City Planning Commission.

Sir, hold on one second. There's four more minutes. We just have to reset the clock for you. Okay. Does it say four minutes? I can't see. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Brown. This is what we know. The city of New Orleans burdens the communities and leave us to fend for ourselves. Once approved, this committee is done. You all do not have enforcement authority. That moves to the court enforcement. This is the arm of the city government that is understaffed, which means very little will get done. As a community, we are plagued with 18-wheeler trucks in our neighborhoods, group homes that have sex offenders, drug offenders, blighted property, drainage problems, and the list goes on and on. We are being suffocated with these problems and no one to defend us or help us resolve these problems in our community. I recommend denial of this conditional use. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Madeline Trepanier, that's okay, 6927 Deanne Street. When I moved to Pines Village, Diamond Road was the epic of the beginning of New Orleans East. We had pizza places like Tower of Pizza, Rhonda's, who had the best sandwiches in the world. Now we are inundated with illegal body shops, tire shops, car repairs. The only thing that looks nice on Diamond right now is the car wash. It's kept up better than any other business out there. So we are asking you guys to please help us improve our community. We put together with the City Council the Diamond Road Business Alliance. We had a meeting. Two people showed up at the meeting. The businesses are not interested even in cooperating with us to help us improve our quality of life on Diamond Road. The airport was told not to let limos go down Diamond Road. It could be somebody with some money who wants to invest in our area. When we have events, such as trying to get our park back together, we receive no assistance from any of the businesses on Diamond. The unfortunate thing is they come into the community, they take a lot, and they don't give back anything. I've also investigated some of his businesses that he has in Metairie. They are gorgeous. If you go there right now, you'll see trash. You'll see where the dumpster is supposed to be. He just threw up some metal. Not anything that looks halfway decent or nice. So we are asking you guys to help us begin to send a message that we want to have a great quality of life in our area. back what Downwind Road was when it was first established. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Madam Chair, members of the commission, thank you. Kenya Smith, 7033 Lake Willow Drive. I am the interim president of ENONAC, the Eastern New Orleans Neighborhood Advisory Committee, a commission where we serve over 80,000 residents, and as I've said before, over 60% of this city's landmass. I stand here primarily in support of our concerned set of citizens. And I don't need a full, I don't need anybody with lonely minutes like we did in the previous sessions. But as you will see, not only in this docket, but in the next docket, we tell our citizens we want them to invest in their part of America. We tell them to come home. We tell them to do the right thing. We tell them to vote for us. We tell them that we will represent their interests. And when they show up and they express their concerns, I think it's sufficient to say that all they ask is that we, as their neighbors and as their fellow citizens, to sincerely take those concerns to heart. And so I just urge you to listen to these citizens, listen to these citizens and listen to the citizens that will speak on the next docket, because I'm sure whether it's this time or next, whether it's in a vote or otherwise, they will have their say. Thank you for your time. Mr. Smith, I have a question for you. What do you think should be the highest and best use at this particular property, considering its zoning? Well, thank thank you. Thank you for that question, because I almost missed a missed a point that I wanted to reiterate that there are already, as we've counted, at least eight to 10 other repair shops along the Diamond Road Corridor that that using being a responsible citizen, as Mr. Brown represented, the the owner is attempting to do now would be the appropriate use, working with the neighborhood, supporting them when they are trying to end recidivism for young people in their community, when they're trying to engage in community events, being that kind of a citizen, responsible citizen, I think would encourage support from the neighborhood the way that he is applying. Thank you. Thank you. Just a question for staff, and if staff can answer, then I'll extend this to the opposition just briefly. But can staff communicate any feedback that's come from Councilman Hughes regarding this this docket at all or any? I mean, also green councilman green. I don't believe that directly we received anything I obviously the applicant did send proof of an email that showed the NPP requirements to the councilman. But I don't believe we received anything subsequently in our in our side. OK. And could you also speak to obviously we're a land use recommending body. So I'm mindful that if you have any information or insight about where the business stands in terms of permitting, like up to date permitting. So I believe that there were occupational licenses issued in the past for a similar use. And obviously the bones of those original businesses are still present. But they those occupational licenses have since elapsed for more than six months. So as far as an active permit, I don't believe that we saw any. I can double check for you. But I do recall seeing that there were some licenses in the past. OK, thank you. Mr. Brown. Jimmy Brown again. I actually get their concern. I live in New Orleans East myself, so. I don't want to pay for the problems of other businesses. We are getting ourselves together as they ask. All the other seven businesses I can't speak to. I don't know what they're doing and why they're doing it.

But they have to admit you got to start somewhere. So we're open to whatever it is that they're trying to do to keep their business, their community safe. We want to be a part of that safety in the organization that they have. We want to be a part of that organization. We want to make that corridor work also, because when you think about it, if it's good for us, it's good for them also. So Mr. Brown, have you done any feasibility study or anything that would be important for that corridor? It just seems like our seven tire shops needed in that area. I mean, I know New Orleans East needs to be serviced, but there's probably other services that may need to be considered under the. As he stated, I've worked for the city of New Orleans for 30 years. I actually I retired maybe well, two years ago. In that time, I worked in revenue and we went out to those locations to see what they were doing in that in that in that corridor. So the city is interested in bringing that corridor back, but the city's hands are tied because they have to follow the rules also. And the citizens have to follow the rules, too. So they can issue an occupational license for doing the right thing, but they can't go out there every day and deal with truancy, loitering. They can't go out there every day and do that. But what they can do before they issue a license, they can make sure, just like they did with us, make sure that what you said you were going to do, you are actually going to do that. And that's what we plan to do. Do whatever, as we've already done, whatever the city asked us to do. That's what we're going to do. And that's what we're going to continue to do. Thank you. Yes, I have a question for staff. What's described the business that's occupying the property now? It's currently a gas station and convenience store. And is and is there a tire shop on it? So, yes, there was historically a tire shop that was associated based on past imagery. It was most certainly legal, nonconforming as far as, you know, outdoor vehicles in that nature that staff referenced in the report. But to answer Commissioner Jordan's previous question, also the two requests that we got that kind of triggered this. It was originally a zoning verification and an occupational license request that was then sent to CPC. This year, due to the fact that it would trigger conditional use. So legal, nonconforming is legal, right? As of well, as of today, it is not because the occupational license has. So what is the legal nonconforming use on the property now that is legal? Well, I would have to check the standards to see if it's met, but if the gas station and convenience store are right. Part of that property right now. Yes. OK, so there's already gas station. And a convenience store. Correct. Yes. And the request is is to add auto repair. Yes. In nine hundred and thirty six square feet. Correct. OK. I do want to thank you for all of your work at City Hall, though. Thirty one years is a long time. Yes, it is. OK, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Jackson. So as as a commissioner who lives in District E. And I know Mr. Barty very well, I know, you know, not very well. And some of my concerns that we're already losing businesses in the district, but. We have to make sure the businesses that we do have have to make sure that they have the issues taken care of on the front, on the front, on the front line. So as commissioner, it puts it puts me in a hard position because I don't want the business to leave, but I don't want any businesses operating and not being in compliance. So we. We need this issue rectified immediately because. That that is alarming to me as a commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner Steepe. So I move approval in accordance with staff recommendation, I think that there's already a gas station there. I don't think the. Adding an auto repair kind of goes with a gas station. I don't think we can address the. Code compliance issues of other gas, of other tire repair or auto repair places. And I think staff recommendation was appropriate. So I move approval in accordance with staff recommendation. I second that. Commissioner Poche. I also want to say I recognize the concerns raised by the neighborhood, and I believe they're all legitimate concerns and deserve to be addressed. And at the same time, I believe we should give this property owner a reasonable opportunity to correct past issues, demonstrate responsible stewardship and become a better neighbor. Furthermore, in my opinion, as Mr. Stig is. Hinting at the proposal doesn't substance substantively change the nature of the business. We should also recognize the importance of supporting small businesses and encouraging economic development, particularly in New Orleans East. I don't want to create conditions that contribute to vacant storefronts, abandoned properties or further disinvestment. I believe we can balance the neighborhood accountability with the economic opportunity. So with clear expectations and appropriate enforcement, I support giving this business the opportunity to succeed. And as such, I support this application. Thank you. So we have a first by Commissioner Stig, a second by Commissioner Poche. I also need the record to note that Commissioner Jackson and Commissioner Josie Gupta have joined us. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Jackson. So so that being said, is there initiative where we can both parties can work together, the community and the business owner? Just by stressing it here. And and fun. Yeah. So my comment would be to to both. Well, actually, to to Commissioner Stig and Commissioner Poche as well as Commissioner Jackson, just before we get through. voting phase, what are the set of recommendations you would offer to the applicant so we can get this rectified? Obviously, these are not land-use regulations.

There's nothing we can do that's binding in that way, but what are the recommendations before we vote and move forward? What typical mechanisms are available in this type of situation? Neighborhood agreements? No? I mean, I think the most we can do is encourage the applicant to either continue to work with or work with, depending whether the, you know, he has, is to work with the Neighborhood Association and exercise his maximum efforts to meet the neighborhood's concerns, but I don't think putting that as part of a motion, I don't think I can. No, it's not, the comment wasn't about it being a part of the motion, but I know once we vote, we're going to move forward and there won't be any discussion, so just if there are general recommendations, non-binding, that you would offer. Yeah, I think you can put in recommendations such as, you know, beautification, cleaning up of trash, hours, and all those things that the neighbors have issues with. I am not going to vote for this, against it, because there are other tire shops in the area. I don't think this particular business needs to be a tire shop. It can continue to be a gas station with gas station amenities. I don't think this area needs any more tire shops, which bring their own set of problems into neighborhoods, so I'm not going to be voting yes for this, and it will be very hard for neighborhood and to patrol this and for anyone to really control it and to really enforce any kind of littering, loitering, and waste issues that, you know, can happen at this site. Commissioner Poche, I mean, making a public record and stressing these recommendations, you know, is an important part of the process. So if you all have nothing else, then we can take it to a vote. Commissioner Jackson? Yes. Commissioner Poche? Yes. Commissioner Kemper? Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta? No. Commissioner Flick? Yes. Commissioner Whitrys? No. Commissioner Jordan? No. Commissioner Steeg? Yes. Yes. So the motion carries. Five yeas, three nays. All right. I got my math right, right? Yes. Thank you. All right, good luck. Stressing neighborhood engagement would be wonderful. Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to zoning docket 082-26. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Julie and I are going to present the transient lodging tax amendment. This is zoning docket 082-26. It's to codify the recommendations and findings in the transient lodging study. The transient lodging study was adopted by the City Planning Commission on January 27th of this year. The study was completed by consultant Desire Line LLC in coordination with the City Planning Commission staff. The transient lodging study addressed commercial short-term rentals, hotels, motels, bed-and-breakfasts, hostels, and timeshares. However, new regulations for residential or non-commercial short-term rentals, or NSTRs, were adopted in March of 2023 and therefore they were excluded from the transient lodging studies research and recommendations. The transient lodging study recommended several amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance, including revisions to transient lodging definitions, use permissions, and use standards. Both the CPC staff and the Commission provided amendments to the consultants' recommendations, some of which were included in the Commission's adoption of the study. In June of this year, the City Planning Commission received motion number M26229, initiating the text amendment to codify new regulations for transient lodging uses. Short-term rental regulations were first codified in 2016, modified in 2019, in 2023 for non-commercial short-term rentals, and again with this text amendment. As short-term rental uses have expanded, the City developed regulations to address the evolving land use. The result was several iterations of short-term rental regulations and numerous interim zoning districts that created a complex regulatory scheme. Regulations concerning residential or non-commercial short-term rentals have become stricter with each iteration of new rules. Under the adopted ordinance in 2023, residential short-term rentals were renamed non-commercial short-term rentals and became a temporary use. NSTRs are subject to a block limitation restricting the number of NSTRs to one per block in many districts where they are permitted. This restriction includes bed-and-breakfasts and other STRs that had previously received conditional use approval. Despite the changes to NSTRs, the regulation of commercial short-term rentals has been relatively lenient and without the same restrictive evolution as a residential or NSTR counterparts. The reality, however, is that many non-residential zoning districts are located within residential neighborhoods and many contain residential structures that have historically been used for residential purposes. In 2023, when new NSTRs regulations were adopted, none of the previously existing NSTRs were grandfathered because the former regulations governing those NSTRs were deemed unconstitutional. In this case, if new regulations are adopted that change the regulations for hotels, motels, hostels, commercial short-term rentals, timeshares, or bed-and-breakfasts, those existing transient lodging uses will be grandfathered, meaning that the uses in place now will be legally non-conforming and may continue to operate unless and until they cease operation for more than six months. While new regulations for transient lodging uses have been studied, the City Council has imposed two interim zoning districts restricting the ability to obtain new transient lodging licenses. Since November 2023, there's been either a prohibition in place or a requirement for conditional use approval for any new CSDR through the Commercial Short-Term Rental Interim Zoning District or the Transient Lodging Interim Zoning District.

The Transient Lodging Interim Zoning District, which is currently in effect, also requires conditional use approval for all other transient lodging uses except for non-commercial short-term rentals. Commercial short-term rentals do not have a distance limitation, therefore prior to the implementation of the IZDs, it was possible for an unlimited number of commercial short-term rentals within the districts that permitted this use. However, within one structure, commercial short-term rentals were limited to one unit or 25% of the total units in a single building, whichever is greater. Certain locations were exempt from this restriction, such as along Canal Street between the Mississippi River and Rampart Street. Alright, so hotels do not contain new standards in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The current hotel definition allows hotels to have ancillary uses by right, such as bars and standard restaurants, regardless of if those uses are permitted in the base zoning district. And there is currently no distinction between smaller boutique hotels and large-scale hotels, of which no cap is placed on their size. There are also no density limitations for hotels, except within the CPT-5 district. Hotels are, however, subject to customary lodging services where a staff member must be available and on-site 24 hours a day. Currently, bed and breakfast are separated into two types, accessory and principal. Both types are required to be in a single-family residence with proof of operator occupancy. Accessory bed and breakfast are limited to a maximum of five guest bedrooms, and principal bed and breakfast are limited to nine guest bedrooms. In certain zoning districts, only one bed and breakfast or non-commercial short-term rental is permitted within each block. Both types of accessory and principal bed and breakfast require conditional use approval. And lastly, commercial short-term rentals are permitted in the VCE Boucarré Entertainment District. This district comprises the properties fronting Bourbon Street from Iberville Street to St. Anne Street, and is the only district within the French Quarter where short-term rentals are currently permitted. In the VCE district, commercial short-term rentals are not subject to the 25% cap on the total number of units permitted in a building. Despite the ability to have commercial short-term rentals in this district, there haven't been any licensed to date. The transient lodging study ultimately found the city should not prohibit transient lodging, but must balance several competing interests. Protecting long-term housing, preserving neighborhood character, supporting the largest industry in the city, tourism, and appropriately locating transient lodging uses to reduce conflict between permanent residents and visitors. The study found that not all zoning districts or locations within the same zoning district experience the same impacts from transient lodging. The study repeatedly distinguishes between different locations within a zoning district, such as commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods. The largest impact the study found is a concentration or clustering of the uses, such as a high concentration of commercial short-term rentals within a residential neighborhood, or multiple transient lodging units in one building. These impacts include significant loss in community character and loss of long-term housing. As of March of 2025, short-term rentals made up 88% of all licensed transient lodging uses, with commercial short-term rentals constituting in about 40% of all licenses. The way in which to mitigate the negative impacts is to impose density restrictions that limit the number of units permitted in a building and are on a block or square. Commercial short-term rentals tend to have the highest negative impact of all the transient lodging uses because of their ubiquity and absence of an owner, operator, or owner on site. It is the only transient lodging use where this is the case. Lastly, the study found that hostels and timeshares, which constitute the fewest number of transient lodging uses in the city, also have the least impact, according to the study's public outreach surveys and meetings. When the transient lodging study was adopted, the motion to adopt the study was accompanied by a list of additional recommendations from the City Planning Commission staff and the City Planning Commission. Some of these supplemental considerations are in the slide before you. The City Planning Commission staff recommended supporting historic preservation by allowing bed and breakfasts of up to five guest bedrooms generally, but up to nine guest bedrooms when located in a contributing single-family residence within a local historic district. The recommendation is integrated into staff's more general recommendations related to bed and breakfast that will be discussed in greater detail shortly. One of the largest and most meaningful recommendations adopted as part of the transient lodging study is changing commercial short-term rentals to a temporary use. In doing so, it would mirror the regulations in place for non-commercial short-term rentals and remove the ability for a vested land right. All existing commercial short-term rentals would become legally non-conforming uses. The study recommended reclassifying hotels into two types, neighborhood and large. The City Planning Commission recommended renaming the neighborhood hotel classification to small hotel, which has been integrated into the text amendments recommendations. The City Planning Commission requested to retain the prohibition of short-term rentals and bed and breakfasts in the Garden District and ensure hotels require conditional use approval in the CBD5 district. These recommendations have been integrated into this text amendment.

