2026-09-23 - City Council - Public Hearing

00:19Good afternoon and welcome to the

00:20Pittsburgh City Council's Cablecast

00:22public hearing for Wednesday, September

00:2423rd, 2026. relative to bill

00:2820 I'm going to correct this 20251545.

00:33Will the clerk please read the title of

00:34the bills? Bill 20251545,

00:38ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code,

00:40Title 9, Zoning, Article One,

00:42Introduction and Establishment. Chapter

00:45902, zoning districts in general to add

00:48inclusionary zoning and zoning.

00:51Article three, overlay zoning districts

00:54to add a sunset clause to 907.04.8

00:59inclusionary housing overlay district.

01:01Article four, development standards to

01:03amend 915.07,

01:06permanence points system. Article two,

01:09base zoning. Chapter 905, special

01:12purpose districts. Article 4, planning

01:15districts. Chapter 908, public realm

01:17districts. Chapter 909, planned

01:20development districts. Article 5, use

01:22regulations. Chapter 911, primary uses.

01:26Chapter 912, accessory uses and

01:28structures. Chapter 913, use exceptions

01:32and conditions not listed in use table.

01:35Article six, development standards.

01:37Chapter 914, parking, loading and

01:40access. Chapter 916, residential

01:43compatibility standards. Article 8,

01:46review and enforcement. Chapter 922,

01:49development review procedures to remove

01:52minimum off- streetet parking from the

01:54zoning code. Articles five, use

01:57regulations. Chapter 9 912, Accessory

02:00Uses and Structures, Article 9,

02:03Measurements and Definitions, Chapter

02:05925, Measurements, and Chapter 926,

02:08Definitions.

02:11Thank you very much. And for the record,

02:12we are also joined by Councilman Kohari

02:15Mosley, Council Person Bob Charlotte,

02:18and Council Member Barb Warwick. So, our

02:21first order of business will be a brief

02:23introduction of the legislation by

02:25representatives from city planning. Can

02:28you please introduce yourselves first?

02:29>> Sure. My name is David Gash. I'm the

02:31deputy director of the department of

02:32city planning.

02:33>> Caroline Restyle, zoning administrator.

02:36>> Kate Raikus, senior planning manager.

02:38Thank you very much. And before you do,

02:40I do want to also note that we have two

02:42members joining us online. Apologies for

02:44my oversight. We have um Councilwoman

02:47Deb Gross and Council President Daniel

02:50Label.

02:52Thank you. Please proceed.

02:53>> Okay. And uh we do have a presentation

02:55that will just kind of guide the

02:57discussion. Um this is an amendment that

03:00has a long history. Uh so we will just

03:03very briefly uh if we go to the next

03:05slide uh talk about that history uh talk

03:08about some changes that have happened to

03:09this bill over um since its introduction

03:13uh and talk about the components of the

03:14bill and and then discuss quickly where

03:18we go from here. Um so going to the

03:20background and timeline um you know this

03:23uh project started with the completion

03:26and release of the city's housing needs

03:28assessment in 2022. Um you know it you

03:32know made a series of recommendations

03:34around how we deal with uh changes in

03:36the city's housing market. Um you know

03:39we uh began that community outreach in

03:422024 had a series of of briefings uh to

03:44the planning commission in at the end in

03:46the fall of that year. Um in January of

03:492025, the planning commission made a

03:51positive recommendation

03:53um you know which um one of the

03:55components of that bill uh which was

03:57reformed to the minimum lot size

03:59requirements uh then was kind of spun

04:01off uh and passed separately. Uh and

04:04that was passed in May of 2025. And then

04:07as we move into um you know to you know

04:11kind of over the last year uh back in

04:13October uh when this came to city

04:15council there was an amendment by

04:17substitution

04:18um you know to uh change uh you know a

04:21part of the bill around uh inclusionary

04:23zoning and affordable housing uh which

04:26was referred back to the planning

04:27commission. Um, you know, we've worked

04:30with, uh, council members and brief

04:31council members and, you know, and as a

04:33part of that, uh, the planning

04:35commission in June, uh, made a

04:37recommendation to approve, uh, you know,

04:41you know, the moving this package back

04:42to city council, um, you know, with with

04:45some amendments. Uh, and then, you know,

04:48at the request of council, um, at the

04:50end of August, we did hold a public

04:52information sess session and and here we

04:54are uh, now at the public hearing. And

04:57so some changes that have occurred in

04:59that bill. Uh like I said, the minimum

05:01lot size reform work uh was removed and

05:04passed separately uh in May of last

05:07year. Uh and in what was returned to the

05:11planning commission uh from council from

05:13October of 2025 was changes in uh the

05:18expansion of you know what was in you

05:20know was initially uh included as

05:22expansion of inclusionary zoning

05:23citywide. uh and that was replaced with

05:27a affordable housing bonus program. And

05:29so um you know as as we you know that

05:32that that change has occurred and we'll

05:34walk through the details of that in a

05:36little bit. Um you know as a part of all

05:38of this process uh there has been a lot

05:41of public and stakeholder engagement um

05:43you know both with uh the original bill

05:47uh and with the revised program.

05:52And you know the the reason that this

05:54was you know kind of has taken the the

05:57route that it has um you know is that

06:00you know that really um the change from

06:03you know a uh mandatory inclusionary

06:06zoning uh you know across the city uh to

06:09the affordable housing bonus program was

06:11a substantive change that was required

06:13uh to come back uh to the planning

06:16commission because of that substantive

06:17difference. And again, at the planning

06:20commission's meeting on June 2nd, it

06:22made a positive recommendation

06:24uh that would uh keep the affordable

06:26housing bonus program uh as an amendment

06:29by substitution.

06:33And that recommendation, you know, um

06:36you know, was made with the following

06:38conditions. Um you know, that you know

06:41that the payment in lie of parking and

06:43the payment in L for affordable units uh

06:45not be legislated in the code. those had

06:47uh specific dollar amounts that were in

06:49the code um but that be uh added to the

06:52fee schedule. So the intent is to use

06:54the same costs but to move those from uh

06:57the code itself into the fee schedule so

06:59that they can be updated over time. And

07:02then uh the second item was that the

07:04planning your second recommendation of

07:05the planning commission was that the

07:07affordability period for uh the

07:10performance points which is essentially

07:11the um the voluntary bonus program set

07:15to 20 years. Um the mandatory program

07:18under the inclusionary zoning o overlay

07:20the ICO would stay unchanged at 35.

07:24With that I'll turn it over to Caroline

07:25and she'll walk through uh the details

07:27of the components of the bill.

07:29>> Uh thank you. Um so as uh discussed this

07:33bill has a lot of things going on in it.

07:36Um and so we'll talk first through this

07:37affordable housing bonus program.

07:40Um as uh as discussed uh the there was a

07:45version sent to the planning commission

07:47after council uh amended by substitution

07:50in October of 2025.

07:52this version um is uh you know what

07:56planning commission reviewed with the uh

08:00making a recommendation to make some

08:02changes to that. And so we have the

08:04version from October 2025 and then the

08:07version from June 2026 which is the one

08:09recommended by planning commission with

08:11those two um conditions.

08:15the October 2025 um added a new program

08:19um that just added complexity and uh

08:21created some conflicts with the existing

08:24um inclusionary zoning and affordable

08:26bonus programs that we already had. Um

08:29and so this new the June version uh uses

08:33a single system um that's adapted from

08:36the existing performance points that um

08:39are available in certain parts of the

08:40city currently.

08:43The October version was uh citywide

08:46except for the existing ICO.

08:48The June version allows uh the bonus

08:51makes the bonus available in most of our

08:54zoning districts that allow four plus

08:56units or housing for the elderly except

08:58for downtown where there are other

09:00mechanisms that encourage affordable

09:02housing already in place.

09:05eligible projects. In the October

09:07version, uh it was 20 plus unit

09:10dwellings that provided at least 10% of

09:12units at affordable rates. Um and the

09:15June version uh increases that to

09:19multi-unit dwellings that provide 10 to

09:2120% of units at affordable rates.

09:25The length uh for both um with the the

09:29planning commission's um condition

09:32was for 20 years for the rental uh which

09:35is different than the existing mandatory

09:38ICO that has a 35- year affordability

09:41period.

09:44the uh bonus points um is another area

09:49that that we modified um between the

09:52October and the June versions. Uh in the

09:55October version

09:58um

10:01if projects that didn't other weren't

10:03otherwise eligible for the performance

10:05points that currently exist would be

10:08eligible for two points. Um projects

10:11that were eligible for the performance

10:13points uh were eligible to have one one

10:17to six points. Um

10:19um [clears throat] and retaining a

10:21reduction in upper story step back

10:24requirements. Um I feel like even

10:27talking through that it it feels

10:29complicated. Um and so with the the June

10:32version uh we again using the existing

10:36uh structure established the base points

10:39of either two points or four points um

10:43across the districts described above

10:45except for the districts that already

10:47have the affordable housing bonus point

10:51option. those districts uh would get two

10:55or four or six and again have that

10:58reduction in the upper story step back.

11:00Another change is um in the prior

11:04version a point earned you 15 ft unless

11:07you were in the in a riverfront zoning

11:09district in which case it was 10 ft. Um

11:12the June version simplifies that as well

11:15and makes it 15 ft across all districts.

11:20Um while again there were substantial

11:22changes um between those two that we

11:24just talked through, there's also a lot

11:26that um uh is the same between these

11:30two. They both keep the existing

11:33inclusionary zoning overlay which is the

11:35mandatory affordable program that we

11:37have um intact um as it is. The

11:42affordability um rates are the same. So

11:46no more than 50% of AMI for rental units

11:49and no more than 80% AMI for owner

11:51occupied units. Um they both introduced

11:54a new payment in lie of 25

11:59$25 per square feet um that applies for

12:04the optional program and they both have

12:08an offsite option which requires even

12:12more units to be provided at

12:13affordability. um if they are provided

12:16off-site as opposed to on-site.

12:20The again the base points um

12:25structure is uh shown here. So the the

12:28base points depending on which threshold

12:31their project is providing uh depends on

12:34on what points are earned. Um, and there

12:38is a slight difference in how many

12:40points are available per each item

12:43depending on whether it's an a district

12:45that already has these points and

12:47already has an established structure or

12:50it's one of the new districts. Um, a

12:53project um that is seeking to use these

12:57points gets to choose from one of these

13:00provided that they meet the criteria in

13:02there. They don't get to do multiple of

13:04these. So they wouldn't be able to get

13:06two points for providing 10%

13:09um and two points for providing or and

13:12four points for providing 20%. Um it's

13:15one or the other. It's not both.

