2026-10-13 - City Council - Public Hearing

00:18Good afternoon and welcome to Pittsburgh

00:20City Council's Cablecast public hearing

00:22for Tuesday, October 13, 2026 relative

00:25to Bill 834. Would the clerk please read

00:27the title of the bill? Bill 834,

00:29ordinance amending the Pittsburgh Code,

00:31Title 9, Zoning Code. Article 1,

00:34Introduction and Establishment. Chapter

00:36901, General Provisions. Chapter 902,

00:40Zoning Districts in General. Article 2,

00:43base zoning district. Chapter 9003,

00:47Residential Zoning Districts. Chapter

00:49904, Mixed Use Zoning Districts. Chapter

00:54905, Special Purpose Districts. Article

00:58three, overlays zoning districts.

01:01Chapter 906, Environmental Overlay

01:03Districts. Chapter 9007, Development

01:06Overlay Districts. Article 4, Planning

01:10Districts. Chapter 908, Public Realm

01:13Districts. Chapter 909, Planned

01:15Development Districts. Chapter 910,

01:18Downtown Districts. Article 5, Use

01:21Regulations. Chapter 911, Primary Uses.

01:24Chapter 912, accessory uses and

01:27structures. Chapter 913, use exceptions

01:31and conditions not listed in use table.

01:34Article 6, development standards.

01:36Chapter 9:15, Environmental Performance

01:39Standards. Chapter 916, Residential

01:42Compatibility Standards. Chapter 918,

01:46Landscaping and Screening Standards.

01:48Chapter 919, Signs. Chapter 920, Child

01:52Care Regulations. Article 7,

01:55nonconformities. Chapter 921,

01:58nonconformities.

01:59Article 8, Review and Enforcement.

02:02Chapter 922, Development Review

02:04Procedures.

02:06Article 9, Measurements and Definitions.

02:09Chapter 925,

02:11Measure Measurements. Chapter 926,

02:14Definitions.

02:16>> Thank you very much. For the record, we

02:18are joined by Councilman Mosley. Our

02:20first order of business will be brief

02:22introductions of the legislation by

02:24Carolyn Restau and Kate Ruckus from the

02:26Department of City Planning.

02:29>> Good afternoon.

02:34>> Uh so we are here today to uh introduce

02:37to you the um council bill 2026834

02:42uh which uh department of city planning

02:44calls the executive order phase one

02:46zoning amendments.

02:48um in our presentation uh we will go

02:50over

02:52uh just one second while we

02:55>> technical difficulties

03:06um

03:08yeah so we are going to go over the

03:10background on the executive order the

03:12timeline for this amendment package uh

03:15details of what's in it and then next

03:17steps

03:20Uh the executive order uh was signed um

03:24uh by Mayor Okconor um as executive

03:26order 202601

03:29um and calls for a variety of items um

03:32across multiple departments to um reform

03:35the permitting process. Um, for the

03:38zoning code, it specifically calls out

03:40that our code is outdated and it is um

03:45hard to build housing and bring economic

03:47opportunities to Pittsburgh because of

03:50um the issues with our code. Um,

03:53however, zoning is able to be a tool

03:55that can encourage affordability,

03:57growth, and responsible equitable

03:59development in all parts of Pittsburgh.

04:01And this um this amendment package is a

04:05first step towards the long overdue

04:07process of updating the entire zoning

04:09code.

04:13In uh phase one of the mayor's executive

04:16order directive, there were five items

04:20uh specifically related to updating the

04:22zoning code. Um the numbering system

04:26that you see on the slide was to help uh

04:28the departments keep track of all of the

04:29items that we had. um been tasked with

04:32in the executive order. Um you'll notice

04:34they're slightly out of numerical order

04:36in this list um as they are listed here

04:40sort of in um um level of complex of

04:45impact of the change.

04:49Uh for the timeline again the executive

04:51order um uh started with uh uh in

04:57January um and the full list of the

05:00items to address were uh provided to the

05:04departments um by March at which point

05:07uh DCP started working on developing the

05:11amendments for this package.

