ongoing communication with the recently revived neighborhood group, the Ferret Neighbors United. They were not active for the NPP, but they have come to us after, and we do have ongoing communication with them, and we do intend to go to their November neighborhood meeting. There's no outdoor seating for this bar. The only rear outdoor portion is for the other commercial unit. Hours of operation are going to be basically until midnight, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Liza is not going to speak. Did he leave already? Okay. Mr. Hoffman, would you like to come speak? You have a card deeded to you, so you have four minutes. You can take less. I will take less. Eric Hoffman, 2605 Octavia Street, New Orleans. I'm a resident of the community as well as the architect on the project, and I'm just here to thank staff in recognizing us meeting the conditions of approval, and we're really excited to bring what is kind of a vacant takeout restaurant into a vibrant community space. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other cards to speak? I don't have anyone in opposition unless, Ms. Johnson, are you, did I miss your card? I gave a card to Ms. Monette. I'm sure it's in here. Yes. Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street, Historic New Orleans Neighborhoods. I'm not paid to be here. Hearing of this conditional, you should be deferred until the zoning of the entire parcel is verified. It's a 3,600-square-foot lot with two proposed uses, bar for the existing structure, just 736 square feet, and an alleged social club, which would be a new addition on the same level of 2,000 square feet. September 21, the BZA granted a waiver of four parking spaces for a social club use. Four days later, Susanna Kirby wrote an email ceasing the city council, stating that safety and permits has not made any determination that the proposed business is a social club. So this process is happening backwards. Parking waivers obtained before zoning use for the bigger space were even approved. And now the conditional use for the smaller space is being heard also before that determination has been made. The grounds for use are weak.

This new venue is intended to provide 24-7 access to three indoor golf simulators, an activity that is customarily carried on as a business, like Topgolf 504. That's a disqualifier per the definition in Article 26. Significantly, the social club use would allow the club members to consume alcohol on the premises 24-7 per CZO 20.3 point CCC without a discrete conditional use process while they are playing their simulated games of golf. As to direct input from the neighbors, I'll be interested to hear what, see what that looks like, considering the opposition to Sonny's last October. Please defer this docket until the zoning of the social club has been verified as a discrete. Thank you. And let the record note, I did have to find your card for that. Thank you. You have two minutes to rebut, please. I would like to just say that there is no real reason for a deferral. These are two separate units, two separate uses. The social club that is being mentioned is a permitted use. It has actually been cleared by zoning. But also, if that comes up later on, that's something that zoning will have to review. And if they deny that social club, then that's a whole other space. Right now, we really should just be focused on the bar and the use of the bar. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for staff? I move approval in accordance with staff recommendation. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Sieg. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan. Any discussion? All right. We'll go ahead and vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Wittre? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. Okay. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on to Zoning Docket 102-26. Zoning Docket 102-26 is a request for conditional use to permit a car wash at 3509 South Carrollton Avenue. The applicant is proposing new construction of a locally operated car wash with primary frontage along South Carrollton Avenue and additional ingress and egress at Palm Street and Short Street. The only two other uses on the block are an IHOP restaurant and the Carrollton Veterinary Hospital. The site formerly featured a Pep Boys motor vehicle service and repair shop. The applicant is proposing new construction that includes a 4,680 square foot car wash tunnel office and storage structure situated towards the center of the site along with three vehicle bays and six... and vacuum stations. The site's in an MU1 medium-intensity mixed-use district adjacent to HUMU and EC educational campus districts, which is Xavier University, and catacorner to an HURD2 historic or two-family residential district. At least six other zoning districts are within a five-block radius of the site. This proposal is in contrast with the intent of the MU1 mixed-use medium-intensity district, which aims to create walkable neighborhood centers and corridors with appropriate transitions from commercial uses to lower-density neighborhood areas. Because this site is nestled among a variety of zoning districts, ranging from commercial to institutional to residential, it needs to remain mixed-use and walkable rather than skewing towards a wholly auto-oriented use. Additionally, this site is located in the EC Enhancement Corridor Design Overlay District and will be on the agenda at the October 21st DAC meeting. Aside from site design questions and traffic flows, staff finds the building design to be interesting and appropriate for the auto-oriented use, but staff recommend denial of Zoning Docket 102-26. Should the application be approved, the eight provisos should be attached to the approval. Thank you. Ms. Weber, you have two cards ceded to you, so you have six minutes. I'm not certain why that's not working. The timer's- Okay, it's on. Okay, there we go. Thank you. And one of the cards, we incorrectly put the person who's ceding their time, so Laura's actually not ceding her time to me. Corey is, if that's okay. Okay. So, Nicole Weber, 2131 Bienville Street. I really wish the images would be up because we're very proud of this. I always say I don't do ugly, and this is not an ugly car wash whatsoever. We have the design team behind me and owner Mac Bauer, and we're really proud of what we've done. As you can see, we have, oh, and I wish the images would come up, if I could wish it into existence. The internet's down, so. Okay, well, hopefully you all can see, it's a really cool retro look. It was designed for the site. We didn't take a cookie cutter car wash and try to stick it on Carrollton. It is, the whole stormwater management is a vast improvement from what's there. The landscaping, everything was done just really up to par and really beyond what I think most people would expect for a car wash, and so we're very proud of that. I do wanna point out, we're a local team, locally owned. Virgis Roam is sitting behind me. Dana Brown from Dana Brown and Associates sitting behind me. Really proud of what we've done, like I said earlier. Some of the impacts that we've taken, we will be taking off, if approved, would be from 1% permeable to 40% permeable. Impact on the neighborhood, we have thought of everything. When we went to the neighbors, we had lifted every stone, let no stone be unturned, right? So we looked at the lighting, we looked at noise, we looked at traffic, urban systems, reviewed the traffic impact study, reviewed the traffic impact and looked at what was the best ingress and egress. What we can't fix are the streets and the poor condition of the streets, unfortunately, but with our MAXSTAT stormwater management plan, we are taking a lot of burden off of the streets and off the city's infrastructure.