13:22Uh another change uh between the October

13:24and June versions uh was that there

13:27there was a in the October version a

13:31mandated look back in the legislation to

13:34provide a report and recommendations for

13:36improvements given how um what we've

13:40seen happen in the first two years of

13:42having this program. uh that has been

13:44removed um

13:47uh as that's not uh

13:52a zoning text isn't the appropriate

13:54location for that sort of requirement.

13:57Uh but the department is committed to

13:59providing a look back um at at all of

14:04our new regulations moving forward. And

14:06so this would definitely be one of the

14:07ones that we would look back in two

14:09years and see how's it working. um and

14:14do an assessment of do we need to make

14:16any recommendations to change based on

14:20the intent of what this program was

14:22intended to do and what we've seen

14:24actually happen in the first two years.

14:27Um

14:30we also um have a map here that shows

14:34the um existing

14:38areas where affordable housing bonus

14:41points are um allowed to be used under

14:44our current bonus program. Those are the

14:47areas in um sort of the yellow tannanish

14:51color. Um and then the new districts

14:54that we are proposing to be incorporated

14:57in the June version um are the ones in

15:00blue.

15:05So the the next component of this

15:08package

15:09is the accessory dwelling unit

15:12requirements. Um accessory dwelling

15:15units are a small residential unit that

15:18is subordinate to the primary use of the

15:19property. Um, this is most commonly seen

15:23in um in things like carriage houses or

15:27um you know small apartment within uh a

15:30a larger dwelling often referred to as a

15:33mother-in-law suite.

15:35Um and Pittsburgh had a a pilot program

15:38a few years ago in a in a

15:42small part of the city. This is a a

15:45permanent set of regulations that would

15:47be citywide.

15:51The proposed regulations um include that

15:54ADUs would be permitted by right as

15:57accessory to a residential community

16:00center or religious assembly primary

16:02use. If it's a uh residential lot, no

16:07more than two ADUs would be allowed. Um

16:10but if it's a community center or

16:11religious assembly, there is no limit on

16:13the number of ADUs uh that could be

16:16provided on site.

16:18There is a maximum square feet of 1,000

16:21square feet per ADU and a maximum height

16:24of 30 ft for a detached ADU.

16:30We also made a slight change here um in

16:34this legislation compared to earlier

16:36versions as we have separately been

16:39working on a draft amendment to remove

16:43reference to heightened stories

16:45throughout the code where it is

16:46redundant with heightened feet. And so

16:48we um one of the changes in this

16:51legislation was to remove the reference

16:52and stories here to be consistent with

16:54the work we are doing um elsewhere.

16:58And there is no owner occupied

16:59requirement for any regulations.

17:04Um

17:06there is also uh some relief provided

17:09for the setback requirements when the

17:12ADU is being provided in a detached

17:14structure. Um and the intent of that is

17:17to ensure that they fit within the

17:20existing fabric of the neighborhood.

17:23And so this would apply to um conversion

17:26of existing garage into an ADU um as

17:30long as it's uh because most of our

17:32garages in the city are within the

17:34required setbacks. Um and so if you are

17:37providing an ADU above that existing

17:40garage and not um encroaching any

17:43further into the setbacks than they

17:44already are. Um that would be by right.

17:47Um, and otherwise an ADU that's in a in

17:51a side or rear setback would require an

17:53administrator exception, uh, which is a

17:5521-day posted notice period.

17:59Um, again, the

18:02what we sort of expect is that we'll see

18:04a lot of these um, as sort of the

18:06carriage house model. Um, Pittsburgh

18:08already has many carriage houses from

18:10the days before we adopted zoning. Um

18:13and so this is essentially allowing um

18:16the sort of structure that we

18:18historically see uh throughout our

18:20neighborhoods.

18:23The third component of this bill is the

18:26parking reform.

18:28Um [sighs]

18:31as alluded in sort in the prior section,

18:34a lot of our city was built out before

18:36we adopted zoning. Um and um that has

18:41created a lot of challenges in in

18:43applying zoning regulations throughout

18:45the years.

18:471958 is when we adopted um the the

18:51foundation of what is our current zoning

18:53code and that's the first time that off-

18:55streetet parking requirements uh were

18:57adopted. [snorts] um the the approach

19:02that was taken for parking in the 1950s

19:04has been found to not be effective. And

19:07so over the decades uh we've been adding

19:10band-aids and amendments to try and make

19:14the concept of the original ones fit

19:17within our city. But every time we have

19:19to make a a reduction or an exception,

19:24it's just proving that the original

19:25structure doesn't work. Um other cities

19:28are facing this as well and um uh so

19:31several cities have already implemented

19:34reforms to parking to uh encourage more

19:37walkable mixeduse neighborhoods with

19:40lower housing costs and uh that increase

19:43the adaptive reuse of existing

19:45buildings. Um and so our approaches

19:49following in their footsteps.

19:53The proposal is to replace our existing

19:55parking minimums with updated parking

19:58maximums and uh transportation demand

20:01management program.

20:04It also removes ADA parking requirements

20:07from the zoning code. Uh this is

20:09something that there is dup duplicative

20:12reviews. PLI and the state also regulate

20:15these and so it adds an additional

20:18burden additional process to also be

20:21regulating it in the zoning code and the

20:25benefits that we get from regulating it

20:26in multiple places

20:29um do not outweigh the costs here. So,

20:32we are proposing to remove those from

20:34the zoning. And um in the districts that

20:38have limits on the amount of surface

20:41parking that can be um added, we are

20:46expanding those limits.

20:49So, this parking ordinance simplifies

20:51the zoning code. It um allows the market

20:55to decide how much parking is needed

20:56rather than arbitrary numbers in her

20:58code. It removes barriers to reusing

21:01existing buildings.

21:03It shifts the focus of transportation

21:05options from cars to all modes of

21:08transit

21:09um and modality. And it allows for a

21:13more optimal use of urban space.

21:15[snorts]

21:17This parking ordinance does not remove

21:20any of the existing legal parking spaces

21:23across the city. Um it doesn't place

21:28greater restrictions on car parking than

21:30we already have. Um [clears throat]

21:33new spaces are allowed to be built and

21:36constructed where it's deemed feasible

21:38and reasonable uh according to the

21:40market and the needs of the use. Um

21:46and it doesn't uh it doesn't enable

21:48developers to just do whatever they

21:50want. there are still um regulations for

21:54how many and and where parking can be

21:57provided. Um and bankers and lenders

22:02care very much about car parking. Um so

22:05even if without our parking minimums um

22:09financers will often require that a

22:11development provide a certain number of

22:14parking spaces in order to get the the

22:16funding that they are seeking.

22:20Transportation demand management is a

22:23tool um that we [clears throat] do have

22:25currently, but it's um uh it's not fully

22:30articulated um and it's not used very

22:33widely. And so this proposal is to

22:36provide more clarity on uh what

22:39constitutes a transportation demand

22:40management and to set um

22:44um predictable criteria for how to use

22:47it and when.

22:50Um it is intended to increase the

22:52efficiency of the transportation network

22:54by meeting travel demand through a

22:57variety of transportation and modality

22:59options. Um and

23:03um programs like this uh reduce single

23:07occupancy vehicle trips um as they make

23:09it more easy and more attractive to use

23:13uh transit bikes uh or walking. Um

23:19and

23:21uh no I guess I read the I discussed the

23:24items on the slide in reverse order.

23:28So again, we have this, but this is

23:30creating more predictability and a more

23:31formalized system um for using

23:33transportation demand across the city.

23:36And with that, I will turn it back over

23:38to Deputy Dash.

23:40>> So again, the intent of the suite of

23:42amendments uh is really to facilitate

23:45the opportunity for to create more

23:46housing across the city. Um to do Thank

23:49you. Uh again the intent of this this

23:51this suite of ordinance of amendments is

23:54to uh facilitate the opportunity to

23:56create more housing uh in the city. Um

23:58it is to provide more opportunities for

24:01residents of all income levels uh to

24:03really try to increase and diversify our

24:05housing supply and allow uh more people

24:09to find uh the types of housing that

24:10they need. And so um you know where this

24:13is in the process um you know as we said

24:15with the planning commission's

24:16recommendation um it would require a

24:19simple majority uh if that legislation

24:21is amended you know in line with the

24:23planning commission's recommendation. Um

24:25if there are other amendments obviously

24:27um because of the planning commission's

24:28recommendation it would require a

24:29supermajority. There are there is and

24:32are additional work for the department

24:34uh to be doing uh after the passage of

24:36this ordinance. Um, you know, we've been

24:38waiting to give additional guidance to

24:41uh to applicants or uh to uh

24:45organizations as to how the inclusionary

24:48zoning and affordable housing uh process

24:50will work. So, more the process on

24:52number one, how they go through the

24:54permit process as well as uh guidelines

24:56on um you know, what marketing and

24:59things like that would happen around

25:01these affordable housing units as

25:03they're created. And then uh with the

25:06new payment and loo uh you know function

25:09um there would be guidelines uh you know

25:11as well as enabling legislation um that

25:14would have to be you know passed and

25:15developed um you know that those would

25:17be you know the the legislation

25:19obviously would be passed by council and

25:21I know there's been discussion of of

25:23introduction of that uh by council

25:24itself uh you know as well as you know

25:27kind of those amended guidelines uh

25:29being created and reviewed uh by council

25:32and the mayor's office prior to their

25:34institution. So with that uh we uh thank

25:39you.

25:40>> Thank you very much for the overview. I

25:43we will now move on to our next order of

25:46business which will be testimony from

25:47our registered speakers. I do have a

25:50list of registered speakers. And just so

25:53that you are aware, if you are not a

25:56registered speaker or you are not on

25:57this list, you will have an opportunity

26:00to testify after the registered speakers

26:02are finished. We have 14 registered

26:04speakers and then after that you will be

26:05able to approach the podium and um offer

26:09your comments as well. So each

26:11registered speaker will have three

26:13minutes to speak. We will ask that you

26:15give your name and your neighborhood for

26:16the record and I will call both the

26:19person who is up next followed by the

26:21person who's on deck after them.

26:24So our first registered speaker is

26:26Christopher Beam followed by Jack

26:28Billings.

26:35Good afternoon, members of city council.