05:14In June, uh, in our monthly briefings

05:16with the council offices, uh, we

05:17provided an overview, um, of what was,

05:21um, in the draft, uh, amendments at that

05:25time. Um, [laughter]

05:26that was followed by taking it through

05:28the planning commission process um, in

05:31July. Uh, first notice was on July 7th.

05:35We had briefing on July 14th and then

05:38planning commission took action after

05:40public hearing on the 28th of July.

05:44Um, it was then referred with a positive

05:46recommendation to city council.

05:55Um,

05:57we also uh provided the 21-day notice in

06:00advance of today's public hearing

06:02through email um mailed and posted

06:04notices for the zone map change portion

06:06of the amendment um and providing

06:09notices on the city planning hearing

06:11notices page.

06:15So, the first section uh that we're

06:17going to go over for the amendment

06:19package is um the items relevant to the

06:24directive to remove obsolete sections

06:26and language of the zoning code to make

06:28it easier to use and understand.

06:32Our code has a lot of um old or

06:36redundant or um other complicated text

06:40in it. Um so this portion um touches on

06:44a variety of things. The first item uh

06:48to talk about is the view protection

06:50overlay. This was um added to the code

06:55in the 1990s as a text amended

06:57amendment, but it needs a map in order

07:00[clears throat] to be functional and a

07:02map was never adopted by the city

07:04council

07:06based on um information provided to me

07:09by planners at that time. a at least a

07:13first map was proposed and um I believe

07:17it did make it to the city council um

07:20for adoption but in the review and

07:24public comment period uh it was

07:26determined that um

07:30there there wasn't the desire to

07:32actually uh implement that. So, but in

07:37the meantime, the text portion of it has

07:39remained in our code um taking up space

07:42confusing people uh without us being

07:45able to to use it. And so, we propose to

07:49um to remove that text as part of the

07:51amendment.

07:53Another area in which we have obsolete

07:55language in our code is the Oakland

07:57public realm.

08:00Um, a couple of years ago, the city went

08:03through the process of adopting a

08:04neighborhood plan for Oakland that

08:06called for new uh mixeduse districts.

08:10And those districts were adopted after

08:14the the plan was adopted and those

08:17districts replaced the Oakland public

08:19realm and they also replaced a special

08:23plan district in Oakland. Um while the

08:27those districts were removed from the

08:28map, the text associated with them has

08:30remained in the code um but there is no

08:33intention of those districts ever being

08:36mapped again. And so we're proposing to

08:38remove that text.

08:42Another uh specially planned district

08:44that still remains in the text but has

08:47been removed from the map is the

08:48Palisades Park specially planned

08:50district. This uh was located in what it

08:53we now uh call Hayes Woods. There was a

08:57proposal early in the 2000s to develop a

09:00racetrack casino sort of development in

09:03that area of the city. It's a very uh

09:06interesting plan to read through the

09:07text, but it's not text that we can

09:10actually use. Um and so we are proposing

09:13to remove that from our code.

09:16Um, while we're on the topic of

09:18specially planned districts, at some

09:20point along the line, I'm not entirely

09:22sure how this happened, but um the

09:24specially planned district 8 for the

09:26riverfront landing got put in the code

09:28twice. Um, and so we are removing the um

09:32duplicate section.

09:36Another um

09:38uh issue that has arisen over time um

09:42[clears throat] is that uh several of

09:44our uh parent use definitions um have

09:48been removed without any legislation

09:51um stating that we intended them to be

09:54removed. Um, we're not entirely sure how

09:57this happened, but we believe there was

09:58some sort of miscommunication between

10:00the city and the um entity that um

10:05manages the online city code. Um, and

10:08they accidentally removed these parent

10:10definitions. Um, an example of that

10:13would be our multuite residential use

10:16which has um both a limited and a

10:18general use. Those the limited and the

10:21general are still in our code. it still

10:23states what districts that can be

10:25allowed but the parent definition

10:27explaining what multi-uete residential

10:29means is missing. Um

10:33so we are proposing to restore that and

10:35a handful of others um that again have

10:39been unintentionally rem removed over

10:42time.

10:44Um

10:45the next item is chapter 913. Um,

10:50chapter 913 is not standard among zoning

10:54codes. Um, it is a chapter that the

10:57intention is to list every single

11:00special exception administrator

11:02exception.

