Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Planning Commission adopts Lower Coast Algiers impact study amid heated debate over multifamily rights and federal fair-housing concerns
Summary
The City Planning Commission adopted a staff-prepared impact study recommending limits on high-density development in Lower Coast Algiers. Residents, developers and advocates traded sharply different interpretations of the study’s population and infrastructure estimates and raised pending federal litigation and possible HUD funding impacts.
The City Planning Commission on Nov. 12 adopted a staff-prepared Lower Coast Algiers impact study that advises against permitting large-scale multifamily development in much of Planning District 13 and recommends mapping changes to limit future high-density development.
Staff said the study — prepared after agency questionnaires and an inventory of local infrastructure — found limited roadway, sewer and emergency-service capacity in the Lower Coast area and that building to the maximum allowable multifamily entitlements would require large developer and public investments. “Staff recommends changing the master plan future land use map designations in the zoning districts in Lower Coast Algiers to limit future high density development,” a member of the planning staff told the commission.
The commission’s adoption followed more than two hours of public testimony from residents, neighborhood association representatives and developers. Lee DuPont of the Lower Coast Algiers Association thanked staff for documenting what he called “the lack of infrastructure and development potential,” saying the study “professionally and thoroughly documents” capacity limits. Several residents described poor roads, recurring flooding and single-lane bridges they said would become chokepoints under higher-density development.
Opponents and property owners sharply disputed the study’s assumptions and build-out numbers. One property owner’s counsel described the staff scenario as “an impossible hypothetical” and said the study’s maximum-entitlement figures were overstated and expressly acknowledged in the report as conservative maximums that did not account for on-the-ground bulk, open-space or design limits. Owner and developer advocates pointed to portions of the report and agency responses that said utilities and Cox/Entergy could support some development if connections were built.
The meeting also featured repeated legal and funding warnings. Alice (Ella Catherine) Strahan, policy analyst for the Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center, urged the commission to reject amendments that would make permanent an interim zoning policy she said raised fair-housing concerns. Attorney Sharonda Williams told commissioners that federal litigation remains pending and the U.S. Department of Justice has filed statements of interest; she said that, in the staff’s conversations with HUD after the city’s unsuccessful grant application, the litigation complicated a city attestation required for one specific HUD application. Commissioner and staff discussion clarified that there was no formal HUD directive but that litigation had raised questions about the city’s ability to make certain attestation statements for at least one grant application.
Commissioners pressed staff on what “limit” means in practice. Staff said the study informed site-specific recommendations that, in most cases before the commission, led to proposals for single-family or rural single-family FLUM designations for particular parcels rather than broad bans. Several FLUM reconsideration motions that followed the study — items tied to specific parcels in Planning District 13 — were decided individually after public comment; in several cases the commission returned to earlier recommendations or declined to adopt council-requested reversions.
The commission’s action on the study itself was procedural: a motion to adopt the study “in accordance with staff recommendation” carried, sending the study and parcel-specific recommendations forward to City Council. The council will have final legislative authority to adopt any FLUM or zoning changes; staff emphasized the commission’s role is advisory and technical.
What’s next: the adopted study and the commission’s parcel-level recommendations will go to the City Council, which will take final votes. Some property owners and advocates signaled they will test the outcomes in court if the changes are adopted, and commissioners acknowledged those legal risks in their deliberations.
