Neighbors press city staff on heights, setbacks and uses during North Oakland rezoning hearing

Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing Feb. 5 on Bill 13-03, a proposed rezoning that would change large portions of North Oakland from several existing districts to Urban Center Mixed Use (UCMU) and Urban Center Employment (UCE).

City planning staff described the rezoning as an implementation of the Oakland plan, an adopted neighborhood plan that the department said was finalized in 2022. "That plan is a 10-year shared vision for the neighborhoods of Oakland," Andrew Dash, deputy director of city planning, told council. Staff said the rezoning aims to grow housing and job opportunities and to apply new zoning districts that emphasize building form, mixed uses and public realm improvements.

Christian Umbach, senior planner, and Antra Tandon, principal planner, walked council and the public through the details the department said the districts would add: a focus on mixed-use development, building-form standards (ground-floor transparency, stepbacks and facade design), a green buffer requirement with a 15-foot minimum, an urban open-space requirement for large footprints and a minimum sidewalk width of 10 feet with at least a 5-foot clear path. Tandon also noted that inclusionary housing rules already in place in Oakland require projects with more than 20 residential units to reserve 10% of units as affordable.

Staff presented a height map tied to land-use guidance: base heights for blocks and higher "ultimate" heights available when a developer earns performance points for community benefits. "There are two numbers for each of the heights — the base height with no performance points, and the ultimate max height in parentheses," Umbach said. Planning staff described the performance-point system as an incentives tool to secure measures such as additional affordability, sustainability features and public benefits in exchange for bonus height.

Residents and neighborhood representatives who testified raised concerns about scale, setbacks, usable open space and permitted uses across Neville Street. "Let's put the r back in North Oakland. We are still predominantly residential, and we'd like to maintain and strengthen the residential nature of our neighborhood," Kathleen Gallagher, a North Oakland resident, said. Gallagher said the ultimate max heights alarmed neighbors: "I don't wanna live with 140 feet in my backyard." She urged stronger setback requirements, especially for alleys and rear-facing lots.

George Danko, a North Oakland resident and frequent neighborhood walker, told council he was "very concerned about the proposed maximum heights of buildings with the attached height bonuses," and urged more human-scale design, parklets and small public spaces to break up long building façades. Mary McDonough, who lives on North Neville Street in Shadyside, asked council to treat Neville as a boundary and urged a buffer that would limit uses and heights along Neville between Center and Fifth avenues. "The many new uses proposed for the Oakland side of the street will have significant impact on the residential area across the street," McDonough said, noting UCMU would increase the number of uses permitted as of right compared with the current zoning.

Melissa McSwiggan, a North Oakland resident who participated in the Oakland plan process, said she worried rezoning could favor outside investors and change neighborhood character. "I can't completely reconcile this with the proposed new zoning," she said, urging care with setbacks, heights and allowable uses.

Andrea Buickovich, executive director of the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, testified in support of the rezoning overall but suggested one adjustment: she recommended that the Western Pennsylvania School for Blind Children campus be added to the nearby EMI district because of its institutional campus character. Buickovich also noted that rezoning to UCMU and UCE would discourage demolition-for-parking patterns: under the proposed districts, properties demolished for surface parking would be subject to new zoning rules that make long-term parking lots less likely.

Council members asked detailed questions about setbacks, sidewalks, the performance-point bonuses and how frequently the city evaluates whether the incentive system is producing intended public benefits. Planning staff said setbacks can be flexible: building frontages must meet a percentage build-to requirement (for example, 60% within a defined range), allowing other portions of a façade to respond to open space. Staff reiterated the minimum sidewalk standard (10 feet with a 5-foot clear path), explained the green buffer and urban open-space thresholds, and said the city tracks which projects use performance points through planning and permitting records.

No final council vote on Bill 13-03 is recorded in the hearing transcript. After testimony and questions the council took a procedural vote to adjourn the public hearing.

The rezoning proposal remains before council for potential amendment or final action; proponents and opponents at the hearing urged additional refinements to buffers, setbacks and the structure of incentives.