11:04Um, and I believe conditional use within

11:07the entire zoning ordinance in one

11:10location. Um, that is not a usable way

11:15of identifying those items. um if a

11:18project is eligible for an administrator

11:21exception for um a modification of the

11:25setbacks,

11:27nobody's going to go to chapter 913 to

11:29try and find that out. They're going to

11:30go to the setback section, which will

11:33state that under these conditions, this

11:36is eligible for an administrator

11:38exception. Um and because nobody really

11:42uses this chapter over the years, we

11:44haven't done a good job of updating it.

11:46So everything in this chapter is either

11:49obsolete because we've made a change

11:51elsewhere in the code or it's redundant

11:54um with the section that specifically

11:57details what you can do through the

11:59administrator exception or special

12:01exception.

12:02To resolve this we propose just removing

12:05that entire chapter.

12:09Uh the last item to discuss under the

12:11obsolete um and redundance redundancy

12:16section is um we are incorporating the

12:19proofreading edits that the clerk's

12:21office provided based on general codes

12:24um review of the entire city code uh

12:26when they um took over the management of

12:29our online code. um as that was

12:33consistent with our goal of making the

12:35code easier to use and understand. We're

12:36incorporating those edits here.

12:43Uh the next directive was to begin to

12:45reform the zoning code with smaller

12:47targeted changes um to help bring it in

12:50line with standards of comparable

12:51cities.

12:54Um that topic, excuse me, is also sort

12:58of an umbrella topic for the the

12:59following sections that we will discuss.

13:01Um but two items um that we have

13:05identified as part of this um this

13:08larger umbrella are um reszoning a

13:11portion of downtown uh to um enable more

13:15housing development. Uh this particular

13:17area is uh bounded by Stanwick's Fort

13:20Pit Boulevard, Commonwealth Boulevard

13:22and the Boulevard of the Allies. Um

13:26and we have some more slides to describe

13:29that. So before I go into the details, I

13:31do also just want to point out that um

13:33we are also clarifying the street tree

13:35requirements um in alignment with

13:37current code. And again, we have another

13:39slide about that particular one as well.

13:44So [snorts] here we have a map of the

13:46area of downtown um in question. Um this

13:50area is along the Manonga River um and

13:54uh adjacent to Point State Park.

13:57Its location next to Point State Park.

14:00Um under the current zoning, it is in

14:02the downtown subdist D zoning district.

14:07All of downtown

14:10uh zoning districts have an urban open

14:12space requirement. In most of downtown,

14:14it's a 10% open space requirement. Um on

14:18large lots in the subdist D, however, it

14:23is 60% open space of any lot of any

14:28size. Um

14:32on the next slide we have a aerial image

14:37uh that shows highlights the existing

14:40open space um in this portion of

14:43downtown. Um

14:46our assumption, we didn't do a full

14:49forensic zoning analysis of this, but

14:51our assumption is that gateway uh

14:54centers was built before this zoning

14:57requirement and the zoning requirement

14:59came after in order to maintain the

15:01condition that we have with uh the

15:03gateway center. Um, as um, many people

15:07would be familiar with, Gateway Center

15:09is, you know, several tall um, buildings

15:13surrounded by some really nice public

15:16green open space. Um, and it is one of

15:20the the early signature projects of of

15:22the redevelopment of downtown um, from

15:25earlier last century.

15:28The challenge is that um that much open

15:32space is really difficult to provide on

15:37a property. Um and in this area you can

15:40see um the um the lower right there is

15:46less open space um than in the other two

15:50blocks. Um and those um that block is

15:54divided up into small parcels that again

15:57each of those parcels would require 60%

16:00open space in order to be developed

16:02which is prohibitive.

16:06So we did a comparison of subdist C and

16:09subdistrict D to determine if this was

16:12an appropriate change of zoning

16:14district. Uh the purposes

16:17um

16:19the purpose of the subd district C was

16:21to encourage residential development um

16:24of relatively high density um with

16:28properly integrated commercial

16:29facilities

16:32that service that residential

16:33development. the um the height

16:37requirements were um the base height

16:40requirements were the same for both

16:42subdists, but in subdist C, residential

16:46uses are allowed um an increase in

16:50height uh with planning commission

16:51approval under certain conditions. And

16:56again, the the difference in the laws in

16:57the open space requirement um is pretty

17:00significant. um in subdist C again it's

17:03that 10% of the lot area and it's only

17:06required on lots of 20,000 square feet

17:10and so in some in our review we felt

17:13that the encouragement of residential in

17:15this area um and the reduction in the

17:17urban open space uh was a a good move

17:20for this particular block.