26:36My name is Christopher Beam. I'm

26:38resident of Bloomfield and I'm

26:39testifying today on behalf of Pro

26:41Housing Pittsburgh, a grassroots

26:42organization dedicated to expanding

26:44housing abundance and affordability

26:45across our city and region. Nearly three

26:48years ago, I stood in these chambers

26:49begging for zoning reform after the

26:51zoning board of adjustment rejected the

26:53echo realy sure proposal in Bloomfield.

26:56That decision stalled desperately needed

26:58housing despite strong community

26:59support. That is why I'm here today with

27:02immense gratitude to say thank you.

27:05Um, ordinance 2025 1545 is going to be

27:08the most significant zoning reform in

27:09Pittsburgh in the last few decades.

27:11Under this legislation, transformative

27:13projects like Shaveave would be legal

27:15within the legislation's density bonus

27:17framework. We would no longer have to

27:19watch viable communitybacked housing die

27:21in endless variance hearings. This bill

27:23delivers the direct practical impact

27:25Pittsburgh needs by removing obstacles

27:28to development, preventing projects with

27:30strong neighborhood support from being

27:31derailed by outdated height and

27:33compatibility caps. It'll prioritize

27:35homes over parking, ensuring valuable

27:37urban land is used to shelter people

27:39rather than store cars. It'll unlock

27:41gentle density by having by allowing

27:43residents the flexibility to build ADUs,

27:46allowing seniors to age in place or

27:47allowing multigenerational families to

27:49live together while maintaining

27:50independence. And finally, it drives

27:52deep affordability by incentivizing

27:54dense, affordable housing in high

27:56opportunity neighborhoods in dire need

27:57of more units at every price point.

28:00Every study and housing needs assessment

28:01confirms what we experience daily.

28:03Pittsburgh is in a housing shortage.

28:05Passing Ordinance 1545 is the difference

28:07between empty lots and real homes for

28:09our neighbors. Thank you for bringing

28:11this bill to the finish line. We urge

28:13city council to vote yes and pass

28:14ordinance 1545 without delay. Thank you.

28:18>> Thank you.

28:19Next speaker will be Jack Billings,

28:22followed by Amy Zace.

28:25>> Hello. Um, I'm Jack Billings. I just

28:28moved from downtown to Squirrel Hill,

28:30from Bobby Wilson's district to Eric

28:32Strawberger's district. Um, I want to

28:35just echo everything Chris just said.

28:37This is a great bill. I'm excited to see

28:40it passed. We have needed this zoning

28:43reform for ages. Uh, and I want to thank

28:45all of the council members involved uh

28:48for their great work on this the last

28:50couple of years. Um, so please uh pass

28:53this bill. Thank you very much.

28:57Thank you. Next will be Amy Zay followed

29:00by Andrew Moss.

29:06Hello. Good afternoon, council. Thank

29:07you for your time. My name is Amy Zace.

29:10I'm a homeowner in Beach View. I live at

29:131305 Orangewood Avenue and I'm here to

29:16speak in favor of the bill 20251545.

29:20This package is a common sense step

29:22forward for Pittsburgh. It's been

29:24discussed, deliberated, debated at

29:26length, as it should be. I believe it's

29:28been fruitful. So many people have come

29:30to voice their opinions and we've ended

29:32up in a good place. So I think now is

29:34the time to pass this. We know that

29:36Pittsburgh has a housing shortage. We

29:38know that parking minimums increase the

29:40cost of building new housing. We know

29:43that ADUs provide gentle dis density,

29:45allow seniors to age in place, um, and

29:48also subsidize their fixed incomes. We

29:51know that building more housing drives

29:53down rents, and that mandates on

29:55affordability often cause less housing

29:56to be built. When housing is abundant,

29:59landlords compete for tenants, not the

30:01other way around. Because we know these

30:04facts, we can expect this bill to be a

30:05great step in reforming our current

30:07zoning by allowing by allowing more

30:09housing to be built. And with the

30:11introduction of the city's housing

30:13dashboard, other methods of um

30:15reporting, we have the ability to see

30:17the effects of this bill and keep it

30:19accountable to its effectiveness. So, I

30:21want to thank you all for your work on

30:23this, everyone in city planning and on

30:25council, and uh please encourage you to

30:28pass it. Thank you.

30:30>> Thank you. Next is Andrew Moss, followed

30:33by Connor Hayes.

30:36>> Hi, I'm Andrew Moss. I am a

30:38Lawrenceville resident and an architect

30:40who works on many projects in the city.

30:42I care deeply about Pittsburgh and its

30:44neighborhoods. I recognize that cities

30:46must grow and adapt. I believe that

30:48density is generally a good thing as

30:50well as diversity and housing types with

30:52the need to make sure we include ample

30:54affordable housing. I support the

30:56concept of the ADUs and changes to the

30:59parking requirements. However, I have

31:01serious concerns about the proposed

31:03changes, particularly relative to height

31:05and how this height will impact our

31:07walking neighborhoods and residents.

31:10This bill will allow for new buildings

31:12that are potentially three times higher

31:13than what is currently allowed. The

31:15legislation will lead to assemblage of

31:18small parcels and demolition of the his

31:21existing historic character that defines

31:23our various neighborhoods. The

31:26legislation threatens to fundamentally

31:27alter the main street corridor like

31:30Lawrenceville's Butler Street as well as

31:32historic hubs in Bloomfield, Garfield,

31:34Hills, Hill District, Highland Park,

31:36Shady Side, Squirrel Hill to name a few.

31:40I wonder, do the people living and

31:42owning homes in these neighborhoods

31:44really understand what is proposed by

31:46this pending legislation? Do you city

31:48council members understand the proposed

31:50increase in building height that is

31:52created by this by this legislation?

31:55Have you explored what the neighborhoods

31:57and these neighborhood business

31:59districts may look like, feel like with

32:028 to 10 story buildings adjacent to two

32:05and threetory buildings and single

32:07family homes?

32:09I have a bunch of points. I'm going to

32:10skip to a few because of my time. Um,

32:13allowing for 100 what will be 105 foot

32:16tall new buildings in an LNC zone

32:19district that currently has a maximum

32:21height of 45 ft is much too tall. We

32:24need to establish maximum building

32:26height in the LNC and probably also in

32:28the multi-unit residential zone

32:30districts limited to no more than 75 ft.

32:34Removal of residential compatibility

32:36standards will have detrimental

32:38consequences to adjacent smallcale

32:40single family homes. We must provide a

32:42reduction in scale through setbacks and

32:44height reduction where the property

32:46abuts a residential district. The impact

32:49single family home properties that abut

32:51and are close to existing zone districts

32:53affected by this zoning change have the

32:55potential to have a 105 foot building

32:57wall adjacent to their 20 or 30 foot

33:00tall house. Setback and reduction in

33:03building heights must be included. No

33:05height bonus should be permitted within

33:06a 50 ft of a residential zone property

33:10and potentially include site development

33:12standards relative to height limitations

33:14similar to what already exists in the

33:15urban center mixeduse zone district that

33:18includes step setbacks, maximum height

33:20to no more than twice the adjacent

33:21property and required shadow studies.

33:26I did send my full statement to you and

33:28you have that from the city clerk.

33:30Thanks.

33:32>> Thank you. Our next speaker is Connor

33:34Hayes followed by John Rhodess.

33:42Is Connor Hayes with us?

33:44Okay, we will move on to John Rhodess

33:47followed by Haley Phillips.

33:53>> Hi,

33:54my name is John Rhodess and I live in

33:57Polish Hill. Uh I'm also a member of the

33:59housing justice table. Uh, I'm in

34:01support of this bill because I want our

34:02city and my neighborhood to be a more

34:04affordable, inclusive, and transit

34:06friendly place. This bill will be a net

34:08positive for those things. But I ask you

34:11to strengthen it further with two final

34:12amendments. Uh, first to reaffirm the

34:15planning department's recommendation for

34:16a 35-year affordability period for bonus

34:19projects. And second, to allocate

34:21payment and L funds to a social housing

34:23fund. Uh, right now Pittsburgh is facing

34:26a housing crisis. According to

34:28Pittsburgh's housing needs assessment,

34:29vacancy across multifamily developments

34:32is at less than 5%. The lowest rate in

34:35the city since 1980. We need more homes

34:37and we need more affordable homes. My

34:39neighborhood of Polish Hill is

34:41experiencing that firsthand. From 2019

34:43to 2022, median rents rose nearly 50%.

34:47Today, four in 10 renters are

34:49costburdened. Over 11 years, we lost

34:51nearly a third of our multifamily

34:53housing stock. With rising housing costs

34:56and fewer homes, there was rampant

34:58displacement. Our overall population

35:00fell 11% and black residents decreased

35:03by 48%. The evidence is clear. Under the

35:06current zoning, Polish Hill has become

35:08the smallest, most expensive, least

35:11diverse place it has ever been. The

35:13zoning in Polish Hill was put in place

35:15in 1972 when the Polish Hill Civic

35:18Association circulated a flyer to the

35:19neighborhood advocating to reduce the

35:21allowable housing density. The flyer

35:23read, "Your civic association has been

35:25working hard to get this changed to

35:27protect our residential area and ethnic

35:30identity." My neighborhood and our city

35:33needs to move beyond the racist and

35:35exclusionary zoning that still stands

35:37today. This bill will start to return

35:39density to Polish Hill and put to work

35:41the inclusionary zoning that many of my

35:43neighbors and I fought to bring to the

35:44neighborhood. It will also work to

35:46counteract the alarming trend that to

35:48satisfy parking minimums, many Polish

35:50Hill properties where apartments used to

35:51stand have been replaced with concrete

35:53parking pads. I want my neighborhood and

35:56my city to be a place where people of

35:57all incomes and all backgrounds can find

36:00a home and feel welcome. I want Polish I

36:02want a Polish hill that embraces

36:03neighbors of all kinds so that we can

36:05lift each other up. This bill will help

36:07that happen, especially if it also

36:09includes a 35-year affordability period

36:11for bonus projects as well as advoca

36:14allocating payment and L funds to a

36:16social housing fund. Thank you.

36:18Thank you. Our next speaker is Haley

36:21Phillips followed by Andrea Boyitch.

36:27Is Haley Phillips with us?

36:30Okay, we will move on to Andrea Boyitch

36:32followed by Jeffrey Miller.

36:36Hi. Can you hear me?

36:37>> Yes, I can.

