Education Workforce
Housing in California:
Developing the 21st Century Campus
01. Introduction: Education Workforce Housing in
California

02. Why Build Housing on Lands Owned by Local
Educational Agencies?

03. Where Might Education Workforce Housing WorkWell?

04. Which LEAs Have Considered Building Education

Workforce Housing, and What Have They Considered?

05. How Can Local Educational Agencies Design
Housing to Meet Their Needs?

06. Recommendations
07. Conclusion: Housing and the 21 Century Public
School Campus

This Research Report is a collaborative effort between cityLAB at the University of California Los Angeles
and the Center for Cities + Schools and the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, both at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. A companion Education Workforce Housing Handbook also provides key information
in a user-friendly format for school boards, administrators, and community members. See https://citylab.
ucla.edu/education-workforce-housing-handbook.

Jeffrey M. Vincent
Mona Al-Abadi
Jennifer Kim

Dana Cuff
Kenny Wong
Emmanuel Proussaloglou
Akana Jayewardene
Carrie Gammell

Elizabeth Kneebone
David Garcia
Shazia ManjiAcknowledgements
For their valuable insights and advice, the authors thank the California School Boards Association,
particularly Andrew Keller, Naomi Eason, and David DeLuz, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, withspecial gratitude for the leadership of Michelle Chung and Ruby Bolaria Shifrin. Thanks also to Amanda
Recinos at GreenInfo Network for detailed support building the statewide spatial inventory of LEA-owned
properties, and to Elizabeth (Libby) Seifel at Seifel Consulting Inc. for her contributions to the pro forma
analysis. Thanks also to the research and editorial assistance of Sydney Maves.
This report benefited from the insights and expertise of numerous external reviewers: Desiree CarverThomas, Learning Policy Institute; Carolina Reid and Ben Metcalf, Terner Center for Housing Innovation
at UC Berkeley; Jody London, former Oakland Unified School Board Director; and the School Lands
Housing Advisory Board organized by cityLAB, including Jane Blumenfeld, Kevin Daly, Naomi Eason,
Al Grazioli, Robin Hughes, Denise Pinkston, and Paul Silvern. We thank them for their suggestions for
improvement. Any remaining shortcomings are our own.
Funding for this work was provided by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
Suggested citation: Center for Cities + Schools, cityLAB, and Terner Center for Housing Innovation. (2021).
Education Workforce Housing in California: Developing the 21st Century Public School Campus. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California.

The report can be found at: https://citylab.ucla.edu/education-workforce-housing-research-report.
The companion Handbook can be found at: https://citylab.ucla.edu/education-workforce-housinghandbook.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution—NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Executive Summary
Among the many negative consequences ofCalifornia’s longstanding and deepening housingcrisis is the toll it takes on people who work inpublic service jobs, especially the hundreds ofthousands teachers and other employees working
in California’s public school system. Among the
300,000 public school teachers in California,
many cannot afford to live in the communities
where they work, forcing them to commute long
distances or pushing them out of the education
system altogether. Attracting new teachers has
also grown more challenging. Housing prices haveclimbed across the state, yet the majority of thenearly one thousand local educational agencies(LEAs) in California offer entry-level teacher
salaries below the area median income.
Importantly, there are racial disparities embeddedin these teacher staffing challenges. Teachersof color are already underrepresented among
California’s public educators and they are more
likely to experience housing cost burdens.
Staffing challenges are even more acute in
LEAs enrolling low-income and historicallyunderserved students, where they have longsuffered higher rates of both teacher turnover
and teachers with substandard credentials. Thus,
teacher recruitment and retention challenges
are disproportionately impacting alreadydisadvantaged students in California, working
against efforts to close educational equity gaps.
As housing affordability challenges intertwine
with staffing challenges, more and more LEAs
are considering building workforce housing onland they own. The Teacher Housing Act of 2016
authorizes California LEAs to pursue affordable
housing for employees and shifts the playing
field on development finance. LEAs can now
address employee housing by leveraging a rangeof programs and fiscal resources available to otherhousing developers. The Act establishes that
housing stability for LEA employees is “criticalto the overall success and stability of each school
in California.” There are early indications thatsuch efforts to build on LEA-owned land canhave positive impacts on teacher attraction andretention. Santa Clara Unified School District’s
Casa del Maestro reduced its attrition rate by
two-thirds for teachers supported by the housingdevelopment, compared with others in the samecohort, and waitlists demonstrate consistently
high demand—80% of its tenants stay the fullallowable rental term.
This report provides an extensive review of theneed for public education workforce housing
solutions, where and how such strategies
can—and are being—implemented, andrecommendations to advance housing solutions
on LEA-owned land. Our analysis finds that:

