Good morning and welcome to Pittsburgh City Council's Cablecast Public Hearing for Friday, February sixth, two thousand twenty-six, relative to Bill Twenty Three Eighty Five.

Would the clerk please read the title of the bill?

Zoning Code Article Five use regulations.

Chapter nine eleven primary uses to add a definition for waste transfer station and standards associated with the use.

Thank you very much.

Our first order of business will be an introduction by the Department of City Planning.

Kate, if you would, or whomever, if you would introduce yourselves and give an overview.

Good morning.

Thank you, Council.

I'll uh provide an overview and then turn it back over to Council.

Good morning.

This is uh legislation amending the Pittsburgh Zoning Code to add a definition for a waste transfer station and associated use standards introduced to city council and referred to the city planning commission for its report and recommendation on October 22nd, 2025.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed legislation on December 2nd, 2025, where the Commission made a positive recommendation to City Council on the proposed zoning text amendment.

A copy of the Commission Planning Commission's report is attached to the materials forwarded to the council.

Public notice for this hearing was posted on January 15, 2026, in line with the 21-day noticing requirement.

Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the bill may be enacted with five affirmative votes.

I will now read in the report and the motions from the Planning Commission.

Council Bill 2025 2385 to add a definition and use standards for a waste transfer station was referred to planning commission on October 22nd, 2025 for a report and recommendation.

Prior to introduction of the legislation, City Council worked with Councilwoman Warwick's office on potential language for the new use.

This research was conducted in September and October of 2025.

The research looked at existing city policies, state requirements for transfer station uses, and how other jurisdictions regulate the use.

This research is summarized in the report attachments.

The city developed a report, roadmap to zero waste in 2020 in 2017 that, among other measures to decrease waste, outlines the need for the city to have its own waste transfer station.

The report notes that trash is currently hauled up to 34 miles away after each truck is filled, leading to routing inefficiencies and increased greenhouse gas emissions from refused vehicles.

One of the potential action items in the roadmap to zero waste report states that transfer station ownership could be private, public, or a public-private partnership.

The report notes that Republic Services, the owner of the Hazelwood facility has expressed interest in building one in the past.

City planning staff met with the Department of Public Works on October 24th, 2025.

At that meeting, DPW noted that having a waste transfer station is a priority of theirs.

As part of the city's ongoing comprehensive plan efforts, discussions have been held, noting the need for a waste transfer station use within the city to help streamline operations.

It is important to note that the comprehensive plan has not yet been adopted.

For this report, city staff researched how other jurisdictions define waste transfer station uses.

These definitions are summarized in attachment one of the report.

As part of the proposed legislation, the Planning Commission recommended a modification to the language of the definition to mention that waste transfer station uses would exclude recycling facilities and other uses intended to remove andor reuse material from the solid waste stream.

Waste transfer station uses are regulated by the State Department of Environmental Protection.

These regulations include siting requirements, such as distances from nearby uses, property boundaries, wetlands, and floodplains, and requirements for operational plans, including soil and groundwater monitoring and nuisance and litter control.

A summary of the state requirements are included in attachment two of the report.

The proposed legislation includes a 500-foot buffer around residential and commercial zoning districts, as well as schools and parks, where waste transfer station use would be would not be permitted.

A map of the 500 foot buffer areas is included in attachment three of their report.

In a discussion with the councilwoman on November 7th, 2025, it was clarified that use standard three that designates distance requirements from waste transfer stations to surrounding areas should reference uses as well as zoning districts.

The planning commission has recommended a modification to clarify this.

The Planning Commission looked at requirements from other jurisdictions and states for precedent for the 500-foot buffer.

Attachments four and five of the report include states and jurisdictions where specific buffer requirements are noted.

The commission consulted additional use standards from other jurisdictions.

Please see attachment six of the report for those.

The commission also looked at jurisdictions that have built new modern transfer stations and how transfer stations are incorporated into the built environment to showcase how a newer facility may be able to better fit with Pittsburgh's urban fabric than a traditional model of a transfer station that requires requires extensive setbacks and buffering.

An example of the Seattle North transfer station is included in attachment seven.

In its review of Council Bill 2025, 2385 on December 2nd, 2025 to add waste transfer station to add a waste transfer station definition and use standards.

The planning commission made the following motions that the definition be revised to state the following.