17:28Uh and then going back to the other item

17:30in the this category, um we are also

17:35updating the street tree requirements of

17:37our code. Um and when I say we're

17:39updating them, we are clarifying the

17:41language to be consistent with the

17:43policy that has been in place um for

17:46over 10 years. Um so we are clarifying

17:49the um where it says that the required

17:53tree pit size is 30 square ft. that's 30

17:56ft with a minimum width of 3 ft. Um

18:00clarifying that the trees need to be

18:02spaced 30 ft apart and also clarifying

18:05that the tree species must be selected

18:08from the list of recommended species

18:10maintained by the city forester.

18:16The next uh uh item from the executive

18:20order was to eliminate redundant

18:23dimensional standards, particularly

18:25floor area ratio requirements and um the

18:30um the regulations of height that are

18:34both in feet and stories. Um changing to

18:37a preference to a height in feet. Uh

18:40both of these would enable um new denser

18:43housing opportunities across the city.

18:50Looking at a little bit more detail of

18:52what that translates to in our zoning

18:54code, um

18:57most of our um older zoning districts

19:01regulate height in both feet and

19:03stories. Uh so this is um all of our our

19:08um residential zoning districts with all

19:12all five of the density subdists, the um

19:18the older mixed use zoning districts and

19:21our parks and hillside district um as

19:24well as some accessory use regulations.

19:27We're also removing floor area ratio

19:30requirements where those are redundant.

19:32Again, this is primarily in all mixed

19:34use, the older mixeduse zoning districts

19:37in our parks zoning district. There's

19:40one um one place that we found in the

19:43Grand View public realm where the height

19:46was only regulated in stories, but there

19:48was um a clear uh translation of that to

19:52height and feet that would be consistent

19:54with the other changes that we're

19:55making.

19:57And then we also are updating the bonus

20:00height criteria in the performance point

20:02system in order to align with these

20:05changes. Um so wherever the bonus

20:07heights are referring to heightened

20:09stories or F, we're cleaning that

20:12language up.

20:15And here's an example from one of those

20:17older uh mixeduse districts. Uh this is

20:20our site development table

20:23um for that district. Um it has a lot of

20:27items in it and there um changes that

20:32we're making are um to the text are

20:35small. Um we're again we're just

20:37removing the floor area ratio

20:39requirement. And then at the bottom uh

20:41where it says maximum height, we're

20:43keeping the height in feet. So we're not

20:45changing the the functional height that

20:47is permitted in the district. We're just

20:49removing the requirements for stories.

20:57Uh so we have some illustrations um of

21:01how uh these requirements have impacted

21:03our city. Um

21:07looking at a portion of East Carson

21:09Street,

21:10this um the existing built condition. Uh

21:14you can see

21:16hold on, let me take a step back for a

21:17second. Uh, East Carson Street is one of

21:19our local neighborhood commercial zoning

21:21districts that under the current

21:23regulations has a maximum height of 45

21:27ft, not to exceed three stories. And so,

21:30as we're uh looking here at street view

21:33of a portion of East Carson Street, we

21:35can see that um basically none of these

21:38buildings um um at least the ones on the

21:41left, all of those are four stories. Um

21:45and um on the the far right there is a

21:50three-story building but then it's

21:52adjacent to fourstory buildings. So the

21:54existing conditions of East Carson

21:56Street do not comply with the current

21:59zoning regulations because of the height

22:02and stories limitation.

22:04um as best as we could determine from

22:07measuring on Google um Google maps um

22:11they do comply with the 45 ft height

22:14requirement.