Again, in terms of long-term accountability, the provisos, the stormwater management having to be recertified every two years, including looking at landscaping, those are all things that stay in place to assure that this property is very attractive and very useful. I will say, yes, we are an MU zoning district, and so staff obviously had to look at the fact that we are car-oriented, but if you look at the development pattern, if you look at the blocks in and around us, we are near Costco, we're near all commercial. There is no residential within that first block along Carrollton Avenue. The nearest residential properties are set back and within 200 feet. So we really are more of a commercial corridor than a mixed-use zoning district. There isn't residential within that MU1 for many, many blocks. I also wanted to point out that Mac Bauer, who's sitting behind me, he had Aldi that was signed on when Pep Boys left. Aldi was coming to the site, and he had a lease agreement with Aldi. Aldi, unfortunately, had to back out, and quickly, Mac looked at, okay, I've got a building sitting there. What am I going to do? Instead of leaving that building there sitting, he demolished it. He cleared the site. That, to me, says a responsible corporate neighbor to not let a building sit there become stagnant. Now he's spent many years looking at other uses, and the car wash has been deemed the most useful for the site. It'll take off impacts on the limited amount of car washes that we do have. I'm not gonna bring up any other car washes, but ours, we've done a great job on lessening any impact and in really just being beneficial and improvement to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Laura LaVon. Hi. I remember to say your name and address. Can you all hear me? Okay. My name is Laura LaVon. I live at 4427 General Pershing, and I'm an architect, and I work at Verges Rome, and I designed this building. What you can't see in the front elevation is a series of spikes that go down the side. This is truly a mid-century modern design, and it was designed with the neighborhood in mind. We've got a really fun vet clinic on one side with the nice arches. We've got IHOP. It used to be the Imperial Room with Five Happiness, so it's got the sculptural roof and color, and then we've got Five Happiness. Xavier is not far away. Across the street is a strip mall. We're definitely improving over that. The property is an unusually shaped lot. The building placement and the traffic circulation was designed to have the least negative impact, and we're actually trying to improve, as Ms. Weber said, on the drainage and anything else that we possibly can to be an improvement to the neighborhood. We'll have native plants. We'll have permeable paving and everything like that. We did listen to the neighborhood. We did move the entrances and exits around as much as we could while still allowing IHOP to have their patrons access their site. We are kind of limited because the site is a strange lot, and we have to allow IHOP, obviously, to do business. Verges Room is a local architecture firm. It's located a mile and a half from this site. We are invested in the neighborhood. I live a mile and a half on the other side of this site, so I am a neighbor. I am invested. I pass by here twice a day going to and from work, so being a good neighbor is definitely a priority because we are neighbors as well, and yeah, that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Dana Brown, please remember to state your name and address. Hi, Dana Brown, 329 Cliff Street. That's in Old Jefferson. I'm the landscape architect and designed the stormwater management system for the project that was just discussed a little bit, and I think it's, we're really proud of how much we've been able to put on the site storage underneath, pervious paving for all the parking spaces where people get vacuums, vacuum their cars, and bioswales and other green space. We've increased green space by, well, by 39%. Right now, it's 99% impervious, so right now, it's dumping all the water into the streets and therefore into the catch basins and the pipes, and we're reducing that to, we're reducing the peak flow by 34% into the system, and that's pretty significant because the code requires that you not exceed existing discharge rates, so we're going way beyond that, and as well as for the landscape components, got a bit of extra landscaping than what is required because we landscaped our bioswales and some other areas, a couple extra trees. I wanna note that the trees on Carrollton, there's one big one that doesn't look in the greatest shape and a smaller one. Oaks, Mr. Bauer has an arborist who's been looking at them and gonna take care of them. Those are gonna be protected completely. I'm a landscape architect. I'll go chain myself to the tree if somebody tries to do something to do the trees because we need our urban forest around here, but those are the main things I wanna mention. I think it would be actually, in terms of storm management, a model for that area of the city, so thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter? Okay. I don't have any cards in opposition, so there's no rebuttal. Can I ask a question to staff? Yes, yes. This property wraps around the IHOP and goes back on the side street. Am I right about that? Is that where the old Pep Boys was? Yes, it stretches from South Carrollton to Short Street. Yeah, to Short Street. It goes through the block, and there is a servitude agreement with the IHOP, which was a former Sizzler initially, apparently, and there's a servitude agreement that manages the ingress and egress that they're proposing. And I'm looking at a picture, so we have the vet on one side. We have IHOP. Next to the vet is, I think that's a McDonald's. Then on the other side of IHOP is 5 Happiness. Across the street is a Firestone Auto Service Center and a Strip Shopping Center.

So in light of all of that, I'm just not seeing a lot of residential, I'm not seeing a lot of walkability. It's probably one of the busiest streets in the city. Yeah, if you see the zoning map, oh, sorry, I'm sorry. Yeah, please. Yeah, if you see the zoning map, it's nestled in between a bunch of different zoning districts. This one in particular intends to promote walkability, and like a transition between some of the districts, but you know, South Carrollton. I think it tried to promote, but I don't think it made it quite. So I'm gonna make a motion against staff recommendation because of what I've said about the neighborhood for the conditional use with the provisos that are in the staff report. I'll second. I'll second. Thank you. All right, Heather's a motion on the floor for approval. Commissioner Sieg, and then seconded by Commissioner Hebert. Any questions, discussion? All right, let's vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Witry is yes. Commissioner Jordan? Normally I'd be a no, but I'm a yes. Good. Commissioner Stieg? Yes. Because of the mid-century design? Being an architect and urban planner, you're looking for walkability, so. All right, the motion carries. All yeas. Thank you. Yes. I'm recused on the next item. Commissioner Stieg is recused on this next item. Thank you all for being here all afternoon. We really do appreciate it. We are going to be moving on to Zoning Docket 103-26. This is an application affecting a historic large residential structure at the corner of St. Charles Avenue and 2nd Street. The proposal is to use it. It's probably originally a single. It was later converted to a double. The proposal is to convert it back to a single for use as a principal bed and breakfast, and so that's a bed and breakfast type that is larger in that it can have up to nine bedrooms and requires an on-site operator. Bed and breakfast, like non-commercial short-term rentals, are limited to one per square, and this square is open, so this is an eligible application. The staff finds it to be consistent, especially with the general purpose of the bed and breakfast regulations. The structure is, you know, noteworthy in its size and its location on St. Charles Avenue, and that would seem to lend itself to a larger type of bed and breakfast, and so the staff recommends approval with one waiver of the parking requirement, which cannot be accommodated on-site, and three provisos. Thank you. Are you all the applicants? Okay. When you get a second, after, if you could fill out a card, please. Okay. Okay. Sure. Thank you. State your name and address, and you've got, if you each fill out a card, then you each have two minutes. Should we do that now? You can talk, and then. Okay. I don't think we'll need it, but John and Candy Merz, 2503 St. Charles Avenue, the applicants. We are applying for a principal bed and breakfast permit at the property. We bought the house in 2017 with the, and we were looking for an investment property where we could also live, and we came across this house, and we thought it was so beautiful and a great piece of history, and we thought it was the perfect setup for a B&B and would be a great opportunity to share that with other people visiting New Orleans because it is so historically significant, but at the time when we went to get a B&B license, New Orleans had recently started issuing short-term rental permits, so we decided at that point in time that we would utilize short-term rental permits while we got our ducks in a row, painting, furniture, decorating, et cetera, and then, you know, push off the bed and breakfast permit until a little bit down the line, and then over time, that was working pretty well for us, so we've been operating at that location using short-term rental permits over the past 10 years, but those have become more and more restrictive over time, and now we are in a better position to continue forward with what we want to do, and we had a meeting, an MPP meeting, and we discussed with the participants all of the things that we thought would be of a concern to them, and one of the things that we wanted to reiterate to them was basically we've been good neighbors for the past 10 years doing the same thing in a different way, and that they really shouldn't be able to see a difference, and, you know, just the mere fact that we've not been a problem in the past, and that we've had everything under very good control, it's very quiet. If you'll have an opportunity to rebut. I was going to say that would work, I think. Okay. To rebut, so. Okay, cool. Thank you. We missed a minute call, three names at a time, so Andy Braun, you have time ceded to you, so you have four minutes. Peter Merkton, and then Dana Cusimato Farley. We don't have any other cards in support, is that correct? We're moving to opposition. Okay, state your name and address. Thank you. And you've got four minutes. Good afternoon, my name is Andy Braun, 1203 Washington Avenue. I'm the president at the current time of the Garden District Association, and I happen to also live in the Garden District. So the Garden District Association vehemently objects to the grant of a conditional use permit here. We also, with due respect to the staff, we believe the staff's analysis was erroneous, and their recommendation is just plain wrong. Number one, contrary to what the owners say, they've not been good neighbors. Indeed, this was originally a short-term rental, licensed, and they were cited about six months to eight months ago for operating without a license and with advertising for short-term rental without a license, and not just cited, convicted, and ultimately fined over $6,000. That alone shows that they were not good neighbors.

