Berkeley consultants recommend pilots and tenant governance; council splits over using limited city funds for acquisitions

Consultants hired by the city presented the Berkeley social housing study on Sept. 30, outlining how public or mission‑driven ownership, permanent affordability and tenant governance could deepen housing stability in the city.

The study team, led by Jessica Hitchcock of Urban Math and Janet Smithheimer of the Housing Workshop, said social housing principles could be adapted to Berkeley through short‑term pilots and a longer‑term strategic plan. “Social housing is owned by public agencies or other mission driven organizations and permanently protect[s] it from transfer to for profit entities,” Hitchcock said, naming tenant governance and permanent affordability as core principles.

The consultants quantified local need and trade‑offs. Smithheimer noted Berkeley’s 2024 point‑in‑time unhoused count of about 844 people and highlighted steep demand: one project drew roughly 9,700 applications for 87 units. Their financial models estimated acquisition‑rehab costs of about $470,000 per unit versus roughly $725,000 (and higher) for newer market projects; in one modeled scenario, an enhanced 100‑unit rental option would require about $17,000,000 in public subsidies, while a deeper‑affordability option showed a roughly $30,000,000 gap.

From these findings, the report recommended near‑term steps including piloting tenant governance and rent‑transparency measures, prioritizing cost containment, and launching a social‑housing pilot using low‑cost land or CalHFA’s mixed income program (MIP). The consultants also suggested piloting affordable ownership through acquisition‑rehab and coordinating with the state SB‑555 study to position Berkeley for future funding.

Council reaction mixed: some members and advisory commissioners endorsed preservation‑oriented pilots. David Shearer, speaking for the Housing Advisory Commission, urged the council to view social housing as a philosophical framework and said the commission had unanimously approved subcommittee recommendations that include piloting acquisition‑rehab ownership projects.

But Councilmember Casarwani pushed back on acquisition proposals: “I don’t think we should be spending our scarce public resources on acquiring old apartment buildings that are already subject to rent control and just cause for eviction,” she said, arguing local subsidies should target the lowest‑income residents given the city’s budget constraints. Casarwani also warned against subsidizing households above 120% of area median income.

Others pressed for pragmatic tools to move quickly. Consultants and staff pointed to models like Montgomery County’s Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), which combines public ownership and financing tools, and to revolving loan funds and private partners that can accelerate acquisitions. Mike Huberti, the city’s Housing and Community Services project manager, summarized the Housing Advisory Commission’s near‑term asks, including exploring a 2028 bond measure to replace expended Measure O funds.

Public commenters, including Matt Gustafson of the Bay Area Community Land Trust and other Housing Advisory Commission members, urged piloting community land trust models and tenant governance. Gustafson said tenant control “is the soul of the body of a home,” arguing preservation and community ownership are complementary to new construction.

The study does not prescribe a single path. Consultants told the council acquisition‑rehab can be cheaper and faster per unit but does not increase the total housing supply, while new construction adds net units but requires larger subsidies and longer timelines. The report’s authors emphasized the trade‑offs and recommended a combination of short‑term pilots and a longer strategic affordable housing plan that would define income targets, funding strategies and formal tenant‑governance structures.

Next steps identified at the meeting included further council direction to staff, follow‑up work on pilot design and funding options, and consideration of voter‑backed financing in future cycles. The council adjourned after closing remarks without taking a policy vote on the study itself.