Lastly, staff researched commercial short-term rentals in the VCE1 Boucarré Entertainment District, which will be discussed in the recommendations portion of this presentation. As Rachel previously stated, motion number M26299 was received June 4th of this year to consider amendments to the CZO to amend all necessary articles to implement the findings of the transient lodging study as adopted and with some specified modifications. The motion specifically asked that staff consider density caps for CSTRs in hotels, as no one standardized density cap is currently in place. New definitions for transient lodging uses. This includes hostels, hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, timeshares, commercial short-term rentals and short-term rentals generally. Consistency between use permissions for hotels, hostels and timeshares. Use permissions and standards regarding the sale of alcohol by transient lodging uses. This is most relevant to hotels with their traditional ancillary uses, such as bars and restaurants. The consolidation of the accessory and principal bed and breakfasts while creating a definition for historic structure and to allow additional density of CSTRs along Canal Street between the Mississippi River and Claiborne Avenue. The motion also asked staff to consider modifying definitions and use standards for hotels, motels, such as ensuring customary lodging services are provided and separating hotels into small and large categories by square footage. Modifying definitions and use standards for CSTRs, chief among them, ensuring they are temporary uses. Separate CSTRs into three categories, which we will get into more detail with later. Require that all units in a CSTR medium are operated by the same operator. Allow owners licenses that are valid for two years, as opposed to the current one-year period. Retain current limitation of two occupants per bedroom. And then to consider transient lodging uses in the HMC2 zoning district, provided this district's oversaturation of STR activity. And finally, changes to the use permissions for all transient lodging uses. The motion also provided modified use tables of all districts with updated CSTR permissions and provided staff the flexibility to make all appropriate changes to the proposed regulations and any existing corresponding regulations to establish consistency and continuity, to add references and to make adjustments deemed necessary in light of public testimony resulting from this review. This leads us to staff recommendations, which we'll rediscuss in the following slides. First and foremost, staff recommends a general restriction of where transient lodging uses, again, CSTRs, hotels, motels, bed and breakfast, hostels are permitted. This includes the removal of CSTRs from the HMC2, HMMU and HUMU districts and imposing a block restriction on CSTRs, NSTRs and bed and breakfast. Staff also recommends the amendment of use permissions, use standards and definitions for clarity and consistency found in articles seven through 18, zoning districts, article 20, use standards, article 21, temporary uses and article 26, definitions. After careful consideration, staff is recommending a density cap of CSTRs, bed and breakfast and NSTRs of one per block, expanding the precedent that was established with the implementation of current NSTR regulations that restrict NSTRs and bed and breakfast to one per block in the majority of districts in which they are permitted. In recent years, CSTR activity has been granted by right and via conditional use, providing a route for vested rights for property owners and subsequently grandfathering in many existing CSTR uses. It is in the general interest of the city to recognize these higher intensity uses, especially in regard to their presence in residential neighborhoods by stymieing indefinite CSTR presence in historically residential areas through density caps and ensuring that these uses are temporary. There is one exception, however. The area of Canal Street spanning the Mississippi River to Claiborne Avenue will not be subject to this density cap. This recommendation stems from the 2018 and 2025 Canal Street study in which short-term rentals were found to be among the most viable options for the renovation of long, vacant upper floors of buildings with frontage along that main retail corridor. Hotels, however, are not included in this density cap given their operational differences. Historically, they have not posed the same problems as STRs that do not have 24-7 on-site operators. This recommendation stems from the 2018 Canal study in which short-term rentals were found... Oh, I'm sorry. I'm repeating myself now. Staff also proposes all short-term rental uses become temporary uses with their updated use permissions housed in Article 21 of the CDO and that the valid licensing period of one year actually be retained. Explicitly making CSTRs temporary uses moves away from creating more vested rights for future STR use and creates consistency with the current NSTR regulations. Though staff originally recommended that valid owner license periods be extended from one to two years, further discussion with the Department of Safety and Permits administrators and the short-term rental administration director revealed that this would be a less equitable process. Unfair to applicants waiting their turn to apply for short-term rental licenses and that staff capacity was accommodating of the one-year period. Therefore, staff proposes to maintain the current permitting period of one year. Another significant proposed change is that of reclassifying commercial short-term rentals into three categories to differentiate scale, impact, and structure. Small, medium, and whole, as in whole home. The proposed density cap would apply to all types. Only one would be permitted per block moving forward.

The following slides will break down structure, accommodations, and other relevant proposed standards for each of these classifications. A short-term rental small represents the commercial short-term with minimal anticipated impacts. Smallest in scale, the CSTR itself cannot be more than one unit in a structure containing no more than four dwelling units. In other words, a CSTR-S cannot be larger than a fourplex and in that fourplex cannot have more than one STR unit. The CSTR-S may only have up to two guest bedrooms and four occupants at a time. In the example to the right is an STR-S In the example to the right is an STR-S housed in a duplex with one CSTR unit consisting of two guest bedrooms. So this would only be two guests per bedroom. Alternatively, this could be one guest bedroom with two occupants. As a note, whole home single family dwellings are prohibited from CSTR-S use. A CSTR medium represents the commercial short-term rental with moderate anticipated impacts. A CSTR-M is a structure with five or more dwelling units. The structure may have up to four CSTR units per building or 20% of units in the building, whichever is less. The CSTR-M also follows that same two guests per guest bedroom rule as CSTR small, allowing up to a maximum of three guest bedrooms and six occupants per unit. Whole home single family dwellings are also prohibited from the CSTR-M use. In the example to the right, you can see that the upper floor of a multifamily structure is being used for CSTR units. If the structure has 25 units total, five units would account for 20% of the units. However, the regulations specify 20% of units or four, whichever is less. So in this case, only four of these units could theoretically be permitted for CSTR-M use. A CSTR-M permit would also be managed by the same entity. In other words, it would have a single operator. Finally, CSTR whole represents the greatest anticipated impacts. These short-term rentals are permitted in whole home single family dwellings and can accommodate up to seven bedrooms and 10 occupants per unit. This is a small departure from the two guests per bedroom rule that CSTR small and CSTR medium adhere to, placing greater restriction on the total number of guests permitted at any given time. For instance, despite up to seven bedrooms being permitted in the example to the right, having 14 guests would not be prohibited. The operator would only be permitted to have up to 10 guests in that unit. This concludes the CSTR typology portion, but staff also proposes new definitions for hotels, motels, as well as bed and breakfasts. In regards to hotels, staff recognizes their highly variable scale ranging from a smaller. boutique hotel and historic neighborhood to a large downtown hotel with hundreds of rooms. Therefore, a staff proposes splitting the definition of hotel into small and large. Small hotels would have a maximum square footage of 10,000 square feet gross floor area and would only allow bars and standard restaurants should they be permitted in the base zoning district, or if the applicant receives a separate land use entitlement. Alternatively, large hotels do not have a maximum square footage and they allow traditional ancillary uses such as bars or standard restaurants by right. Both small and large hotels require a lobby and customary lodging services. Bed and breakfast, on the other hand, do not require the same delineation as hotels as most operate on similar scales and therefore have similar impacts. They are required to be within a single family structure and they also require an on-site operator to be available at all times. Effectively, there is no functional differentiation between accessory and principal. Therefore, staff proposes that this use type be consolidated into the singular bed and breakfast. Staff also proposes limiting bed and breakfast to five guest bedrooms or less, except in the event that the bed and breakfast is located in a historic structure, in which case it may operate with up to nine pre-existing guest bedrooms. The idea here is that allowing guest bed and breakfast in larger single family historic structures may help maintain and preserve these buildings. To limit conflicting definitions and resource strains on other departments such as HDLC with this historic label, staff recommends that the definition of bed and breakfast be modified to describe contributing single family structures in a local historic district with existing bedrooms that have historically been used as such. This ensures no new construction may commence to accommodate bed and breakfast and older established homes no longer attractive or eligible for single family use may be repurposed without compromising their historic character. Important to note is that bed and breakfast do not permit ancillary uses such as bars and standard restaurants by right. So to zoom back out a little bit, let's talk about zoning. As with transient lodging uses broadly, staff recommends to generally restrict the zoning districts where CSTRs are permitted, with some exceptions. For instance, CSTRs are no longer permitted in select historic core and mixed-use districts such as HMC2, HUMU, where a staggering combined 39% of all CSTR activity in the city is currently concentrated. Instead, in HMC2, staff opted to recommend that large hotels are only permitted along major corridors, specifically on lots with frontage on Elysian Fields Avenue, St. Claude Avenue, Claiborne Avenue, or St. Bernard Avenue. Small hotels would be permitted elsewhere in HMC2. One exception to the overarching rule of restriction would be that of VCE1 district. Previously, this district did not allow for any CSTR activity and staff is recommending to allow CSTR small in this district, as we are recommending for the VCE district. Staff believe that there is not a significant functional distinction between these two districts, VCE1 and VCE, that necessitates treating them differently.

Further, the VCE1 district is incredibly geographically limited and situated as an entertainment district, limiting the number of building typologies that would even qualify under CSTR small. While that concludes my sections, Rachel will summarize these recommendations and close out the presentation. All right, we're going to recap the most significant recommendations on the next slide and discuss next steps. It might sound redundant, but this is by design. We felt it was important to go through the recommendations a few times, given the complicated nature of the subject matter. To start, the recommendations in the text amendment restrict the zoning districts where transient lodging uses are permitted throughout the city. This manifests most strongly in our recommendations for commercial short-term rentals, where they are now recommended to be a temporary use, meaning they cannot obtain a vested land use right or be grandfathered if the regulations change in the future. Additionally, staff recommend prohibiting this use in many of the zoning districts that currently allow it and imposing a block limitation on all short-term rentals, including NSCRs and bed-and-breakfasts. This means that only one commercial short-term rental, non-commercial short-term rental, or bed-and-breakfast would be permitted within a block. And to clarify, this doesn't mean a block face. This means all four faces of a block. If one or more of these uses already exist, no new licenses could be obtained for a new NSCR, CSCR, or bed-and-breakfast for this one block. To create further nuance into where commercial short-term rentals are permitted, staff recommends separating commercial short-term rentals into three types, small, medium, and whole. The small type is limited to a structure with two to four dwelling units, where only one unit could be used as a commercial short-term rental. It's limited to a maximum of two guest rooms and four guests. No single-family homes could be used as a commercial short-term rental small. The commercial short-term commercial short-term rental medium is restricted to a structure with five or more dwelling units, where a maximum of four units per building, or 20% of the units, whichever is less, could be used as a short-term rental. Each unit is permitted three guest bedrooms and a maximum of six occupants. The last type is a short-term rental whole or their single-family short-term rental. This type would be permitted in only two zoning districts, where it could have up to seven guest bedrooms and a maximum of 10 guests. Staff recommends reclassifying hotel and motel into two types, small and large. Small hotels are restricted in size and are not permitted to have bars or standard restaurants by right unless allowed in the base zoning district. Large hotels would be permitted to have all ancillary uses by right but are more restricted in the zoning districts where they are permitted. Staff also recommends reclassifying accessory and principal bed and breakfast into one type, simply bed and breakfasts. Bed and breakfasts would be permitted to have up to five guest bedrooms or up to nine if located in a contributing historic single-family structure where the use itself could help maintain the historic nature of the structure. Lastly, there was a prior recommendation as part of the transient lodging study to increase the one-year licensing period to two years to help reduce administrative burden for the short-term rental administration staff. However, after discussing with the short-term rental director, staff believe this one-year licensing period should be retained to ensure fairness with the block restriction and increase oversight. And lastly, just to go through next steps quickly, once the City Planning Commission adopts this tax amendment, the City Planning Commission will transmit it to City Council. City Council will have 60 days to take action by motion once transmitted and another 90 days to adopt an ordinance. Once an ordinance is adopted and signed, the CPC staff will amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance accordingly and the City Council has discretion to change any and all city planning commission recommendations. That concludes our presentation. Thank you ladies very much. I know this has been a lot of work and we appreciate the redundancy and a lot of the information that you presented. Commission, do you all have any questions for staff before we move into the public hearing? Can you just clarify one item? With the residential STRs and the whole commercial STRs, is that one per square block each? Yeah, the whole, as in the short-term rental whole. So it would be like if you had a homeowner who wanted to have a short-term rental and you had someone else who had a this commercial whole home short-term rental, whoever gets the first application? Yeah, so if you had, let's say like a mixed zone block and you had a residential portion that already had an NSTR and did not have any other types, even if it only had the NSTR, that would be the one per block. No other type of commercial short-term rental or any type of short-term rental or bed breakfast would then be allowed on that block. I see and I have a follow up on exactly that same. Does the one per square block include a hotel? It does not include a hotel. Okay, so you, so if it were appropriately zoned, you could have a short-term rental of any type and a hotel. Correct, yeah. And a bed and breakfast. No, and not a bed and breakfast. Only one bed and breakfast short-term or short-term rental of any type, including the non-commercial only one bed and breakfast short-term or short-term rental of any type, including the non-commercial short-term rentals. And what was the logic of excluding hotels from the one per block so that you could have a hotel and one short-term rental? What was the logic behind that? We felt because, so commercial short-term rentals don't require an operator on site.