But what we have found subsequently is that the owners also own a property in Broward County, Florida, located at 1998 Southwest 16 Court, Fort Lauderdale, as I said, in Broward County. Our research reflects that it appears they've been taking a homestead exemption at that property in Florida, which requires, as we understand the law in Broward County, that they be not just residents, but that that be their permanent residence. At the same time, we understand that the records from the Orleans Parish appraiser also show they've been taking at the same time a homestead exemption on this piece of property that they now have applied for a permit for, and those two homestead exemptions have given them a real estate tax break both here and in Broward County, we believe, if we've interpreted it correctly, at the same time over the last four or five years. Those two things, if we are correct, show that the owners are not good neighbors and indeed should not be trusted with operating a bed and breakfast in this community. And this raises a number of potential concerns. Number one, can we trust them? We believe, if it's true, what we believe we found in the public records, that they are not trustworthy, can't be trusted with abiding by the bed and breakfast laws. Number two, it raises the question, are they residents here or are they residents in Broward County? That's something, quite frankly, that the staff needs to, should find out and analyze and determine because, of course, they cannot be a resident operator of this property if, indeed, they're not permanent residents of this parish. Number three, it raises the question, if, indeed, we're correct and they have taken homestead exemptions and obtained tax breaks in two different states, two different counties, should you allow them to have a license here? And even if so, should it be conditioned on them paying back this parish the money, the tax breaks that they have gotten over the last four, three or four or five years? Because, as we all know, we need the money and it would be unfair for them to have a license and at the same time operate. We also have a problem with the number of bedrooms, the analysis that was done, and also the whole idea of giving, of awarding them a variance on the number of parking spaces. The staff says two. Thank you. Peter Merton or Donna, Donna Farlow. Farley. Yes, good afternoon. Dana Cusimano Farley, 3908 Ashley Court in Metairie, but I am an owner of unit 202 at 2511 St. Charles. I have personally not been affected by the applicants, you know, the applicants tenure here, but because my unit is on the opposite side of the building and so I am not, and plus I'm renting my unit at the time, although at this time, but I'm also, I also use it myself, but I'm really concerned about a couple of things. First of all, 2511 St. Charles is a building that's L-shaped. It wraps around this house on one side and the back of it, which to me gives us more exposure to the noise. I have not heard the noise because, again, I'm not living there right now. I have to abide by the rules and if I rent, it has to be a 30-day minimum, which I do. Also, I understand, you know, when you buy a big piece of property in the Garden District, you know, you may not be, and I'm thinking the applicants maybe weren't quite ready for the tax bill, the insurance that has gone up dramatically, and I really feel like they're looking for extra income. I get it, but they've also explained in that little meeting that they that they had a couple of months ago that they want to do wedding, destination weddings at this facility, at this house. Now then, you're opening up a whole can of worms, parking, noise, alcohol consumption, which believe me, our building, you know, is right on the parade route. We have that, but it's not, I don't think it's a good situation, and I believe that, thank you, you're talking about, maybe you just want to finish your last comment. I just believe that the block is residential, and I feel like adding this commercial aspect is not conducive to our property values and, you know, enjoying our property. Thank you. Thank you. Peter Merton. Good afternoon. My name is Al Gooch. I reside at 2511 St. Charles, which is immediately next to the applicant's location. The reason I object to it is the noise factor is. is very intense. They've also have spoken marijuana and it's drifted into my building. And as a limited, I think they're only have two parking spots off street. So the parking I've had parking parking blocking exit on the second street. So I object to allowing this applicant to go forward with this project. Thank you. Um, is Peter Merton here? Okay. And then Henry Apatowski and Thomas Collie. Please state your name and address. I'm Peter Merton. I resided 20 25 11 ST Charles, the adjoining property. I live there with my wife. Um, I think one of the things that that struck me in this is is that going back to the operating and unlicensed short term rental trust was broken. And in my mind, when you operate an unlicensed facility and you can't be trusted with with this zoning change, um, I don't really understand the guardrails of operating an Airbnb. I don't know whether there has to be staff full time, whether they have to actually serve a meal with the breakfast part. Um, frankly, again, I do not trust these folks. Um, they they were not allowed to operate that short term rental. They put the house on the market. Clearly it didn't sell. So this is now their last dish effort to recover whatever they would have might have lost in this investment. I do not support it. I do not trust them. There is a lot of rowdy people that that have rented in the past. I can't see any change in that, and I don't support this. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr Opitowski. Thomas Miss Ali and then Brandy Lizard was already. All right. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Henry Opitowski, Stieg law firm. Um, to a one ST Charles Suite 32. Oh, one.

I'm here on behalf of the gallery. Uh, Condo Association, which has just been described as the direct neighbor of the applicant's property. Um, the association submitted a letter of opposition, which was lodged in the record, and you all should have that. And we laid out a lot of the issues that, um, Andy Braun brought up when he just spoke regarding, um, uh, the parking variance issues, the events and so forth. But I'm here to address two particular ones. Two provisos that we brought in the letter and then we're addressing the staff report regarding the current set up of the property is a multifamily to family, and the CEO requires that it be converted to a single family. So that, you know, we need eyes on that, and that needs to happen before anything would any license could even be granted for B and B. Um, and then another one is just that the that indeed that the unit above the garage it has been declared ineligible for overnight stay, which would I would assume eliminate at least one of the nine rooms that would be allowed for the principal use. Um, and so and so, yeah, as the residents have already spoken, I thought I was maybe gonna go first and introduce them. But a lot of that, you know, whatever trust there was, uh, has been breached or broken over the years, uh, between the applicants and the residents that are directly not just next to, but also behind the, uh, it almost income, you know, encloses the property. So, yeah, just would, you know, just wanted to lodge our general opposition to the application and let the residents speak for themselves. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Um, Randy, what was already? I know I didn't pronounce that correctly. My apologies. It's okay. Everyone does. So my name's Randy Lizzo. I'm at 25 11 ST Charles Avenue, and I oppose this application. My condos next to the property's courtyard, and it overlooks it. Ever since the current owners purchased this property, they have been running the illegal Airbnb. I have had experiences negatively with, like large groups in the courtyard all hours of the day and night. I have also smelled pot wafting through my windows. Um, it's greatly affected my quality of life, and the problem will definitely worsen if they're allowed to be a B and B and if they're allowed to have larger groups with music and events coming on. Um, so there's no barrier. There's no buffer in between my unit and, like, all the units that overlook their courtyard and wrap around their property. So, um, please keep this property residential so that our peace can be restored and that we can just have peace and quiet in our own homes. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Jan Gillespie and Charles Gillis. And then, Mr Braun, you can come back up and close it out because someone stated their time to you. Hi, I'm Jane Gillespie, and I live at 25 11 the gallery, and I've had a condo there for about 10 years. And before that, I rented from someone else and had family that's lived there. So I have a long history with the condos, and you could literally from the porches of our building, you could drop a stone into their courtyard. So it's very close, and I'm just concerned about the noise. I mean, I don't object to parties. We have enough parties around our area, and, you know, if you have one night, that's kind of sleepless. I'm fine with that. I'm okay with the parties. I'm a native New Orleanian. I don't object to that. But the thought of having sleepless nights every night or any night, you know, if you're having destination weddings and events in an open courtyard or even inside, I just it's gonna really affect our quality of life. And we have a number of people who live in the building, probably at least half the units full time living in the building and a lot of elderly people. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Gillis. Charles Gillis at 25 11 ST Charles Avenue in New Orleans. And I am president of the H O A for the Gallery Condo Association. Um, our board has submitted a letter in petition that you have opposing this application. And our 27 owners asked that you focus on the nuisance of noise. Ah, is our other owners have talked about our proximity to the that they described to the applicants property. If you would please look at the aerial bird's eye view, you can understand what they're talking about where you were right on their property on two sides. Um, and even if the neighboring patio is filled with just people and not even music, many of our owners would be within 20 ft of a crowded, drinking, celebrating event of attendees. Uh, if you allow one property owner to negatively affect 27 others, then what conditional use were you ever denied? Uh, that's uh, we just ask for protection and that you deny this application. Thank you, Mr Brown, please. And that's the last card I have in opposition. Okay. Thanks for hearing me again. Um, I want to address the recommendation of the staff for nine bedrooms, which is essentially based on a waiver of the parking requirements. The report says that they have two parking spaces. We were told at the NPP that they have four. And if they have four, they don't need a waiver because with four parking spaces, they could have up to six bedrooms that if you are going to grant this, which we still think is a problem because they've had the use of this for the last 345 years as a short term rental. And supposedly they've only been allowed to rent two or four bedrooms. And if that and you can see there's already complaints about noise, congestion, parking. What's going to happen if they're allowed nine bedrooms? And what's not reflected in the report is that these bedrooms sometimes have three kings in it or two queens altogether. Nine bedrooms, if it's allowed, could be over 45 people staying at this place at one time. Even six could be 35 or almost 40 people. The way I see it is you've got to balance the detriment to the owners for not granting them this application versus the detriment to the neighbors and the neighborhood.