36:39>> What do you do? Uh, sorry. My name is

36:41Andrea Boyitch. I live on Parkview

36:44Avenue in central Oakland and I'm the

36:46executive director of Oakland Planning

36:48and Development Corporation. I'm

36:50grateful that council is finally getting

36:52ready to take action on 2022 2025 1545

36:56and I hope that you pass it. OPDC has

36:58submitted extensive testimony in the

37:01past on various components of this bill

37:03and I don't need to reiterate

37:04everything. We offer unqualified support

37:07for parking reform, much more measured,

37:09maybe even reluctant support for

37:11accessory dwelling units and we are big

37:13fans of the inclusionary zoning

37:15currently in place in Oakland. I have

37:17assurance from city planning that even

37:19though the title of this bill includes a

37:22sunset provision for the ICO that that's

37:24an artifact that's no longer part of the

37:26package in front of you. Um, and just as

37:28aside, an aside, having seen um the uh

37:32zoning director's uh presentation, I'd

37:35just suggest to city planning that they

37:37add to their lovely gallery of

37:39photographs of what ADUs look like in

37:40Kittsburg a photograph of literally any

37:43street in central or south Oakland in

37:45which informal ADUs have been densifying

37:48single family homes for decades, not

37:50very gently, and in a matter manner

37:53decidedly unfriendly to

37:54multigenerational families. In fact,

37:56ADUs have been a significant factor in

37:58driving displacement of families,

38:00especially black families from Oakland.

38:02Nevertheless, I understand the goals of

38:04the ADU program and in neighborhoods

38:06where there are a lot of other tools

38:07available to deliver density. I'm uh

38:10very optimistic that it will have a

38:12beneficial effect. Because Oakland is

38:15covered by the ICO, the affordable

38:17housing bonus program is not applicable

38:19to us really. Uh, but I'd like to offer

38:21some context for your consideration

38:23concerning the bonus points that the

38:25program proposes to make available

38:26everywhere in the city. As one of the

38:28outcomes of the Oakland plan, which

38:30council approved in 2022, affordable

38:33housing and performance bonus points are

38:35available in all areas of Oakland where

38:38multif family development is permitted.

38:40Our experience thus far indicates that

38:42this has been helpful and has the

38:44potential to deliver community benefit

38:46by making it easier for inclusionary

38:48projects to pencil. We're disappointed

38:51to see that the latest draft of the

38:53bonus program preserves the

38:54affordability period at 20 years. In the

38:57inclusionary zoning overlay, the period

38:59is 35 years, and we've not heard from

39:01anyone that that period is too long.

39:04Since the bonuses available represent

39:06significant investment by the city, I'd

39:08encourage you to consider how much

39:10community benefit that investment can

39:12buy. Thank you.

39:15>> Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeffrey

39:18Miller, followed by Dave David Brangan.

39:24>> Hi, thank you for allowing me to address

39:27council. I'm here specifically in favor

39:31of those parts of bill 20251545

39:35that support the development of ADUs.

39:39Pittsburgh has an opportunity to expand

39:43housing options and help more residents

39:46remain in the neighborhoods they know

39:48and love. I am co-chairperson of the

39:52Western PAL LGBTQ plus older adult

39:55advocacy team and I speak to you on

39:58behalf of our team. I'm asking city coun

40:03council to pass this legislation that

40:06would make it easier for homeowners to

40:09create ADUs citywide.

40:13Part of our team's mission in advocacy

40:16is to work to change laws and ordinances

40:20that will benefit our LGBTQ plus and all

40:24other older populations.

40:27In a 2019 survey re residents aged 50

40:32plus conducted by Perth ad center,

40:3669%

40:38of the respondents noted that housing

40:42was the most pressing issue for LGBTQ

40:46seniors.

40:48Adus can provide one important housing

40:52option for our community. Adus offer a

40:57way to include smaller, relatively

41:00affordable homes in established

41:03neighborhoods with minimal visual impact

41:06and without adding to the area's sprawl.

41:11Adus, as has already been said, can

41:14generate rental income to help

41:16homeowners cover mortgage payments or

41:20simply make ends meet. The income

41:24provided by an ADU ADU tenant can be

41:28especially important for older people on

41:31fixed incomes.

41:34ADUs can help support family caregiving,

41:38provide more affordable housing options,

41:41and help people of all ages maintain

41:44their independence.

41:47So, I urge you to permit the

41:49establishment of ADUs and provide a

41:53housing resource that older adults can

41:56use to live and thrive in safety,

42:00comfort, and with respect. Thanks.

42:04>> Thank you. Our next speaker is David

42:07Brangan, followed by Maline McGrady.

42:13>> Hello. Can you hear me?

42:14>> We can.

42:16Okay, great. Uh, this is Dave Bringan.

42:18I'm the co-director at Lawrenceville

42:20Together, which is the emerged

42:21organization of Lawrenceville United and

42:23Lawrenceville Corporation. Our mission

42:25is to build opportunity and community

42:28for all who live and work in

42:30Lawrenceville. And we have over a

42:31thousand members. Um, [clears throat]

42:34Lawrenceville Together deliberated about

42:36this latest policy for uh a bit here.

42:39And um just to share some of our points

42:42um you know we support legalizing ADUs

42:44and parking reform full stop. Um we did

42:48want to say I think as no surprise to

42:50anyone here in this room that

42:52Lawrenceville Together supports the

42:54original approach from the housing needs

42:55assessment and still believes that an

42:57expansion of mandatory inclusionary

42:59zoning is was the and continues to be

43:03the best policy for the city of

43:05Pittsburgh. Um but given that council

43:07has moved on from that in favor of the

43:09affordable housing bonus program, um we

43:12do have uh you know some things we think

43:15council should do. One is to fix the

43:17affordability tenure to at least 35

43:20years. Um you know nationally um most

43:25policies are way beyond 35 years. It's

43:28been studied ad nauseium. It really does

43:30not affect um like many other features

43:32of an inclusionary housing policy do. um

43:35you know the proformas um so this is an

43:39easy one uh to correct that doesn't

43:41there there are not the same kinds of

43:43tradeoffs in terms of how many projects

43:45can pencil there's really no reason to

43:47keep it at 20 years and council should

43:49fix that to um to make it consistent

43:51with the ICO of at least 35 years like

43:54Andrea said we've not heard from a

43:56single developer who who that was an

43:58issue before. Um, number two, ensure

44:01that the payment and L funds are set

44:02high enough to create a one forone

44:04housing replacement. And, you know, make

44:06sure that those funds are earmarked

44:08toward housing for low-income and

44:10extremely low-income households. Um, and

44:12we would encourage you to prioritize

44:14social housing um, out of that. And, and

44:17finally, number three, uh, you know,

44:19making sure that, uh, you're leaving the

44:21inclusionary zoning overlay

44:22uncompromised. There should not be

44:24different incentives or density bonus

44:27standards inside and outside the

44:29inclusionary zoning overlay because that

44:32will undermine our efforts to promote

44:34mixed income housing in Lawrence. While

44:36there should be consistency and clarity

44:38across the city, um I think this latest

44:40iteration um does a much much better job

44:43of that than what originally went to

44:45planning commission a year ago.

44:47Finally, we did want to say that we are

44:49concerned about the maximum allowable

44:50height under the plus4 bonus points in

44:53the LNC specifically, which would affect

44:55Butler Street and Pen Avenue in Lawren.

44:58Um we we do have some concerns that this

45:01may you know if used uh negatively

45:03impact adjacent residents, create some

45:06buildings that are very out of context

45:08and unintentionally incentivize the

45:11demolition of historic buildings andor

45:13larger commercial footprints that may

45:15undermine our small independent business

45:17district. So we would advocate for at

45:19least just for LNC that 30 ft should be

45:22the maximum allowable height bonus um

45:25just to protect against those unintended

45:27effects. Um and finally um you know I I

45:30do think residential compatibility

45:31standards are quite strict um and some

45:34loosening there is appropriate. Um but

45:36rather than a total waiver we would

45:38recommend you know a a little bit uh of

45:41something much more simplified like a

45:43simple 20 to 30 foot height buffer

45:45holding max building height to 50 ft

45:47where a property is adjacent to a

45:49residential district. So thank you.

45:51Thank you for consideration and I'll

45:54close it there.

45:56>> Thank you.

45:57Our next speaker is Maline McGrady,

45:59followed by Daniel Berg.

46:07Good afternoon, council. My name is

46:09Maddie McGrady. I'm a renter in Highland

46:12Park and a human rights program manager

46:14at the Global Switch Board. I'm speaking

46:17today as a co-chair of Pittsburgh

46:19Housing Justice Table. We're a coalition

46:21of groups, organizations, and residents

46:24working together to bring healthy,

46:26affordable, and accessible housing

46:28within reach to all residents in

46:29Pittsburgh and Alageney County as a

46:31human right. As you know, our coalition

46:34champions citywide mandatory

46:36inclusionary zoning, and we are

46:38disappointed that council opted to

46:40replace mandatory with a voluntary

46:43incentive program. Nonetheless, we

46:45welcome many improvements made to the

46:47voluntary program by the Department of

46:49City Planning, which are reflected in

46:51the legislation before you today.

46:53Specifically, we appreciate that the

46:55amended legislation creates more

46:57consistency in the zoning code in both

46:59ICO and nonIC districts. We also

47:02appreciate that this version aligns the

47:04existing affordable housing performance

47:06points with the standards in the ICO

47:08districts and allows these bonuses to be

47:11taken advantage of in other zoning

47:13districts. but notably not residential

47:15areas.

47:17Um, in terms of improvements, we would

47:19like to uplift the following

47:20recommendations. Um, echoing some other

47:23speakers, we recommend that council

47:26increase the affordability period from

47:2820 to 35 years as recommended by the

47:31Department of City Planning. This would

47:33be in alignment with affordability

47:35periods in similar programs across the

47:37country. Um, and there's really no

47:39evidence that a longer affordability

47:41period discourages developers from

47:43participating in a voluntary incentive

47:45program, especially given how generous

47:47the incentives are. We should be

47:50maximizing the public benefit and um

47:54making it consistent with the ICO

47:56districts. We also recommend that

47:58council or perhaps the mayor's office

48:00based on the zoning administrator

48:02administrator's presentation allocate

48:05the payment and l funds to a social

48:07housing fund in order to protect more of

48:09our city's housing from the speculative

48:11real estate market and expand our supply

48:14of affordable and democratically

48:16controlled housing. Uh, additionally, we

48:19echo calls that payment and loo amounts

48:21are equal to or exceed the actual costs

48:24of constructing affordable housing,

48:25which city planning identified as about

48:28$35 per square foot, although that could

48:31increase um in the future. Uh, and then

48:34lastly, um, we urge council to pass

48:37short-term rental zoning and licensing

48:39legislation alongside this package as a

48:42complement to the ADU legislation. If

48:45council adopts these recommendations and

48:48passes short-term rental regulations,

48:50this package has potential to be a step

48:53forward for poor and working-class

48:54people in the city. Thank you.