22:16Um

22:18and so this this shows the the green

22:21boxes illustrate if the whole street was

22:24built up to 45 ft. Um so there there is

22:29some room for additional growth within

22:32the context of this this area. Um you

22:35can see down the street and on the left

22:38there's a building that was clear

22:40clearly built after our zoning ordinance

22:43um was put in place. Um that looks to be

22:47um currently a one-story building. Um

22:52and so the again this the small change

22:55opens up the opportunity for for

22:57additional growth um within existing

23:01context.

23:05Right. The next item um that the mayor

23:08identified was to simplify height

23:11requirements um particularly in the

23:14urban neighborhood commercial zoning

23:15district um where uh denser um buildouts

23:20are um supportable.

23:31So looking at our urban neighborhood

23:32commercial district,

23:35this is uh the only uh district

23:40uh in our older districts that has

23:43multiple base height options. Um

23:46currently dependent upon whether it's

23:48within 1500 ft of a major transit

23:50facility.

23:52If um if a site is within that 1500 ft,

23:56the height maximum is currently 60 ft

24:00and four stories. And if you're outside

24:02of that, it's 45 ft and three stories.

24:06The urban neighborhood commercial

24:08district is very similar to our local

24:09neighborhood commercial district. Um the

24:12uses allowed are pretty pretty

24:14consistent across both. The main

24:16distinguishing feature between these two

24:19districts is height. And so, um, it, um,

24:25it doesn't make sense to, um, have the

24:28lower height limits in the UNCC. Um, if,

24:32if you wanted the kinds of uses allowed

24:34in the UNC, but you we wanted the the

24:37development to be limited to 45 ft, we

24:39can just put it in the local

24:41neighborhood commercial district, which

24:42already does that. Um and so the

24:45proposal is to remove that lower height

24:48requirement and make the 60 ft um

24:51without any stories um the base height

24:55maximum across the district.

25:00Relatedly the UNC does have a special

25:03exception for additional height and the

25:07urban industrial district has a similar

25:09special exception for additional height.

25:12Um both of those we are um modifying

25:17in that we are removing the um

25:21the height and stories references in

25:23those sections as well.

25:32And here's an example of uh one of our

25:35urban neighborhood commercial districts.

25:37This is um the one in Alageney Center.

25:40The um

25:42purple shaded area is the the boundaries

25:46of the urban neighborhood commercial

25:48district and the dotted line um

25:54uh is the border and like the bluish

25:57shaded lower portion is um the 1500

26:04foot major transit buffer as measured

26:07from the the T-top on uh the north side.

26:11Um, and so within that shaded area, um,

26:15under the current regulations,

26:17um, that's where the 60 ft and four

26:20stories height applies. Beyond that is

26:24where, um, the 45 ft and four stories

26:26apply. in this particular area. Um it's

26:30very clear that many of the existing

26:33buildings far exceeds that 45 foot

26:36threetory maximum.

26:40And um that looking at the the site that

26:44was highlighted in yellow um as a

26:47hypothetical for what could be built

26:49here. Uh again, under the current

26:51regulations, it would be limited to the

26:5445 feet and three stories in the the

26:56white portion here. Um and the the

27:00proposed edit that we have to increase

27:02the height across the district to 60 ft

27:05would enable um additional height at

27:07this site um to the green part.

27:14Um we also have a map here showing where

27:17our urban neighborhood commercial

27:18districts are. Um that's sort of the um

27:22maroon uh color I guess is what showing

27:25up on the screen. And then the the blue

27:28tealish circles are the major transit

27:31buffers. Um so most most of the UNCC's

27:36are located um either partially or

27:38wholly within one of the transit

27:40buffers. Um there are two exceptions

27:43that are completely with completely

27:45outside of that. Uh there's one uh small

27:48portion of the the waterworks area and

27:52um there's a um area on the west end uh

27:55of the city that is in EU and not near

27:58our transit buffer. [snorts]

28:00Um

28:05and we have a couple of close-ups of

28:07these areas that we can just

28:10page through.

28:28and I believe this was the last item in

28:30the um executive order that was

28:33identified for phase one, which is to

28:37adjust the outdated uh residential

28:39compatibility standards um to uh enable

28:43uh more vibrant neighborhoods with

28:45mixeduse amenities for small businesses

28:48um and that have transit opportunities.