And so, and there are already an exponential number of them that currently exist that will be grandfathered when the regulations change. And so we felt it was important to put a block limitation on those uses. Yeah, no, I meant the logic of allowing a hotel. Oh, you're getting to that backwards, okay. But hotels have customary lodging services that are part of both small and large. And by separating them into small and large, we have more discretion over where they can be located throughout the city. And so large hotels, you'll notice, are not allowed in as many districts as previously hotels were allowed, whereas the small ones are permitted in some more districts because they don't have the ancillary uses by right, the standard restaurants and the bars that are allowed by right in large hotels. Okay, thank you. I feel the difference between the bed and breakfast and the SDR hole seems to be the operator issue in terms of the amount of people that are allowed in the building. Is there a reason why we cannot have an operator in the whole SDR? Right, it's by definition, I guess, so the bed and breakfast have an operator that lives on site. It can be an owner or it can be an operator. Commercial short-term rentals don't have an operator on site and that's been part of the reason for. the need to restrict their locations. So I think if we were to say that an operator needed to be in a whole home SDR, it would simply just be a bed and breakfast at that point. That's exactly what I'm trying to point out because these are the large short-term rentals are the problem in neighborhoods. And they're the ones that have been the bad actors, so if there was a operator on site, then it becomes into a bed and breakfast type situation. So why even have this category and not just have a bed and breakfast? Yeah, so the recommendations are recommending that it is permitted only in two zoning districts in the whole city. I believe it's the SLM and MMU districts. Those are the ones that have water frontage. And so if we really restricted the locations on where they could be located, they're no longer allowed to be located in any of the historic districts. So does that answer your question? It does, and it does help clarify that because it helps me understand that a bed and breakfast is in a sense offering the same type of a situation but with an operator on site within the city. So it's not a problem in different zoning districts. That's right, yeah. My second question was, I know there's a restriction or there's allowance for the properties on Canal Street. Can you tell us a little bit more about why that is? Yes, this stems from the 2018 and the 2025 Canal Street studies. There's already an exemption for short-term rentals and right now it's from Canal to Rampart Street where they don't have the 25% cap and they've been excluded from a lot of the IZDs that have been in place. The idea is to help with the renovation and maintenance of the long vacant upper historic, the units on the upper floors. And it's shown to be, according to the 2025 progress report, a successful mechanism to maintain and utilize those vacant upper floors. And because that was a recommendation that came from both the City Planning Commission staff and was adopted by the City Planning Commission, we put that into our recommendations for the short-term rentals. And I really appreciate that, especially in terms of historic preservation, that may be a good use that those properties are put into. But I was also wondering why we did not, or the Planning Commission, we didn't look at properties on Aretha Castle-Haley or on Magazine Street for a similar treatment because there's a lot of properties that are sitting vacant and upper stories that need to be put to good use. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, the concern of- I'm just talking generally historic corridors and really stressing the fact that they're historic storefronts with upper stories that are vacant. Sure, and I think the emphasis on Canal Street goes back decades and there, you know, have historically been greater, has been greater concern about reactivating the upper or allowing for occupancy of the upper levels of those structures. I think that's been, and certainly many of those have not historically had residential units. They were always commercial. In contrast, along O.C. Haley, Magazine, and some of the other corridors, you already, you've historically had residential use of the upper floors. So there's less of a, kind of a need to convert them. And the, you know, the concern is greater because those are within otherwise residential neighborhoods. The, you know, the intent is to be more restrictive there on terms of allowing actual CSTRs. Thank you, but I definitely like for us to look at other areas of the city where we might have missed this opportunity. Can I just follow up on that? I think in the, if you recall in the study, that was one of the recommendations of the City Planning Commission staff that once these new regulations get into place and things get stabilized in terms of the ability to enforce them and, you know, making sure that what's in place at the most restrictive level is functioning well, then it would be opportune to look for other neighborhoods where, and if there's demand, and if there's a way that it can be done in a less impactful way to start looking at other neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Quick question. The recommendation is to go ahead and to allow STRs in the VCE-1. Do you think that would take away though from the investment on Canal Street? Yeah, I don't anticipate that. So with the one per block limitation that we are recommending, the VCE-1 district has about five total blocks. So it would maybe allow at maximum five short-term rentals. And given the nominal number of short-term rentals, I don't anticipate it taking away from investment on Canal Street. Okay.

I know we're just putting such a, you know, a lot of effort into Canal Street. I'd hate to see that by us approving that and then taking away from that investment. Thank you. Commission, any other questions? I just have one other clarification. I'm stuck on this small commercial short-term rental. Can you give an example of a commercial short-term rental, small, and its impact with a residential short-term rental? I'm just trying to understand if allowing these small commercial short-term rentals eliminate the possibility for a resident who's done the application and gone through that process, if it's removing their ability to have a short-term rental and additional income? So, let me see if I can answer, if I can understand the question. So residential short-term rental has to have an operator on site. So that's the main difference between the residential versus the commercial. They are allowed in some commercial districts, some of the residential short-term rental. The commercial short-term rentals are limited in where they could be. An operator does not need to be on site. And it would look like a duplex or a triplex or a fourplex where one of those units is being used as a commercial short-term rental without an operator on site. And it would be located in more commercially zoned areas. If you look, and everything is now moved to Article 21, so they're not in the use tables. And in Article 21, there's a list of zoning districts where it could be allowed. And you'll see that the number of zoning districts where we are recommending they be permitted is relatively small. So I'm not sure if that answers your question. What's an example? What's that? What's an example? Of one of the zoning districts? So the MMU, that was one zoning district I had mentioned, it's waterfront. It's the VCE and VCE-1 districts. No other historic core districts we are recommending or historic urban. So all of those districts would not allow commercial short-term rentals anymore. And then the other districts are some of the mixed-use districts, MU-1, MU-2, the CBD districts, one through seven. And then some of the business-oriented districts like the SB-1, the suburban pedestrian-oriented business district and whatnot. But nothing permitted in the HMC-1, HMC-2, HUMU, HUB-1. All of those have been recommended for removal. Great, thank you. Thank you. I think we're gonna go ahead and move into the speakers. Thank you all for being here. We're gonna go ahead and start. You have a question? Right, everyone remember you have to state your name and address, and we're gonna start first in cards and support. And Ms. Suzette Toledano, you have four minutes because you have a card ceded to you. And then Clark Gray and Greg Brulette, if y'all just be aware so that we can make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Ms. Toledano has four minutes. Thank you, I'm Suzette Toledano. I own unit 502 at 215 Decatur where I live. I also represent 215, 225 Decatur, the owner of rental departments. We support short-term rental for VCE-1. I'd like to share six things with you. First, historically warehouses were not meant to be residences. In 1992, there were 16 condos in VCE-1. Today, there are 146 residential units. VCE property owners are accused of eliminating residents. Meanwhile, VCE-1 has quietly added 130 residential units to the quarter. Number two, circumstances affecting French Quarter real estate have changed over 14 years. On October 19th, the Times-Picayune ran a headline. Own a condo in downtown New Orleans or the French Quarter? Good luck selling it. It could just as easily have said, own an apartment in VCE-1? Good luck renting it. The article said there's more unsold residential property downtown and in the French Quarter than at any time in the past 25 years. One fourth of the commercial space in VCE-1 is vacant. Demand is non-existent. The article went on to say that blighted buildings, panhandlers, and a change in the quality of retail tenants reinforce the perception that the quarter is dangerous and dirty. Number three, billboards and commercials show there is strong opposition to short-term rental in the French Quarter. The problem with the opposition is it assumes that VCE-1 can sustain a full-time population. The market has shown that it cannot. Policies of the opposition serve only to preserve vacancies. Four, the French Quarter resident associations insist that the entire French Quarter must be saved, inferring that it will die without full-time French Quarter neighbors. As such, we were surprised to find out that only 29 of the 85 written comments opposing short-term rental in the quarter provided a French Quarter residential address. We looked into this further. Five, the Orleans Parish Assessor's record showed that there are 2,437 assessed residential properties in the entire quarter. A building with 10 residential apartments is assessed as one residential unit, so the actual number of units is higher than 2,437. Of the 2,437 residential properties, only 480 have homestead exemptions. The VCE has 10 homestead exemptions. The assessor's statistics are alarming. They tell us that over 80% of the owners' residential properties in the French Quarter are not full-time residents. They themselves are part-time residents. Part-time residents, by definition, cannot be full-time neighbors. Yet, for the past 10 years, opposition has deferred to these people, overriding the recommendations of our professional city planners. Six, as mentioned, there are 146 residential units in VCE 1. 67 of them are already subject to their own condo rules, and they can prohibit short-term rental in their own buildings. That's close to half of all the units. Using the word property to define one building or buildings using the same address, I walked door-to-door and counted 42 properties in VCE 1. I meticulously looked at the buildings. We have quietly polled commercial property owners and business owners in VCE 1.

Thus far, we have collected 45 statements of support for short-term rental from owners who have invested in the quarter and actually have addresses in VCE 1. I want you to know that many others intended to be here, one on his way home from the Saints game, another one's a trial lawyer and still in trial. I just want to close and say that I urge the VC poor and the French Quarter citizens to join us in thanking me, all of our panelists, and to the rest of the traffic in VCE 1. Thank you. Mary Clark. And then Greg Roulette. And then after that, Jennifer Wichman and Joshua Moore. Hello. Thank you. Hi. State your name and address, please. Clark Gray, 1028 Curler X Street. When the City of New Orleans granted commercial zoning and commercial STR permits, they created a commitment to those current owners and future owners to allow them to engage in commercial activity. Purchasing a commercial unit requires a commercial loan at a higher interest rate than a residential loan, a seller's price is higher than a normal residential property, and a lender's appraisal is handled based on the income potential method instead of the sales comparison method. Basically, the city's willingness to allow commercial zoning and permits makes a property worth more. At the same time, when the city allowed these homes to be carved up into tiny condos and apartments throughout the years, whether zoned commercial or not, they also created a situation in which most of these units can't be rented to long-term tenants. Most of them are simply too small to live in, sometimes 250 or 300 square feet. I found one yesterday listed on Realtor.com that is 100 square feet, 10 feet by 10 feet. It's listed for $250,000 and has no kitchen. Property values have gone up to a level that makes it undesirable for long-term tenants to pay the rent required to service the loan. The rent to service a loan for a condo that is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars simply isn't affordable for people who need a place to live. By allowing the homes to be turned into tiny condos years ago, the city set up a situation in which the owners are either people who have the money to own a second home, a crash pad for them and their friends, or a place an entrepreneur can rent out to tourists as a business, bringing much-needed revenue to the city. It's understandable that people who live in New Orleans need housing, but most of these units being operated as commercial STRs simply aren't suitable due to the size and inflated value. If commercial STR owners are required to give up their STR income, there will be many who will lose their property to foreclosure or have to sell it at major loss. I urge the decision-makers to allow all of this to continue, as long as they are reliable. Thank you. Mr. Brouillette? My name is Craig Brouillette, address 8527 Oak Street. I own 226 Decatur Street in VCE 1, and I wanted to voice my support for allowing short-term rentals in this small, heavily commercial district. All the buildings in this district, except one, are three- to four-story buildings with commercial space on the first floor. There are 42 buildings in VCE 1, 10 of them currently sit vacant. They sit vacant because they need major work just to meet modern code. The renovation costs are simply prohibitive. Any potential buyers, look at the numbers and walk away so these buildings stay vacant, deteriorating and dragging down the character of the area. Allowing short-term rentals changes the math. The responsible use of short-term rentals helps cover the high carrying costs and renovation costs associated with these old buildings. The result would be restored facades, safer buildings, and occupied properties instead of boarded-up eyesores. Again, I'd like to voice my support for allowing the responsible use of short-term rentals in VCE 1 and point out that we've collected 45 signatures of business owners and building owners in VCE 1. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Wickham, Joshua Moore, and then Christina Jones, and Burt Lodger. Hi. Hello. My name is Jennifer Wickham. I live at 2927 St. Peter Street. I'm an architect with Workshop WD40. We're a local architecture and development firm. And I've been closely participating in this process and want to first thank City Planning for all of your time, your effort, and the care that went into this report. I want to especially thank Rachel Berg and the staff who met with us to discuss how zoning and building codes can affect each other. Regulating transient lodging is a big ask, so I want to thank you for listening to the many, many different groups and stakeholders and all of our different opinions that have been involved in this process. It's clear you've taken time to really hear everyone. We especially appreciate your response to Council's ask to consider transient lodging uses in HMC 2 along the large commercial corridors in accordance with the City Master Plan and future land uses. Hotels are one of the most classic business types, and we believe their presence and renewed investment in these historic streets can in turn bring renewed investment to other struggling businesses in the area. We see how many empty storefronts are along these corridors. The proposed language will maintain the existing permissions for the lots directly on the corridors where the commercial use is appropriate to the scale of the commercial location while making other lots in the HMC 2 designation more neighborhood appropriate and residential in scale. We applaud this. HMC 2 is also under full HDLC control, which will keep development appropriate in scale. We do have one clarifying question following up just as we were listening here about CSTRMs, and so if the max is one per block, but you could have up to four units in one building, would those four be under one permit and thus be the one allowed? Again, thank you to everyone for your hard work. We look forward to seeing how the rest of this plays out. Thank you. Ms.