48:58>> Thank you. Our next speaker is Daniel

49:00Berg, followed by Laura Chu Wis.

49:04Thank you, city council. My name is Dan

49:05Berg. I also live in Polish Hill and I'm

49:07on the Polish Hill Civic Association

49:09board and we have submitted a written uh

49:12statement as well but we wanted to come

49:14and present and uh generally we support

49:18the effort uh to increase affordable

49:20housing in the city of course and many

49:22of the points in the in the uh in the

49:25new bill and we appreciate city

49:27planning's efforts to come and speak to

49:28us. They did hold a session in our in

49:30our community association which was well

49:32well respected well well appreciated. uh

49:35more we want to speak and we've heard

49:36some of the concerns raised or earlier

49:38by earlier speakers regarding specifics

49:40of the the the bill uh for example for

49:44ADUs uh we support the idea of ADUs but

49:47as the last speaker said we think that

49:48if you're going to bring a more ADUs to

49:52to a neighborhood it should be

49:54accompanied by regulations regarding the

49:57management of those ADUs so that they're

49:59bringing long-term residency and not

50:02specifically for short-term rental and

50:04if they're going to be used for

50:05short-term rental to make sure that it's

50:07uh accompanied by uh regulation on how

50:10those short-term rentals are used um and

50:13that we ensure we have property managers

50:14that know how to manage them

50:16responsibly.

50:18Uh regarding the affordable housing

50:19bonus uh and the payment in LW option uh

50:23we want to make sure that it doesn't uh

50:25undermine inclusive zoning and if there

50:28is a payment in loo the city should make

50:30sure that those payments stay in in the

50:32neighborhoods that they the development

50:34occurs in. Um they should support

50:36alternative mixed income housing and the

50:39community should have a role in how some

50:41of that uh funding is used. uh regarding

50:46um the we already heard about the uh

50:49length of time. We also agree that 35

50:51years should be the the tenor of

50:55requirements for affordable housing

50:56under rental agreements. And we're not

50:59sure exactly what off-site uh options

51:02are available and what that means. Will

51:04it mean that somebody can put affordable

51:06housing well outside of the

51:08neighborhoods where they're doing their

51:10development? We want to make sure that

51:11that allows for attention to the

51:13neighborhoods where the developments are

51:15occurring. Uh, regarding height

51:17allowances, we also agree that the

51:18height allowances could be and should be

51:21focused to the to the neighborhoods and

51:23should be not uh generally set without

51:26regard to the existing neighborhood

51:28impact. Uh speaking from Polish Hill, we

51:30all love our views out over the city and

51:32there's a lot of concern amongst the

51:33neighbors that a major development would

51:36block the views out over the city and

51:39could affect air flow and of course uh

51:41home values. And finally, parking. Um we

51:45do support uh liberalization of parking

51:47in general, but again, it should be

51:49neighborhood by neighborhood to some

51:51degree. At least an analysis should be

51:52done. And we in Polish are quite

51:54concerned about the loss of some of the

51:56public transit that we had in our

51:58neighborhood and would encourage that

52:00any parking changes be made on a

52:02neighborhood by neighborhood basis with

52:04some concern about what the the uh park

52:07the public transit situation is. Thank

52:09you.

52:10>> Thank you.

52:12Our next speaker is Laura Chu followed

52:14by Candace Kaine.

52:18>> Hi there. Good afternoon. My name is

52:20Laura Chu. I'm the executive director of

52:22Pittsburgh's Republic transit. I'd like

52:24to speak today in support of zoning bill

52:2520251545.

52:28As you know, our community of transit

52:29riders and workers sees the critical

52:31importance of the availability of

52:33affordable and dense housing in

52:35proximity to our best transit lines,

52:36which are predominantly in the city of

52:38Pittsburgh. And right now with the bus

52:40line refresh, we are negotiating the

52:42very real harms of transit riders being

52:44displaced outside of the city into our

52:46outer ring suburbs where there's a

52:48devastating intersection of poor and

52:50costly transit service, the lack of

52:52accessible and safe pedestrian

52:54infrastructure and little housing

52:56density to support a minimum number of

52:58transit riders per stop. This zoning

53:00bill takes several important steps in

53:02the right direction to remedy these

53:03issues. We strongly support the

53:05elimination of parking minimums, the

53:07maintenance of parking maxims, which can

53:09significantly reduce the parking

53:10construction in excess of demand, which

53:13also drives up rental costs. We strongly

53:15support the fixes in the zoning code to

53:17create consistency across the IZ and

53:19nonIS districts for density bonuses in

53:21exchange for affordability um and

53:23adjusting the affordable housing

53:25performance points to 50% AMI. We

53:27strongly support the TDM legislation

53:29which will incentivize and support

53:31non-car travel in our city and the buy

53:34right ADU zoning. And in fact, on a

53:36personal note note, my aging mother is

53:38now in need of closer family caretaking.

53:40And so I look forward to turning my

53:41garage into an accessible and

53:43comfortable home for her. That bill,

53:45this bill makes it possible. We are

53:47calling on council to fix the

53:48affordability tenure to at least 35

53:50years. And that payment in Lou uh

53:53amounts are set high enough to create

53:54the one for one housing replacement. in

53:56our earmarked towards low-income and

53:58extremely low-income housing uh with a

54:00priority towards social housing and that

54:03there not be different incentives or

54:04density bonuses standards inside the ICO

54:07and outside of it. Um so there's

54:09consistency citywide and no perverse

54:11incentives to build outside the ICO. Um

54:14we were and still are vocal supporters

54:16of citywide but recognize that that's

54:18not on the table today um for

54:21consideration and see the progress that

54:23has been made in this discussion. um and

54:27uh want to appreciate the planning

54:28commission's substantial work too in

54:30shaping this final product. Please do

54:32pass the bill with the adjustments noted

54:34above. Thank you for your time.

54:37Thank you. Our next speaker, next and

54:39final speaker who is registered is

54:41Candace Kaine.

54:45My name is Candace Kaine and I live in

54:47Fine View. I ask that certain parts of

54:49the bill be given more thought. The

54:51city's use of blanket zoning, treating

54:54all neighborhoods the same, is harming

54:56Fine View. Fine View has unique terrain

54:59with steep hills, and winding narrow

55:01streets. We love the beautiful and

55:03interesting views created by our hills.

55:06We should not be zoned as though we have

55:08wide level streets, long driveways, and

55:11twocar garages as some neighborhoods

55:13have. If the city wants to repopulate,

55:15it will need different types of

55:17attractive neighborhoods. Do not treat

55:20every neighborhood the same. Keep the

55:22personalities.

55:23Fine View is a low to moderate income

55:25neighborhood with only about 1,200

55:27residents. Our residents welcome

55:29affordable housing. We value it. In the

55:321990s and 2000s, Fine View residents

55:35built over 30 affordable houses that

55:37attracted new families long term. I was

55:40involved in that effort. The lessons

55:42from that achievement, building houses

55:44that people want to buy and live in for

55:47many years, should not be forgotten. Our

55:50newly built detached houses at the time

55:52included off- streetet parking, covered

55:55front porches with nice urbaniz yards.

55:58The houses we built were affordable,

56:00some with subsidies, and drew diverse

56:03buyers, including single mothers of

56:05color. Pittsburgh's different

56:07neighborhoods deserve individualized

56:09zoning as well as the state and local

56:11subsidies.

56:13Regarding ADUs, I ask you to vote no on

56:15allowing accessory dwelling units prior

56:18to licensing and regulating short-term

56:21term rentals. Further, reduce the number

56:23of ADUs allowed to one per lot. Why

56:27allow two ADUs in every neighborhood

56:30lot? That means every lot will be able

56:33to have three homes. That will produce

56:36more cars in Fine View. And why is there

56:38no owner occupied requirement? This

56:41scheme benefits investors, not planning

56:44and not families. [cough]

56:46Currently, nothing prevents these ADUs

56:49from becoming Airbnbs. The regulation of

56:52short-term rentals is still pending at

56:54the planning commission. Although some

56:56residents located at the southern end of

56:59Fine View can walk to more public bus

57:01services, most residents need a car to

57:04manage, especially older residents. We

57:06primarily use street parking. Fine

57:10View's many short-term rentals eat up

57:12what little street parking is available.

57:14Fine View needs a parking solution, not

57:17blanket zoning, that removes existing

57:20off- streetet parking requirements.

57:24Apartment building heights that

57:25negatively affect nearby residents

57:27should not be permitted. Fine View has

57:29beautiful sunrises and sunsets

57:31throughout our neighborhood. Our

57:32attractive features are our views and

57:34our big sky. Allowing extra height for

57:37apartment buildings in our compact areas

57:39will damage what we love. The goal

57:42should be to attract residents to the

57:44city of Pittsburgh. This bill requires

57:46more study in certain areas and a slower

57:49pace of change. Thank you.

57:51>> Thank you.

57:53[snorts] So that exhausts our list of

57:55registered speakers. Our next order of

57:58business will be taking comments from

58:00unregistered speakers in the audience.

58:02When you approach the podium, you can

58:04simply provide your name and

58:05neighborhood for the record. You you

58:06will have three minutes to speak.

58:08>> Good afternoon. My name is Barbrey Hill

58:11and I'm a volunteer with AARP of

58:13Pennsylvania and I'm speaking today on

58:15behalf of nearly 80,000 members

58:18throughout greater Pittsburgh. A AARP is

58:21a nonpartisan nonprofit organization

58:24representing nearly 1.8 million Pennians

58:28aged 50 and older. Our mission is to

58:31empower young empower people to choose

58:34how they live as they age. AARP supports

58:38policies that expand housing choice,

58:40improve affordability, and help

58:42residents remain in their communities as

58:45they age. We appreciate the opportunity

58:47to commit comment today on bill

58:5020251545.