28:55Um residential compatibility is um

29:00is is

29:05complicated

29:06uh is the short way of saying it. This

29:09is a section of our code that adds

29:11additional requirements on top of

29:13whatever the base requirements are for a

29:15district or for a use. It has three main

29:19components. There is um uh additional

29:23height limitations. There are additional

29:25setback limitations and then there are

29:28um uh sort of nuisance

29:32um and operational

29:35um requirements. So things like noise

29:37and lighting um um have stricter

29:42requirements in residential

29:43compatibility areas.

29:45The uh changes that we're proposing are

29:49uh related to the height and the

29:51setbacks only. We are not touching the

29:54existing noise, lighting,

29:57etc. um section of the residential

30:01compatibility.

30:03So here up on the screen we are looking

30:05at um an example from the local

30:09neighborhood commercial zoning district

30:10in Morningside. As a mixeduse district

30:14um development is subject to residential

30:17compatibility

30:19when it is near residentially zoned

30:22districts. So the the reddish

30:25color on the map is the local

30:28neighborhood commercial and the tan

30:30color is one of our residential

30:32districts.

30:34In the photograph, the building on the

30:36right is in the residential district.

30:39And then all the buildings to the left

30:41of that are in the local neighborhood

30:44commercial district.

30:46And if we go to the next slide,

30:50we um we're showing that based on the

30:54existing residential compatibility

30:55standards, the building immediately to

30:58the left is not um is not allowed. Um

31:03that that could not be built today. And

31:05[snorts] then the next building over uh

31:07would lose about 10 ft of its front in

31:10order to comply with the existing

31:12residential compatibility standards.

31:20And so what we are proposing to do is um

31:23to simplify um the residential

31:26compatibility standards um in addition

31:29to uh creating conditions like that that

31:32um don't align with our existing built

31:34environment. The setback standards in

31:37particular are uh quite confusing. There

31:40currently are um [clears throat]

31:4215 conditions depending on the

31:45orientation of both the um property in

31:49the mixed use district and the property

31:51in the residential district. Um

31:55to determine what setbacks apply um and

32:00it has given me a migraine many times

32:02trying to figure out which one of those

32:03applies and in some cases it's multiple

32:06um of those conditions that apply to a

32:08single project. Um so we are proposing

32:11to simplify it to three conditions and

32:15we found that this is consistent with

32:16pure cities. Um so there will be um um

32:21if the mixed use or um non-residential

32:26project is across the street or away

32:30from um actually those were two. if it's

32:34across the street, if it's across away,

32:36or if it's adjacent. Those will be the

32:39three conditions.

32:41We are also uh proposing to adjust the

32:44height stepbacks also in alignment with

32:48what we've seen in uh some of our peer

32:50cities um which included Austin, Texas,

32:54Columbus, Ohio, and Portland, Oregon.

32:57And I believe we have

33:00more information on the the height.

33:05No, sorry. This is still the setbacks.

33:08So again, this is reiterating the three

33:11conditions whether it's a budding um

33:14across a way or across a street.

33:17[snorts]

33:20And then we go into the illustration for

33:24the uh residential compatibility for

33:26height.

33:28Um

33:30the current

33:32requirements are the dotted red line. Um

33:35and what the height cap uh from the

33:38residential compatibility does is for

33:41the in the existing ordinance for the

33:44first 50 ft measured from the

33:45residential property the height is

33:48limited to 40 ft which is the same as um

33:51most of our residential zoning

33:53districts.

33:55After 50 ft, the height cap is lifted

33:59partially um up to to 50 ft in height.

34:04Um and that applies for the next um

34:09um 50 ft of property. And then once you

34:12are 100 ft away from the residential um

34:17the property line of the residential

34:19zoning district, there is no cap. Um, so

34:23if we think back um to when we were

34:25talking about the urban neighborhood

34:27commercial district, if you have a

34:29property that is um adjacent to a

34:33residential zoning district, you don't

34:35get access to that full 60 ft of height

34:38until you're at least 100 ft away from

34:40that property. Um that is not consistent

34:43with what we are seeing in other um peer

34:47cities. Um, it's also not consistent

34:49with what we recently adopted in the

34:52Oakland zoning districts.