Berg, did you want to comment? Yeah. The commercial short-term rental medium would be by the building, so that one would constitute the building itself. It could have 4% or 20%, whichever is less within the building, that would be the one for that block. Thank you. Joshua Moore? I have no comment. Christina Jones? And then Bert Laudren? Those are all the cards I have in support, so if you're here to be in support and I did not call your name, maybe flag me or something. Okay. Please. Hello. My name is Christina Jones. I live at 5615 Hawthorne Street. I am the property manager for 215-225 Decatur, which houses both residential and commercial spaces in the VCE1 district. I'm here today in support of allowing commercial short-term rentals in the VCE1. Of the nine apartments that we manage, four are currently vacant. That's a 44% vacancy rate. Our apartments were beautifully designed both in size and function to serve long-term residents, so they're not these tiny units that were spoken of before or created for tourists. We have them listed with real estate agents, we're advertised online. We are actively seeking long-term tenants, and yet we simply are not receiving inquiries. Throughout my tenure here, I've been with the company for 10 years now, we've consistently had vacant apartments with our vacancy rates reaching 75% for years at a time. I'm from New Orleans. I personally very much appreciate the importance of preserving the residential housing in the French Quarter, but we also have to recognize that the VCE1 is a unique environment, surrounded by commercial activity, restaurants, nightlife, entertainment. People just don't want to live above a music hall, and an apartment sitting vacant isn't providing housing to anyone. Commercial short-term rentals are already permitted, as you know, in the VCE, and we wish to be the same rules. We're not asking to eliminate long-term housing, we're asking for the flexibility to put our properties to productive use when the demand for long-term housing simply isn't here. As someone who manages the properties every day, I ask the Commission to consider the actual rental market conditions in the VCE1, and the importance of treating comparable commercial districts consistently. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Burt? Please remember to state your name and address. Burt Lodrick, 3438 Annette Street. I'd just like to let you know that I've been here many, many times, and most of the times, the result of the vote can always be predicted. And I feel as though minds are already made up, but this is... Like, every session that we come here in this council, in this venue, you know, the result has already been made, as I mentioned. This is just a feel-good session. But I will go on. I feel as though that the people that would come here to have short-term rental are here to see the buildings that were built in 1718 in the French Quarter. You know, they don't visit other areas of the city, and a lot of tourists have come to me after they've been here, and they say, you have a wonderful city, but what they've seen was Esplanade to Canal, and from North Rampart to the river. I mean, they don't travel to Carrollton, Algiers, or the Marigny. But right now, right across the street from my mom's property, there's a home that I think is still owned by a civil district court judge, and right now, at this moment, there are about six cars parked in front of it. You know, if these people want to travel away from their home, you know, they really need to go to a hotel or actually to the French Quarter or, you know, some other place. But I think it's just ridiculous to have a city right now that just have short-term rentals all over it, because, as I said, it's just, you know, rules are made, but really, especially in this city. You know, you've got jaywalkers, litterers, and everything else, but rules are made, but they really aren't followed, you know. So as I said, I rise before you with that thought in mind. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Sir, I have you as in support, but are you in support, or are you in opposition, or just information? Mic cut off, or do you want to turn the mic on, or what? We're asking, are you in support of the short-term rentals or in opposition? What I wrote there, ma'am, is explicit. Support of the short-term rentals if they're exclusively in the French Quarter. Didn't I indicate that? Support in F2. Yeah, but, so, let me just help out a little bit. That comment card is colored as information, that's the information card, correct? So that's the City Council card. So we have you checked as in support. But, yeah, I... I just mentioned... No, we didn't hear. Sir, sir, I don't need you to... Wait, wait. I'm just trying to... Oh, oh, oh. I know you're... I'm just trying to... Yeah, yeah, right. But I'm just... I stated my point. If we happen to have short-term rentals, they should be exclusively in the French Quarter. Okay, thank you. Okay? We heard you. Thanks. Thank you. And I will comment to the Speaker that to the extent you think the result is predetermined, you missed last week's meeting where we had a two-hour discussion and we ended up voting four to four in a draw. So the result is not predetermined. Well, sir, I've been here many times before. That was a comment by me. The public part is closed. I just said that to the benefit of most of the people who are listening who might think that. The results are not predetermined. And last week's meeting approved that. The audience was very smart, sir, and I think whatever happened last week was... Thank you. I have two informational cards, Ms. Sylvia Patterson and Ms. Diane Simone, because there's no one else here to speak in support, correct? If so, raise your hand. No. So these two cards are information, and then everyone I have is in opposition. That's not the case? Maybe let me know. Okay. Ma'am, yes, please pull it down. Remember to state your name and address. Welcome. Okay. 628 Frenchman Street.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I didn't know your job was so tough. Okay. I've been a long-time property owner and commercial short-term rental operator on Frenchman Street in the heart of the Faubourg marina. I've been an operator since the 1990s, long before Airbnb became a household name and long before today's debate about commercial short-term rentals. My property is located on Frenchman Street Arts Cultural Overlay on a two-block commercial stretch that has long been associated with hospitality, music, and tourism. I'm the only commercial short-term rental on my block, on one side. I believe these distinctions matter. Frenchman Street is not an ordinary residential corridor. It's one of New Orleans' most recognizable cultural destinations. Visitors come specifically to experience our music, restaurants, architecture, and neighborhoods. For decades, my property has been part of the hospitality environment. I fully recognize and protect residential housing and neighborhood quality of life, but regulations should distinguish between newly converted residential properties and long-standing legally established hospitality businesses in appropriate commercial locations. A responsible established business cannot be treated the same as a speculative development that removes multiple residential units from the housing market. I ask the commission to consider the history of each property, its zoning, and its actual impact on the neighborhood and its record of compliance. I also ask that existing lawful operators be given meaningful protection from changes that could jeopardize businesses that have spent decades building. New Orleans needs affordable housing. It also needs small businesses, its cultural economy, and its independent hospitality operators. These priorities can co-exist. Please consider reasonable protections for long- Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Diane. Hi. I'm in opposition, so if you would like me to wait, I can. I believe that we'll start with opposition now. Okay. Please state your name and address. Diane, 524 St. Phillip Street. I've been a resident of the quarter for over 35 years. There's been a moratorium on short-term rentals in the French Quarter for 50-plus years for good reason. I've seen many changes, good and bad, but what I see with short-term rentals is it ruins a neighborhood and makes a security risk for all. I urge you to vote no. Many of the corporations that own them and rent to who knows how many at a time. There's no follow-up. Our main tax revenue is the hospitality business. We owe it to the hospitality workers to have a close place to live without driving and paying for parking. When I first moved in the quarter, they had a streetcar bus that went around that picked up tens and tens of people coming and going to work in various places, downtown, the hotels. On a second note, I'm deeply offended by the time that we worked on the master plan for years and years of many of the meetings I went to, and now we have variances and amendments like this constantly coming up and taking up your time, our time, when we could be using it for something else more valuable and much more pressing to the city. And as you know, many cities, Barcelona, Venice, has completely stopped short-term rentals. They have done a big turnaround. New York City also. I'd like you to think about your vote today of what it will mean like for our city in 20 or 30 years, and I'd like you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Eleanor Graham. And you have eight minutes. It's deja vu. And then Erin Holmes, Ms. Holmes, you're after that. I'll count how many minutes you have, and Mr. Chapman, you're after that. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Eleanor Graham. I am a leader and board member of Neighbors First for Bywater, representing hundreds of neighbors in Bywater. I also am an advocacy leader for my condominium building where I live in the HMMU district, 900 Bartholomew Street, condo 408. With me today are many members of an HMMU district and other residents of Bywater. Also, our fellow board member, Julie Jones, is here, and she will speak separately. I have been asked to speak for numerous board members, one of whom had to leave, as well as homeowners who feel they cannot adequately speak for themselves. I'm going to review for the benefit of our new commissioners some basic points. Commercial short-term rentals are essentially, for our purposes, not necessary. They are, if you believe in the staff report and Article 11 of the city code, meaning the municipal code, when you read all of that together, you say to yourself, well, if the city is regulating commercial short-term rentals already, consistently, with short-term rentals, meaning non-commercial, there's no reason why, rather than simply mirror them, we do not just have one short-term rental category, and that they are limited reasonably one per block face, and or also by type of structure, meaning houseboat and the marina, presumably home, whole home, if it's going to be Lake Catherine, if you go that far, and you could have these similar typologies, but you don't really need to have separate categories and have commercial short-term rentals small and medium, which essentially do nothing to add to, but arguably compete with, as one commissioner pointed out, the residential also. Commercial short-term rentals actually are not even shown to be in public demand. We don't need them. They are unsafe, and there's really been no business justification for them. They essentially function as unmanaged hotels. They always have. My building, there are illegal commercial short-term rentals throughout the building. Across from us, there are vacation homes, which were pitched as residences and have a conditional use for residential homes that were operating illegally as commercial short-term rentals. You opposed a hotel by the same developer of our building at 901 Bartholomew just a few years ago. That's in an HMU district.

Well, if we are to believe this staff report, we might get rid of commercial short-term rentals. We eventually get rid of the illegal ones. But why do we have a recommendation for small and large hotels in Bywater and Maroney and HMC2? Where I live, HMMU. Why? I don't know. We certainly don't need them. We have multiple hotels. We have Bywater suites, never full. There's been a conditional use approval of another hotel called the Milky Way on St. Claude, all right? Hasn't even opened. And we have a hotel that has failed to be constructed due to defects abutting neighborhoods on St. Claude, excuse me, on charters, what was supposed to be the arrive hotel. They've given up that location. What do we have? We have an elephant, an abandoned hotel project. There is simply no justification for hotels of any size or type in Bywater. Well, to the extent you would say, well, what about HMMU? Well, I would tell you HMMU always, in Bywater, abuts residential homes. We are in a dogleg in Bywater, where many of us live. We are surrounded by HMR. HMMU was developed, in fact, to promote residential living in my building, in the homes across from me, and also in certain other areas where there had been light industry. Where are those? They're on charters. Much of HMMU is on charters, abutting cottages behind there, like on Louisa, where there are commercial short-term rentals right across from Elizabeth's. That's HMMU. Are they going to convert to a hotel, or are we going to really get rid of them? So this is our dilemma. Now, let's look at St. Claude. Well, they proposed hotels along St. Claude without any density, because that is predominantly HMC2 and or HMMU. I can understand that, except for the fact we already have 2 in Bywater. We don't need any more. What do we have? We have boarded up cottages. We have an underutilized graffiti-ridden small commercial space that has one retailer. And we have a giant monstrosity of something that used to be a home for the disabled in a firm, which is still vacant and is across from the Bywater Suites Hotel. That's essentially it. We have a lot of mom-and-pop small businesses, all right? There's really no reason to try to promote economic development along Bywater's stretch of St. Claude or, in fact, charters with hotels. Why would we need hotels that are HMC2 in the middle of Bywater? I'm flabbergasted by the report. So are my fellow residents, and so is Julie Jones. We don't. HMC2 in Bywater is composed of corners that used to be neighborhood businesses or function as neighborhood businesses and small corridors. Think Piety, right? Think Burgundy at the corners, all right? Louisa, Burgundy and Louisa, Dauphine, right? Think of those corners. And Piety all the way to the river. They all are close to or back up to cottages, but they are limited. Now, the suggestion by the architect is, well, you know, HLC can limit it there. Well, it's going to be below 10,000 square feet. And in the interior, that's a big hotel. At 200 to 300 square feet per room, on average for a hotel, those are still large hotels. The staff report says we're mitigating it because we don't have bars and restaurants necessarily. They have to be allowed in the base zoning. Essentially, you don't have bars and restaurants in CSTRs, and they've had a horrific impact on the neighborhood. I beg you to deny the proposal for commercial short-term rentals essentially to be adopted or transferred or allowed as hotels or for new construction of hotels in HMC2 and HMMU areas of the Bywater. It is simply unnecessary and, frankly, will have catastrophic impacts. Also, I would just like to say we support the bed and breakfast proposal with one caveat. There is a failure in the definition to mention that the nine-bedroom would be limited to the HDLC structure, which is either contributing or significant. Other than that, we oppose the report. Thank you. Ms. Holmes? Ms. Holmes, you have 10 minutes. And then Mr. Chapman, you'll have 10 minutes as well. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Erin Holmes. I am the executive director of VCPORA. Hopefully, I will not take all 10 of those minutes because nobody wants to hear me talk that long. Excuse me, I'm getting used to reading glasses now, so bear with me. So first, we fully support the strong coalition position that New Orleans really doesn't need short-term rentals. They should just go away as a failed experiment. Short-term rentals, as a previous speaker talked about, are basically just unsupervised hotels. We also support more protections for downtown adjacent neighborhoods identified by the heat map. So now I'm going to move on to the French Quarter specifically. We and the neighbors continue to hold firm that no new short-term rentals belong in the French Quarter. We very much appreciate the compromise that was discussed, but it just won't work. The recommendations consider introducing short-term rentals into the VCE 1 district limited to one small short-term rental per building per block face. And that really doesn't seem like a lot, but the details do matter. These buildings are not singles and doubles where a short-term rental would help subsidize a homeowner's mortgage. These are three to five story buildings with private entrances next to ground floor commercial businesses. Private, as in an inspector, cannot just drop by to inspect the property. They have to schedule access. How can you effectively monitor illegal behavior if you have to call ahead and ask permission from the person you were trying to catch doing something illegal? Also, I want you to remember the disastrous special exception permit from the last round of residential short-term rental legislation. This was done by the council. They allowed up to two exceptions per block conditioned on a set of criteria that review of was so onerous that the city planning staff had to outsource it, only to have the council approve nearly every request.

It was such a bad policy that the council had to rescind it within less than a year. Bottom line, the neighborhood doesn't want this. We met with Executive Director Rivers and members of the CP staff a few months ago, and I want to thank them very much for sharing their time with us. We questioned why, out of the entire report that was commissioned under the premise of tightening the regulations on transient lodging, ultimately did that everywhere except for the VCE-1 from the staff report. The only district in which this proposal would loosen existing regulations for commercial short-term rentals is the VCE-1 district, where a CSTR would change from prohibited to permitted. What was the driving force? We were told at that meeting that they had not heard much from the quarter on the issue. I don't think that's true because of the engagement levels within the report, and also, they're exhausted from continuously fighting this legislative ping-pong. But today, I wanted to share that you have heard from them. We did also analyze all of the public comments sent in for this meeting. Of the 119 comments for a citywide study, 89 were from people against expansion of short-term rentals in any part of the quarter. That's 75%. 75% of respondents to a citywide study are coming from the French Quarter. You heard from 12 residents of the impacted area VCE-1 and another letter representing the 22 residential units of 220 Decatur. In contrast, in the written record, you received only two letters of support, one from a property owner who has been pushing this for years and one from a property manager for the building adjacent to hers. Just two. The math is not mathing here. And out of respect to the previous comments, I did hear an assertion of 45 signed letters of support from the business and property owners. Despite that not being in the public record, it was not inclusive of residents. So for sure, there are other advocates for the change. They just don't put their comments in the public domain. Some are simply hired by Airbnb and have city hall connections. Others have a long list of short-term rental violations on their properties. It wouldn't be prudent from a public participation standpoint. So how much time, effort, and money through a study, staff hours, public meetings have been wasted on a few units in the VCE-1? Even more importantly, why would you change a 65-year-old policy of protection at the whim of a few property owners? This is bad planning 101. So enforcement essentially is impossible. Let's just recap what happened in the last year. When the new administration took office, they found a $10 million that had been specifically earmarked for short-term rental enforcement had been pulled and spent in the city's general budget. It was gone. More recently, a safety and permits employee was fired and arrested for issuing fraudulent short-term rental permits in the French Quarter. Over 400 edited permits were found. And if that's not bad enough, what you didn't read was that 810 Bienville, the building associated with the majority of these edits, is registered by the assessor's office as being owned by the New Orleans Building Corporation. That is city property. That means it is city-owned property that is engaging in illegal activity, and it's not just one the first time. This building has a record of short-term rental violations going back to 2018, 12 separate offenses. If the city can't even keep out of the illegal short-term rental game, how is the playing field ever going to be leveled? And I have another little kicker. As an aside, if you go on the city's website to report an illegal short-term rental, it lists Mayor LaToya Cantrell at the top. Are we even serious here? So public trust on effective enforcement has eroded to nothing, but we still think, despite all evidence otherwise, that we've finally come up with a magical solution. We have compromised before with Bourbon Street, and now we find ourselves here again, and we knew we would. Airbnb and the would-be hosts, many of them illegally hosting now, will never stop, ever. So we need to stand firm. Hold the French Quarter in its ban. Keep them prohibited. Thank you very much. After Mr. Chapman, Shawn McClain, Ron Babin, and Jessica Ditez. Mr. Chapman, remember to state your name and address, and you have 10 minutes. All righty, thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Nathan Chapman. I live at 715 Ursulines. I'm president of VCPOR, the organization that Aaron's the executive director of. VCPOR has been the many decades-long watchdog group for the French Quarter, and I hope you'll agree with me that New Orleans has arguably no greater asset than our Vieux Carre. Is it imperfect? Well, yes, for sure, it's not perfect. But does the French Quarter provide a cultural and vital economic boon for all of us? I think you'd agree that's indisputable. So I'm asking you today to please make a motion to remove any reference to expanding short-term rentals in the French Quarter, including the VCE-1. As a body, after much debate, you moved forward this idea in the spring, but in a meeting with your director, Mr. Rivers, he confirmed that it is within your purview to now recommend against any French Quarter expansions. So why should you do this? This all started with your consultant's report, which was honestly, frankly, seriously flawed. Gambit called this report, as it relates to the French Quarter, dubious. How so? The desire line study undercounted French Quarter hotels as part of transient rentals. That's right, they missed entire hotels. Worse, it failed to compare actual room counts. So the gigantic Mont-Leon Hotel and other large French Quarter hotels were counted the same as a small bed and breakfast in other neighborhoods. Seriously? Based on this flawed methodology, it concluded that transient rental impacts in the French Quarter were moderate, similar to what you might find in Gentilly Terrace or Algiers Point.