Every County in California Has
LEA Land Potentially Suited forDeveloping Workforce Housing
As community landowners, LEAs have a uniqueadvantage in the affordable housing development
process. There are more than 150,000 acresof land owned by LEAs all across California.
According to our analysis, there are 7,068
properties with potentially developable land of
one acre or more, totaling 75,000 acres statewide.
This is about the size of five Manhattans. Morethan half (61%) of these properties are locatedwhere beginning—and other lower salaried
teachers—face housing affordability challenges.
More than 40% of these properties are locatedin areas that are likely to be competitive for key
affordable housing financing tools.
Every county in California has LEA-owned landthat is potentially developable, so education
workforce housing could help meet the housingneeds of public education employees acrossthe entire state. While our analysis reveals
tremendous opportunity throughout California—especially in locales where LEA employees facehousing affordability challenges— each property
will require careful, on-the-ground assessment.
iLEA Properties in California

Dozens of LEAs Across the StateAre Already Taking Steps to Build
Workforce Housing
California is home to just four completed
education workforce housing developments
undertaken by two school districts: Los Angeles
Unified and Santa Clara Unified. However, it isclear that interest in pursuing workforce housing
strategies is growing as more LEAs take steps
to build such housing developments. Between
June 2018 and November 2020, eight California
LEAs put propositions or measures before local
voters to fund education workforce housingdevelopment. Six of the measures passed.
ii

Our statewide scan of LEAs finds that many
more are likely to follow suit. We identified 46
LEAs pursuing projects on 83 sites that standat various stages of completion, ranging froma public expression of interest in education
workforce housing to completed and occupied
developments. These LEAs face greater teacher
recruitment and housing affordability challenges
compared to others in the state and are leading
the way.

Development Timelineiii

LEAs Can Learn from Completed
Developments and Partnerships
to Navigate the Complex Processof Building Housing and Securing
Community Buy-in
Planning, designing, and completing a workforce
housing project successfully is an inherently
complex process. This report synthesizes theexperiences of numerous LEAs, outlining thedevelopment process from extensive informationin school board meeting minutes, presentations,and design documents.
Much of what makes education workforce
housing development unique occurs in the“predevelopment” stage where initial decisions
about site, design, tenancy, and financing are
made, and where community engagement begins.
After predevelopment, subsequent phases follow
relatively standard development, financing, andconstruction practices. Since LEAs typically do
not have experience in housing development,
partnership agreements are routine to connect
with experienced consultants, developers, andfinancial professionals who provide technicalexpertise and guide the way. They are also
important partners with LEAs on the crucial
work of community engagement throughout thedevelopment process to increase chances of adevelopment’s success.

Policymakers and LEA Leaders
Can Take Concrete Steps toAdvance the Development of
Education Workforce Housing
Our findings illustrate the unique development
potential on public K-12 education lands across
California and help empower interested LEAs
with guidance and tools to assess whether
constructing new homes might be the rightsolution for them. These findings also highlightthe need for state policy action to better facilitate
the development of education workforce housing.
iv

While no one strategy will fully alleviate thestate’s deeply rooted housing affordability
challenges, it is clear that taking steps to improve
the housing stability and affordability for teachersand other LEA staff is a crucial part. Such efforts
can help address recruitment and retention
challenges for LEAs as well as racial disparities inboth educational quality and housing access.

What LEAs Can Do to Effectively Pursue
Education Workforce Housing••••

Develop partnerships with community before
and throughout the process
Prepare for a lengthy process: due diligenceand project champions are key
Design solutions must be specific to theschool, the site, and the neighborhood
Keep the process of site evaluation andselection transparent

What State Agencies and Other Partners
Can Do To Help LEAs Pursue Education
Workforce Housing•••

Increase land use flexibility and streamline
approvals process
Expand financing tools available
Build the capacity of LEAs

The full research report is coupled with atoolkit entitled Education Workforce Housing
in California: The Handbook, both of which
can be found online: https://citylab.ucla.
edu/publications. These resources provide
an understanding of how housing gets built,
strategies for overcoming challenges to building
such housing, and frameworks for ensuring
housing meets the specific needs of each LEA andcommunity.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Figure List
Terminology