The Garden District Association comes down on the side of the neighbors. They've already been burdened enough. Why burden them more by now granting a nine bedroom bed and breakfast? Even a four short-term rental was burdensome. Thank you. Thank you. Please, you all have two minutes to rebut and speak to their concerns. I'm not sure I can get all the rebuttal in I need to get in. And if one of you could speak into the mic just so that we can hear. Before he speaks, I would just like to say that we've lived next door to these people for 10 years and to our knowledge they have never complained to us about noise. We've also lived there so we would hear the noise as well and so would other guests in the house and any noise that could possibly be heard would be reported to us if we didn't hear it ourselves and we have security cameras as well. So we feel like these instances of noise have been exaggerated and also on at our meeting we did talk to them about the things that we had in place to address noise issues but what we didn't mention was how much noise we put up with from them. You know we are located in an area where everything is close together and and that's typical of the whole area, the whole city pretty much. And they have a, go ahead. I'm sorry we've been awakened many, many, many, many times by a dumpster being picked up at 3 a.m. in the morning from that condo and we've never said a word to them about it. And it happens once a week, 50 times, that's 50 weeks a year for the past 10 years. That's 500 instances of noise. I'm not sure how many instances of noise that they've had from hearing people talk in our courtyard but it doesn't compare to the being woken up by what sounds like a semi-truck running into your house. And also I can just walk down the street at any random time in New Orleans and smell marijuana. I'm not really sure what that means. I would also address the completely false accusations that we had homestead exemption in Fort Lauderdale. We moved from Fort Lauderdale to here around 2014, and then we bought the existing property around 2017, and we have not had homestead exemption in both places ever. We had to provide documentation to the New Orleans office to show that we had dropped the homestead there, and in fact, we actually got a permit for rentals there in Florida. Please continue. Commissioner Jordan's asking that if you have anything else to add, please go ahead. If you could add time, thank you. Thank you, appreciate it. A few minutes. One other thing I wanted to address, the parking spaces, we actually worked that out with staff to reduce it with two, because we could theoretically get some people in the courtyard, but it would probably require a valet, and that's not something that would be in our financial wherewithal to do. I would also note that there's plenty of parking on St. Charles itself. There is some parking from the doctor's office on 2nd Street, but they're closed on the weekends. Usually in front of our house, there's two spaces. There's spaces across the street on St. Charles, and they're usually open. And we also see people from the condo building who are using the street parking, despite the fact that they have their own parking garage, and we've never complained about that. We believe that the street parking is for everyone, but we don't believe that our use is any more so than the surrounding properties. And I would also like to point out that we are currently zoned multifamily, so we could potentially have long-term tenants in there as well that could be talking in the courtyard, smoking marijuana, whatever long-term tenants do, have friends over, have guests over, have a party. I mean, we're already zoned multifamily, so we're not really clear how us being there now, having to be there, having to live there, which we already do, would create even more noise than the way it's zoned now. Also, I would like to add that a lot of the complaints that were put in writing before this meeting pertain to procedural types of things where we have been advised by our Planning Commission contact that you do this and this, and then later you do this, and we've been assured that everything we've done is correct and accurate up to date. And I think there's some confusion, perhaps, by the garden district and the condos that we're gonna be doing something going forward like what we did in the past. But if we receive approval for the bed and breakfast license it's nine rooms, two guests per bedroom, that's the rules, and we would make changes accordingly, as opposed to how we're renting it now, which is 30-day rentals. So were you operating illegally the past few years? We did get caught for illegal operation, and we ceased, and we paid our fines. The short-term rentals became very restrictive, and we kind of got caught in the crosshairs of we can't do this anymore, we need to do something. We need to go back to our original bed and breakfast license and do something about that. But yes, we did get, we did get. And I just want to point out, too, something else in response. They said that we just did this now. I have emails from 2017 and 2019 with Haley Delery, who I assume might be Haley Webb now, about asking about a bed and breakfast application. And that current iteration at that time, the city required that you get homestead exemption for short-term rental. And we were actually advised by the city that that would probably be a better path, because then we didn't have to go through the conditional use process. Because at that time, the number of bedrooms was fine. And we actually did all the homestead, changed our license, all that, and went down there. They wouldn't let us apply because we hadn't paid our property tax yet, even though it wasn't due. And then COVID hit. And then I think there was a case against short-term rentals, the homestead exemption, and a federal case against it as well. Okay, thank you. I have questions for staff.

