Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Pittsburgh City Council Committee on Hearings and Policy Public Hearing on Bill 2025-1545, September 24, 2026

City Council — Thursday, September 24, 2026

BodyPittsburgh, Pennsylvania

SessionCity Council

DateThursday, September 24, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:31:35

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:18

Good afternoon and welcome to the Pittsburgh City Council's cable cast public hearing for Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026.

0:26

Relative to Bill 20, I'm gonna correct this, 2025, 1545.

0:33

Will the clerk please read the title of the bills?

0:35

Bill 2025, 1545, ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title IX Zoning, Article 1, Introduction and Establishment.

0:44

Chapter 902, Zoning Districts in general to add inclusionary zoning and zoning.

0:51

Article III, overlay zoning districts to add a sunset clause to 907.04.07, permanence points system.

1:08

Article 2, base zoning, Chapter 905, special purpose districts.

1:14

Article 4, planning districts, Chapter 908, public realm districts.

1:18

Chapter 909, Planned Development Districts.

1:21

Article 5, use regulations.

1:23

Chapter 911, primary uses, Chapter 912, accessory uses and structures.

1:29

Chapter 913, use exceptions and conditions not listed in use table.

1:35

Article 6, development standards.

1:37

Chapter 914, parking, loading and access.

1:41

Chapter 916, residential compatibility standards.

1:45

Article 8, review and enforcement.

1:47

Chapter 922, development review procedures to remove minimum off-street parking from the zoning code.

1:55

Articles 5 use regulations.

2:04

Chapter 925 Measurements and Chapter 926 Definitions.

2:10

Thank you very much.

2:11

And for the record, we are also joined by Councilman Kahari Mosley, Councilperson Bob Sharland, and Councilmember Barb Warwick.

2:20

So our first order of business will be a brief introduction of the legislation by representatives from city planning.

2:27

Can you please introduce yourselves first?

2:29

Sure.

2:33

Carolyn Restyle, Zoning Administrator.

2:36

Kate Rakis, Senior Planning Manager.

2:38

Thank you very much.

2:39

And before you do, I do want to also note that we have two members joining us online.

2:43

Apologies for my oversight.

2:46

We have Councilwoman Deb Gross and Council President Daniel LaBelle.

2:51

Thank you.

2:52

Please proceed.

2:53

Okay.

2:53

And uh we do have a presentation that will just kind of guide the discussion.

2:57

Um this is an amendment that has a long history.

3:01

Uh so we will just very briefly, uh, if we go to the next slide, uh, talk about that history, uh, talk about some changes that have happened to this bill over um since its introduction uh and talk about the components of the bill and and then discuss quickly where we go from here.

3:19

Um so going to the background and timeline.

3:22

Um, you know, this uh project started with the completion and release of the city's housing needs assessment in 2022.

3:30

Um, you know, it you know, made a series of recommendations around how we deal with uh changes in the city's housing market.

3:38

Um, you know, we uh began that community outreach in 2024, had a series of of briefings uh to the planning commission in at the end in the fall of that year.

3:48

Um in January of 2025, the planning commission made a positive recommendation, um, you know, which um one of the components of that bill, uh which was reformed to the minimum lot size requirements, uh, then was kind of spun off uh and passed separately.

4:04

Uh and that was passed in May of 2025.

4:07

And then as we move into, you know, kind of over the last year, uh, back in October uh when this came to City Council, there was an amendment by substitution to uh change uh you know a part of the bill around uh inclusionary zoning and affordable housing, uh that which was referred back to the planning commission.

4:28

Um, you know, we've worked with uh council members and brief council members and you know, and as a part of that, uh the planning commission in June uh made a recommendation to approve uh you know you know the moving this package back to city council um you know with with some amendments.

4:46

Uh and then you know, at the request of council um at the end of August, we did hold a public information session session, and and here we are uh now at the public hearing.

4:56

And so some changes that have occurred in that bill.

5:00

And so some changes that have occurred in that bill, uh like I said, the minimum lot size reform work uh was removed and passed separately uh in May of last year.

5:08

Uh and in what was returned to the Planning Commission uh from council from October of 2025 was changes in uh the expansion of you know what was in you know was initially uh included as expansion of inclusionary zoning citywide, uh, and that was replaced with a affordable housing bonus program.