i
v
vii
ix

01. Introduction: Education Workforce Housing in California
02. Why Build Housing on Lands Owned by Local Educational Agencies?
Teacher Recruitment and Turnover Challenges Have Grown Substantially in California
California’s Housing Affordability Crisis Continues to Deepen and Spread
The Housing Affordability Crisis Directly Impacts Teacher Recruitment, Retention, and 		
Residential Location Decisions
Building Housing on LEA-Owned Land is a Strategy with Impact Potential
A Number of Financial Tools and State Legislative Efforts Support the Production of 		
Housing on School Lands		
03. Where Might Education Workforce Housing Work Well?
Every County has Lands Held by Public Education Entities
Staff Recruitment and Retention Challenges are Greater in Some Areas
Housing Affordability Challenges are Greater in Some Areas
Some Properties are More Competitive for LIHTC Financing
Some Properties May Garner Less Community Opposition
Statewide, Education Workforce Housing Development Opportunity on LEA-Owned Land
Appears Widespread
Site Types Define Design Opportunities and Constraints
04. Which Local Educational Agencies Have Considered Building Education Workforce 		
Housing and What Have They Considered?
Local Educational Agencies Across California are Taking Initiative
Existing Projects Show the Promise as well as Pitfalls of Development
Existing Projects Highlight Untapped Opportunities
05. How Can Local Educational Agencies Design Housing to Meet Their Needs?
Understand the Development Process
Create Responsive Options
06. Recommendations
What LEAs Can Do to Effectively Pursue Workforce Housing Development
What State Agencies and Other Partners Can Do To Help LEAs Pursue Workforce Housing
Development
07. Conclusion: Housing and the 21st Century Public School Campus
08. Appendix

1
5
5
7
9
12
13
16
16
19
20
20
22
23
24
28
28
34
37
39
41
51
57
57
59
62
64
v

Appendix 1: Methods and Data Sources
Appendix 2: Existing Housing Assistance Programs for LEA Employees
Appendix 3: Finance Mechanisms for Education Workforce Housing in California
Appendix 4: California Legislation on Education Workforce Housing
Appendix 5: Site Types of LEA-Owned Land
Appendix 6: Development Timeline and Process
Appendix 7: Design Case Study for San Jose Unified School District
Appendix 8: Design Case Study for Berkeley Unified School District
Endnotes
Handbook
This research report is accompanied by the Education Workforce Housing Handbook, an easyto-follow guide to developing housing on LEA properties. The companion Handbook can befound at https://citylab.ucla.edu/education-workforce-housing-handbook.

vi

65
76
77
80
84
87
102
111
129

Figure List
Figure 1: LEA-Owned Land in California
Figure 2: Annual Permitting of Residential Units Compared to Projected Statewide Need for
Additional Homes (1975-2019)
Figure 3: Statewide Progress Towards 5th Cycle RHNA Housing Production Goals by Income
Group
Figure 4: LEA Low Teacher Salaries in Relation to AMI
Figure 5: Income and Housing Tenure, by Employee Type
Figure 6: Renter Households with a Cost Burden, by Employee Type
Figure 7: Race and Ethnicity of Education Staff, by Presence of Rent Burden
Figure 8: Casa del Maestro
Figure 9: Indicators of Staffing Challenges, Housing Challenges, and Housing Opportunity
Figure 10: Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies, by LEA Type
Figure 11: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies, byLocal Educational Agency Type
Figure 12: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies inAreas Where Teacher Retention and Attraction Challenges Are Above Statewide Medians,
by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type
Figure 13: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies inAreas Where Teachers Face Housing Affordability Challenges, by LEA Type and Geographic
Place Type
Figure 14: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies in
TCAC Designated “High” or “Highest” Resource Areas, by LEA Type and Geographic PlaceType
Figure 15: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies inTransit Rich Areas, by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type
Figure 16: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies inAreas with at Least One Large Multifamily Development, by LEA Type and Geographic
Place Type
Figure 17: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies that
Demonstrate Housing Related Opportunity, by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type
Figure 18: Sample LEA-Owned Properties and Building Footprints in Proximity to Transit Rich
Area
Figure 19: Summary of Site Types
Figure 20: Recent Local California Ballot Measures to Fund Education Workforce Housing
Figure 21: Map of LEAs Interested in Education Workforce Housing
Figure 22: Characteristics of LEAs interested in Education Workforce Housing
Figure 23: Characteristics of Education Workforce Housing Projects

4
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
17
17
18

19

20

21
21

22
23
24
25
29
30
31
33
vii

Figure 24: Built Education Workforce Housing Projects
Figure 25: Summary of Existing Education Workforce Housing Developments in California
Figure 26: Example School Districts with Strong Development Potential but No History of
Education Workforce Housing
Figure 27: Development Process Overview
Figure 28: Stage 1. Preliminary Exploration
Figure 29: Site Types with Massing
Figure 30: Stage 2. Feasibility
Figure 31: Common Site Assessment Factors
Figure 32: Methods of Land Disposition for LEAs
Figure 33: Stage 3. Development
Figure 34: Education Workforce Housing Connects Housing, Schools, and Context
Figure 35: Stage 4. Construction
Figure 36: Stage 5. Leasing Up
Figure 37: Stage 6. Management and Operations
Figure 38: Design Case 1. Overview of Housing Approaches
Figure 39: Site Planning Strategies
Figure 40: Design Case 2. Design Case 2. Urban Site and Context
Figure 41: Development Program
Figure 42: Potential Design Options

viii

35
36
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
46
47
48
49
49
50
51
52
54
56