34:55And the same time, we acknowledge that

34:58residential compatibility is important

35:00and making sure that uh large commercial

35:03structures do not overshadow our

35:05neighborhoods um is something that we

35:08wanted to maintain. And so we're

35:10proposing um a um

35:15a sort of a a compromise between

35:18allowing just straight up height and the

35:20the existing um residential

35:23compatibility requirements.

35:26We are keeping that cap on 40 ft of

35:29height u but we are reducing it to just

35:31the first 25 ft within the residential

35:33property and we're stepping up um every

35:3825 ft. Um so from 25 ft to 50 feet

35:41maximum height um if the zoning district

35:44allows as much would be 55 ft and then

35:48from 50 ft to 75 ft away from the

35:51residential property you'd be allowed up

35:53to 65 ft. Um and then after 75 ft you

35:57get to um reach the full potential of

35:59the zoning district if it's higher than

36:0265 ft. So, for example, going back to

36:05the the UNC where the 60 ft height limit

36:09applies. Um, for the first 25 ft, that

36:13would be limited to 40 ft. Again,

36:15consistent with what we have currently.

36:17Then the [clears throat] next 25 ft um

36:20it would be allowed to go up to 55 ft in

36:22height. Um, and then after once it's 50t

36:26away from a residential property, it

36:28would get the full 60 feet in height.

36:31And so would not um

36:34the important thing that I'm trying to

36:36to state here is that the residential

36:38compatibility allowance of up to 65 ft

36:41does not supersede the base zoning

36:44district. So in the UNCC 60 ft is the

36:46the max height. You get to reach that

36:48max potential at 50 ft. You do not get

36:51an additional 5T because of residential

36:53compatibility.

36:55[snorts]

36:57Um, and then the the next slide shows

37:02um [clears throat]

37:03what we adopted in the Oakland zoning

37:07districts, which are our newest zoning

37:09districts. The approach to residential

37:12compatibility in those is different than

37:15what our current um base um residential

37:19compatibility requirements are. Um, and

37:23the they're a little bit more

37:25complicated as well. Um, but I we

37:28included that here for comparison. Uh so

37:31if the property is adjacent to uh

37:35residential zoning district

37:38measuring from the property line, the

37:40first 20 ft in our Oakland um

37:43neighborhoods is limited to 60 ft in

37:45height and then beyond that point they

37:47are eligible to um maximize the height

37:51based on the the district requirements.

37:54Um, so the the proposal that we have for

37:57the rest of our zoning districts is um

38:00still more conservative than what we are

38:02allowing in Oakland.

38:06And with that, oh yes, next steps. Um,

38:12so uh, as we stated in the beginning

38:14that this package of amendments is a

38:16part of the first phase of the mayor's

38:19executive order on permitting reform. Um

38:24then um phase two of that executive

38:28order calls for a complete overhaul of

38:30the zoning district. Um and then in

38:34phase three, we will be um implementing

38:40uh a more regular process to keep the

38:42new code up to date so that we don't end

38:45up with situations like we're here today

38:48to clean up things that could have been

38:50cleaned up 10, 15, 20 years ago. Um, so,

38:54uh, the intention is to adopt, uh,

38:57potentially an annual maintenance cycle

38:59to make sure that we're keeping our

39:00code, um, up to date and current with

39:03the needs of our city.

39:07And that, I believe, is the end of our

39:09presentation. Thank you very much for

39:11your time today, and we're happy to take

39:12any questions.

39:13>> Thank you very much. Our next order of

39:15business will be testimony from our

39:17registered speakers. Please provide your

39:19name and neighborhood for the record.

39:20You'll be given three minutes to speak.

39:22Our only registered speaker is Chief

39:25Ikahana Malcina

39:28who I do not see online. I don't

39:31believe.

39:34Therefore, we'll move on to testimony

39:36from those here in council who may be

39:38wishing to speak. Is there anyone in

39:40council wishing to speak?

39:44>> Provide your name and neighborhood for

39:45the record. We'll give you three

39:47minutes.

39:48>> My name is Andrew Spike. I am from the

39:50Sheridan neighborhood in district

39:51council district 2. Um I'm in favor for

39:54the changes presented. I've been

39:56following these initial amendments uh

39:58through the city planning commission as

40:01well as as they've been moving into the

40:02city council. Um there are a lot of

40:05small changes that might seem

40:07insignificant but there are very

40:09important steps to building closer to a

40:12city that actually allows for more

40:15streamlined process at actually building

40:16more housing like we need in the city.

