Pittsburgh council holds public hearing on Bill 12‑14 to add 'interim housing' as a zoning use

Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing Aug. 26 on Bill 12‑14, an ordinance that would add a new zoning use called “interim housing” and add use standards to Title 9 of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances.

City zoning administrator and chief zoning officer Corey Lehman told the council the proposal grew out of earlier work on temporary managed communities and fair‑housing amendments and that the planning commission reviewed the package and recommended it to council with two conditions: remove a proposed four‑year sunset for interim housing and add wraparound services as a program to be reported in the operations and management plan.

The bill would add “interim housing” as a special‑exception use in primarily mixed‑use commercial zoning districts and require applicants to submit an operations and management plan describing site layout, living arrangements and services. That plan would be reviewed in a public hearing by the city’s zoning board, city staff said.

Public commenters urged amendments or cautioned against relying on housing alone. Sierra Van Dyke, who identified herself as a District 1 resident and head of an engineering startup in Lawrenceville, said the draft limits who can use the ordinance because it requires applicants to meet the Residential Community Organization (RCO) standard. "This does limit the number of groups that can provide housing through this amendment," she said, and urged council to "consider expanding who can use this ordinance." Van Dyke also argued the city should commit to a broader housing‑first strategy and cited, as examples from her remarks, an estimated 16,000 empty lots and about 5,000 empty residential properties in city possession (claims she attributed to her remarks) and cost savings she attributed to housing‑first studies.

Gina Polis, a resident of Banksville, told the council the draft does not incorporate the planning commission’s recommendations for on‑site treatment and addiction services and warned that housing without mandatory treatment or strict oversight can fail. "Housing alone does not resolve co‑occurring disorders that often accompany homelessness," Polis said, and she cited national examples she said illustrated risks when supportive housing is not tightly managed.

Kent Bay, a Hill District resident and veteran speaking for marginalized veterans and his organization Project Love Coalition, said the draft lacks clear implementation oversight and asked how the ordinance would prevent misuse or benefit community‑based groups. He also raised the unresolved death of William Hardison (as referenced in public comment) as an example of the stakes community members associate with housing and oversight.

Council members who sponsored and worked on the proposal described it as a zoning tool to remove a barrier to siting transitional supportive housing in areas where multi‑family housing already exists. Councilman Cockett, a sponsor, said the intent was preparatory: "We are not planning a tiny community. We are not planning to build on any certain location," and added the purpose is to have a legal pathway available if needed. Several council members thanked city planning staff and county partners for recent housing efforts that they said have reduced visible encampments.

Councilman Mosley asked for clarification about the RCO language. City staff responded that the RCO requirement in the draft references the existing RCO standard that requires a development‑activities meeting; staff said the requirement does not limit the use only to areas that already have RCOs. Staff also described the process: an applicant must submit an application and an operations and management plan meeting the use standards; the zoning board would review the plan in a public hearing and could impose conditions to ensure services and accountability at the site.

No final vote was taken at the hearing. The clerk was asked to place the item back on the council agenda for the next meeting so members may consider amendments and a final vote.

What's next: Council members said they expect to circulate technical edits and possible amendments informed by the planning commission conditions and public comment before the council votes on the ordinance.