Terminology
Area Median Income (AMI)
The median or midpoint within a region’s income distribution. Within a region, half ofhouseholds will have incomes higher than the median, while half of households will haveincomes lower than the median.
Beginning teachers
First and second year teachers.
Buildable envelope
The maximum extent of buildable area on a given site, limited by setbacks, maximum heights,
and other restrictions (not to be confused with “building envelope” which is a structure’s exteriorskin).
Credentialed staff
Teaching staff in LEAs.
Classified staff
Non-credentialed LEA staff, such as custodians, food service employees, or bus drivers.
Education workforce housing
Refers broadly to below market rate housing units provided for LEA employees.
Local Educational Agency (LEA)
We use the term “local educational agencies” (LEA) to refer collectively to California public K-12
school districts and county offices of education.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
The federal program, administered by states and local LIHTC-allocating agencies, which issues
tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of affordable rental housing
targeted to low-income households. California also administers the California State Low Income
Housing Tax Credit, which is primarily awarded to recipients of the federal credit.
Precedent projects
These are related undertakings that serve as models, such as already-built education workforce
housing projects.
Pro-forma analysis
The calculation of the projected financial results of a proposed development project, including
both income and expenses based on certain assumptions (for example, estimations ofconstruction costs, fees, as well as rental income).
ix

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
The process California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) follows
to determine the total number of new homes a region needs in order to meet the future
housing needs of all income levels. Regional planning agencies then distribute a share of theregion’s housing needs to each town, city, and county in the region. Local governments mustthen develop a plan to meet their RHNA allocation by updating their Housing Element in their
General Plan.
Site improvements
Any construction of or improvement to infrastructure like sewers, roads, parking, land grading,sidewalks, drainage structures and utilities.
Site yield
The number of housing units or apartments that can be built on a given site, following all
regulations and restrictions .
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Map Designations
The mapping tool commissioned by HCD and TCAC and developed by the California Fair
Housing Task Force to identify areas in every region of California whose characteristics havebeen shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for
low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. TCAC uses the map to
inform allocation of the 9% LIHTCs for Large Family housing, while HCD uses the map in its
Multifamily Housing Program funding decisions.
Typology
A classification that places a subject into a specific group. This term is used extensively when
discussing the types of sites an LEA may own.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The total annual miles of vehicle travel divided by the total population within a geographic
region.

x

Introduction: Education
Workforce Housing in
California

California faces rapidly rising housing costs. Statewide, three million
renters are considered “rent-burdened” (paying more than 30% of
their income on rent) and more than half (1.7 million) of these renters
are considered “severely rent-burdened” (paying more than 50% of
their income on rent).1 Rising housing costs—driven in part by severe
housing shortages—are particularly acute in already high-cost regions.
Employees in public service sectors—especially teachers and other
employees of California’s nearly 1,000 local educational agencies(LEAs)2—are feeling the strain.

1

Nationally, 35% of educators are considered rent-burdened,3 but the
problem is especially pronounced in California.

Teacher salaries in California have been
unable to keep up with the worsening
housing crisis as costs to rent and buy
homes soar across the state.
With increasing frequency, news headlines highlight how more
and more California public school teachers struggle to afford to livein the same communities where they work, forcing them to takeon long commutes or pushing them out of the education system
altogether: “Bay Area Housing Prices Fall Hard on School Teachers(Mercury News),”4 “Teachers struggle with skyrocketing housing
costs” (Mountain View Voice);5 “Low pay, high SF housing costs
1equal 1 homeless math teacher” (San Francisco
Chronicle);6 “Rising rents in coastal California
outpace teacher pay” (EdSource);7 “More teachers
can’t afford to live where they teach” (National
Public Radio);8 “Is Silicon Valley driving teachers
out?” (The Atlantic).9 Many LEA employees
struggle to afford to live in the same communities
where they work10
In tandem with the state’s housing crisis,
California also faces a growing public education
workforce crisis: teacher shortages. The
average LEA teacher turnover rate is 12% andemergency credentialing of teachers has increased
dramatically in recent years.11