In the Garden District, because this is what property would be, isn't it 60-day rentals that your, is the minimum? There is a restriction in the Garden District, but it does not include this property. It's for the HURD2, right? Okay, all right, thank you. If I could add one more thing. We were talking about the good neighbor and living next to them for 10 years with no complaints. And I would like to say that as far as the Garden District is concerned, we've had zero complaints from them in the past few years. And with the gallery condo next door, we've had three instances. One instance was a person who contacted us because our lights were shining in their window, and we removed the lights. Another instance was a light that was shining in someone's window, and we worked with them to put a cover over the window so they wouldn't be impacted with the lights. Another instance was a person who complained about a dog that was barking. And we don't normally allow pets on the property, but it was my son who was visiting at the time, and after the complaint, we had him remove the dog the next day. We've been very responsive, and those are the only three. There've been no noise complaints that have been told to us that we're aware of. Thank you. And we also have many neighbors from the condominiums that come to us and ask us for rooms, like if they have people visit and they need extra space for them, we have several people that we have relationships with that repeatedly use our, you know, thing. And we offer a 10% neighborhood discount to them as well. We're trying to be good neighbors. Thank you. Okay, y'all, do you have questions? Commissioner Josie Gupta? Do you live there full-time on this property? And which portion of the building are you living in? Well, in our discussion with staff, we are going to live on the third floor of the property. But you don't live there currently? Currently, we just stay whatever's open. We're just all over the house, so. Okay. Commissioner Steeke had to recuse himself. Not yet. All right, Commissioner Jackson's back. The staff recommendation is approval with waivers and provisos. You all have a motion? We've heard from the neighbors, we've heard from the applicants. We need the. Madam Chair? Yes, Commissioner Jackson. I wanna vote for a motion. With provisos. Are you gonna vote in the, are you approving, or are you going against staff recommendation? Yeah, I'm going to approve with provisos. Okay, what are those? There's one waiver and three provisos in the second word. Is there a second? I second. Okay, any discussion? I'll be voting no, just because of the lack of operating illegally, and I'd like to be consistent in the past with your operating illegally, and then trying to ask for forgiveness. I'm just not comfortable with that. All right, we're gonna go ahead and vote. Commissioner Jordan? I'm gonna, actually this will be unique for me, I'll vote yes in this case, because I know that there have been a number of interim periods where it has been challenging for many folks to be in compliance, and the fact that there is some transparency about not being in compliance, it gives me a little bit more confidence, and the efforts that have been done to date would be a good thing for us, so yes. And I'm a no. Commissioner Flake? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? It's a very difficult yes, because the building is very awkward, and it's kind of caught in this L shape of the condo building, and if it were a single family residence, I don't think it could actually be sold as a single family residence, and that's the awkwardness of that. I do not appreciate homeowners lapsing, or getting around rules, and things like that, so for that reason, I was a little, I'm really on the fence, but in this situation, I'm voting yes. Commissioner Heber? Yes, I'm going to vote yes, but I agree that you really should follow the rules, because it's what you need to do, and the neighbors have been watching what's happening at your property, so please, if you can, communicate with them, do what you need to do to give them a peace of mind, a living next to you, yes. Commissioner Daxson? Yes, and I echo those comments as well. Okay, thank you. Follow the rules. So the motion carries with approval, good luck. We're moving on to zoning docket number 10, 10426. This is a request to sell packaged alcohol beverages in a gas station to be located in a former dollar, excuse me, former family dollar along Old Gentilly Road. The gas station itself is a permitted use. The sale of alcoholic beverages is a conditional use. The staff generally finds that the sale of alcoholic beverages is sort of a normal product sold in grocery stores, gas stations, and the like, and the issues with it often come based on responsible or not responsible operation, as opposed to the nature of the use itself. The staff is going to assume that the operator will operate responsibly, and if that is not the case, that there will be appropriate enforcement, and so as a zoning matter, the staff recommends approval and finds it appropriate. Ms. Weber. I don't think you have any time ceded to you, but you do have one card. Yes. Thank you. Nicole Weber, 2131 Bienville Street. So this is a reuse of the old family dollar Stephen had mentioned. It sat vacant for a few years. It is in a C2 auto-oriented high-heavy commercial district. Like he said, gas stations are permitted. However, because the retail store would sell packaged alcohol, like most gas stations, that's why we're here today. We held the meeting, the NPP meeting. No one attended. We had obviously sent out. notices and reached out to all individuals. There were no neighborhood organizations associated with the NPP. In fact, while we were there for about an hour waiting, just in case anybody would show up, the employees of the business where we held the NPP were asking us if they could have jobs at the gas station.

So because it is surrounded by heavy commercial, like I said, lots of fast food restaurants, no residential, you know, we feel comfortable asking the commission for this conditional use. And again, this would be reuse of the building to convert it from a former retail store that sat vacant into a new gas station. There will be improvements to the building and the building not only will have the gas station but also have space for other commercial tenants for other retail commercial tenants as well. So I think it's a great use of a building that has sat stagnant. And as we know, usually that is indicative of stagnant buildings aren't great. Um, and the property owner has kept up this property since he's purchased it recently this year, um, and continues to do so until he can go under construction and renovate it. Thank you. Thank you. I have three cards in opposition. Um, Adam Hughes, Mel Jones and Lloyd Harsh. Please come up and speak. And you have two minutes. State your name and address. And those are all the cards I have. And then Miss Weber have an opportunity to rebut. Yes, my name is Pastor Mel Jones. Uh, I'm at 41 14 old Gentile Road. I have a church at 41 16 or Gentile World. And we've also invested heavily in the community. In that we own Pantelli Coffee on Chef Highway. That's a block away from there. We have a car wash. But God is good. Car wash. We have a snowball stand. We own Tire Town, and I am in opposition to anything with alcohol. We also have without church. We have a recovery ministry where we have 100 men that live in in the community, and we have 100 women. And we also have a family house where we have 20 mothers and 50 Children. We do all of that. That's a six month program, and we do all of that with no government funding. Our businesses take care of the ministry. So we have several gas stations. We have, uh, alcohol at two of the gas stations. We have a daiquiri shop. We have Walmart. That's right around the corner, and they all have alcohol. There's also a daycare center right across the parking lot from them. And let's see what else you have. The New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. That's right around the corner. So I am in absolute opposition to any alcohol in the area. All of our business have uplifted the neighborhood. The quality of life. This would take down the quality of life. Thank you, sir. My name is Adam Hughes, and I live at 43 21 Seminary Place. I am here in some ways representing New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, but also just myself is a concerned citizen. I'm not originally from New Orleans. This is actually my second stint of living in the city. I love the city. I love the Gentile area, love living, love living there. And so a lot of my comments today are based on just my concern for that area. Really, I would say I've got two things that I would say, and both of them are maybe not evidence based, but more anecdotal this afternoon. First of all, I would just say everything that Pastor Mel said I would echo, and the main reason why is because of his many, many years of living and doing ministry in the area. I would just say to you, if anybody knows and understands the needs of the community, the ethos of the community and what that ministry needs and has been through and what the area needs, it would be him. And so I would just really, as it relates to the community and what they need, I would defer to him. So that's one thing I would say. The second thing I would say is also anecdotal. I mentioned that this is my second stint of living in the city. I lived in the same area that I did before from 2016 to June of 2022, and then for roughly four years I was gone. So I was here for six years, then left of June of 2022, came back just recently in June of 2026. The only reason I bring that up, just as kind of two markers, when we were here the first time, and especially near the end of our time, from the end of 2021 to 2022, I will just tell you the crime in the area had noticeably increased. I'm going to say violent crimes. I can't give you the statistics, but it was just experienced. My family and I, my wife and I, after being back, have noticed that that's drastically gone down. And I'm just simply saying I think adding this element in would actually increase the crime again. So I'm just asking you to vote on this. Thank you. Remember to state your name and address. I'm just waiting for all the Mike is going. Yeah, my name is Dr Lloyd Harsh. I live 43 37 Seminary Place. I have lived in the city since 2000 and have gone through Katrina. They're living in the same neighborhood, and I've seen a whole lot of transition in our neighborhood. I've seen Pastor Mel's group in in the community reclaiming derelict businesses and turning him into profitable, community oriented, uplifting things. And when I learned there's gonna be another business coming back into our area, boy, was I excited. But you imagine my chagrin when I learned that the primary sales component of that business is alcohol related. And the business is 500 feet from a daycare center, and it's 1500 feet from the church and rehab center. And Scripter says, lead us not to temptation. Well, putting another alcohol related issue just 1500 feet from people who are recovering from alcohol and other drug addictions successfully. He didn't say it, but he's got a strong, high percentage of recovery, higher than your normal normally would. And so the other issue is because it's alcohol related, the studies that exist, like the link between violent crime and alcohol outlet density by Allison Jacobs at CADCA and others, I don't have time to get them to you, but I had these available. The more alcohol related organizations you have in an area, it causes crime to increase. And there are 5, there'd be 5 in this area. So this would drastically raise that. So, you know, the challenge of having increased crime because of a higher density of alcohol related issues is of great concern.