Again, seriously? When I tell this to people, it makes them laugh, but it should make you pause. So if you were just to drive over to the VCE-1, which is that area around the House of Blues, at first it may look industrial. So looks can be deceiving. There are people living there. This is a very industrial-looking building, and all the windows up there say no short-term rentals by people living there, desperate to protect their neighborhood. I understand that VCE-1 is just one section of the French Quarter, but I've been volunteering for the French Quarter since my hair was dark, and exceptions always create more inceptions. In fact, the property owners pushing this change now are using the Bourbon Street bar area as their precedent right now. That is what happens in the real world. So I appreciate that you'll probably suggest limitations and restrictions, but lack of enforcement is what happens in the real world, at least in New Orleans. The French Quarter is under pressure like any other neighborhood. I heard somebody in the spring meeting say, I don't know why we should have special rules for a place like the French Quarter. It is under pressure. Do you see all the advertisements, like steps from the French Quarter, even though they're way across town? That's how much pressure there will be. Yes, this is just one small step, but it's a crack in Pandora's box that I believe actually leads to an existential threat to the balance and authenticity in the French Quarter. The public's asking you, read those comments that Aaron's referenced, to reject any extensions of short-term rentals in the Vieux Carre. I want to close by noting, and so in the previous issue, I heard you all supporting economic development, and I totally agree that this is important. This is not residence versus economic development. Protecting the French Quarter is the most pro-business thing you can do in this city. Thank you. For God's sake, this is not worth putting it at risk, to make these few little property owners happy. There's a greater thing here at play, and I hope you'll stand with protecting the French Quarter today. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. For Ms. Shawn McClain, Ron Babin, Jessica Dietz. Hi, Shawn McClain, 917 Esplanade. I just want to say that if you open this door, it will not close. And I've heard some people say, if it's a condo building, then they can just outlaw them. Well, I'm here to tell you that doesn't work, because I live in a condo building, and we have one unit that consistently violates our prohibition for anything less than a year. As far as enforcement goes, a little cautionary tale here, there's a licensed B&B behind me. It's got nine units. It does not have an on-site manager, which it's supposed to. My bedroom window overlooks the pool and hot tub area, so it sounds like they're in my bedroom half the time. And I know they don't have anybody there, because they're partying at four o'clock in the morning, and if somebody was actually monitoring that, they probably wouldn't be doing that. So I urge you to not allow any further STRs in the corridor. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Good afternoon. I'm Ron Babin, 1417 3rd Street, and I'm here representing the Garden District Association. I'm going to ask that if you look at this and are not going to reject it, we ask that you at least defer it for further down the road. We have been busy working with Councilwoman Harris on removing the magazine street overlay between Washington and Napoleon. This adds another factor on top of that with the small hotel land use that you're going to permit. In addition to that, we know that there's also some discussion about the height restrictions being changed. We are promoting commerce, and we want commerce, and we want to revive the dead part of magazine street, but we have to put parameters on what's going to happen there. So we are asking that you please defer it if you don't outright reject it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good. Staff, excuse me. I need to be able to speak to staff as well. Staff, can you confirm how this would affect the Garden District on that magazine corridor? The Garden District would be the prohibition on short-term rentals and bed and breakfast would remain. I didn't hear the other part of what small hotels. One second. Okay, cool. And Stephen, can you talk to us about just the deferment, just because that's been... Sure. So you have your deadline is 60 days from today. Ms. Berg, maybe you can talk about that. I'm sorry. We had a longer time frame for this one, so the expiration or the deadline is actually January 6th. So there are two deferral dates that it could potentially be deferred to. It could go to... There's only one meeting, a CPC meeting is in November and December, so it could either go to the November 10th CPC meeting or the December 8th meeting. Okay. And the reason I'm asking about the Garden District is there has been a ban on it and that's been pretty consistent. It's been consistent. So we just want to be able to get this information correct. So there is a recommendation in the HUB1 district for small hotels. Again, that's the smaller hotel under 10,000 square feet. Ancillary uses are not allowed by right unless permitted in the base owning district. The prohibition has the geographic boundaries, but that only pertains to the short-term rentals and the bed and breakfasts, not the hotels. Okay. And that would be effective of the Washington Avenue to the Jackson Corridor, Jackson Avenue? It is... It is the centerline of St. Charles Avenue, downriver of Jackson Avenue, centerline of Magazine Street, and downriver of Louisiana Avenue. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica Dietz, Christopher Olson, Angie Bolin, Glad Bilsby. Please remember to state your name and address. Good afternoon. Jessica Dietz. I reside at 241 Decatur Street. I have lived there since 2001 and also operate the business there that's on the commercial ground floor. It's called Ryan's Irish Pub.

So I think one of the unique cases that still do everything in one building. So my understanding was that some of the feedback after the last public meeting was that only one VCE, one resident, actually showed up to speak, and it was implied that we don't care. Well, that's why I had to come today, to make sure that you know that we do care. And it's just very heartwarming to see some of my neighbors in the back, especially, for example, people that have their children here and that are raising their children in this area. And that's why it's been so important for me over the last five years that my volunteerism has been entirely committed to making sure that our area, the VCE-1, but the French Quarter as a whole, is a very safe place to live. And along with that means a great quality of life for those of us that live there. And every day when I see people walk their children down the sidewalks to take them to school, to lycée Francais, that's why I dedicate all of this time. And look, I should be probably dedicating more to my actual business, but hey, it is what it is. So, a couple things that do concern me regarding the public safety. We have a couple nightclubs in our blocks. The VCE-1 is located at 309 Decatur Street. In 2023, A significant crime occurred outside of that illegally rented STR. An individual drove up in a vehicle, they opened fire on that building, striking occupants that were standing at that door going to that party. That is the last non-fatal shooting that has not been solved in our area. Did you have anything else to add? I think you have an interesting perspective because you live right in this and work. Do you have anything else that you want to add? No, I'm fine, unless you have any questions for me. No, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, all right, Christopher. Hi, I'm Chris Olsen. I live at 1029 St. Peter Street. I live in the quarter, I own multiple stores in the quarter, and I'm raising a family in the quarter, and I oppose any expansion into VCE 1. So what's the harm in allowing three extra blocks to be short-term rentals? Well, I used to live on those blocks. I lived at 305 Decatur and then 315 Decatur. And even 12 years ago, those areas were much more residential than they are now. Those buildings were full then, and our neighbors were just normal people that worked in the quarter. And everyone got priced out when Airbnb came in heavy into that area. And those building owners were then able to make more money. So there is real harm being done to actual people like me. And on the other side of that harm is what is the benefit, right? So let's be honest, what we're talking about here is potentially doing something that no normal people that just live in the quarter want, so that Suzette Toledano and a handful of other rich investors can make a few extra bucks a month on their rental properties, right? These are properties that are vacant, not because there's no renters like me, but because they're asking $3,400 a month for a two bedroom. So we see the game, and this is a great time for you all to show that the desires of a few property owners don't outweigh what all the normal people who live in the French Quarter want and need. Thank you all. All right, and Ms. Boland, Glad, Bilsey, and Lee Montgomery. And then Owen Joiner. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Angie Boland. I live at 528, excuse me, Governor Nichols. I have lived in the French Quarter since 1995. I started out there as a poor lawyer renting an apartment. I lived in two different apartments over the course of like 25 years before I finally was able to buy a residence on Governor Nichols. Please vote no. Do not expand short term rentals in the French Quarter. I have seen firsthand what happens when you have short term rentals in the French Quarter, mainly illegal. They proliferate. Nobody does anything to enforce them. They are destroying our neighborhoods. Even allowing just a few in the VCE1 is going to lead to the next exception. The next thing in front of you will be Charter Street. The next thing after that will be Royal Street. This is not going to end. Investors and people who own buildings want to make more money. They do not want to rent to people at a market rate rent. If we stop short term rentals in the French Quarter, people will be able to come back and hopefully rent apartments like Mr. Olson said and bring back the vibrant residential nature of this neighborhood that we all love and I think that people around the world love. Without residents in the French Quarter, you are not going to have a French Quarter. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, I'm Glade Bilby, 606 Esplanade. I've been a resident of the French Quarter a long time. I'm president of French Quarter Citizens. I'm a commissioner of French Quarter Management District. I'm a co-chair of Save Our Soul Coalition. All of these organizations that I'm involved with have residents who are concerned, who volunteer their time to make their community and their neighborhoods better. So it's very important. From the Faubourg, to the French Quarter, to Bywater and Treme, we've all heard of the disastrous and probably problematic issues with short term rentals. And what they've done to the neighborhoods. One of the things that we're having a problem with is this particular zoning change in VCE 1. This would be disastrous for French Quarter, the fragile French Quarter neighborhood. Notwithstanding the problems with the short term, with the rental survey that you all did, or the lackluster enforcement of the STR process now, or even the recent discovery of the fraud involved with the process, we cannot jeopardize the fragile French Quarter neighborhood. Previous to this, we've had problems considered with renters, with owners, with everything. I think one of the problems is that all of our properties are 100 years old, 200 years old. So it's the residents in the French Quarter that maintain these properties.

It's the residents that host 90 million people a year in our geographically challenged area. And it's the residents that actually maintain the brand that the city sells. Jane Jacobs said, neighborhoods are built and sustained cities. One of the things they do is the French Quarter has actually generated $70.9 million last year to the city of New Orleans. They- Thank you, sir. Lyle Montgomery. And then Owen Joiner. And after that, Ms. Susan Johnson and Max Gumna. Hi, I'm Lyle Montgomery. I live at 625 South Rocher Blvd. Before I give my comments, I have a question, a clarification on the report. There was a spot where it seemed to be a discrepancy. On page 43 of the report, it says that it's a table and it shows that the MU1 and MU2 neighborhoods or zones cannot have- It has a P with a cross through it, which to me means no commercial short-term rentals. But on page 49, it says that small and medium CSTRs are permitted in MU1 and MU2. So I wanted to ask that first. Okay. Do you want to go ahead? Sure. So it's a bit confusing, but all of the use permissions for short-term rentals have been removed from the use tables. And so it might look like it's- Can we stop the clock for a minute, please? In the use tables that's in the report. But if you go to Article 21, where all of the use permissions are now located, you'll see that it is permitted. They had to be moved into the temporary category, which is where the NSTR regulations and use permissions live. And so that's now where we are proposing the CSTR regulations live. So that's where you have to look to see where we are proposing they be permitted. Can you share what page that is? Yes. And in moving forward, if there's any staff questions, we're going to wait until after you speak, and then we'll ask the staff questions. But just as a house rule. So the table isn't accurate? The table's accurate. It is being removed from the use tables, so that's why it's showing it crossed out. It's just been moved into a different article of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. So to- So if I can clarify. Okay. One of our recommendations is to change it from a permitted use, which is a perpetual land use entitlement, to a temporary use, which is basically subject to your annual license. And it can be revoked at any time. In order to do that, it needs to be taken out of one section of the Zoning Ordinance and put in a different section of the Zoning Ordinance. That's why it looks in the report that it's crossed through in one section. That's where it would be a- that's where it is now as a permanent entitlement. We're recommending to take it out of there and put it in a different section of the Zoning Ordinance so that it would be a temporary use. Okay. So commercial short-term rentals, small and medium, are allowed in MU1 and MU2 according to the report? As temporary use. As temporary use. Okay. Okay. Can you just reference the page, Ms. Berg? It's- there's- it's in two locations. The text amendment changes are listed twice. So page 28 and 29 and then 49 and 50. 49 and 50. Okay. Thank you. All right. If we could put a minute 20 on the clock, please. Thank you. So my position is to eliminate all commercial short-term rentals, not just in my neighborhood but throughout the city. I feel like the lack of on-site supervision is the thing that makes everything about these bad. Because they're lucrative, they've spread like wildfire, and the nuisance issues are just continuous. And the neighbors are the ones who deal with it, not the property manager. We are the first line of defense for parking, trash, noise, all of it. I- I'm against the plan to grandfather in because these are- without- with the grandfathering, the problem will still exist. We'll still have- will be overrun with commercial short-term rentals. My particular neighborhood is featured in the report as one that's been very oversaturated in Tulane-Gravier. And the other concern I have is that also developers who can't get commercial short-term rental permits may try to switch to small hotel. And we need to be vigilant. And also the- the- Do you want to just finish your last sentence? The enforcement and the consequences for failing- to comply are totally inadequate. I have one in my neighborhood that had 21 violations after operating illegally for two years and their fine was $2,100. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Johnson? And then we have Max Gumner and Owen, or I'm sorry, Owen Joyner, you're next. Yes, and then Ms. Susan and then Max. 20 Camp Street, I don't envy your job. Really, how you sit through this. And you had that graphic of the legislative history of short-term rentals and it just goes on. Those people don't understand, no. You know, and that's what, and this is some other historical perspective. I'll be real quick. The reason they keep coming back is because historically New Orleans has been a commodity town, city. It's had cotton, it had sugar, it had petroleum, it had enslaved people. At one time, I'm not trivializing that. Also, Katrina was a kind of a commodity, okay? This city doesn't have a healthy commercial industrial history. It's been commodities to be exploited, okay? Well, they've run out of them, okay? The last one standing is the French Quarter, okay? And they're just going to, they won't stop until you say no. You know, just explain, we're not a renewable resource, okay? So, anyway, I don't mean to lecture and give a history lesson, but that's, I think it's an important concept that the economy here is lacking, okay? Thank you. Susan Johnson, 2822 LePage Street. I'm not paid to be here. I'm here as an advocate with the Strong Coalition at Jane Place Initiative, where I represent the university area in Carrollton, which is my hometown neighborhood. Strong opposes commercial short-term rentals as being destructive of long-term housing opportunities. I'm here as an advocate for affordable housing, and I'm here to say that I'm not paid to be here.