Teacher recruitment andretention are growing
challenges in LEAs acrossthe state.
As housing affordability challenges intertwine
with LEA staffing challenges, numerous housingfocused programs have emerged to provide
more affordable housing options for teachersand other LEA staff. These specialized programs
emerged because public school teachers tend to
get stuck in the middle, where their salaries are
too low to compete in the local housing market
but too high to qualify for traditional affordable
housing. Thus, even though some new affordable
housing is being built in communities across
California, many teachers do not qualify to live inthese units because their salaries (especially early
career salaries) are often just above the incomestargeted in affordable housing developments. At
the federal level, the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) has establishedthe Good Neighbor Next Door Program, which
discounts the list price of a home. At the statelevel, the MyHome Assistance Program offers
deferred down payment junior loans. Other
homeownership programs have been establishedby organizations such as Supreme Lending and2

Landed, that include down payment assistanceand steep discounts on realtor fees, and/or closing
costs. Additionally, some LEAs in California
offer mortgage down payment assistance to theiremployees.12 (See Appendix 2 for more detail onavailable assistance programs.)
Some California LEAs are looking to go evenfurther and actually build housing for theiremployees. The state legislature passed the
Teacher Housing Act of 2016, which formallyauthorizes LEAs to pursue affordable employee
housing. As described later in the report, sinceJune 2018, eight California LEAs have put a
proposition or measure before local voters to fundeducation workforce housing development—
six of these measures passed. In June 2021, Los
Angeles Unified School District announced a
new effort to build more affordable housing forteachers and school staff.13
Land is essential to developing housing; land isalso a major cost-driver in housing development.

LEAs have a uniqueadvantage in developing
housing because they
already own land in thecommunities they serve.
In fact, there are more than 150,000 acres ofland owned by LEAs in California (Figure 1). As
California policymakers seek out different ways
to increase the supply of, and access to, affordable
housing, assessing the potential for building
housing units on excess or underutilized publicschool property may offer a strategic opportunity.
In this report, we examine the potential fordeveloping employee housing on LEA-owned
land in California. This is the first research
report to create a comprehensive database ofland owned by LEAs across the state, as well asthe first report to engage in a robust, data-based
review of California’s LEA-led housing initiatives.
Both aspects of the research help to explain thestages, decision-making processes, and potential
locations for creating education workforce
housing in our state. Our work builds on a small,but growing literature on this issue,14 first byreviewing data for education workforce housing
initiatives in California (both those ongoingand prior to the time of writing), and then by
diving specifically into the process of developing
education workforce housing to offer practicalinsights to LEAs considering such strategies.
We use the term education workforce housing torefer broadly to below market rate housing units
provided for LEA employees, be they teaching
staff (i.e., “credentialed”), other non-credentialed
staff such as custodians, food service employees,
bus drivers (i.e., “classified”), or administrative
staff. However, much of the focus in the fieldhas been on teaching staff. Because of this focus,
and the fact that California LEAs face steeper
challenges attracting and retaining teaching staff(as opposed to other staff), in this report we pay
particular attention to teachers.

making education workforce housing on LEAowned lands a scalable strategy.
Our findings illustrate the unique development
potential on public K-12 education lands across
California. They highlight the need for statepolicy action to better facilitate the developmentof education workforce housing. The findings
also help empower LEAs by providing guidance
and tools to determine whether constructing
new homes on their land might be the right fit forthem. These resources provide an understandingof how housing gets built, strategies forovercoming challenges to building such housing,and ensuring housing meets the specific needs ofeach LEA and community. In addition to the data
analysis and modeling completed as part of thisproject, our research is informed by conversations
with stakeholders in the field.

The report is organized as follows. We begin bylooking at why building education workforce
housing on LEA-owned land can address theintertwined challenges of staffing and local
housing unaffordability, and what policy andfinance levers exist to support the developmentof education workforce housing. Next, we look atwhere in California education workforce housing
might work well. To do so, we inventory all LEAowned land across the state and identify where
they overlap with staffing and housing related
challenges and opportunities. From there, welook at which LEAs are considering developing
workforce housing and learn from the handfulof existing projects. Based on experience acrossthe state, we then report findings on the local
development process. We conclude with policy
recommendations to move the field forward in3

Figure 1: LEA-Owned Land in California

All Properties

By LEA Type

K-12 School District

Number of
Properties

Median Acres

10,501

9

ESD

2,638

10

28,637

HSD

633

25

18,759

USD

7,230

9

95,347

386

4

8,757

10,887

9

151,500

County Office of Education
Total

Source: Author analysis of County Assessor’s land ownership data as described in Appendix 1.

4

Total Acres
142,743

Why Build Housing on
Lands Owned by Local
Educational Agencies?