Waste transfer station means a supplemental transportation facility used as an adjunct to solid waste route collection vehicles for the primary purpose of moving the solid waste from the collection vehicles to other vehicles for further transfer.

This excludes recycling facilities and other and other uses intended to remove and or reuse material from the solid waste stream.

And that use standard three be clarified to say uses or zoning districts.

And that point A be a revised to say all residential zoning districts.

With that, I'll turn it back over to council.

Thank you very much.

And with that, I want to turn it over to Councilman Warwick.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

I appreciate it.

Thanks to the city planning team.

Let me I'm going to pull up.

I'm going to share my screen here.

Here we go.

Share the maximize the presentation.

This is in the way if you can move this outer and then this.

Perfect.

Thank you.

All righty.

All right, yeah.

So thank you.

So this is the presentation that I uh gave at the City Planning Commission about this bill.

So it has the legislation, uh, which has already been discussed in detail by our planning team.

Uh also acknowledging that uh some amendments have been recommended to adjust the language to clarify that we are talking about solid waste, like a transfer station for municipal solid waste that does not include recycling.

Um either recycling of you know paper, plastic, et cetera, also food waste recycling, composting, that type of thing.

Uh there was uh because there was a concern as well from some folks that this could get in the way of um local composting um facilities that are sort of neighborhood.

Um we didn't want to, we didn't want to impede on that.

Um just to clarify that currently in the city of Pittsburgh, uh there is no municipal solid waste transfer station, right?

We do not have one.

Uh we do have waste transfer stations uh in the vicinity, but you know, uh there's uh at least one and possibly two or three sort of in a five-mile radius of the city, um, but we do not have one in the city of Pittsburgh.

So uh right now our environmental service drivers have to drive non-recyclable uh municipal waste directly to a landfill in Imperial.

So it's uh about 20 miles, maybe a little over 20 miles away.

And this, of course, puts a strain on our environmental service vehicles and it takes time away from our routes.

And that is why there has been discussion, right, among our Clean Pittsburgh Commission at DPW and otherwise, about how a waste transfer station could benefit the city of Pittsburgh, right?

Um so that our trucks wouldn't have to go, wouldn't have to travel as far to unload, and um, you know, just sort of that overall it would sort of ease the burden on our on our vehicle fleet.

But right now we do not have any guidance from city planning about where such a facility would go, right?

So this has just been a conversation up to this point.

And in light of the fact, and we know and we've heard, of course, from uh Republic Services, which currently has a recycling facility in the city, um, that um that we we do know that they are interested in converting that to a waste transfer station.

Uh but you know, before that happens, we need to understand what impact that would have, right?

Like on the city, and is that something that we actually want.

So if you look at the state regulations, uh uh there is a 300-foot buffer in the in the state regulations.

And so um with that, I wanted to move on.

Let's see.

So just so we know, just to clarify a bit, these are some pictures, these are just off of Google.

Um, these are pictures of the types of um containers that you find at waste transfer stations.

Not at every waste transfer station, but generally, right, at waste transfer stations.

So these get filled with waste, right, by trucks, whatever, and then are carted off to a landfill.

So just to sort of give an understanding of the size of these containers.

Um to the next one.

So with this bill, which puts um a buffer, which extends the buffer to 500 feet, uh this this slide here uh shows where in the city of Pittsburgh you could put a waste transfer station, right?

So there's overlap.

So if if we have a buffer of a 500 foot uh between homes and businesses, um the kind of purple area, so the the blue is where you couldn't put one, the the buffer line is where you also couldn't put one, right?

Because of that overlap into the GI, and then the pink is where you could put one so that it would not be close to homes and businesses.

Um so you know, why is it that you wouldn't want a waste transfer station near homes and businesses in the city of Pittsburgh?

Well, um, you know, excessive trash and litter, right?

We know you know from from vehicles driving to and from and just you know trash that escapes the facility and um light pollution uh from large-scale facilities, noise pollution as well from large-scale facilities, increased traffic, right?

So if you have a waste transfer station now, all of your, you know, that that you know the garbage trucks and whatnot, large trucks, allow equipment, um, and air pollution as well from the same odor, of course, is an issue, right?

Um very difficult to um to stop odor from from that type of waste.

And then, you know, um also of grave concern to local communities uh our pests, right?