5:29

And so um, you know, as as we you know that that that change has occurred, and we'll walk through the details of that in a little bit.

5:37

Um you know, as a part of all of this process, uh there has been a lot of public and stakeholder engagement both with uh the original bill uh and with the revised program.

5:52

And you know, the the reason that this was you know, kind of has taken the route that it has that you know that really um the change from you know a uh mandatory inclusionary zoning uh you know across the city uh to the affordable housing bonus program was a substantive change that was required uh to come back uh to the planning commission because of that substantive difference.

6:18

And again, at the planning commission's meeting on June 2nd, it made a positive recommendation uh that would uh keep the affordable housing bonus program uh as an amendment by substitution.

6:33

And that recommendation, you know, um you know was made with the following conditions.

6:39

Um, you know, that you know that the payment in lieu of parking and the payment at lieu for affordable units uh not be legislated in the code, those had uh specific dollar amounts that were in the code but that be uh added to the fee schedule.

6:52

So the intent is to use the same costs but to move those from uh the code itself into the fee schedule so that they can be updated over time.

7:01

And then uh the second item well that the planning your second recommendation of the planning commission was that the affordability period for uh the performance points, which is essentially the um the voluntary bonus program uh set to 20 years, um, the mandatory program under the inclusionary zoning overlay of the IZO would stay unchanged at 35.

7:24

With that, I'll turn it over to Carolyn and she'll walk through uh the details of the components of the bill.

7:29

Uh thank you.

7:30

Um so as uh discussed, this bill has a lot of things going on in it.

7:35

Um and so we'll talk first through this affordable housing bonus program.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Zoning Code████████████████████████████████████████████44%

Housing██████████████████████████26%

Affordable Housing██████████████████18%

Parking Management██████6%

Public Transportation██2%

Homelessness██2%

Public Engagement█1%

Procedural█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Pittsburgh City Council Committee on Hearings and Policy Public Hearing on Bill 2025-1545 — September 24, 2026

The Committee on Hearings and Policy held a public hearing on Bill 2025-1545, a comprehensive zoning amendment addressing inclusionary housing, an affordable housing bonus program, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), removal of minimum off-street parking requirements, and related development standards. Note: the agenda, minutes, and transcript identify the hearing as Wednesday, September 23, 2026, while the supplied meeting timestamp is September 24, 2026; this summary uses the requested date. The hearing included a City Planning presentation, testimony from registered and unregistered speakers, and comments from council members. No final vote was taken; the bill was held to the Committee on Land Use and Economic Development.