The growing interest in building workforce housing on land held by
LEAs comes amidst two intertwined crises in California. On the one
hand, California LEAs face strong challenges in teacher recruitment
and retention. A significant piece of that challenge stems from salaryconstraints, which become particularly stark given the high cost of somany of California’s housing markets. Secondly, the state as a wholehas a growing housing crisis—new housing supply has not kept up
with demand for decades and the result is fierce competition for bothrental and for-purchase units, further driving up costs.

2

As housing becomes more expensive, many educators get priced outof local housing markets. As we illustrate below, this dynamic appears
especially true for early career teachers. Many LEAs are unable to raisesalaries in accordance with rapidly increasing housing costs. In thissection, we review the confluence of these challenges for LEAs andeducation staff.

Teacher Recruitment and Turnover Challenges
Have Grown Substantially in California
In recent years, LEAs across California have experienced drastic
teacher shortages.1 These workforce shortages are driven by several
factors, including efforts to reduce class sizes, teacher turnover,teacher attrition, and low teacher preparation enrollments.2 A clear
indicator of the teaching staff shortages California LEAs face can5be seen in the increased hiring of teachers who
are not fully credentialed, increased reliance onan already short supply of substitute teachers,
and/or having teachers teach outside theirsubject areas of expertise. Teachers hired with
substandard credentials (i.e., emergency permits
that allow people who have not completed ateacher preparation program to teach for one
year, intern credentials that allow people to teachwhile still taking teaching courses, or permits
that allow credentialed teachers to teach outsideof their subject areas) increased 260% statewide
from 2012-13 to 2016-17.3 In 2017-18, 34% of newteaching hires by California LEAs had substandard
credentials for at least one of the subjects they
were authorized to teach.4(which results in less consistency in teaching
and relationship building with students) has
been found to be associated with lower student
achievement, especially in English Language
Arts (ELA) and math test scores.9 It also
hinders teacher collaborations for instructional
improvements, which take time to develop andimplement.10 Researchers have found evidence of
detrimental student achievement performance asa result of teachers with substandard credentials.11
In addition to being taught by underpreparedteachers, these students face course cancellations
and some attend larger classes because qualified
teachers cannot be found.12 Teacher turnover isalso very costly to LEAs who must recruit andretrain staff.13

Teacher turnover is apersistent challenge formany LEAs in California.

While a variety of factors influence a teacher’sdecision to remain at their school or in
the profession at all, a key factor is teacher
salary levels.14 Teachers with five or fewer
years of experience earn about 20% less than
individuals with college degrees in other fields.15
Unsurprisingly, teachers leave the profession
at high rates (between 19% and 30% nationally)
during their first five years of teaching.16
Furthermore, the wage gap between teachers andsimilarly-educated workers in other fields tends togrow over time and tenure. Over time, this wealthgap grows, placing teachers at a disadvantage,
particularly in areas with high housing costs.

Between 2016-17 and 2017-18, 12% of California
teachers either left public school teaching inthe state (9%) or moved to another California
district (3%).5 Of course, teacher turnover rates
can vary widely from LEA to LEA, but during thisperiod nearly 30% of California LEAs had teacher
turnover rates above 10%.6
Also contributing to the teacher shortage is low
teacher preparation enrollments; fewer adults areentering the public education teaching workforce.
Enrollments in teacher preparation programs (inorder to become a fully “credentialed” teacher)statewide declined by more than 75% from2001 to 2014.7 Since then, enrollments haveslowly increased each year, but The Learning
Policy Institute estimates that even if the uptick
continues, it would take 17 years for California
to reach 2001-02 teacher preparation programenrollment levels.8
These staffing challenges negatively affect LEAs
and student achievement. High teacher turnover
6

It is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic willfurther exacerbate the teacher shortages that
California LEAs face. In early 2021, the California
State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)
reported a significant increase in teacher
retirements driven in large part by concerns
associated with COVID-19.17 As LEAs reopenschools for on-site instruction, additional
school staff may also be needed to achievesmaller class sizes and other COVID mitigation
recommendations. Lastly, the challenges ofteaching amidst a lingering pandemic arealso likely to push many teachers out of theprofession.18

Teacher shortages arehaving a disproportionate
impact on alreadydisadvantaged students in
California.
Importantly, there are racial disparities embeddedin teacher staffing challenges, which work to
widen and reinforce educational equity gaps.
LEAs enrolling more low-income students andhistorically underserved students tend to havehigher teacher turnover rates and higher rates ofteachers with substandard credentials.19