Rodents, roaches, other pests that obviously come are are drawn to a facility uh such as this.

So you know, as the city of Pittsburgh, while we recognize the that that a race a waste transfer station, you know, somewhere in the city perhaps or close to the city uh would help us logistically, right?

Help us, you know, meet our challenges with our fleet, um, we we need to be able to to to figure out the solution there without causing harm to our residents, right?

So we should not just be um letting the decision of where a waste transfer station goes be based on what is good for the bottom line of any particular waste company, right?

That's not that's not how that's not how we should be operating as a city.

So here, just because you know this this this republic services plant will we'll hear this as well.

Now I again I want to underscore we do not have a waste transfer station in the city of Pittsburgh.

So just as an example, um I want to show this facility that previously uh was permitted by the state to be a waste transfer station, right?

And that that it is that that sort of raised the awareness about all of this and about this concern.

So I want to show this facility about what it looks like, right?

Now this is recycling material, this is not municipal solid waste.

So I just want folks to be able to see.

So you know, this is open, you know, open to the air, obviously, you know, it's loud, um, it's messy, um, it's noisy, you know, this is just another picture, and these are all very recent pictures.

And this is how close this facility is to homes, right?

So this is the state buffer.

And so that is why in this bill, I'm except now you know, we have rules in our zoning, right?

You can't zone something into impossibility, right?

You can't zone something out so that you know I can't say, like, oh, there's will be a 2,000 foot buffer, because then that just wouldn't be physically possible.

But you know, 300 feet, I think we can see from this photo, um, is not enough, right?

And and I I don't know where you know how the state came up with those guidelines, but I think you know, looking at this building, and um, you know, and and I would also argue, I mean, there's again, you can't zone anything out that is already there, right?

That's not how our zoning rules work.

This is talking about the future, what can go somewhere in the future.

And um, you know, I mean, I would argue from an environmental justice perspective, even this recycling plant shouldn't have been allowed to be put right here, right next to homes.

But you know, that was a decision that was made possibly decades ago.

I don't know.

But you know, um, our job here at the city is to deal with the problems that we have today and and manage those.

So, and also just to give you a map, right, of that same facility.

So here you have it right around here, and then obviously how you know this is this is the neighborhood around it, right?

So this is very adjacent.

Homes, businesses, churches, you know, the whole thing.

Daycares, parks, the whole thing.

Um I think that's it.

Yeah, so that's all that I have, and um, yeah, I appreciate you know, I see we have a few speakers here, so I will stop sharing and uh yeah.

Thank you, Council President.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Our next order of business will be uh public testimony from those who have registered to speak.

Our first register speaker is Chief Pomai Chuckman Yahalahi.

Thank you.

We heard you for a second, you can begin.

So why don't we come back?

Um next register speaker is Lori Kozinski.

Hello.

Thank you.

Uh I am Lori Kolczynski, the general manager of BFI Waste Services of Pennsylvania, which is a subsidiary of Republic Services.

And we are the owner of the Hazelwood facility that is permitted as a transfer station currently.

Locally, we have been a partner of the city for over 30 years, and nationwide, Republic Services operates 246 transfer stations.

The city's roadmap to zero waste understood the strong need for a transfer station within the city and further highlighted Hazelwood as an appropriate location for this critical infrastructure.

Key Pittsburgh department heads, including the city comproller and the director of public works, have documented that the city's fleet is in dire needs.

And that leaves the council grappling with the magnitude of that problem.

Well, which is why councilwoman Warwick has proposed a 20 million dollar fleet fund to replace the aging vehicles.

But what if there was another approach?

Instead of raising taxes and relying on donations, the city can reduce costs and increase efficiencies.

And another million dollars annually through operating savings using less fuel and reduced maintenance expense.

While other industrial zoned areas are proposed as acceptable places for the transfer station, uh an assessment of those partials show that they are already occupied by railroads, other businesses, and public utilities.

Why are those areas useful versus the ones where the research was already done to show hazelwood makes the most sense for the city?

A setback from the property boundaries at 500 feet versus 300 feet from operation as required by the state is targeted to exclude our specific facility.

The only permitted transfer station in the city.

This yellow boundary is the 300 feet, and this is the far left corner that this transfer station would operate in, closest to the rail yard.

This detail was provided, in which is why we feel that the 500 feet was put into place.