Daycare center 500 feet, bullets go 30,000 feet. You know, all it takes is an errant bullet. So I'd like to have an organization that's known more for its rue than its rum, more for its beignets than its beer, more than it's for its problems than it's a pino and more for its wings than it's whiskey. So vote no. Thank you, Miss Weber. There's no one else here to speak in opposition. So please go ahead. Well, I have to say this first time in my career, I'm surprised I did not realize that we had opposition. And so I would like the opportunity to speak with the gentleman, um, and to learn more about their organizations. So this is the first I'm learning of their concerns and their opposition. Because of that, if the commission so chooses, we can defer this matter. Or if you choose to vote, but you know, I'm not telling you how to do your do your job. But I will and I will get their information and plan on meeting with them and discussing their concerns. I'd also like to address that the store would not be solely alcohol, we're limited to 10% of the shelf area and no more than 15% of sales coming from the sale of alcohol. But I do think this is an opportunity for us to open up the conversation and a serious conversation to be had and for the owner and for myself to understand what their concerns are and how we may address them. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Staff, can you let us know what the deadline for this is? The deadline is 60 days from today, which would fall in December. Okay, so there's time to differ. So commissioners, the recommendation is approval with one provides. So, um, the applicant has asked for a potential deferral. You know, and I'd like to have the record to note that commissioners see has rejoined us. Uh, yes, Commissioner Jackson. I want to push to I would recommend them having a referral, the deferral so that those two parties can have that serious conversation and see what we come up with. Is there a second for deferral? I'll second. Okay, great. Um, any discussion? All right, I'll put your girl, but I'm looking at the report. The the addresses where people were notified of the NPP. They're not in that area. I don't know if you all realize that. So maybe that's why nobody came to the end. So, um, I would have to look at that. But the addresses that were provided that where we send the notices to, um, and we do look at the radius. There should be the radius include included in that list. Um, I usually request it. Yeah, there you go. Um, and so that that's the wrong document. No, maybe the wrong document. That's the wrong document. Yeah, that's not ours. Okay, that's definitely not. Okay, that might be from one of the previous, um, one of the previous zoning dockets, and I got mixed up. So thank you. So there's a motion on the fourth floor floor for deferral until December. So the latest you could go is December eight. There's also the opportunity to defer to the next meeting on October 27th or the November 10th. Was that October 27? This year is October 27. Yeah, I think December. I think we need more time than that. December eight. So there's Commissioner Jackson. Is that cool? Absolutely. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor for deferral till December 8th, seconded by Commissioner. See, we're gonna vote. Commissioner Jackson. Yes, Commissioner. I bear. Yes, I can. Mr. Just you. Commissioner Flick, yes. Commissioner Whitry, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Commissioner Steeve, yes. Okay, good luck. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll see you again. Now we're going to move on to Agenda Item 11. This is a condition used for a bar on the property that is at the corner of Elysian Field and North Rampart where the Old Bayard Grocery Store is located. This is a bar that would occupy one of the suites on the site that is about 2,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing a wine shop to operate as a grab-and-go business with a small 130 square foot tasting area for on-site wine consumption which meets the requirement of the 300 square foot limit. Overall, the staff is supportive. This meets all the applicable standards of the CZO, the intent of the master plan, so the recommendation is for approval subject to three provisos. Thank you. Mr. Young, you have two cards ceded to you, so you have a total of six minutes. I don't have anyone else here to speak on this matter in support or opposition. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, members. Chris Young on behalf of St. Claude Holdings. Just a point of clarification with staff. I believe there was a reference to a bar. This is not a bar. It's a wine shop. Just wanted to clarify that. And if we could just change the time. Mr. Young has six minutes. Hold on one second. Magic's going to happen. There you go. I mean, I'll speak for six minutes. It's good. We concur, of course, with the staff's support and the provisos, so if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions? That's it. Is there a motion on the floor? I'll move approval in accordance with staff recommendation. Thank you, Commissioner Flake. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Jackson. Any questions? All right. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Witry? Yes. Commissioner Flake? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. All right. Good luck. We're going to move on to zoning tucket number 12. And we just have one person here to speak on it, but we're going to have the staff recommendation. This one is the conditional use for bar in the mixed-use district along St. Charles Avenue. The site currently operates as a microbrewery, so the proposal is to create an expansion in the scope of what the existing business already offers. Considering there's a variety of commercial uses surrounding the property, staff thinks that it's a suitable location for the site and recommends approval. Thank you. I have one card for Judy Perry. Judy Martinez? Oh.

Judy Perry Martinez, Simone Paragine, 1100 Poitras Street. I am here without payment. As full disclosure, I am also the mother of the applicant lessee, so thank you for allowing me to speak for a minute. I think that the staff recommendation appears clear and in order. We appreciate the recommendation. I know that last night there was an email sent to Robin Jones of staff responding to the various provisos and providing the nuisance plan and security plan and other items that were requested. I know she acknowledged that receipt in writing. I don't know if she's been able to look at those or act on those, but I certainly move for approval and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Are there any questions of the commission of the applicant or of staff? Staff recommendation was approval with provisos? Yes, there is. I'm sorry, three provisos, I believe. Yes, three provisos. I move approval with provisos in accordance with staff recommendation and it would be better to get paid. I'm sorry, it's two provisos. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? No. Commissioner Jensen? Yes. Commissioner Abrahams? Yes. Commissioner Joshi Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Steeke? Yes. Commissioner Witry? It's for approval. Yes. Thank you very much. All right, we're moving on to motion or docket item number 13. This item is another ABO item. It affects a non-conforming gas station at the intersection of let me adjust this here at the intersection of Norman C. Francis Parkway essentially where it where it meets excuse me, I think it's MLK. So there's a sort of on the cusp of a residential neighborhood where it transitions to commercial. Again, a gas station which is to be renovated and the proposal is to add the sale of alcoholic beverages. As stated before, the staff's general position is that there's no inherent difference in ABO sales compared to other products and that the appropriateness hinges mostly on the proper management of the facility and so given that and given the commercial purpose of the zoning district, the staff finds this to be an appropriate location. I will note that it is within about a block of a daycare center which will require the percentage of sales and display area to be quite limited under the city code and so there is a provisor that references that requirement. But again, the staff recommendation is approval. Ms. Weber? You have two cards so you get to speak for four minutes. Thank you. Nicole Weber, 2131 B. Annville Street. So has Stephen mentioned this is an existing gas station and mechanic shop. We have proposed, we've had two meetings with the neighbors, a few of whom are here today. And we've had multiple emails and phone calls and communication with them so first I want to thank them for being so willing to meet with us and to discuss the concerns and issues, existing issues in the neighborhood and for us to address that as best as we can. The grocery store component is part of the communications that we had. Ideal or IDL would be the grocer to take the space. Obviously still asking for that alcohol provision. We're in conversations with the existing mechanic shop that is open, Chuck, to see if he will stay at that location and how that would be incorporated into the renovations of the site. As you can see in the documents, it is in facade improvements to the building as well as to the site, increased landscaping, just really to beautify the site. We, through our meetings and through listening to the neighbors, determined additional provisos that I would ask if we could vote on today and I'll list those out. That would be operation, hours of operation Monday through Saturday, 6am to 8pm, closed on Sundays. Additionally, no singles, so no individual single serve alcoholic beverages will be sold and the requirement for fresh perishable food and produce items to be sold in the store at all times. There's additional concerns that we are in communication with them over traffic flow, there's concerns over not anything to do with the existing gas station or proposed sale of alcohol, but just infrastructure type issues that we have said we would work out with DPW, signage, stop signs, those kind of things that are needed in the neighborhood and so we'll continue to work on that and to provide them with the final development plans as well as the sanitation plan, security plan and other items that we have promised. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kenny. Ratif. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. I'm Kenneth Ratif. I live at 7938 Breakwater Drive in New Orleans. Yes, I'm in support of it and any other questions that might come up let me know. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other cards in support? If not, then we're going to move to opposition. So Melissa Tabar. And someone has a time ceded to Melissa Fitzgerald. Okay. People that ceded their time but I'm not going to need. Okay. If you just state your name and address, I'll fix that here. Thank you. Melissa Tabar, 1608 South Norman C. Francis Parkway. There's five multiple neighbors and thanks y'all for your time. Sorry, it's hot in here and I'm like a little delirious. So there are five other properties and multiple neighbors that are all on the block that are also in opposition. I couldn't be here. I live with my partner at the property who has lived in our space. We're just two doors down from where the property is and has lived there for 18 years. So I'm asking y'all to consider the impacts of the proposed conditional use for the alcohol sales directly across and right next door to the daycare center. I'm just going to read this because I'm not a good public speaker. So we've repeatedly expressed that planning meetings are concerns about increased commercial activity, especially those alcohol related and its effects on our quality of life.