California’s Housing Affordability
Crisis Continues to Deepen andSpreadDespite strong population growth in California
since the 1990s, housing supply has not kept
up. California has under-built housing relative
to demand for decades (Figure 2). California’s
Department of Housing and Community
Development estimates that the state needs
180,000 new homes each year over a tenyear period (from 2015-2025) to keep up withpopulation growth.20 This unit production goalhas only been met in three years since 1990, as
shown in Figure 2.
While the state as a whole has struggled to build
enough homes to match population growth,cities and jurisdictions are also failing to meet theaffordability targets for new construction assigned
to them as part of the 5th Cycle Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations.21
RHNA progress report data show that, inparticular, local jurisdictions are far behind their
allocations for new housing that is affordable
to households earning below 120% of the Area

Median Income (AMI), despite most jurisdictions
being more than half way through their 5- or
8-year reporting periods (Figure 3). Less than
15% of the units intended to be affordable tohouseholds making 80% AMI or below have been
built.
Not only has new housing supply not kept pacewith demand overall, but many of California’s
metropolitan areas have actually seen steep
pullbacks in the pace of new housing permizts
in recent decades. This slowdown has been
particularly pronounced in coastal markets like
San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.22 The
slowdown in new housing permits is occurringat the same time as California experiences someof the country’s strongest employment and wage
gains.23
The gap in housing supply relative to demand,
paired with California's high land and building
costs, have led to a dramatic increase in housing
prices in recent decades. Bottom-tier homeprices (measured as the bottom one-third of
the regional home price distribution) in eachof the state’s largest housing markets (LosAngeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San
Jose) now exceed $300,000. Fewer than 42% of
California households and fewer than one-thirdof households in San Jose and Los Angeles earnenough to purchase a bottom-tier home in theirregion.24
As entry-level homeownership prices have grownout of reach to many households, pressure on
rent prices has increased steeply. As annual rent
increases continue to surpass wage growth, more
and more California residents higher up in theincome distribution ladder are facing housing
cost burdens.

7

Figure 2: Annual Permitting of Residential Units Compared to Projected Statewide Need for
Additional Homes (1975-2019)
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

‐

Single‐Family

Multi‐Family

180,000 Unit Production Goal

Sources: 1975-2019 annual residential construction permit data from Construction Industry Research Board. 2015-2025
Projected Annual Need from HCD Analysis of State of California, Department of Finance data.

Figure 3: Statewide Progress Towards 5th Cycle RHNA Housing Production Goals by Income Group

600,000
500,000
487,906 489,619

400,000
300,000

Shortfall of
246,826 Units
Shortfall of
154,361 Units

278,424200,000

Shortfall of
121,824 Units
204,917

185,525

100,000‐

31,59831,164

83,093

Below 50% AMI

50‐80% AMI

80‐120% AMI

Units Allocated

Above 120%

Units Permitted

Source: Terner Center analysis of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s 5th Cycle
Annual Progress Report Permit Summary, Reporting Year 2019.

8

The Housing Affordability
Crisis Directly Impacts Teacher
Recruitment, Retention, andResidential Location Decisions
Housing costs outstripping earnings isparticularly true for public school teachers andother LEA employees, whose wages have largely
remained stagnant relative to rising housing costs.
A 2016 Redfin study found that only 17.4% of
homes for purchase in California were affordableon the average teacher salary, down from 30% in
2012.25 In high-cost counties like Alameda, only
1.2% of homes on the market were affordable forthe average teacher, a drastic drop from 14.5%
in 2012. In San Francisco, 0.2% of homes wereaffordable to the average teacher in 2016, downfrom 0.5% in 2012. In both Santa Clara and San
Mateo counties, 0% of homes were affordable on
the average teacher salary in 2016, down from 2%
and 1.3%, respectively, in 2012.26

Rapidly rising housing
costs coupled withstagnant incomes havemade it increasingly
difficult for educators tolive in the communities
that they serve.
Often, teacher salaries hover just above
the income targets typically designated inconventional affordable housing programs.27
This is especially true for early-career teachers.
Statewide, there are about 300,000 teachers
employed in public school systems, with about
12% being first- or second-year teachers (referred
to as “beginning teachers”).28 43% of LEAs havetheir lowest scheduled teacher salary at or below
80% AMI, which would qualify them as “lowincome” according to HUD standards and eligible
for federal housing assistance (Figure 4).29 These

LEAs employ nearly 18,000 beginning teachers.
Lowest scheduled salaries for teachers range from
$37,000 to $84,476.
Figure 4: LEA Low Teacher Salaries in Relation
to AMI2%

Low Salary is Between
30‐50% AMI

9%

Low Salary is Above
120% AMI

41%

Low Salary is Between
50‐80% AMI

48%

Low Salary is Between
80‐120% AMI

Sources: California Department of Education CertificatedSalaries & Benefits data, 2018-2019. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development Income Limits data,
2018.