I'm here as an advocate for affordable housing, long-term housing opportunity in the city. With respect to the Desire Line study, we also oppose the creation of neighborhood hotels, small or large, as an overexpensive use in residential and mixed-use zoning and too similar to CSTRs, and we oppose the expansion of STRs in the French Quarter. My main topic is, in my hometown, the proliferation of rooming houses and residential dwelling units near the universities. As defined by the CZO, a rooming house is the use of five to 15 bedrooms in a single unit by unrelated persons, like college students. So when a veteran private dorm developer like Danny Heidenberg advertises over five, six, seven, eight bedrooms in a unit, this is a rooming house. Desire Line study counts 11 licensed rooming houses as non-conforming uses in New Orleans, page 11. And yet, in the university area alone, there are at least 58 illegal rooming houses as of September 15th, 2026. I keep pushing the issue at the BZA, and safety and permits repeatedly respond so they can't regulate the use, except as an enforcement matter, after it's been shown that the tenants are unrelated, even when the owner is known to rent exclusively to students. The last, no enforcement is on record since the Negan administration. That may be my problem with looking for data. So if the rooming house use is too controversial as a constitutional issue, as a violation of the freedom of association, why do we keep it in the CZO? Ladies and gentlemen, this is bad for the neighborhood. It's gone on too long. We have to solve this problem. Thank you. Thank you. Max Gumner. Hey, good afternoon. My name is Max Gumner. I live at 1112 North Rampart Street in the French Quarter. This is the first time I've been to one of these things. I don't go to VCPOR meetings. I don't do any of these committees. I'm just kind of a regular person. I want to just speak to what I've seen over 30 years in this city. When I first came here in 1999 for undergraduate, I was bartending, much of it in the quarter. I did that for almost 10 years, and now I've been an attorney for 16, 17 years. 16, 17 years now. And what I can say is, from the people that are supporting this, and I'm not sure if I can change your mind, but I hope I can at least let y'all consider the community here, because I am a part of that. All I've heard in support of it is something that is truly diabolical to me, in that they are asking for this amendment to fix problems that they themselves have caused. They talk about the French Quarter's population dwindling. Well, why is that? Because nobody can afford to live there anymore. None of my fellow bartenders, service industry workers, the heart of this city, the people we need who are living in droves, none of them can afford to live in the quarter. I can afford to live in the quarter because I'm an attorney of 10 years. That shouldn't be the standard anymore. And short-term rentals have largely been a factor in contributing to that. And they talk about not being able to rent out these units because they were bad investments and now they want to make their money, so they're charging double, that is not an exaggeration, double the market rate for these units, or units that just aren't suitable to renting out for full-time. Why is that? Because you designed them to be short-term rentals. These are problems they caused and now they want us to fix that. You know, the problem is, with short-term rentals, is they do damage. And I think right now what we are debating is how much damage we're gonna let them do. And I just feel like we have truly lost the plot because the answer to that question should be none. We shouldn't let them do any more damage than they've already done. They shouldn't exist, period. And we certainly shouldn't let them expand more into our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for coming to City Hall for the first time. Sandra Stokes, Stephanie Sherman, John Cofer. And Annie Irving ceded her time to me. Noted, so you've got two minutes. Thank you. It's now. Oh, four minutes. I'm Sandra Stokes. I represent Louisiana Landmark Society and thank you all for the hard work on this. This is one hell of a report. I wanna start with safety concerns. I don't think there should be any transient lodging without on-site operators. I think we should take a really good look at that because it's really just not a safe situation. Louisiana Landmark Society is part of a strong coalition and we support the ban on all commercial short-term rentals for many reasons. But one of the main reasons is you cannot enforce these. Four apartments in a building cannot be enforced. How do you know they're not going into the other apartments? We don't have enforcement and it's impossible. There are abundance of hotel rooms in the city. We have Omni Hotel going online and we continually have hotels that are being approved. I think we have enough transient housing. I wanna thank you for not expanding it or allowing it in the Garden District but I am concerned about the new thing that came up today about hotels along the edges. That is a real concern. And I thank you for not expanding it in CBD5. I know that was an option at one point as well. We are opposed to expansion in the French Quarter of any short-term rentals. We need more residents. We don't need more transients. Tourism is what people come for and they come for the authentic. And it is the living, breathing neighborhood that makes people wanna come. If we grant it, we are continuing to set a precedent. We are expanding it more. And did I hear correctly? We're talking about all this for five, the maximum of five units in VCE1, is that correct? And if that's true, all of these people are fighting over five units that you wanna expand for? This is absurd to me. Please don't expand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is that correct? Five units? Yes. Okay, so that is correct, Ms. Stokes.

All right, did Stephanie Sherman? Okay. I think VCE1 was in the morning and then at 3 a.m. You see, I'm two MCs and this is me. So this is me. Well, I could be in the morning as well. Okay, what is your name? Oh, yes, Julie, I have you here. All right, Mr. Kofor. I'm John Kofor, I live at 4442 Art Street in Gentilly Terrace. I've, I lived and worked in the French Quarter for many years. I was on the Master Plan Committee originally and was a planner. I wanted to acknowledge and thank all of you for being here and working on this. I know doing something like a plan for the entire city involves a lot of people and a lot of work on your part. And I wanna say I appreciate all the work that these people have done and their care for the very special place we call the Vieux Carre, you know, the French Quarter. And it seems to me that we shouldn't be having short-term rentals there. And especially since we really haven't done it successfully other places in the city. In Gentilly Terrace, I know right around the corner from me, we have big problems with that. So I would say please listen to these folks today and deny this proposal to do short-term rentals. In the quarter. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Jones, please. And I saw that you filled out a card, but it had gotten stacked, I believe with Ms. Holmes. So please state your name and address. Pull the mic down so we can hear you. And you've got two minutes unless Ms. Stephanie is ceding the time to you. No. I'm Julie Jones at 827 Louisa Street in Bywater. I'm president of Neighbors First for Bywater. And I'm also part of the strong coalition for banning the short-term rentals. I'm horrified at the proposal that all HMC2 and all HUMU properties zones can host hotels. We already have tons of hotels in Bywater, as I think Eleanor Graham talked about that, so I won't go through it again. We need residences. I have an apartment that I rent in the Camelback of my home, where I have incidentally lived since 1985, and not in the Camelback, but in the house below. And as soon as someone leaves, someone else pops in right away, because it's a nice area and I charge a decent rent. I don't notice that there are properties begging for renters, for regular renters. In this area, Bywater, I speak of Bywater, but the same thing would hold for a lot of the historical neighborhoods. We live in old houses. Most of them are frame houses. Space pours into these houses, not through just windows, but through the walls themselves. If you put them down cheek-by-jowl with the hotels that are being proposed, or any other form of rentals, short-term rentals, or transit lodging, I mean, life becomes untenable there. I am... Yes? You can continue. Can we get the mic back on, please? Your time's up, but we're asking you to continue your thoughts. Oh. I don't really need more time. Do you have a final comment? Yep. Just that we have a population decline in Bywater, and it's been dramatic. We need residents. We don't need hotels. Thank you. Thank you. Stephanie Sherman, and then Ms. Maryknoll. I'm Stephanie Sherman. I have 907 Chartis. I just recently purchased the building next door to return it to a single-family home that it once was, taking it from condos back to its original home size. My family has been here in the French Quarter for over 100 years. They have owned property. They have run businesses. We all are invested in the French Quarter, and as of last year, I joined the VCPOR board. I think that what we need to, again, it's been stated before, call out is that the people who are for this exemption are an expansion. They purchased their buildings since the ban, or the time in the 1960s when short-term rentals were made illegal, right? So all of these people made choices to develop their properties as they saw fit, their choice, but now they're complaining that they can't rent. Our employees, Brennan's employees, there's a number of employees here in the French Quarter that would like to live and work within the quarter. They can't afford these large rents. It's simply inaccurate. There's also property owners in the BCE-1 in those condo buildings that purchased the property not expecting a nightly hotel to move in across the hall from them. So I think it's unfair to them to consider opening up one unit that could be across from their hall. Thank you. All right. Anne Katz, or Marynell, Marynell, and then we have Anne Katz and Andrew Katz, Katz, Katz, Mr. and Mrs. Katz. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Marynell Nolan-Wheatley with the Preservation Resource Center at 923 Chapatula Street. First, we always want to thank the CPC staff for all their hard work on this and the Commission for your time with this. I always feel strange filling out a red card for a study that's expansive, this massive and complex, but the PRC would like to echo the concerns raised by so many and by VCPORA, and we oppose the allowance of any commercial short-term rentals in the BCE-1 zoning district within the French Quarter. Increases in transient lodging will have detrimental impacts in the French Quarter, including increasing housing costs, decline in permanent resident populations, decreased quality of life for those residents who do remain, displacement of local businesses, and increased risks to life and historic buildings from threats such as fire. The French Quarter, which is a nationally designated treasure, culturally, architecturally, and historically, is also a residential neighborhood that already experiences a concerning concentration of transient lodging uses. Additional exceptions in this historic core neighborhood that is already suffering from the effects of over-tourism would set a damaging precedent, which seems like a lot considering it's only for five additional units. The PRC is opposed to expanding commercial short-term rentals in the BCE-1 zoning district, and we would ask that you recommend to remove that from the study. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you.

Is it the Katz family? Please remember to state your name and address, and you have two minutes. Thank you. I'm sure you've been dying to hear what the mother of a shrieking toddler has to say. I'm here because your decision affects my family. It affects my baby. We live at 232 Decatur Street, Unit 2B. There are residents there who are full-time, like me. They can't be here for many reasons, but luckily we can. I'm not here with statistics and economic data about how your decision is going to bring all these benefits to the community. I'm just sharing with you my experience as a mother raising a small family in the French Quarter, and there are mothers like me in the French Quarter. Surprisingly, it's a surprise to me to find that the more I walk around, the more I bump into them. I fell in love with the quarter when I was 15 years old visiting from Seattle, and about 11 years ago I had a chance to purchase a condo, and since then I have worked on remodeling it. I have a little balcony. I grow citrus trees, olive trees. People look up. They say hi to my son. They take pictures. This is the kind of experience that I think brings a smile to the people visiting New Orleans. So I've been also a part-time resident, so I understand the need to have investment income coming in. However, as a resident, I've also experienced people in the building illegally doing short-term rentals. People would barf in the hallway, common area, and no one would clean it up because it's not in the room where they're paid to clean. People would put trash bags in the stairwell so our cleaning folks wouldn't know where to find the trash bag. These are the things that affect our quality of life. I understand that it's difficult for me as a resident living there to address even the people living next to me. I can only imagine trying to address those issues with people that are in other buildings Is your husband speaking as well? Yes. Okay, cool. Did you have a last comment? Yes. I think the experience of the quarter is more than Bourbon Street. And when people see families like me, they think that if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them to come and visit as well. Let it make it a welcoming place, not just for people who want to do the booths, but also people who want to enjoy with their family, with their aging parents. Thank you. Mr. Katz, and then Alan Johnson, Alan Stowell, Charles Gulley, please remember to state your name and address. Hi. Thank you. It's Andrew Katz, and I'm a full-time neighbor at 232 Decatur Street. I just urge you to vote no on this expansion of short-term rentals. My main concern is security in the area. I'd ask you that you maybe speak with police there about the challenges they've had controlling crowds on Bienville already. A lot of times after festivals, they're unable to clear the street from people in the street. They work for hours with noise machines to try to clear the street. So I'm really concerned that these short-term rentals are going to lead to more parties. I think everyone kind of knows that they do. You get one person renting a place, and suddenly there's 20 people inside having a party that spills out into the street. So raising a one-year-old son in the area, it's, of course, my main concern. We bought our home with the understanding that these were restricted, and we'd like to keep it that way. I ask that you vote against this expansion because we don't have anywhere to go. Even if we did want to leave, we can't go anywhere. This is our primary home. Thank you. Alan? I have two minutes that have been ceded to me by Jeffrey Seymour, so that would be this many. Jeffrey, if you could please fill out a comment card. He told me he had before he left. I saw him, but I did not see it. Oh, sorry. My name is Alan Johnson. I live at 1418 Charters. I'm the head of the Fulbright-Marinette Improvement Association STR Committee, longtime president. Y'all have been seeing me here for years. I've been doing this multiple iterations of the STR plan since 2016 when we first started this. We've learned from our mistakes. When this plan first opened up years ago, we decided that we were going to allow everything under the sun in one way or the other. We ended up with a whole house short-term rentals, which became the buzzword for the worst thing, and we've tried to scale it back. But unfortunately, we've allowed legal nonconforming use going forward. And that is why if you look at page 16 of your report, the heat map looks the way it does. The Maroney, Treme, Bywater, Lower Garden District, Iris Channel, Central City are on fire because we had no controls over what was happening in our neighborhood. It's obvious, and that's what happened to us. We've lost our housing for our residents. The Maroney in 2000, 83.3% of our housing had residents, now 64.2%. We've lost 20% of our housing to 20% of our residents in our neighborhood. We have protections in certain neighborhoods that we do not have in the Maroney. I don't begrudge them those protections. I want you to look at what was successful in the Lower Garden District, I'm sorry, in the Garden District and the French Quarter and extend those to the neighborhoods that you see are in trouble, and those are ours. The staff report, I'm sorry, the consultant's report came out at that time and pointed this out and it's clear as day. You can't avoid it. I also want to point out that while banning CSTRs is a good thing going forward, we need to get rid of the CSTRs that exist because that needs to be turned back into residential serving businesses. Not all commercial zones are the same. Commercial properties are intended to serve the residents that live there, and turning all of those into transient lodging, turning all of that into hotels doesn't do anything to serve the neighbors that currently live there. Every HMC2 property, which has been pointed out for hotels, allows unlimited hotels.