Public Comments & Testimony

Christopher Beam (Bloomfield, ProHousing Pittsburgh) expressed full support, calling the bill the most significant zoning reform in Pittsburgh in decades and urging council to pass it without delay.
Jack Billings (Squirrel Hill) echoed support and thanked council for its work.
Amy Zace (Beechview homeowner) supported the package, arguing parking minimums increase housing costs, ADUs add gentle density and help seniors age in place, and more housing lowers rents.
Andrew Moss (Lawrenceville architect) supported ADUs and parking reform but raised serious concerns about height increases, including 105-foot buildings in LNC districts currently capped at 45 feet; he called for maximum heights near 75 feet, setbacks, and no height bonuses within 50 feet of residential properties.
John Rhodes (Polish Hill, Housing Justice Table) supported the bill but asked for a 35-year affordability period and a social housing fund from payment-in-lieu fees; he cited less than 5% multifamily vacancy, nearly 50% rent increases in Polish Hill from 2019 to 2022, 4 in 10 renters cost-burdened, loss of nearly one-third of multifamily stock, and population decline including a 48% drop in Black residents.
Andrea Boykowicz (Central Oakland, OPDC) gave unqualified support for parking reform, measured support for ADUs, and support for the existing IZO; she urged extending the affordability period from 20 to 35 years and warned that informal ADUs in Oakland have driven displacement of families, especially Black families.
Jeffrey Miller (Western PA LGBTQ+ Older Adult Advocacy Team) supported citywide ADUs, citing a 2019 survey in which 69% of LGBTQ seniors aged 50 and older called housing the most pressing issue.
Dave Bringen (Lawrenceville Together) supported ADU legalization and parking reform, advocated 35-year affordability, one-for-one replacement payment-in-lieu levels earmarked for low-income housing with social housing priority, and recommended a 30-foot maximum LNC height bonus and a 20-30 foot height buffer with a 50-foot maximum adjacent to residential districts rather than a full waiver of residential compatibility standards.
Madeline McGrady (Highland Park, Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table) expressed disappointment at the loss of mandatory inclusionary zoning but appreciated improvements; she asked for 35-year affordability, social housing from payment-in-lieu funds, payment amounts equal to or above the actual construction cost of about $35 per square foot, and companion short-term rental legislation.
Dan Berg (Polish Hill Civic Association) supported the bill generally but asked for ADU short-term rental regulation, neighborhood-retained payment-in-lieu funds with community input, 35-year affordability, and neighborhood-specific height and parking analysis.
Laura Chewens (Pittsburgh for Public Transit) strongly supported eliminating parking minimums, maintaining parking maximums, TDM, and by-right ADUs; she asked for 35-year affordability, one-for-one replacement payments, low-income and social housing earmarks, and consistent incentives inside and outside IZO districts.
Candice Kane (Fineview) asked council to slow down, citing Fineview's steep terrain, narrow streets, 1,200 residents, and the success of 30 affordable houses built in the 1990s and 2000s; she opposed allowing ADUs before short-term rentals are licensed and regulated, asked for one ADU per lot and an owner-occupancy requirement, and opposed blanket parking and height changes.
Barbara Hill (AARP Pennsylvania) supported the overall direction and urged future attention to universal design, aging in place, transit proximity, and monitoring affordability for older adults on fixed incomes.
Yavon Rainey (Bright community) urged accountability on short-term rentals, parking protections for seniors, and neighborhood-sensitive heights, while supporting affordable housing in Black and brown communities.
An unnamed Garfield community board member supported ADU and parking reform but questioned whether the affordable housing bonus would bridge the affordability gap, noting a newly approved URA rental project cost $568,000 per unit with over $300,000 per unit in subsidy and saying private developers report the return on investment for affordable housing is insufficient.

Planning Department Presentation

Carolyn Restyle (Zoning Administrator) and Kate Rakis (Senior Planning Manager) presented the history and components of the bill.
The housing needs assessment was completed in 2022; the Planning Commission made a positive recommendation in January 2025; minimum lot size reform was removed and passed separately in May 2025; council amended the bill by substitution in October 2025 and referred it back; the Planning Commission recommended approval on June 2, 2026, with conditions; a public information session was held in late August 2026.
The mandatory citywide inclusionary zoning proposal was replaced by an affordable housing bonus program. Planning Commission conditions moved payment-in-lieu amounts from the code to the fee schedule and kept the bonus program affordability period at 20 years, while the IZO remains at 35 years.
The bonus program would be available in most districts allowing multi-unit or elderly housing, except downtown; eligible projects would provide 10 to 20 percent of units as affordable; bonuses would be 2, 4, or 6 points depending on district and affordability level, with 15 feet of height per point and a reduction in upper-story stepback requirements; off-site options require more affordable units.
The ADU proposal would allow up to two ADUs per residential lot citywide, with no limit at community centers or religious assembly uses, no owner-occupancy requirement, by-right development in existing garages within setbacks, and administrator exceptions elsewhere with a 21-day posted notice period.
The parking proposal removes minimum off-street parking requirements from the zoning code, removes ADA parking requirements from the zoning code, expands limits on surface parking, and formalizes transportation demand management. Planning staff emphasized that existing parking spaces are not removed and lenders still often require parking.

Council Deliberation

Councilmember Gross said the version presented was new language not previously publicly vetted and questioned the Planning Commission introducing new language rather than reporting on council's referral; she supported ADU and parking reform but was concerned about the housing bonus section and wished the housing dashboard had been released.
Councilperson Charland expressed enthusiastic support, noting prior attempts to split the bill were unsuccessful; he asked for regular look-back reporting on which projects use the bonuses, dismissed height concerns in LNC districts, and stressed that parking reform does not remove anyone's parking.
Councilmember Warwick supported ADU and parking reform, originally supported mandatory inclusionary zoning, and said the 20-year affordability cap should be at least 35 years; she also raised concerns that opt-out fees and off-site options could perpetuate segregation and said affordable housing advocates and developers should help decide how payment-in-lieu funds are used.
The committee chair confirmed with planning staff that the IZO sunset is no longer in the bill, that strategies are being developed to address LNC height concerns, and that payment-in-lieu funds must be tied to the affordable housing purpose under rational nexus; a companion bill would establish the fund and guidelines.

