Pittsburgh council committee adopts voluntary affordable-housing bonus program, sends package back to Planning Commission

Councilwoman Strasburger, chair of the Land Use committee, introduced an amendment by substitution on Oct. 15 that would replace the administration—s proposed mandatory citywide inclusionary-zoning (IZ) requirement with a voluntary affordable-housing bonus program tied to development incentives.

The amendment would offer enhanced incentives to projects that agree to provide the same affordability levels as existing IZ overlay districts: automatic eligibility for the performance-points program, additional performance points, a waiver of certain residential compatibility standards, and availability of an enhanced LERTA (local economic revitalization tax abatement) for qualifying projects. In-lieu payments into a new affordable-housing payments fund would be set at $25 per gross residential square foot rather than the $35 a square foot figure the administration had modelled. The amendment would set the required affordability term for rental units at 20 years and order a two-year report from the Department of City Planning on the program—s performance.

Supporters of the amendment argued it preserves development momentum while directing money and incentives toward affordable-housing strategies. Councilman Jack Billings (speaking for Pro Housing Pittsburgh) urged adoption, citing construction costs and financing conditions that he said could make mandatory requirements infeasible in the current market. Councilman Robert Coghill said the city has already invested millions in affordable housing and that voluntary incentives coupled with other tools can deliver results without stalling projects.

Opponents, including a long line of housing-justice advocates and residents, said the amendment would allow developers to buy their way out of providing on-site affordable units and that fee-in-lieu payments and bonuses would concentrate affordable housing away from neighborhoods with the greatest market pressure. "Voluntary inclusionary zoning is basically the same as no inclusionary zoning," said Emma Gamble, community engagement manager at Lawrenceville United, citing Lawrenceville—s earlier mandatory IZ pilot and its record of units produced. Tiara Collins, chair of the Commission on Human Relations, said the amendment —his not a compromise— and would reduce the mandate to incentives for developers without meaningful benefits for residents.

Council members debated the amendment for more than an hour. Supporters emphasized the formula for fee-in-lieu proceeds and an increased LERTA ceiling designed to yield upfront funds for deep affordability (prioritized for households at or below 30% area median income). Strasburger told members the $25 per-square-foot fee would produce sizable sums for the city—s affordable housing fund when multiplied across large projects and that the city could use that money for gap financing, down-payment assistance, or other interventions that can stretch public dollars further than single new-build affordable units.

The committee adopted the amendment by substitution on a roll-call vote, 5-4. Immediately after, Council President Lavelle moved — and the committee adopted — a motion to recommit the amended bill to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.

What was decided: The Land Use committee adopted the Strasburger amendment in committee (5-4) and voted to send the amended bill back to the Planning Commission for review and a report. No final ordinance vote on the full package occurred at the standing-committee meeting. The Planning Commission report will be the next formal step before a potential final vote by full council.

Why it matters: The vote reshapes the city—s approach to producing affordable housing. Supporters say voluntary bonuses paired with a dedicated fee-in-lieu fund and enhanced abatement capacity will produce funds and avoid chilling development. Opponents say the change risks concentrating affordability away from transit-accessible neighborhoods and amounts to a giveaway to developers.

Voices from the hearing

"The zoning amendments before you, implementing the housing needs assessment, is, frankly, historic." — Amy Zace, Beach View resident (public comment)

"Voluntary inclusionary zoning is basically the same as no inclusionary zoning." — Emma Gamble, Lawrenceville United (public comment)

"If there's no affordability contribution, there's no enhanced abatement. A purely market-rate development will not realize any new tax break because of this program." — Councilwoman Strasburger (committee summary)

What comes next: The amended bill will return to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation. The commission—s review and any subsequent further amendments will determine whether the measure reaches final council adoption. The amendment requires the Department of City Planning to submit a two-year review of the first phase of the voluntary program if enacted.