That means unlimited hotels on Elysian Fields, unlimited hotels on St. Claude, as well as in the Treme on Claiborne and on St. Bernard Avenue. Those HMC2 properties, they abut residentials. Look at residential properties. They abut cottages, double shotguns. Look at the former aquatic gardens on Elysian Fields and the hotel that's under litigation right now. We're already seeing hotels for the Hampton Inn, Michelopolis has a hotel, you have one right there at the old Ice House, right there on Elysian Fields. They're happening up and down, and it's just starting. You see what's happening. We have to protect this, protecting long-term housing, disturbing the residential character is a bad thing, and don't believe me, believe your own staff report, page five. The reality is that many round residential zoning districts are located within residential neighborhoods, and many contain residential structures that have been historically used for residential housing. What we see is three double shotguns that have been put together in the 2100 block up North Rampart. They're just under 10,000 square feet, and those are now called a small hotel under your logic. It's currently already existing, so this is going to deplete double shotguns and turn them into hotels. So while it's called a small hotel, and that sounds cute and quaint, that actually takes away what used to be housing, and the 2100 block of North Rampart, I urge you to look at that. As we're going through the budget hearings right now, I heard Councilmember Harris say the budget is a moral document. The CZO is also a moral document. You're telling certain people in our neighborhoods whether or not they're worth saving. I urge you to treat this process as a moral document, and look at the people in the corridor, look at the people in the Maroni, Treme, Lower Garden District, and tell them that they're worth saving, that they're not worth being handed over to tourists. We are worth saving, and please help us. Alan Stowell, and then Charles Sully. Hi, my name is Alan Stowell. I live at 2020 Dauphine Street in the Maroni Triangle, and I'm in opposition of this bill or whatever. And I support what Mr. Johnson just said about your own report suggested that you deny this. So I am in favor of denying it. Thank you. Thank you. Please remember to state your name and address. Hi, I'm Charlie Sully. I live, it's hard to pronounce. I live at 2929 Bank Street. I'm a member of New Orleans Stop Helping Israel's Ports. We're not paid to be here. I'm here on my own. We're a grassroots anti-war organization in New Orleans. I'm from New Orleans. I've lived here my whole life. I just want to say we stand in firm unity with VC Pura and all other opponents of short-term rentals entirely. I have a pretty good idea for y'all. Why don't we just ban all short-term rentals? Why don't we just start banning commercial short-term rentals outright? That will fix the problem. It will make everyone's job a lot easier. So I have another question, though. What does being anti-war have to do with being opposed to short-term rentals? I'll submit this to you. Airbnb and VRBO are targets of the boycott, divest, and sanction movement internationally. Why is this? Simply put, Airbnb and short-term rental companies have always gotten rich off of the displacement of others, whether that is in occupied Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, or New Orleans. We unequivocally say no to profit from displacement. We say no to the displacement of working people from New Orleans or Palestine. We want housing for all New Orleanians. There are a lot of us. We'll come back in a larger number. We want housing for all New Orleanians. Airbnb and other short-term rental companies have consistently, as was stated before, tried to flout these basic demands for our rights. As also was said and demonstrated time and time again through lawsuit and lawsuit, clearly any inch that we give these parasitic companies is far too much. They will continue to creep and creep into our neighborhoods and sue us into oblivion. Thank you very much. Please vote no. Nikki Sawinski, Rhonda Finley, and Mr. Frank. Those are the last cards that I have to speak. Okay. Please, go ahead. Nikki Sawinski, 1011 St. Philip in the Quarter. I'm not going to beleaguer the many, many facts that have been said here today, but I will say we absolutely do not need more exposure to STRs in the Quarter. We're a neighborhood, and there are plenty of hotel rooms we don't need anymore. Hotels don't allow the behavior we see in STRs, and it's left to residents to enforce it. How am I supposed to know that the people that are currently sneaking in and out of the house next to me are renting for three days or 30 days? I have no way of knowing this. So what do I do? I have to put up with it because last week it was people at the yacht races. This week it was people for a parade. There's no way for me to know. As for the VCE people who are in support of this, this goes beyond. Most of these people have inherited buildings that have been in their family for multiple generations. They chose to let them fall apart. They chose to not rent them, and now that short-term rentals are a thing, they will slap us in the face and use historic tax credits, change the building envelope. Say we need the doors to go outward. We need to change the millwork. We need to change the windows and the doors and the stairwells. That's what happens. It's a domino effect through every city agency just to allow something that is causing a great degradation in the life of people in the quarter. We have fewer services because our grocery stores and restaurants are targeting the short-term rental market, and then they go out of business and something else comes in that's just equally as bad, oftentimes less classy. I also want to say these people who want short-term rentals and are renting to short-term renters illegally, they are not here in our neighborhood.

They are not here to hold the hands of their friends who they are not going to help them. Thank you. Rhonda Finley? Hello, commissioners. Again, seems like we've been at this for 20 years. Mr. Rivers, you might know how long we've been at it, right? I was compelled to come today because I wanted to see if anybody was going to talk about the economic impact, and unless I missed something, I see no data or metrics on that. So I wanted to throw out something that I think is relevant. I do strongly oppose the expansion of the STRs in the French Quarter because, oh my gosh, y'all, it is the golden goose. Why are we year after year just trying to kill it? I just don't understand. A couple of weeks ago, at the peak of tourist season, you could have shot a cannon through the French Quarter. I've been running a business at the French Market for 18 years. There was no one walking through the colonnade. This is more than just what's really important, which is to protect our neighbors and our full-time residents. This is also an economic issue. I guess everybody's kind of dialed in on the budget problems, but it is concerning that city planning is considering expanding into the French Quarter without being presented meaningful data on declining hotel occupancy. New Orleans declined more than any other hotel market in occupancy, and we're investing in the Omni Hotel. We're investing on building hotel rooms, and yet we're competing against our own economic engine. We've lost $10 million in budgeted revenue. We need to stop the STRs. They are not helping our city. And I have the data here. There's not enough time. to present it, but I do think you should ask for that data and defer this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Frank is our last speaker. Remember to say your name and address. OK. Yasin Frank, Southall 200 South Broad Street. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm the organized communication manager at Jane Place. Thank you to CP staff and commissioners for your diligence, perspectives, and hard work. At Jane Place, we have been researching and writing about the impacts of STRs and other transient lodging in neighborhoods, renters, businesses, and culture bearers for 11 years. We're a proud member of the strong coalition. We're opposed to the growth of transient lodging in general, but most importantly, we're opposed to commercial short-term rentals, and particularly everywhere, but in zoning districts, the HUs, the HMNUs, and numerous other misuse areas. We're just opposed to them in general. CSTRs are redundant. In a city with a massive amount of existing and struggling hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, there's no need to add more transient lodging in this struggling economy. Two, the opening of the Omni Hotel would take an enormous amount of tourists and convention goers to currently utilize their traditional transient lodging options. Why are we enfranchising CSTRs from one of the biggest hotels in the South? We'll soon be here. In general, we're opposed because the erosion of affordable housing impacting renters, especially along some of our core transit lines, such as Broad Street, St. Bernard's, St. Claude. We talk with businesses all the time where their workers are living in Metairie and in the east in Algiers, where once they were living in the neighborhoods that their people were born and raised in, in 7th Ward, 8th Ward, 9th Ward, Central City. So we really need to stop that. The other thing about this is that we think about our city has been atrocious at inspecting properties. So how do we expect, in terms of creating new categories for our city to get into privately held buildings when it's shown they've not been adequate at all in doing this in the past? This is going to add more burden to our workers. And so we should expand CSTRs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? I do. I want to maybe ask one of the speakers to come up because I was thinking about the whole VCE situation and if that can be removed from this particular motion and looked at as a different entity altogether. Are you asking for a speaker or for staff? I'm asking the staff if we can ask the speaker to clarify their position. We had a speaker, I believe it was Mary Nell from PRC. Can you clarify? I think I just asked that it be removed from the recommendation so that there was no recommendation to expand into VCE 1. Sorry if that was confusing. Yeah, I was trying to understand what you meant. Sorry, yeah. OK, thank you. Yeah, I have a question. I'm not sure if I'm hearing you. I'm not sure if I'm hearing you. I'm not sure if I'm hearing you. I'm not sure if I'm hearing you. I'm not sure if I'm hearing you. Yeah, I have a question or two. So do I understand correctly that the whole house, STRs, do not require an owner operator to reside there under the proposal? That's correct. OK, and then what's the rationale for that since we do require bed and breakfast to have a resident operator? That is how the regulations currently stand right now, where you can have a whole home, commercial short-term rental, without an operator that lives there. So we reduce that significantly. To 10 people. Well, we reduce the locations. Oh, the locations, OK. Located to just two zoning districts. So these would be, like I had mentioned, the SLM and MMU districts. So anywhere in the city except for those districts, they would not be allowed. Right. Yeah, I just wanted to kind of elaborate on that because it does touch on some of the stuff that we talked about in the study. That from the get-go, there's always been this distinction between commercial and non-commercial short-term rentals. The big distinction between them, definitionally, is whether or not there's somebody present on site as an operator.

I think one of our recommendations in the study was to say, if the new regulations on commercial short-term rentals, we're talking about a one-per-block phase limitation, and then we're having a conversation about whether or not somebody should be on site. At some point, we get to the point where we're blurring the definitions of. And that decision is fine if that's the decision, and we don't need two separate categories. I think Ms. Graham mentioned that as one of her suggestions, that if they're going to be essentially the same thing, we don't need them. But I think to your question, the distinction has always been in the definition that commercial short-term rentals do not have somebody present as an operator and non-commercial beds. And just editorially, and I think that was Commissioner Joshi Goop's question, went to bed and breakfast. So just editorially, what would concern me about that is that we get one per block. And if you put a bed and breakfast there, you have to have an owner-operator. But if you put a whole house commercial short-term rental, you don't. And to me, they function kind of the same. There's a whole bunch of bedrooms, and it's just a house. But anyway, so let me ask a second question before you follow up on that. VCE1, there was a comment that there was only five units that are at issue. Is that right? Did I hear that right? Right. So the commercial short-term rental small use, which is what is being proposed for the VCE1 district, is just one unit in a structure that has between two and four dwelling units per block. So that's not block-based, per entire block. Per square, let's call it. In that district, there are five blocks. So there could only be. So there are five blocks or squares in VCE1. And the proposal is for one small commercial short-term rental, which by definition, I'm forgetting 45 minutes ago, is how many? Two guest rooms and up to four guests. And this was an attempt to compromise between our previous recommendations, which has always been to treat the VCE and VCE1 districts similarly, and the competing interests of ensuring that we wouldn't be oversaturating that district. So it's four guests total in one building per block, per square, five of those. At maximum. At maximum. I just want to clarify. In the report, it says, consider a CSDR medium in the VCE1 zoning district. Yeah. So that was, I believe, the section that you're referring to, the header of it says the amendments from the commission. And so those were additional amendments that were part of the study's adoption. And so at that time, the commission wanted us to look into allowing that type, the commercial short-term rental medium, in the VCE1 district, which is why it says that. But ultimately, what we are recommending is the commercial short-term rental small. I think the concern with it's equal. I just want to say that the CSDRW is only limited to two zoning districts, the large SLM and MMU. So there wouldn't be a lot of competing competition between bed and breakfast and commercial short-term rental homes. So is there a reason we cannot ask for, I mean, it will be blurring of the lines, but we always said that the SDRs has to have some sort of someone there on site or some sort of a person, somebody. Because that is really the problem, one of the biggest problems. And yes, we will blur the lines between residential and commercial SDRs. But having somebody that is on site, somebody, that is really important. Wherever we even recommend the medium and the small SDRs. And is that something that we feel comfortable adding? I don't know why you're looking at me. I mean, we really, that will come up if and when somebody makes a motion. Then we'll have, then we have the discussion. Yeah. I think the hard part being in the quarter is that the comments were, is how do you regulate? So even if you're allowing one SDR, how do you know that it's not going to be three or four? Because you can't gain access to that particular building to ensure what's going on. No, and I totally understand. And also, the discussion has been obviously directed mostly towards the quarter, which I understand because of the way we, we're not only talking about the quarter, we're also talking about other parts of the city. So it might be useful for us as commissioners to know. I know you said they will not be in these districts. They will not, like, where, just let me understand, where will CSDRs, small and medium, even be allowed, which districts will? even be allowed? Because when you say no, then I don't know which ones. I have to go through a whole list to see which ones they're actually allowed in. Yeah, so the use permissions for the different types of commercial short-term rentals and the NSTRs, if you're interested, they're on page 28 and 29 of the staff report, or 49 and 50, the same thing. If you want to look at the actual zoning districts that we are proposing that they be permitted. 28, 29, and 49 and 50. I just wanted to make a comment that I know that the issue of regulation is a constant one with safety and permits for both non-commercial and for commercial, so this is, I think was an item on the mayor's budget for improved or increased bodies and safety and safety and permits, and I would hope that these regulations can be better enforced because at the end of the day, we're all subject to that non-conformance and the lack of regulation. So basically, they're allowed in the short-term small as in VCE, VC1 recommended, and then the SLM and the CBD districts, commercial and CBD districts. I'm just not getting like a feeling of the map of where I'm going to start seeing these. And we don't have a map, unfortunately, to show you. No, I'm just trying to visualize when I'm thinking of it, if we're saying they're not allowed in any part of the city except for these.

Well, I will say that besides the VCE and VCE1 district, the other historic core districts and historic urban districts are excluded from these zoning districts. That's not to say there aren't like some MU1, MU2 districts that are located within the historic urban neighborhoods, but kind of generally, those areas, the historic core and historic urban besides those VCE districts and the MU1, MU2 would be excluded. What district does the Canal Street fall under? The CBD2. Commissioners, any other questions? What is the date to defer this? What are our options? You could defer it to the November or the December meeting and still be within the deadline. So the November meeting is November 10th. The December meeting is December 8th. Can we defer it? Commissioner Jackson. I want to introduce a motion on the floor to defer it. I second. Is there a date? Does anyone know? Legal is looking for a date. We only have two meetings because it's January 6th is our deadline. So we'd have to move it to the November meeting or the December meeting. November. And the goal of deferment would be to strategize more. Strategize more time. Commissioner Flake. I'm just curious why we need to defer. I mean, if there's like an actual list of objectives, like I get that. But if we're just deferring to defer, I don't, you know, I feel like we have a lot of data here. We've heard public testimony. I feel like, I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that there would be a way forward. I think out of everyone that spoke, we pretty much had two deferrals. One from the recommendation from the Garden District to try to figure out about the magazine overlay. I do feel like there's another conversation there though. And then to look at the economic study, even though we are zoning and planning and not necessarily economic studies. Did the motion get a second? It did get a second. Yeah. So I guess if there's any other. I'm going to, I'm going to speak against it. It's going to require all these people to come back again. And they've all made their comments. Their comments were all, you know, really to the point, analyzing the report in real detail, showed that they had read it. And I think that's just kicking the can down the road and making all these people come back when I don't think there are any issues. They're difficult issues, but I don't see any issues that we've been presented with that require more data. They just require a hard decision. So anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm stating it because I'm going to vote against the motion. I echo Commissioner Steeg and Commissioner Flick's comments. I feel that there were some, some things brought up, you know, with the magazine street overlay district coming up, with the garden district. I think, you know, a lot of the people here were obviously here for the VCE discussion, which is very valid and very, you know, on point. But I do feel there are other people who are not here voicing their thoughts on some of these other areas of the city. And that's why I brought up all these different zoning districts and different historic areas that I don't think that we have. It is almost there, and I commend the work of our staff doing such a great project and such a thorough job. But I do feel that there are some issues in terms of if we want to add on some of these provisos or some of these conditions onto the SDRs, like, we have to discuss those before we create some sort of, you know, CSDR that is blurry with residential or not. Like, we have to decide that or discuss that. And I don't think that's clear to me going into a vote. I think the public that you mentioned that aren't here got the same notice that the public who arrived here got. I found it very, very difficult. I found it very difficult to find it on our website. So there are people who did not see the same notice or got it, and they have not come here today. I think we're hearing, even from this applause that isn't allowed by the rules, by the way, that most of the people who are here, even most of the opponents, seem to not want a deferral. I'm going to vote no. I mean, I think if we can get a motion on the floor to remove the VCE-1, I'm going to put my personal opinions aside, but I would move forward with that motion. So I'm going to vote no, too, but we'll go ahead and call the vote. Commissioner Jackson. Wait, what are we voting? He made a motion for deferral, and then Commissioner Josie Gupta seconded it to the November meeting. So no. No deferral. Yep. All right. Or you can, if you want. Are you wanting to resend your motion? Yes. I'm ready to vote. Oh. Okay. Oh, okay. All right. Oh, okay. So you have a motion on the floor for deferral to November, our only meeting of that month. Are you wanting to vote yes or no to that? Yeah, resend that. Oh, you resend that. All right. Yeah, erase it. Okay. So we have no motion on the floor unless somebody would like to make a motion. I'm happy to, but I can't, so. I can make a motion to accept the staff's proposal, but removing VCE 1 from the CSDR list completely and totally. I would like to add some sort of a, I don't know how to frame it, but. Just put it out there. A requirement for operators to have someone on site on commercial SDRs. On all of them? On all of them. I think it's really important. Will you just say that again? Removal of the VCE from SDRs completely and having an operator on site or a requirement to have an operator on site for all commercial SDRs. Is there a second? Is there a second? All right. There's no second. I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Please. To adopt the study, however, prohibiting short-term rentals in VCE 1, period. Is there a second? There was a. Is there a second? I'll second for discussion. Thank you. So, Commissioner Poche made a motion on the floor to accept staff's recommendation. Sons are not with the VCE 1 being removed as permitted, and Commissioner Flick seconded it.

