City Council hears hours of testimony on Bill 15‑45: citywide inclusionary zoning, ADUs and parking reform

PITTSBURGH — City Planning staff on Thursday presented Bill 15‑45, a sweeping set of amendments to Title 9 of the Pittsburgh Code that would expand inclusionary zoning citywide, permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) across residential areas and remove minimum off‑street parking requirements, and publicly took questions during a four‑hour public hearing. Planning staff said the package also includes development bonuses tied to the city’s performance point system and changes to definitions, measurements and review procedures.

Planning officials told council the changes grew from years of housing studies and neighborhood engagement. “The series of amendments is around the introduction of legislation around accessory dwelling units, changes to our parking standards … inclusionary zoning and an expansion of the inclusionary zoning citywide,” said Andrew Dash, deputy director of the Department of City Planning. Zoning administrator Corey Lehman walked through technical standards for ADUs, noting they would be permitted “by right” in many cases and would not require owner occupancy.

Supporters and opponents gave sharply divergent views during the public comment period about whether the package — particularly the proposed citywide inclusionary zoning (IZ) mandate — will expand affordable housing or discourage new construction. Advocates said IZ is a necessary tool to produce mixed‑income housing in neighborhoods with transit and services; opponents, including many developers and construction trade representatives, argued the IZ mandate is an unfunded cost that will make some projects financially infeasible and could reduce overall housing production.

Why it matters

If adopted, the amendments would change how the city regulates housing supply in corridors with high development pressure and across lower‑growth neighborhoods. Planning staff and supporters say inclusionary zoning can create permanently or long‑term restricted affordable units in neighborhoods with jobs and transit access; opponents say a mandatory citywide requirement risks shifting costs onto renters or driving development to suburban markets or to nonunion, out‑of‑town contractors.

Key provisions described by planning staff

- Inclusionary zoning: the proposed citywide framework keeps options that currently exist in the inclusionary zoning overlay (IZO) and offers three ways a developer can meet the requirement: 1) provide 10% of units on‑site at specified affordability levels; 2) provide an increased percentage (12%) off‑site; or 3) partner with a nonprofit developer. Planning staff said the overlay program produced 216 units built or in the pipeline (116 in Lawrenceville, about 100 in Oakland) and that the construction value of those restricted units is roughly “just under $90,000,000.”

- Development bonuses and flexibility: for residential projects of more than 20 units the proposal would offer density and height bonuses (additional FAR and height) and relaxes some stepback and residential compatibility standards for projects providing IZ units. Planning staff said those incentives mirror the city’s performance point system that previously applied only in select districts.

- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): ADUs would be permitted citywide as accessory to residential, community center and religious assembly uses; they would not require owner occupancy and would be limited to two ADUs per residential lot. Lehman described standards: a maximum of 1,000 square feet per ADU, up to two stories and no taller than 30 feet, and administrative exceptions to allow ADUs within certain setbacks in the same manner as other accessory structures.

- Parking reform: the ordinance would remove minimum off‑street parking requirements for all uses and replace district‑based limits with a tiered maximum system keyed to access to frequent transit. In higher‑transit areas the draft examples showed lower parking maximums (for multifamily, roughly one space per dwelling unit in high‑frequency transit areas versus two per unit elsewhere). Developers that choose to exceed the parking maximum could apply for an administrative approval by paying a fee into a mobility trust fund. The draft also formalizes transportation demand management (TDM) requirements and aligns ADA parking obligations with the building code.

- Other: the amendments remove the current inclusionary housing overlay district reference from Chapter 90704a and update review and enforcement, measurements and definitions across Title 9.

Public testimony: main themes

Supporters' arguments

- Equity and access: proponents including community groups, neighborhood CDCs and affordable‑housing advocates said IZ would produce restricted units near transit and jobs and help reduce displacement. Emma Gamble of Lawrenceville United said, “IZ is a modest policy that isn't going to solve our affordable housing crisis, but it does do some things well.” Several speakers asked council to approve the full package so reforms such as ADUs and parking changes can move forward with the IZ requirement.

- Local examples and process: Andrea Boikowitz, executive director of Oakland Planning and Development Corporation, described decades of neighborhood development experience and urged expansion of IZ citywide to “make room in new construction for different income brackets.” Planning staff noted the package grew from earlier task forces and consultant work going back to 2016 and 2017.

Opponents' arguments

- Risk to housing supply and costs: many developers, construction trade representatives and some economists argued the mandatory, underfunded IZ mandate acts like a tax on new construction that could make projects financially unviable, shrink supply and push development to other markets. David Batts of Pro Housing Pittsburgh said the Lawrenceville pilot “has produced an exceptionally small number of units” and argued the policy has not slowed displacement there.

- Labor and local hiring concerns: union leaders and building trades speakers voiced concern that added IZ costs would prompt some developers to hire out‑of‑town, nonunion contractors or otherwise reduce prevailing wages to keep projects feasible. Steve Mazza, who identified himself as representing area building trades, said simply in his testimony about ADUs: “ADUs, no.” Several trade speakers asked council for guarantees that projects enabled or required by the code would still create union jobs.

Planning commission and next steps

Staff told council the package received a “positive recommendation” from the Planning Commission on Jan. 28 with conditions; planning staff said they had revised the draft to address those conditions and have continued consultations with council members since then. Paul Kinsella, planning manager, and others noted specific follow‑up items discussed with council and stakeholders: affordability term length (for example returning to a 35‑year term used in some programs), how off‑site units are counted (including whether existing units could be restricted rather than requiring new off‑site construction), interactions with Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit projects, and the possible creation of a payment‑in‑lieu mechanism.

No formal council vote was recorded at the hearing. Planning staff said they would continue to provide materials and work with council members on amendments and implementation details. Staff also noted that one piece of the original package — minimum lot size reform — was separated out earlier as Bill 2025‑1579 and was enacted in May.

What council will decide next

Council will need to weigh the draft ordinance’s mechanics — the percentage and options for meeting IZ, the length of affordability restrictions, the size of development bonuses, enforcement and reporting requirements, and the funding mechanism for deep affordability — against concerns from builders and labor about viability and job quality. Supporters pressed for quick action to prevent further displacement; opponents urged more financial offsets or making IZ voluntary and fully subsidized by the city.

Ending

Planning staff described Bill 15‑45 as a package intended to reflect Pittsburgh’s built form and neighborhood differences while expanding tools to create affordable housing. Public testimony made clear the depth of disagreement about whether mandatory citywide IZ will produce the intended outcome or have unintended consequences for housing production and local construction jobs. Council members said they will continue work with staff, unions, developers and community groups before any final vote.