58:53Pittsburgh has many communities

58:55throughout the Commonwealth faces

58:57significant housing challenges. Rising

59:00housing costs, limited housing supply,

59:02and changing household needs make it

59:05increasingly difficult for many

59:07residents, including older adults, to

59:09find housing that is affordable,

59:11accessible, and located near

59:13transportation services. healthcare and

59:16family support networks.

59:19While AARP supports the uh overall

59:22direction of the legislation, we

59:24encourage council to continue exploring

59:27opportunities to strengthen agefriendly

59:30housing provisions in future updates.

59:33Specifically, we encourage consideration

59:35of incentives for universal design and

59:38accessibility features, housing that

59:41supports aging in place, development

59:44near transportation, health care

59:46services, and neighborhood amenities,

59:48continued monitoring of how

59:50affordability programs serve moderate

59:53income income older adults living on

59:56fixed income. Pittsburgh has been

59:59recognized as a national in national

1:00:03research.

1:00:04This the AARP strongly supports the

1:00:07creation of the new pathways for

1:00:09affordability housing production. Thank

1:00:12you.

1:00:14>> Thank you.

1:00:16Next speaker, please.

1:00:24>> Good afternoon. My name is Yavon Rainey.

1:00:27I live in the Kbrite community. I'm a

1:00:30community activist for social justice

1:00:32and change. They call me the mouth from

1:00:34the south. I want to give a shout out to

1:00:37Councilman Bobby Wilson and Councilman

1:00:39Lavell, Councilman Kohari Mosley, and

1:00:43Councilwoman

1:00:44Barbara Warwick for being the champions

1:00:47you are for the community.

1:00:50I have a big concern in reference to

1:00:54the unhoused, affordable housing.

1:00:57We know that the city of Pittsburgh and

1:00:59all surrounding comm uh states are

1:01:01having this problem. I love the idea of

1:01:04having affordable housing within our

1:01:06community as it grow and we raise our

1:01:09families and also with our young mothers

1:01:13and single families. But the biggest

1:01:16thing is that we don't need the

1:01:19commercial

1:01:20uh business in our community for

1:01:24Airbnbs.

1:01:26That is a nightmare.

1:01:28A true nightmare.

1:01:31We have a very diverse community, 19

1:01:34neighborhoods on the north side. And I

1:01:37want you all to really think about or

1:01:39visit those communities and other

1:01:41communities because you have a lot of

1:01:43seniors like myself. That's why I say I

1:01:45realize I'm a senior now. I wasn't a

1:01:48long time ago. But you know, we raise

1:01:50our grandchildren there. We want safety.

1:01:53We want secure. We want stability. We

1:01:56want access to the buses, healthc care

1:02:00markets, schools that our children walk

1:02:03to. But when you're opening up to

1:02:07commercial people to come in with the

1:02:09Airbnbs,

1:02:11you talk it, you need to walk it and

1:02:13make sure they're accountable.

1:02:16Please.

1:02:17Also, parking. I was talking about Miss

1:02:19Candace Kane in Fine View. So, my

1:02:22communities are very small.

1:02:24And we have a lot of seniors as

1:02:26homeowners. Are you going to take away

1:02:28their parking?

1:02:30Think about it. And then you talk about

1:02:33building 10 stories or fivetory units in

1:02:36the community that's home to a lot of

1:02:40our communities. Take away our skylines.

1:02:43Our children, we take them up on the

1:02:44hill and look over. Make it make sense.

1:02:47All I ask you to do is to go back and

1:02:50revisit some of the things that every

1:02:53neighborhood has spoke about. And I'm

1:02:55looking forward to having homes built in

1:02:59our communities, especially black and

1:03:02brown, because that's where I come from.

1:03:05But I want you to really think about it.

1:03:07Are you putting dollars over people?

1:03:11I know we need to grow in our

1:03:14Pittsburgh, but think about it.

1:03:17And I thank you for allowing me to speak

1:03:20and thank for those who represents their

1:03:22community. Think about your community

1:03:24not about your you what your interest

1:03:27is. I thank you.

1:03:29>> Thank you. Next speaker please.

1:03:40>> Good afternoon. Uh I'm Rick Schwarz with

1:03:42the Bloomfield Garfield Corporation. uh

1:03:45our board uh in Garfield has not taken a

1:03:48position on the legislation but I can

1:03:51speak favorably about at least two

1:03:53components which would be uh the ADU

1:03:56reform and the parking reform. I think

1:03:59both of those are well considered and uh

1:04:02should be implemented. The one uh part

1:04:06of the legislation that we do have some

1:04:08concerns with is the affordable housing

1:04:11bonus program. Uh we have built housing

1:04:16and renovated housing in our

1:04:17neighborhood. Uh we own an apartment

1:04:21building on Penn Avenue that is 60 ft in

1:04:24height. It adjoins a residential

1:04:27district. Uh right across the street in

1:04:29the same block, there's another

1:04:31affordable housing development that's

1:04:33also 60 ft in height. Both of those

1:04:36blend fairly well with the adjoining

1:04:39neighborhood. If we're talking about

1:04:42increasing the height allowance by as

1:04:44much as 40% or more, I think uh there's

1:04:48going to be some other impacts that

1:04:51arise from uh uh that uh allowable

1:04:55height uh differential. Uh when we talk

1:04:59with developers other than nonprofits uh

1:05:03private developers, they will tell you

1:05:05that zoning is probably only one of 10

1:05:10uh important factors in whether they go

1:05:13forward with a project. Uh the recent

1:05:16conversations that we've had with

1:05:18for-profit developers around building

1:05:20rental housing in our community, uh they

1:05:23have told us pretty much flat out that

1:05:26they are not building any affordable

1:05:28housing no matter how attractive the

1:05:31city would make it. And the reason for

1:05:33that is that the return on investment

1:05:36just isn't there. Uh the URRA just

1:05:40approved a new rental housing

1:05:42development in Homewood. The cost per

1:05:45unit uh which is a mix of one, two, and

1:05:49threebedroom units is $568,000

1:05:54per unit. The subsidy that has to flow

1:05:57into that project amounts to over

1:06:00$300,000

1:06:02per unit. the affordable housing bonus

1:06:05program is not going to build a bridge

1:06:09across that affordability gap even

1:06:12though I think it is well considered. I

1:06:16think again uh with uh the points that

1:06:19Andrew Moss made in Garfield we've

1:06:22cultivated our local neighborhood

1:06:24commercial district to be home to small

1:06:27entrepreneurs and small ma multifamily

1:06:31dwellings. the higher you go on a

1:06:34proposed development, the larger the

1:06:37footprint is going to have to be. So,

1:06:41uh, thinking again about the height

1:06:43allowance, uh, I think is is critical.

1:06:47Thank you.

1:06:48>> Thank you. Next speaker, please.

1:06:53>> Are there any further speakers?

1:06:55Okay. Having exhausted our list of

1:06:57registered speakers, we will now take

1:06:59comments from uh our unregistered

1:07:02speakers, we will now take comments from

1:07:04our uh fellow city council members. And

1:07:08I will actually start with our council

1:07:11members who are joining us online if

1:07:14either of our council members online

1:07:16would like to make comment.

1:07:27Yes, Councilwoman Gross.

1:07:29>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll lower my

1:07:31little online hand there. Thank you. Um,

1:07:34so I always am appreciative when people

1:07:37come um to testify with us either

1:07:40downtown in person or online. I

1:07:42apologize for being out sick this week.

1:07:44Um, but it was incredibly valuable

1:07:47hearing people's testimony.

1:07:50I didn't hear a lot of enthusiasm.

1:07:54Um, and I think this is a real mixed

1:07:56bag.

1:07:57Um, and I'm also

1:08:00struck

1:08:02that in seeing the presentation from the

1:08:05planning department that this is the

1:08:08first public presentation of this

1:08:11[snorts] version.

1:08:13Um,

1:08:15I'll go back and fact check myself, but

1:08:17I believe that when the planning

1:08:19commission had a public hearing

1:08:22in June, it was on

1:08:26the previous council version. Um, I I

1:08:30took screenshots of those timelines. Um,

1:08:35and I think there's still a lot of

1:08:36digesting that people are doing. So

1:08:41I don't think this is the way we're

1:08:42supposed to do zoning, right? So usually

1:08:45there's a council if council presents a

1:08:47zoning package and it goes to the

1:08:49planning commission. They have a pres

1:08:51they have a public hearing, a briefing

1:08:53and a public hearing on that language

1:08:56and then they are meant to send us a

1:08:58report or recommendation on that

1:09:01language.

1:09:03They are not meant to introduce new

1:09:05language of their own.

1:09:08Um, so and it's important because it

1:09:10takes a while to figure out the

1:09:13ramifications to figure out the impacts

1:09:16on your own neighborhoods to to make

1:09:18sure that enough people in the city have

1:09:22understood what's being proposed um

1:09:25before we change the zoning um for you

1:09:29know for themselves, for their

1:09:30neighborhoods or other places in the

1:09:32city that they care about. It's meant to

1:09:33be a very deliberative process with a

1:09:36lot of public input. Um, and this is

1:09:40brand new language. Um, so I just wanted

1:09:44to make sure that I note that and I will

1:09:45be saying that again if if and when it

1:09:47comes back to council at the standing

1:09:49committee agenda. Um, so I think it's

1:09:52it's I understand why there is really

1:09:55only a kind of tepid response here

1:09:58because I think we're still processing

1:10:02um what this means. And I certainly

1:10:04think that there's been a lot more

1:10:07public input on previous versions

1:10:09probably because the public had a chance

1:10:12to see it. Um, [clears throat]

1:10:15so that's my first reaction here. Um and

1:10:19then secondly,

1:10:21um I really

1:10:25the origin of this legislation being

1:10:28lumped together.

1:10:30Um I I'm years on the record of being

1:10:33enthusiastic about accessory dwelling

1:10:35units and I thank so many of the people

1:10:38who have worked and supported that

1:10:40initiative over the years. Um, I do

1:10:43think it's an historic form in my

1:10:45district that um should be easier than

1:10:49our current zoning code allows. Many of

1:10:51the streets um and vibrant vibrant main

1:10:55streets in the district that I represent

1:10:58have alley houses. That's basically what

1:11:00an accessory dwelling unit is, right?

1:11:02So, u 100 years ago or more, people

1:11:05built out a a house in the backyard.

1:11:08Um and so we have very very high

1:11:11population density that has kept our

1:11:14main streets um well supported while so

1:11:17many others across the cities um were

1:11:20abandoned

1:11:22um and maybe even demolished eventually.

