Pittsburgh holds public hearing on enhanced inclusionary zoning; Planning Commission issued negative recommendation

Pittsburgh City Council on June 18 held a public hearing on Bill 20-24 (12-84), proposed amendments to Title 9 of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances that would establish an Enhanced Inclusionary Zoning (EIZ) framework and change overlay, use and environmental standards in parts of the city.

The Department of City Planning told council the Planning Commission voted on Jan. 28 to forward a negative recommendation to council, citing concerns about neighborhood “opt in” procedures, funding mandates, code conflicts and drafting errors. Corey Lehman, zoning administrator, said the commission “had substantial concerns with the proposed legislation regarding opt in inclusionary zoning by neighborhood, adoption processes for the neighborhood opt in, funding mandates, conflicts within the code, some potential drafting errors, and unintended potential consequences of changes to approval processes and timelines.”

Supporters of mandatory, citywide inclusionary zoning urged council to move more quickly to adopt requirements that would attach affordable units to new development. Dave Branget, executive director of Lawrenceville United and co-chair of the Housing Justice Table, said the coalition opposes the EIZ bill as drafted and called instead for a compromise that delivers a path to citywide mandatory IZ. “We work together as a coalition because we recognize that while the neighborhoods we all represent are different, our housing crisis affects every neighborhood and every Pittsburgher,” Branget said.

Students, neighborhood organizations and housing advocates described local IZ overlays in Oakland, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield and Polish Hill as workable and urged expansion. Katie Emert of the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation said Oakland’s experience shows developers will use IZ incentives: “Most developers are familiar with inclusionary zoning… developers are also keen to take advantage of the incentives the existing code provides.” Marley Pinsky and other students cited entitlement and pipeline data from Oakland to argue mandatory IZ produces affordable units that would not otherwise exist.

Opponents — including developer-aligned organizations and some residents — said the bill, as written, risks reducing housing production unless the city commits substantial public subsidy. Jack Billings urged more economic study and presented a city-cost estimate drawn from national averages: “Estimates for the funding gap between market rate and affordable units vary, but it’s roughly $300,000 per unit… covering that funding gap will cost the city $27,000,000 a year,” he said. Several speakers, including Majestic Lane of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development and business-leaning commenters, asked for more collaboration between the city, developers and community stakeholders and warned that rigid mandates could deter projects.

Other testimony questioned specific drafting elements in the bill. Johnny Gallick and others flagged the proposed buyout price in the text and locations for off-site affordable units, warning that a low buyout figure and permissive off-site rules could permit circumvention of integrated units. Gallick also described potential conflicts with other regulatory authorities and noted the bill’s changes to submittal/approval timelines.

Council members who spoke after public comment said they want a negotiated compromise. Councilwoman Warwick described two policy views she hears — build-as-much-as-possible vs. deliberately creating mixed-income neighborhoods — and said the council must weigh both housing production and access to “neighborhoods of opportunity.” Councilperson Strasburger and others said they support working toward a funded IZ approach and complementary reforms such as expanded LERTA incentives, elimination of parking minimums, ADU language and other zoning changes to make development feasible.

No formal vote on Bill 20-24 (12-84) occurred at the hearing. Council members and staff said further drafting and negotiation will be necessary; the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation and multiple speakers’ concerns about funding and legal conflicts make the bill’s near-term passage uncertain. Members urged continued engagement among council, the Department of City Planning, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and community groups to produce a compromise they can pass before the council recess.

Ending: Council adjourned the hearing after receiving public and council comment; no action was taken at the June 18 public hearing.