Alcohol sales would bring increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic at various hours. It's a very dangerous intersection. and where they are, we bring a lot more traffic. We have accidents there all the time. And there are kids there. A lot of us walk our dogs. There's a lot of pedestrian traffic in that area. So like they said in the previous, like alcohol sales, also public intoxication, drunk driving, loitering, increased noise, litter, trespassing, and other public health and safety concerns. These aren't abstract things. We actually already live with this. We have the Rendon Inn around the corner. We're getting impacted by this in like the car dealership. Is that two minutes already? You're going to have another two minutes. Yes, it was four minutes total. So if we could add time, please. So we're constantly dealing with this encroachment from the commercialization. And the amended proposed plan, like we appreciate the conversation that they've had and that they've been open to talking with us. But for the convenience store with limited groceries, it doesn't resolve the concerns. It lacks efficient parking. People will be parking on our streets, bringing, like I said, additional traffic and parking pressure. And there's like a broader issue here. The owner has talked about how he can't profit. Like this is the only way that he's going to be able to make a profitable business. And I understand it's difficult to do business. I hear that. But he's not the one that's going to have to live there and deal with the consequences of what happens. And it doesn't sit right with me that us living there, that we have to bear the burden and the consequences to help somebody else make money. And I would love for there to be something good for our neighborhood. I'm not against development or businesses. But it's for alcohol. And we have a nursery. And that's great. I'm happy that we have that business on our street, on our block. But we're the ones that are going to have to live there and deal with the consequences. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Can I ask, just so it gets straight in my head, so you live around the corner toward Fountain Blow on the other side, not on Van Dome, but on the, does Norman C. Francis go to the left and then keep going to Fountain Blow? It's kind of like whoops around. But we live directly across the street from where the nursery is. And it's just two properties down from where it is. Anything else? Thank you. Eric Brown, are you still here? No, that's my partner right here. You actually had six minutes then. Do you have anything else to say? No, I'm just, I think that last part was my team member. OK. Tim Martin. And that's the last card that I have speaking on this matter, I believe. Mr. Martin, please state your name and address. Tim Martin. I own the property 1521, 1519, 1515, 1517, and 1511, South Norman C. Francis, adjacent to Mr. Retief's building. It's a garden center. And I leased out 1519 to Ms. Nicole. And she's running a daycare center there. I believe there's an ordinance that says you can't sell alcohol within 300 yards. And she's within 300 yards. So I'm talking on her behalf. I'm all about Mr. Retief. Renovating that facility is way overdue. As a matter of fact, my company cuts the grass for free. I just cut it Monday morning. But the alcohol is a no-no. We already have alcohol being sold at C&A's. We already have it at the Shell station. We have it around the corner. We're ending then. We don't need to sell any more alcohol. My biggest fear is that someone is going to go buy a beer. They're either drunk and get a refill, or they're going to get alcohol to go get drunk. And there's kids coming out of that place Monday through Friday. I don't care if he's closed on Sunday. So is the nursery. What I'm concerned about is the alcohol. I want them to renovate the building. I think it's way overdue. But that's how I feel about the situation. Thank you for you, Tom. Thank you. Ms. Weber? Do I wait for the new time to come up on the screen? And you've got two minutes. So to address the concerns about public intoxication, the grocery store, yes, it will be selling alcohol. But it will not be selling singles. It will not be geared towards somebody walking in and grabbing a beer. It would be geared towards the neighbors going and having a place to pick up fresh food and supplies. And if you haven't been to Ideal or IDL, please go check one out. They're amazing. They're wonderful. They sell items that you can't find in most grocery stores. And they have the best tres leches I've ever even tried. The commercialization, we're not increasing the commercial aspect. What we're doing is asking for this secondary use, which would be limited to no more than 10% of display area and no more than 15% of sales contributed to alcohol. So that's why having more fresh food than alcohol, I think, is a great balance to have and would be tied to the property. So if IDL is no longer the grocer there, any grocer that would come in would be required to follow that same requirement. I also wanted to point out that Mr. Ratif, he not only owns the gas, but he also owns gas stations all throughout the greater New Orleans area. And there are no issues with them. If you look up his gas stations or any of them, they're not nuisances to the neighborhood. He runs a tight ship. 447 North Rampart is a property that this commission had approved back in, I think it was 2019 or 2020. Before he took it over, it was not the greatest location. Now that gas station is probably one of the nicest looking gas stations in the city. Like I said earlier, I don't do ugly. And so he has a history of operating good businesses and being a good neighbor. And I think that was all I needed to add. Thank you.