1:11:24So having you know 15,000 people per

1:11:27square mile or more um near your small

1:11:30business district um means there's a lot

1:11:32of foot traffic, there's a lot of people

1:11:34around. it's easier to to stay in

1:11:36business even at this very very tough

1:11:38historic moment that we're in for Main

1:11:40Street retail. Um, and so I'm hugely a

1:11:45fan of of uh ADU reforms

1:11:48um and also of parking reforms. Just

1:11:52like as I just mentioned, so much of the

1:11:54the city built out before um we had

1:11:57parking requirements, they're really

1:11:59trolley car main streets, right? So they

1:12:01there were trolley car stops. Um and so

1:12:05there was no parking um on site at your

1:12:08little pizza shop or your little, you

1:12:10know, corner drugstore. Um and I think

1:12:13that's why these neighborhoods are still

1:12:17so vibrant and appealing and people want

1:12:20to live there. So in that way,

1:12:23Pittsburgh is like a house with good

1:12:24bones and we shouldn't tear out all the

1:12:26good board work or uh the front porch

1:12:28that makes it good community space. Um,

1:12:30I think that's true of our neighborhoods

1:12:32as well. So, I am concerned about the

1:12:34section that people are saying, um,

1:12:37which is the housing bonus points, which

1:12:39is not the original language that

1:12:40council. It's not even the second

1:12:42version that council sent over. This is

1:12:44again the section that's a whole wholly

1:12:46new. The the planning commission is

1:12:47actually just introduced new language

1:12:50and they want us to just amend this bill

1:12:52with their new language by substitution,

1:12:55which uh amended by substitution is a

1:12:57complete rewrite, right? every single

1:12:59word is substituted. Um

1:13:03so

1:13:05I am concerned that we do more damage

1:13:08than we do good. Um no matter what the

1:13:11title of the bill says. Um and certainly

1:13:15we definitely have substantive policy

1:13:18differences over um how we achieve

1:13:20affordability. And that should be

1:13:22debated. I think it's meant to be

1:13:24debated. Um and so I I again I wish we

1:13:27could separate the sections of the bill

1:13:28so that we could have a wholesome debate

1:13:30after and especially after the very very

1:13:33needed housing um dashboard is released

1:13:36which it isn't. Um, so we're still third

1:13:39year into it now having a debate about

1:13:41uh what policies impact um more housing,

1:13:45what what policies create more housing

1:13:48and what policies create more

1:13:49affordability

1:13:51um without having uh effects in front of

1:13:54us. So um I think that's that's all I I

1:13:58will say today. Um and I look forward to

1:14:02continuing the debate and I thank

1:14:04everyone here for their input online and

1:14:05in person. Appreciate it. Thank you,

1:14:07Madam Chair.

1:14:08>> Thank you, Councilwoman. I don't see any

1:14:10of our other council members online, so

1:14:12we will now move to those in the

1:14:13chambers. Council person Charlotte.

1:14:16>> Yes. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, and I

1:14:18will be relatively brief here. I again

1:14:21want to thank everyone who came down on

1:14:24this Wednesday afternoon. Um, I do want

1:14:28to acknowledge that I am enthusiastic

1:14:29about this bill. Um and I I think many

1:14:32others are enthusiastic and we did hear

1:14:33from some of the the enthusiasm today um

1:14:36supporting this bill in you know at

1:14:39least parts of it or um you know the

1:14:42bill as a whole. It's important to

1:14:44remember that we did try to separate

1:14:45this bill and go in separate pieces.

1:14:47That was something that you know

1:14:49ultimately we weren't able to do in the

1:14:50past. So passing it in this package you

1:14:54know I believe is is what was asked for

1:14:56from the rest of the body uh previously.

1:15:00That's where we are and happy to see it

1:15:02passed this way. Uh I do take a couple

1:15:05notes here that I think you know are

1:15:08important. The one thing that we've

1:15:09talked about a little bit is is this

1:15:11look back and I do understand the

1:15:13argument that we don't want to have that

1:15:14be something that comes that's written

1:15:16into the zoning code. It probably is not

1:15:19appropriate there. But I personally

1:15:21would like to see um you know similar to

1:15:24like our quarterly uh financial

1:15:26reporting. May maybe not quarterly maybe

1:15:28that might is too much. We don't build

1:15:29enough for a quarterly to be that

1:15:32useful, but maybe, you know, every six

1:15:34months or so having a report of this is

1:15:38what was built um and this is what took

1:15:40advantage of the or or even what is

1:15:43coming down the pike, you know, when the

1:15:44affordability

1:15:46uh or the the height bonus program.

1:15:49something like that I think you know as

1:15:50a report to council would be helpful

1:15:52just to see you know one I I think it's

1:15:54is just important and one of the the

1:15:57arguments that I made for the housing

1:15:58dashboard it's important to see how how

1:16:00little we're building um but also to see

1:16:03are people taking advantage of this are

1:16:05the is the calculation right are we

1:16:08actually waiting things appropriately

1:16:10for what bonuses people are taking

1:16:12advantage of um I think that's something

1:16:13that we do a really poor job of and you

1:16:17know if if we're using this as kind of a

1:16:20a carrot, you know, to to get additional

1:16:22height.

1:16:24Are we keeping track of of who's taking

1:16:26advantage of what bonuses? And that's

1:16:27something that exists in the rest of our

1:16:29code. If someone has public art and they

1:16:32get additional height from that, are we

1:16:33keeping track of that? Are we actually

1:16:35waiting that properly with with public

1:16:37art or wastewater or um you know the the

1:16:42right complex of affordability in a in a

1:16:45project? That's something that we need

1:16:47to be looking at consistently and

1:16:48auditing. And I do hope that that

1:16:51there's a companion piece to this bill

1:16:53that does address that. Um maybe in the

1:16:56most simple context of just did anyone

1:16:58take advantage of this in the last 6

1:16:59months. You know, report to council

1:17:02saying one project did or no projects

1:17:04did. I doubt it'll be that that much

1:17:07more than that with with how we're

1:17:09building right now. I I hope eventually

1:17:11in the future we've got cranes

1:17:13everywhere and we've got to say like

1:17:14this one did, this one didn't. You know,

1:17:17that's not the city we live in. It's not

1:17:18the city we've lived in for for a while

1:17:20here.

1:17:22Um I also want to just address some of

1:17:24the comments that I did here. Um you

1:17:27there was a a comment about multiple

1:17:29comments about airflow and and views and

1:17:32shadows and things like that.

1:17:34you know, no building is no building uh

1:17:39is too tall when we have such a housing

1:17:41need in this city. So, I'm sitting here

1:17:44listening to people talk about like what

1:17:46would happen if a building was 10

1:17:48stories tall in an LNC district. I've

1:17:50got that. I have College High-rise is 11

1:17:52stories tall in an LNC district in

1:17:54Allentown. Um those that's additional,

1:17:57you know, additional homes for residents

1:17:59most importantly, but it's also

1:18:00additional customers on East Warrington

1:18:02Street. It's uh you know a way that

1:18:05hopefully we can build up a business

1:18:06district there. I frankly can't think of

1:18:09a lot of parcels in my district where

1:18:12that kind of height would be possible.

1:18:14Um but I do have as we all have a lot of

1:18:16LNC districts. Like if we were able to

1:18:20build to 11 stories or 10 stories in

1:18:23Arlington in the LNC district there,

1:18:25that would be pretty cool. That would be

1:18:27something that we could we could really

1:18:29um you know improve the neighborhood

1:18:31because of. So, I I'm very supportive of

1:18:34the reforms specifically in the LNC

1:18:37districts and and just think of how cool

1:18:40that would be to have that many

1:18:42neighbors in these kind of neighborhoods

1:18:43here. Um, and the the only other thing,

1:18:46you know, on the other components of the

1:18:48bill, I think it's just really important

1:18:50to reiterate, no one is taking away your

1:18:52parking. And when we reform the parking

1:18:57reforms, that is just saying that we

1:18:58don't have to build parking. we don't

1:19:00have to build more parking than is

1:19:02necessary. The bigger factor on building

1:19:06parking is not actually the zoning code.

1:19:09It's it's actually the developer going

1:19:12out and assembling their capital stack

1:19:13and their financing.

1:19:15Developers cannot build or cannot get a

1:19:18project financed if they don't have the

1:19:21parking that the bank thinks is

1:19:23appropriate to make the project work.

1:19:25So, this is not coming through and I

1:19:27represent Southside, I represent

1:19:29Oakland, we've got tight parking

1:19:30everywhere. This is not saying, you

1:19:32know, we're going to take away your

1:19:33parking spots. This is it's important to

1:19:35remember that this just means that we

1:19:38can now build the amount of parking that

1:19:40is appropriate for this project and for

1:19:43the for this neighborhood and that the

1:19:45the banks, you know, that they think

1:19:47will also work. So, um, you know, I

1:19:51think that's a message that we need to

1:19:52get out and we need to,

1:19:54uh, reiterate clearly and consistently

1:19:57over and over again that we're no one is

1:19:59taking away anyone's parking spaces. Um,

1:20:03you know, this is something that I heard

1:20:04when we talked about parking reform when

1:20:05we we talked about this multiple years

1:20:08ago because this has been something

1:20:09we've been going through for for quite

1:20:11some time in, you know, in Knoxville

1:20:13that they're going to come and they're

1:20:15going to take away our parking away. No,

1:20:18like there's no project that is is

1:20:20coming to Knoxville that where that this

1:20:23would actually be applicable. The

1:20:24parking that exists will stay there. If

1:20:26if we were lucky enough to get someone

1:20:28to make that kind of investment in

1:20:29Knoxville, it would just say that they

1:20:32have to build the amount of parking

1:20:33that's appropriate. Um, and the other

1:20:35thing just I my wholehearted support for

1:20:37ADUs.

1:20:39uh edus are incredibly expensive and I I

1:20:42really thank the folks from AP for

1:20:44coming down today and acknowledging what

1:20:46this can mean. I I don't think that we

1:20:48will see a huge influx of ADUs

1:20:50unfortunately just because of how cost

1:20:52prohibitive they are, but they're a

1:20:55great reform and if someone can put one

1:20:58in um you know we heard the executive

1:21:00director of Pacific Public Transit

1:21:02talking about wanting to turn her uh her

1:21:05garage in to an ADU. That's that's

1:21:07fantastic. We we'd love to see more of

1:21:09that happen. Um but again, they are

1:21:11really cost prohibitive. When we did the

1:21:13pilot previously,

1:21:15no nothing was no ADUs were actually

1:21:18built because of that, which is

1:21:19unfortunate. I think it's, you know,

1:21:20hopefully something we can learn a lot

1:21:22more about and figure out what other

1:21:23subsidies we need to create to make ADUs

1:21:26work and build ADU production in the

1:21:28city here. Um so again, this has my

1:21:30enthusiastic support. Uh, and I look

1:21:33forward to when this comes to the agenda

1:21:35and we can uh finally vote it through.