What research was done to show any benefit at 500 feet versus the 300 feet required by the state?

It was stated that you can't zone anything out, but passing this bill as written will effectively eliminate the city's ability to realize a transfer station in the city.

We are a responsible community partner.

There is a meant an immense financial benefit for the city to realize this.

We want nothing more than to sit down with the city and the local community to come up with something that is good for everybody.

Do not close this opportunity opportunity on this up on this transfer station.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christopher Voltz.

Good morning.

Christopher Voltz of Tucker Arensburg here on behalf of Republic Services and also a resident of the city of Pittsburgh.

Respectfully, this special legislation, which is designed to prevent Republic services from operating a waste transfer facility of its on its property violates Act 101 of 1988, the municipal waste planning recycling and waste reduction act.

Now, what Act 101 does is two things.

It imposes a duty on the municipality to assure the proper transfer and storage of municipal waste within its boundaries.

It also permits the municipality to adopt resolutions that are not less stringent than the state standards, but also not inconsistent with the state standards.

As to the first issue, this bill works against the city's obligations to assure proper and adequate transportation of municipal waste within its boundaries.

We know our fleet is struggling.

We know it is under in disrepair.

Just yesterday I saw a garbage truck struggling to get up Green Tree Hill on its way to Imperial.

The city and the Department of Public Works recognize that a transfer station is necessary.

So I respectfully submit that this hurts our ability to do so.

It also is inconsistent with the state law.

Courts have held that Act 101 is an express preemption provision predicated on inconsistency of municipal regulations.

This act, which imposes a 500-foot setback without a waiver requirement, is expressly inconsistent with the state regulations found at 25 PA code 279-202 that provides that with an occup that a waste management transfer facility shall not be within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling unless there is a waiver achieved from the owner.

So I ask you, please consider the financial impact on the city of approving this, which will effectively exclude a waste transfer station from the city.

We've posit that more research is necessary, and until then, this motion or this bill should be put on hold.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Let's try to go back to Chief Poma.

If not, we'll go to those in chambers.

Is there anyone else in chambers wishing to speak?

Is there anyone else in chambers wishing to speak?

If not, I'll allow members if they have any comments they would like to provide.

Councilwoman Warburg?

Yeah, sure.

I also do want to make clear for members.

So uh you know, we had a hearing at the Planning Commission in the one meeting that was this bill and another bill on the table.

And so we took that opportunity at the planning commission to sort of organize neighbors to come out and give public testimony, um, specifically about what it is like to live next to a general industrial site.

So we heard lots of testimony.

I mean, it was just we had I'd say close to 50 folks came out to to the city planning meeting, and um say 15 or so you know, stood up and gave testimony, and um, you know, what we heard uh was was and and again, you know, we're talking about an environmental injustice that was done to a community many years ago by even putting this this industrial area next to the neighborhood.

And you know, we just heard a lot about what it's like living so close to, you know, whether it be rail yards, but also this, you know, this recycling station, what it's like having trucks come through and having being able to smell um um, you know, the waste from the recycling center on their front porches, uh blocks away, like folks who live blocks away, like on the other side of Second Avenue, um, who can smell those, you know, smell it from their front porches.

Um, we heard testimony about um, you know, just dealing with rats, right?

Enormous rats.

Um, I uh one resident not he did not come and give testimony, but sort of laughingly told me about how as a as a younger person they used to go and shoot the rats, right?

Like that was, you know, I mean, this is so you know, to have just this kind of um these kind of issues so close to where you live, right?

We have small markets, Dil Amato's Market wrote about uh a constant rodent problem.

Um they're very close.

Um churches, etc.

Uh so we really have heard, and I'm happy to share the link to that to that meeting.

But just to clarify for folks why, you know, it's a big lift for folks, you know, our our residents in Hazelwood don't, you know, don't have lawyers that they can pay to come out to to to hearings and whatnot.

So it was um it was a big lift for everybody to get them out at 2 p.m.

on a on a Tuesday or whenever that that that planning commission hearing was.

And uh they really the the neighborhood really did come out in full force um in support both of this and and the other bill that is uh that is on the table.

So I did just want to clarify that for members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Madam Clerk, if you'd be willing to put this on our standing committee agenda next week.

Um having exhausted the business of this public hearing, this meeting is ajar.