Key Outcomes

Public hearing concluded without a vote; the bill was held to the Committee on Land Use and Economic Development.
Planning staff confirmed intended follow-up work: applicant guidance, affordable unit marketing and permit processes, and companion legislation and guidelines for payment-in-lieu.
Council members signaled likely amendments or conditions, including extending the affordability period to 35 years, adding reporting and look-back mechanisms, and refining LNC height bonuses.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon and welcome to the Pittsburgh City Council's cable cast public hearing for Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026. Relative to Bill 20, I'm gonna correct this, 2025, 1545. Will the clerk please read the title of the bills? Bill 2025, 1545, ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code, Title IX Zoning, Article 1, Introduction and Establishment. Chapter 902, Zoning Districts in general to add inclusionary zoning and zoning. Article III, overlay zoning districts to add a sunset clause to 907.04.07, permanence points system. Article 2, base zoning, Chapter 905, special purpose districts. Article 4, planning districts, Chapter 908, public realm districts. Chapter 909, Planned Development Districts. Article 5, use regulations. Chapter 911, primary uses, Chapter 912, accessory uses and structures. Chapter 913, use exceptions and conditions not listed in use table. Article 6, development standards. Chapter 914, parking, loading and access. Chapter 916, residential compatibility standards. Article 8, review and enforcement. Chapter 922, development review procedures to remove minimum off-street parking from the zoning code. Articles 5 use regulations. Chapter 925 Measurements and Chapter 926 Definitions. Thank you very much. And for the record, we are also joined by Councilman Kahari Mosley, Councilperson Bob Sharland, and Councilmember Barb Warwick. So our first order of business will be a brief introduction of the legislation by representatives from city planning. Can you please introduce yourselves first? Sure. Carolyn Restyle, Zoning Administrator. Kate Rakis, Senior Planning Manager. Thank you very much. And before you do, I do want to also note that we have two members joining us online. Apologies for my oversight. We have Councilwoman Deb Gross and Council President Daniel LaBelle. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. And uh we do have a presentation that will just kind of guide the discussion. Um this is an amendment that has a long history. Uh so we will just very briefly, uh, if we go to the next slide, uh, talk about that history, uh, talk about some changes that have happened to this bill over um since its introduction uh and talk about the components of the bill and and then discuss quickly where we go from here. Um so going to the background and timeline. Um, you know, this uh project started with the completion and release of the city's housing needs assessment in 2022. Um, you know, it you know, made a series of recommendations around how we deal with uh changes in the city's housing market. Um, you know, we uh began that community outreach in 2024, had a series of of briefings uh to the planning commission in at the end in the fall of that year. Um in January of 2025, the planning commission made a positive recommendation, um, you know, which um one of the components of that bill, uh which was reformed to the minimum lot size requirements, uh, then was kind of spun off uh and passed separately. Uh and that was passed in May of 2025. And then as we move into, you know, kind of over the last year, uh, back in October uh when this came to City Council, there was an amendment by substitution to uh change uh you know a part of the bill around uh inclusionary zoning and affordable housing, uh that which was referred back to the planning commission. Um, you know, we've worked with uh council members and brief council members and you know, and as a part of that, uh the planning commission in June uh made a recommendation to approve uh you know you know the moving this package back to city council um you know with with some amendments. Uh and then you know, at the request of council um at the end of August, we did hold a public information session session, and and here we are uh now at the public hearing. And so some changes that have occurred in that bill. And so some changes that have occurred in that bill, uh like I said, the minimum lot size reform work uh was removed and passed separately uh in May of last year. Uh and in what was returned to the Planning Commission uh from council from October of 2025 was changes in uh the expansion of you know what was in you know was initially uh included as expansion of inclusionary zoning citywide, uh, and that was replaced with a affordable housing bonus program. And so um, you know, as as we you know that that that change has occurred, and we'll walk through the details of that in a little bit. Um you know, as a part of all of this process, uh there has been a lot of public and stakeholder engagement both with uh the original bill uh and with the revised program.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com