Commissioner Poche, I'm going to offer a friendly amendment, which is up to you to either accept or reject. Would you consider adding that whole house SDRs must have an owner-operator residing there, which would, in my opinion, put them on a par with bed and breakfast? For commercial or non-commercial? Commercial whole house. Or non-commercial? I'd be interested in hearing what other commissioners think of that. Well, since the staff has restricted that to Lake Districts and their specific. specifically meant for a certain area. I think staff has made it very clear the reason for restricting these in very remote locations. I don't see a reason, you know, maybe for that, but I do feel strongly about having an operator on the medium SDRs and the small SDRs or some sort of... Which you consider owner-operator or just a 24-hour contact? 24-hour contact. And you're friendly? Yeah, that already exists. So, a 24-hour contact is going to be in the licensing requirement. Oh, that is what I'm... Yeah. I mean, I feel like the intention was just to keep it on par with bed and breakfast, which I think makes sense, but it wouldn't change the zoning districts that it applies to. It still applies to the same zoning districts. Yes, Ms. Berg. I just wanted to point out that in the MMU district, their bed and breakfasts are permitted use, as we are recommending the commercial chargemental hole. So, it might make sense to maybe remove the MMU from one of the zoning districts that it's allowed so there's not the competing uses, because I think it might get too convoluted if you're asking for an operator on site and also that the bed and breakfast is an allowed use because they are becoming too similar in nature. Does that make sense? Maybe I didn't understand your reasoning, because I was trying to make them comparable so that if only one was allowed, no matter what, there would be an owner-operator on site if a whole house was being used. So, explain your logic for not making it that. So, in the MMU district, this isn't the case with the SLM district, but in the MMU, a bed and breakfast, as we are recommending, would be permitted and a commercial chargemental hole. In the SLM district, the commercial chargemental hole is recommended to be permitted, but not a bed and breakfast. It might make sense to potentially then either remove the commercial chargemental hole and only allow bed and breakfast. I think that would be a cleaner way, potentially, of... From MMU. From MMU and maybe SLM. Rachel, can you give a description of the MMU district really quick? Yeah, I'm going to... And the SLM, just so that... So, MMU is generally kind of along that sort of far-out portion of Chef, where you've got Lake Catherine on one side and a lot of fishing camps, and there's some industrial operations in there as well. So, it's not kind of a conventional neighborhood. Similarly, the SLM is essentially municipal yacht harbor, so a lot of boathouses in a context that is not a traditional residential neighborhood. And, Commissioner Stieg, we all unanimously approved short-term rentals in both those areas, not so in the distant past. Yeah, we did. Yeah, without operators on site. So, Ms. Bergen, I still think it's a good idea to have them equal in case things were to ever change. And, you know, I realize you just said right now one of them is not allowed in SLM, but it just seems to me they ought to be the same because they almost are the same. So, you know, my amendment hasn't been accepted, but I'd keep it the same way, Commissioner Foshay, or either for you to accept or reject. Yeah, I think I'll reject it because I think the districts in which the whole home is limited to are a bit unorthodox. And, you know, for somebody who has a large camp on Lake Catherine to require an owner to be on site while they're renting the whole home to a family or a group of families seems ridiculous, frankly. I'm saying this with someone who has several commercial short-term rentals in my neighborhood, and they drive me mental because they don't have operators on site. So, personally, this doesn't necessarily align with where I would want to land. I just think for the purpose of how thoughtfully these regulations are being proposed, it makes sense as is. So, thank you for the suggestion, but I do reject the friendly amendment. I have one more, but I understand that reasoning. That's to me. One question. Can I ask them a question before? Sure. What are the responsibilities of these commercial short-term operators in terms of, like, I'm asking for someone to be on site, but is there a 24-hour person required? Is there, like, what are their requirements and what are the guardrails here that we're even working with and what's not working? So, a designated and permitted operator must be on call and available to address neighborhood complaints or guest questions 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In our recommended language, we have failed to respond to a call or a neighborhood complaint within one hour over the course of three occurrences within two weeks, shall be a violation of the commercial short-term rental license and grounds for revocation. Thank you. Commissioner Sieg, do you have another friendly amendment? My last thought is, I think there is a worry that a small hotel would be proposed in an area to get around the STR limitations, and right now you can only have one bed and breakfast or STR per square, per block, but you could have a small hotel. So, I would prefer to see my friendly amendment is that small hotels be included in the list of things that can only have one per square block, not large hotels because if they're permitted, I don't see them as comparable, but small hotels would be included in the list of things that are only allowed one per block.

I think that's a good idea, but I don't think that's been studied, so I'm a little bit apprehensive of going forward with that just because small hotels happen in historic buildings or places like that where there might be two of them in one block, so I do think it's a good idea, but I don't know if it's been studied. We might need to defer to study it. Ms. Burke, could you explain what just the definition of a small hotel again? Yes, so a small hotel is under 10,000 square feet and ancillary uses specifically standard restaurants and bars which are inherently allowed right now as part of the definition for hotels would only be allowed in small hotels if the base owning district allows for it or let's say it's a conditional use, the owner or operator would need to apply for that land use right in order to operate a bar or standard restaurant in that hotel. They would still need customary lodging services, so that's someone that is on site 24-7. There's a lobby, so some of the concerns would be mitigated in terms of oversight over the operation of the use. So it has been studied. And it is within the scope of the study to put a density limitation on hotels. It just was not a recommendation that the staff has. Currently, how many small hotels are allowed in a block, square block? There's no restriction on that as part of our recommendations. I mean, I think it's a great consideration. I think it's a great consideration. It just feels a bit arbitrary for me to introduce this moment without having some context or background. That's my only concern, but I could be convinced. I guess on that same point, could staff speak to hotels that already exist? So thinking about, in the same way that we've been thinking about transient lodging, about short-term rentals that will be grandfathered, I'm thinking about this in the same way. So if there's an existing hotel, and we're trying to navigate the application for a new one, what hypothetically will be the, I guess, the regulation around this? In terms of its proximity to an existing hotel? Yeah, so as an example, I'm just throwing this out, it's not real. So if there was a property that was next door to Hotel Peter and Paul, and they already exist, they're a good operator, and somebody says, hey, there's one good one, we wanna apply again. If we are to put a limitation on one per square block, hypothetically, could we limit that to the existing hotel versus a new application? So in the same way we were talking about the limits on short-term rentals. I see what you're saying. Yeah, that could be an amendment that you all make, where an existing hotel occupies, if you were to do one per block, it would occupy that one per block if it already exists. Okay. So would that be in line with your friendly amendment? So Commissioner, do you, you would want, let's continue with the Hotel Peter and Paul, even though it's not real. I mean, the hotel is, but the new one isn't. You'd want that not to count, or you'd want it to count? My position would be that they count. So existing hotel, there's already one on the block, we don't need another one. That would be the way that it would be enforced. Just that's the way that it's enforced with any short-term rental or any bed and breakfast now. So that would be the case. So we don't need to make that change? So it's still up to you, Commissioner Poche. Is there any way we can defer this by taking out the VCE-1 recommendation? There's no way we can do that. So I'll just say, because I know I've been, I haven't said much. this, just listening. I will be in support of LAME and VCE, just knowing the concerns that have been placed here. My biggest concern is thinking about Magazine Street and the implications of if we were to move forward, even with all of the amendments, what's going to happen there, given there's already policy conversations happening. But Councilwoman Harris. I don't think enough people here were there to represent that body of people. I had emails or calls from people on Magazine Street saying that they hadn't heard about the meeting or knew about the meeting, so that is why I'm bringing it up. I'm not, you know, I understand people were notified, but I'm just bringing it up. Did we follow all the rules of the law for public notification of this hearing? We did. I continue my position that everyone who was here was notified equally to everyone who claims they weren't notified. I have one question. Can you help guide us, since Magazine Street seems to be a concern, what RT guardrails are there for there not to be a potential hotel on Louisiana to Jackson Avenue on Magazine Street? Well, there's... There's height restrictions, and I know there's HDLC as well. Well, in terms of, is your question in terms of potentially putting in regulations to limit them? Correct. I kind of see two avenues. One is to remove the small hotel category from the HUB1 district, which of course is not only on Magazine Street, but is along Magazine Street. Or you can put in a specific geographical restriction that says that hotels, small hotels, are not permitted with on Magazine Street from this boundary to this boundary. Because that would go in line with the current ban of the Garden District. Yeah, you could add small hotels into the ban that already exists, which would really only affect the outskirts of the Garden District. Can you also tell the commissioners about the overlay that is proposed by Councilwoman Harris? The overlay regarding restaurants, right? Yeah, that's a... And I think it came to us in a previous meeting. We have deferred that, yeah. Okay, so it is simply to remove the conditional use requirement for serving alcohol at a standard restaurant. I'm not familiar with the height limitations that he raised.

But I think it was to remove the overlay, the Magazine District overlay fully, correct? I'm sorry? Was it to remove the whole Magazine District overlay? No, it was to remove from Jackson to Napoleon, I believe, from the conditional use requirement. So it would be allowing standard restaurants in that stretch to be able to serve alcohol without having to get a conditional use. Okay, so I feel like we've made some progress here. We have a motion on the floor. We've talked about some potential amendments, especially with a small hotel, not having an operator, having an operator. Are we ready? There's one amendment still pending with Commissioner Poche. I'm also going to acknowledge that we're losing three commissioners at 5pm, which is in six minutes. So if we need to move to defer due to that, then I can... I think we're going to vote unless there's a friendly amendment. So you need to either accept or reject my amendment. I don't care which. Let's do it in six minutes. I accept. I amend my motion on the floor to accept to adopt the study, say, for the allowance of short-term rentals in BCE 1 and a restriction of one hotel per square... one hotel, right? So per square block. One small... One small... One small hotel would be added to the list of things that there can be only one of in a block. Agreed. Lori? Did we want to address the AQB1? They have to accept it as well. Oh. Excuse me? Who seconded the motion? I did. I seconded and I second again. I wanted to know if you would also be willing to amend the motion to remove the small hotel from AQB1. Is that what you had recommended? Let's take one of the avenues, the magazine corridor. Yeah, that's the commercial corridor along Magazine Street. So just to add on that, could you name the other districts that would be affected by that? Just generally, I know you don't have a map in front of you, but AQB1. So just think about other corridors. Other commercial corridors. Other commercial corridors that would be affected by that. Oh, okay. One second. Okay. Thank you. I think it's on Verrett. I see some along Poland Avenue. Yeah, Verrett. Verrett Street. We're looking. Wait, wait. That's Dryad. Oh, Dryad Street. And then HUMU is... Is this Verrett? Is this AQB1? While they're doing that, I think it's arbitrary. I think it's something that's not studied. We haven't looked at other areas of our city that may get restricted without our knowledge of us passing this. I think it needs to be studied. I am for, as going forward, removing VCE, but I think the other part of this needs to be looked at and studied a little bit more thoroughly. Could we make that a conditional use in those areas that we discussed? We're just creating more staff work. We're creating another conditional use, which we're trying to remove conditional uses. Commissioner Verlett. Are there any other areas? Yeah, sorry. So I said Verrett Street, but I was incorrect. It's not Verrett Street. Oak Street, LaSalle, Magazine Street. There's that commercial portion of Dryad Street. That is HUB1. Commissioner Poche. Can you clarify what you're suggesting? My suggestion was to eliminate the small hotels from HUB1. And then the alternative was to make that a conditional use as opposed to a permitted right. Is that something that we feel... Can we let Commissioner Poche answer? I will accept the friendly amendment. Thank you. Is there a second on that? I second that again. Discussion point. Discussion point before other... Do we feel comfortable doing something like this before we send out notices to people who have properties on Dryad Street or in all of these districts where their properties might be affected? Yes, we send notices out that apparently people got or came here, but we haven't... This is a whole other section that is not... And this report has not been vetted, has not been talked about, has not been sent out as a notice. I don't feel comfortable doing that. I do feel comfortable in terms that it's a conditional use and those areas are fairly congested as is. And we're here to make these... I'm sorry, go ahead. I was just going to ask a clarifying question. I wasn't sure, is the amendment to remove the small hotel from HUB1 or to make it a conditional use? You know, I'm open to either. Conditional use is fine. The former, to remove the research... Oh, okay. Oh, to remove. No, I would be more appropriate in making it a conditional use. Can we amend to make it a conditional use? Yes. Great, thanks. Okay. I second that again. All right, we're going to vote. There is a motion on the... Do I need to repeat this? Yeah, maybe. Commissioner Poche made a motion on the floor and it was seconded by Commissioner Flick. And the motion is to approve staff's recommendation. We are going to remove VCE1 from allowing any type of commercial short-term rentals. We are also going to make in HUB1 hotels a conditional use. Hotel small. Hotel small, thank you. And I had one other... Hotel small is part of what... And then the inclusion of one per square block. One per square block for the small. It's not one per square block. They're included in the list of things that there's only one per square block. That's a big difference. Yes. Thank you. Over my five pages of notes here, I appreciate that. Okay, Commissioner Jackson. Okay, Commissioner Steeke. Yes. All right, Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Commissioner Witry is a yes. Commissioner Flick. Yes. Commissioner Josie Gupta. Yes. Commissioner Kepper. Yes. Okay. Yes. Commissioner Jackson. Yes. So, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, everyone that came here today and for the past five, six years. And now we will move on to city council for those of you that would like to come. We still have one order of business, and that is the... There are none. Move approval of subdivisions. There are none. There are no subdivisions. So, I need a motion to adjourn. That was Commissioner Flick. I'll second. All right.

We have a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Jordan, seconded by Commissioner Flick. All in favor. Aye. Thank you for your service today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.