Can staff talk about the daycare and the distance, the buffer? Yeah, so there is a regulation that lives in the city code that says you can't have a bar or an packaged outlet within 300 feet of schools, churches, playgrounds, et cetera. But there is an exception written in that says if the package ABO has less than, and I'm blanking on the exact numbers, but it's like 10% of its stock. No more than 10% of its stock is alcohol, so 90% of stock is other things. That restriction doesn't apply. And so there is a proviso that's included in the staff report that would say if this is approved, it has to comply with that city code limitation so as not to run afoul of the city code. And who enforced that? I think it would be enforced by safety and permits. The ABO office lives within them. They do the license issuance, and so they would do the enforcement as well. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? I guess just the question I have for the applicant is just to confirm, what's the status of the negotiations right now with EDL? I'm familiar with them as a market, and so just. Yes, so they would be the tenant. So they would operate the grocery store. Got it. So you have an agreement. I just wanted to clarify. OK, thank you. All right. I'm fine with it. OK, let's move forward. What? We need a motion. Staff recommendation is approval. We've heard from the applicant. I'm going to make a motion that I suspect is going to go down to defeat. I'm going to make a motion for denial. I'm pretty familiar with the area, and it's the gateway to two nice and mixed residential areas. And I just think the addition of alcohol is not necessary and would be a detriment to the neighborhood in terms of traffic, et cetera. So I'm going to move for denial. Thank you, Commissioner Sieg. Is there a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Hebert. Any discussion, questions? I think given that it's a grocery store, I don't see that as if it was something else that would be different in that neighborhood. And also, it's in an intersection that's quite busy. It's surrounded by gas stations, and isn't there like a fried chicken place or a seafood place across the street? It's CNA. And it's a very, very busy intersection. So I feel that if it was like a standalone bar or if it was just a liquor store, that would be different. But this is a grocery store, which is different, in my opinion, from being a standalone bar. This is why we have discussion. Commissioner Jackson, do you have any questions? OK. Well, we have a motion on the floor for denial. I'll go ahead and call the vote. Commissioner Sieg? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? I know we've had some tough ones today. I know. This is all right. I'm going to say no, only because I know the product that EDL produces. And I trust that, as an operator, it will be an effective neighbor, like a good neighbor. Commissioner Sieg is going against the recommendations, and I'm saying no. OK. I'm a yes. Commissioner? Yes. Yes. Commissioner? You're a no. Commissioner Josie Gupta's a no. I'm going with Steve. He's a no, right? Yes. Commissioner Sieg is a no. And Commissioner Jackson? No. Steve is a yes. He's a yes. Do I need to do that again? Yeah, can we start over, please? Is the air conditioning off? OK, I think it stops at 5 o'clock. OK. It's been off. We're going to restate our motion, and the motion was for denial. Staff recommendation. So, Stieg is voting for his motion, and Commissioner against, that is a no, I'm voting yes. Commissioner Flick? I'm voting yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? No. Commissioner Hebert? I'm voting for denial. Because you were the second as well. Okay, Commissioner Jackson? No. Okay, so we have one, two, three, four, we have four yeses, we have three noes, so that doesn't, that is an effective denial. So, we either are sending that to City Council, or we are coming up with a new motion. Send it to City Council. Okay. I guess then we're, it's an effective denial, because there's no new motion on the floor that anyone's willing to take up at this time. Yeah. And that was four. Four yeses, four denial, and then three noes. Thank you for coming and spending the afternoon with us. I appreciate it. I wish I could offer you air conditioning or a bottle of water. We are moving on to Zoning Docket 108-26. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Zoning Docket 108-26 is a request to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance to remove the portion of the magazine street use restriction overlay between Washington Avenue and Napoleon Avenue. The proposed amendment would eliminate additional conditional use requirements for standard restaurants, associated alcohol sales, and secondary live entertainment in this segment, while retaining the underlying zoning regulations. The amendment is consistent with the master plan and the findings of the Land Use Barrier Study, which identified the overlay's broader application as an unnecessary constraint on economic activity along this established commercial corridor. Staff recommends approval of Zoning Docket 0108-26, with the additional recommendation to clarify the ordinance by removing the reference to Maple Street from the overlay provisions. The Councilmember's Office for District B has requested a deferral of this item until December 8th. Ms. Landrieu? Yes, thank you. It's been a long day for everybody. Please remember to state your name and address. Yes, Shelly Landrieu, representing the Garden District Association. First of all, we're here to ask for a deferral, and we did meet with Councilmember Harris to ask her if she would defer this item. This basically came as a surprise to us and the rest of the organizations, the associations, that are bordering Magazine Street. And just as a little bit of a background, many years ago, when we were redoing the CZO, this group got together from Leak Avenue all the way from the overpass to Leak Avenue.

All the members of the associations across next to Magazine Street got together and tried to put in this overlay. And we were successful in doing so, because Magazine Street is its own animal. It's not like other HUB ones across the city. It's very narrow. It's very compact. It's already congested. It's a destination zone. It's got lots of things that don't match other of these types of zones across the city. And so we were very concerned about it, and that's why we put in the overlay. So when she came forth, and with all good intentions, because Magazine Street is suffering from commercial development, it's got a lot of vacancies, we understand that. We just don't think that the solution to this is to lift the overlay. And it's not the whole overlay, but it's between Washington and Napoleon, which is obviously the Garden District. It fits the Touro-Bouligny, and Delachez, and also the Farber-Morango. And all of them are in agreement with us that we would like to have a lot more time to look at it, get down to the nitty-gritty of it, and sit with Councilman Harris and restaurant owners and other places. This just came as a surprise to us. So we don't want it to be lifted. We would like some input to have the conditional uses go forth so that we can have some say-so and NPPs and all that stuff that goes with it. And so right now, we're asking for... December 8th, correct? Are you... December 8th. Okay. Anything else? No? Okay. Julie Graybill? She was seeking her time to meet, but... Okay. Did you want to say anything else? No, she just wanted me to let you know that Farber-Morango was here as well and is in consent with us. Perfect. We're going to let the record know. Thank you. Push for a deferral? Is anyone else here to speak on this matter? If not, then Commissioner Jackson, are you going to vote or make a motion? I want to make a motion to push for a deferral. Is there a second? I second. Until December 8th. December 8th. All right. And Commissioner Hebert, are you seconded? Yes. All right. Now, let's vote. Mr. C? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Whitry? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Hebert? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So we have a subdivision docket, 10826. Yes. This subdivision would reconfigure four lots into one single lot of record. That would result in that lot having frontage on two parallel streets, which makes it a through lot. The reason it is in front of you is because there's not really a common pattern of through lots in the area. So, I'm sorry. Ultimately, there's only one house that is fronting one of the streets that is under common ownership. So the second lot that is fronting the second street is vacant and used as the backyard for that residence. The proposal would not have any negative effect. It's not in conflict with the master plan or any of the CZO regulations, so we are recommending approval. Perfect. Are you Mr. Richard? Yes. Please, would you like to say anything? Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. This has been very interesting today. Please tell all of your friends. Yeah. Yeah. I acquired the lots behind my house through the lot next door program and it's been wonderful and I would just like to get it all put together into one piece and that works great for me. That's about all I have to say about that. Can you state your address, please? It's 8004 Danube Road and I also have 8007 Mullet. Thank you. Anything else? Nope. That's it. There's no opposition, so there's no rebuttal. Move approval. All right. We have an approval. Is there a second? I'll second. Commissioner Flick, second. So any discussion? If not, we're going to vote. Commissioner Steeke? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Wittry? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Abear? Yes. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. All yes. All right. Good luck. Thank you for spending the afternoon with us. And now we have to, the consideration of updates to the public hearing rules is not ready. Correct? Or is it? My understanding is that there is a draft but I believe it's Mr. Weber's intention for it to be deferred today. Okay. So we're going to defer that until October 27th if somebody would make a motion for that. Motion for deferral to October 27th. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All right. Any discussion? If not, we'll vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Abear? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Wittry? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Commissioner Steeke? Yes. All righty. The motion carries. And then we have the subdivision ratifications that Commissioner Jordan, would you like to make a motion? I'll make the motion if you want to read it really quickly. These are for your approval. These are for your ratification. I'll make the motion to approve subdivision ratification. And then Commissioner Jackson seconds. And any discussion? If not, we'll vote. Yes. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Let's do a motion to adjourn. All right. Okay. All right. That's fine. All right. Thank you. It's been a very long day. We made the motion. I made the motion. I'm doing that one. Yes. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.