1:21:38Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:21:40>> Thank you, Council Person and Council

1:21:42Member Warwick.

1:21:43>> Yeah, thanks. Um, so yeah, thank you to

1:21:46everyone who who came out. Um, uh,

1:21:51with this bill, I'm going to really

1:21:52focus on the inclusionary zoning. Um,

1:21:54obviously the the ADU portion and the

1:21:57the parking reform portion. I'm

1:22:00wholeheartedly support um

1:22:04you know more than 800 cities have

1:22:06inclusionary zoning including Pittsburgh

1:22:09right uh and uh inclusionary zoning is

1:22:12about more than just building housing

1:22:16it's ensuring that we have affordable

1:22:18housing in high amenity neighborhoods

1:22:20right like that's the purpose and uh in

1:22:22a city that is as segregated as

1:22:26Pittsburgh um it's especially important

1:22:28right So, we are building uh in

1:22:33neighborhoods like the Strip District,

1:22:34Shady Side, etc. And we want to make

1:22:36sure that we're not just building for um

1:22:39wealthy folks who can afford, you know,

1:22:42$2,2500

1:22:44a month rents for a one-bedroom, but

1:22:46that we're also making sure that there

1:22:48is affordability for the folks who work,

1:22:51for example, in those in those

1:22:52districts, right? In those

1:22:54neighborhoods. um you know, the person

1:22:55who's pouring your coffee or or waiting

1:22:58the table or or whatnot. Um or or you

1:23:01know, cleaning the building or working

1:23:02in security. Um so, you know, I was of

1:23:06course a supporter of the mandatory

1:23:08inclusionary zoning citywide. Um but

1:23:11that was not uh that was not the will of

1:23:14this council. Uh and and and by the way,

1:23:17there were we had

1:23:20over the course of various public

1:23:22testimonials, I would say hundreds of

1:23:23people come and and um ask this council

1:23:26to vote for mandatory inclusionary

1:23:28zoning on um you know, the the ask at

1:23:31that time was that two units of every 20

1:23:33units in in large-scale projects uh be

1:23:36be affordable to folks at 50% AMI, which

1:23:39I believe is, you know, roughly 55 to

1:23:42$60,000 for a family of four I believe

1:23:45is the 50% AMI. I have to check that.

1:23:48But um at any rate, but you know, here

1:23:51we are uh

1:23:54you know, we are looking now at this um

1:23:57um voluntary program. So I really do

1:23:59hope that the bonus points are enough uh

1:24:03to ensure that our developers do opt in

1:24:07uh and do that that um that inclusionary

1:24:11zoning in their projects. Uh, and uh, I

1:24:14I do have some concerns about the opt

1:24:17out fee and the off-site option simply

1:24:20that that they um,

1:24:23you know, that that you could get those

1:24:25bonuses, but then you know that that the

1:24:29affordable housing then goes

1:24:31in

1:24:34neighborhoods that are, you know, less

1:24:35desirable, farther away from transit,

1:24:37that type of thing. thus just continuing

1:24:39with the the segregation issue that we

1:24:42that we already have here in Pittsburgh

1:24:43with our affordable housing. Um but um

1:24:46but I think that um

1:24:49uh I think that how that fund is you you

1:24:52know if if developers do indeed opt into

1:24:55this and if developers then choose the

1:24:58fund rather than actually building the

1:25:00affordable housing um in their um

1:25:06in the project itself. Uh the question

1:25:08would be of course how is that money

1:25:11used right? What what types of projects?

1:25:13Um you know I think it would be nice to

1:25:17see that money go toward projects that

1:25:19are actually doing the thing that is

1:25:21intended to do which would be projects

1:25:22that are including affordability and are

1:25:24in high amenity transitrich uh

1:25:28communities. But whatever the case is, I

1:25:30hope that um that our that the the the

1:25:34primary folks that we are talking with

1:25:36for how to use that funding are in fact

1:25:40um our affordable housing advocates and

1:25:42our affordable housing developers,

1:25:45right? Who who who are living and

1:25:47breathing this afford affordable housing

1:25:50problem every day, right? As opposed to

1:25:52to bringing in sort of the market rate

1:25:54developers. Um uh but at any rate that

1:25:58is that is the next step. Uh the other

1:26:01uh concern and we've heard this as well

1:26:03is about the um the 20year cap on

1:26:08affordability that was um introduced by

1:26:11uh planning commissioners. Um I think

1:26:15that we certainly need to keep that 35

1:26:17year at minimum right 35 year minimum.

1:26:20Um, I do have a just sort of an

1:26:23anecdotal. Um, there there's a resident

1:26:25uh in Greenfield who is living in

1:26:27Greenfield, a woman, she's 50 years old,

1:26:30disabled, and she has a son, an adult

1:26:33son with autism who she cares for. And

1:26:36uh she was uh fortunate enough to get um

1:26:40get a unit in the in the Albon, right,

1:26:44in this new, you know, this really

1:26:45beautiful new building in uh

1:26:47Lawrenville, I believe. Yeah. And so,

1:26:50um, you know, with a 20-year cap to, so

1:26:53she got this unit, that's great. She's

1:26:5450. With the 20-year cap, she could find

1:26:57herself at age 70 having just losing

1:26:59that affordability and then having to

1:27:00move, right? So, um, I think at, you

1:27:03know, at least the the sort of lifetime

1:27:07of a young family or the lifetime of an

1:27:09older person, right? You want that

1:27:10affordability to last so that you can be

1:27:12sure that those folks can actually stay

1:27:14in those units long term. um and uh a

1:27:1835-y year minimum seems uh m much closer

1:27:22to that than a than a 20-year. So, I

1:27:24hope that that's something that we can

1:27:26work on uh here at council. And uh but

1:27:29yeah, other than that, you know, um I'm

1:27:34you know, it's it's it's not exactly the

1:27:36road I would have chosen, but um but I I

1:27:40think, you know, it's it's a path that

1:27:42that we are on and that um I am am going

1:27:47to support, you know, with of course

1:27:49some some work on on a few of the

1:27:51details. So um yeah, with that, thank

1:27:53you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And that's

1:27:55all for me.

1:27:56>> Thank you.

1:27:59So, uh, briefly, I just wanted to, um,

1:28:03almost do a speed round of just some

1:28:05clarifications with our planning

1:28:06department representatives,

1:28:08if you could. Um, I don't think I really

1:28:11need elaboration, even yes or no answers

1:28:13are fine to one of the questions we

1:28:16heard today. Indeed, the the sunset the

1:28:18sunsetting of any

1:28:21is no longer in the bill. Is that

1:28:23correct?

1:28:23>> Correct.

1:28:24>> Yes. Okay. Thank you.

1:28:26um and that we've heard concerns not

1:28:30just from one neighborhood but from

1:28:32several neighborhoods about the the

1:28:33height um for additional bonuses in LNC

1:28:37districts when some LNC districts have

1:28:41um you know either a condition where

1:28:43they're surrounded by by much less dense

1:28:46areas residential areas or um a very

1:28:49particular type of LNC district that has

1:28:52you know currently a max of 45 feet Um,

1:28:56uh, I'm going to sound like a lawyer for

1:28:58a second, but is it true that you are

1:29:00working with council members, um, to on

1:29:03some creative strategies to address that

1:29:05that concern?

1:29:06>> Yes.

1:29:07>> Okay, great. Thanks. Um, and then the

1:29:10payment in loo, is it um is it correct

1:29:14that I'm am I understanding correctly

1:29:16that we would be then legally required

1:29:19for a payment in LO to be used for the

1:29:22original purpose of the bill? So like it

1:29:25can't just be used for any which

1:29:28program that has to do with housing. It

1:29:30would have to sort of be tied to the the

1:29:33the mission of the bill to create

1:29:35affordable housing units that would be

1:29:37somewhat comparable to the the mission

1:29:39of either voluntary or mandatory

1:29:41program.

1:29:43>> Generally correct. Uh you know there's

1:29:44there's what's called rational nexus and

1:29:46you know for the regulations that we put

1:29:47into place and so yes. So as we work on

1:29:51a companion bill to allow for the

1:29:55payment in lie to be

1:29:58put somewhere and then it would be my

1:30:01understanding would be guidelines that

1:30:03would be created similar to our other

1:30:05sort of um I don't know what would you

1:30:07call them bonus programs or off-site

1:30:09programs. Yeah, they're called they're

1:30:11called trust funds. The the payment in

1:30:12loo goes into a city trust fund. Um and

1:30:15then there are

1:30:17>> the city trust fund is enabled by

1:30:19council legislation and then there are

1:30:21associated guidelines that um restrict

1:30:24or allow the method of spending of those

1:30:26funds. Uh the spending of those funds uh

1:30:28ultimately is something that is approved

1:30:30by city council as well.

1:30:31>> And so the guidelines are going to be

1:30:33the real critical part in the payment in

1:30:35LO. and that has not yet we're we're

1:30:37still in conversation with city planning

1:30:39with council members to try to figure

1:30:40out the best and possible use of these

1:30:42these funds and uh utilizing and

1:30:45leveraging them to the to the utmost to

1:30:47advance the goal of building affordable

1:30:49housing in transit rich resourcerich you

1:30:53know sort of more market rate um rich uh

1:30:57districts or neighborhoods.

1:31:00Um,

1:31:02okay. I think those are all my questions

1:31:04and again I just want to reiterate what

1:31:06everyone has already said. I really

1:31:07greatly appreciate the energy from not

1:31:10just the energy but the time that people

1:31:12have spent and the thoughtfulness of the

1:31:13comments today and um and everyone for

1:31:16uh coming down to to testify. So, thank

1:31:18you for your comments and I hear I hear

1:31:21and I have taken notes on what everyone

1:31:22has said and I'm sure my colleagues have

1:31:24as well. Um so without any further

1:31:29business and having exhausted the

1:31:30business of this particular public

1:31:32hearing this meeting is adjourned.

1:31:59>> [music]

1:32:06[music]

1:32:16[music]