40:18Um, I would like to afford a house one

40:20day and for things to actually be able

40:22to built faster throughout the entirety

40:25of the city with these initial changes

40:26and the future changes would be very

40:29helpful. As well as especially

40:32changing the uh zoning uh the height

40:36requirements and streamlining them so

40:38that areas like Southside and other

40:40neighborhood districts can actually have

40:42the buildout and height that they used

40:45to have when our city was first growing.

40:48and what the return to that would keep

40:50the city growing into the future as

40:51well. Thank you.

40:56>> Thank you. Next speaker, please.

40:58[clears throat]

41:00>> Hello. Thank you for having me. Uh my

41:02name is Christopher Pile. I'm from uh I

41:04live in Graan View A in Mount

41:06Washington. Um so yeah, so most of this

41:09bill does correct errors and reduces

41:11complexity. I don't object to that. I do

41:13approve of, you know, making it easier

41:15to build in this city like you were

41:17saying. Um I'm concerned about three

41:20substantive changes that I think go

41:21beyond the cleanup that this bill frames

41:23itself as. Um first and foremost the the

41:27setbacks and heights next to homes. Um

41:29it cuts the setbacks you know changes u

41:32many it reduces the setbacks. Um and uh

41:36the only reason it gives so far is

41:38alignment with peer cities. Um it did

41:40name those init my initial read I didn't

41:42think it named those. Um so and but

41:46there's no analysis of how that's going

41:47to affect the specific cities and the

41:50specific um you know RMU districts

41:53bordering um uh residential districts.

41:56Um I asked the council to keep the

41:58current limits um next to residential um

42:01districts until uh more thorough um uh

42:05studies are done and then neighborhood u

42:07meetings are are had in the affected

42:09neighbor neighborhoods. Um second the

42:11view pro protection overlay um this is

42:14deleting it because m not currently

42:16mapped or enforceable as is um in my

42:20opinion that's a reason to fix it and

42:22apply it not to delete it um for things

42:25like gran view a um one of the greatest

42:27assets of our city I think that view

42:29protection is very important and I don't

42:32think that view protection overlay

42:34should be deleted just yet in this

42:35initial phase of the zoning without

42:37proper neighborhood consultation. Um,

42:40third, not specifically related to this,

42:42but the Grand View Public Realm I ask

42:44that it's kept in the zoning rewrite for

42:47in the next phases. Um, there's signs

42:49that it's at risk. Um, the executive

42:51order calls for special zoning um,

42:53districts um, with citywide uh,

42:55standards where feasible. Um, it's the

42:57planning director has also said flexible

42:59zoning means less need for special

43:00districts. And this current bill deletes

43:03the Oakland public realm, leaving only

43:05Grand View and Uptown. Um, also bill

43:080609 proposed by Kim Salinatro proposes

43:11the same change um to carve up um Grand

43:15View public realm in uh carve out a um

43:18residential mixed use out of there. Um

43:20Grand View Grand View's protections come

43:22from a community-led study in the 1990s.

43:24They limit height and protect slopes and

43:26views recognizing Graan View Avenue as a

43:29um regionally significant area. Um any

43:32change to come through a process led by

43:34the Mount Washington community and the

43:37executive order says changes where

43:38feasible for Grand View. I don't think

43:40that's feasible. Um section 92205F of

43:44the zoning code requires findings on

43:45neighborhood compatibility and then

43:47planning commission's report applies

43:48none of those changes only references um

43:52uh partner cities. Um notice of the

43:54citywide changes went up by mail only

43:55and the community meeting report is for

43:58the downtown map change. I ask council

44:00not to vote on these three items until

44:01city planning provides written findings

44:03and holds community meetings in the

44:05associated neighborhoods.

44:07>> Thank you very much.

44:08>> Thank you. Any further speakers?

44:12>> Seeing none, um having exhausted the

44:14business of this public hearing, we are

44:16adjourned.

44:19[music]

44:41>> [music]

44:50[music]

44:55[music]