Beginning teacher startingsalaries translate into very
weak purchasing power inlocal housing markets.
Half (52%) of California LEAs are located incounties where the median asking rent for vacant
units is not affordable to the district’s low salaried
teachers. In 45% of California LEAs, less than halfof all rented studios and one-bedroom units inthe county are affordable to teachers earning thelowest scheduled salary in the LEA.
9

Other LEA employees also struggle with housing
affordability. For example, office staff, teachers
assistants, janitors/grounds/maintenanceemployees, bus drivers, and food service workers
all have median household incomes and median
individual incomes much less than those ofteachers and administrators, as shown in the tablebelow (Figure 5).30 Office staff, for example, earn atypical individual income of just under $40,000 ayear, while the typical teacher's assistant or foodservice worker makes less than half of that.
For the California households that have a public
education employee living in them, almost onethird of these households rent, although sharesreach even higher for non-administration, nonteaching staff. Under Federal guidelines, anindividual or household that spends more than
30% of their income on housing is consideredhousing cost burdened.

More than one-third of all
public school employees
who rent are housing costburdened.
Nearly one-third (31%) of teachers’ households
who rent are housing cost burdened andmore than half (55%) of food service workers’
households who rent are housing cost burdened,as shown in Figure 6.
Furthermore, public education employees
experiencing rent burdens are disproportionately
likely to be people of color (Figure 7). While
Hispanic and Latinx people account for one-thirdof public education employees, they account for
41% of employees experiencing a rent burden. At
the same time, Black people make up 6% of all
public education employees but 14% of those withrent burdens. Such disparities remain apparent
when limiting the population only to teachers.
Nearly one-quarter of teachers are Hispanic
or Latinx (24%) and another 5% are Black, but
among rent-burdened teachers, those shares riseto 29% and 11%, respectively. These disparities inthe experience of housing burdens—dependingon the extent to which they impact teacher
recruitment and retention among people ofcolor—also stand to have implications for equity
gaps among student outcomes, given that thereis evidence that students of color, and especiallyBlack students, experience improved outcomeswhen taught by teachers of the same race/
ethnicity.31

Figure 5: Income and Housing Tenure, by Employee TypeAll
Number of
Staff
Number ofHouseholds w/
Ed Staff
Median Household Income
Median Individual Income
Share Renter

Administrators

Teachers

OfficeStaff

Teachers
Assistants

Janitors &MaintenanceBus
Drivers

Food
Service

654,567

32,762

330,364

29,404

71,677

29,675

8,041

18,513592,01331,600306,879

28,63365,354

27,1307,332

17,886

107,587

150,233

120,448

96,35880,33178,00075,82371,50048,691

98,00064,93738,936

18,85338,08731,00013,616

30%

23%

27%

28%

38%

35%

34%

37%

Source: Author analysis of American Community Survey 2018 5-year PUMS.

10

Figure 6. Renter Households with a Cost Burden, by Employee Type
60%

55%
50%

50%
43%

40%

42%

37%

36%
31%

30%
23%

20%
10%
0%

All

Administrators

Teachers

Office Staff

Teachers
Assistants

Janitors &Maintenance

Bus Drivers

Food Service

Share with Rent Burden

Source: Author analysis of American Community Survey 2018 5-year PUMS.

Figure 7: Race and Ethnicity of Education Staff, by Presence of Rent Burden
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Teachers

Rent Burdened
Teachers
White

Hispanic/Latinx

Public School
Employees
Black

Asian

Rent Burdened
Public School
Employees

Other

Source: Author analysis of American Community Survey 2018 5-year PUMS.

11

Building Housing on LEA-Owned
Land is a Strategy with Impact
Potential
While the confluence of salary constraints andhigh-cost housing markets have created barriers
to teacher attraction and retention in California,
there is evidence to suggest that housing-related
strategies could help ameliorate those barriers.
The Learning Policy Institute recently foundthat nearly one in five teachers who leave theprofession cite financial reasons as very importantor extremely important.32 A 2019 national surveyof former public school teachers found that overhalf (53%) said they would consider returning to
the classroom if the financial benefits of doing so
improved.
Nearly a quarter (23%) of respondents cited
housing incentives as an attractive benefit.33 A
2018 study of employees in the Berkeley Unified
School District found strong belief among
employees (79% of renters, 73% of owners)that alleviating housing cost burdens would
help retain staff. The study also found strong
interest in living in LEA-owned housing—74%
of employees who currently rent reported being
interested. This desire was even stronger (83%)
among younger employees who currently rent.34
A 2017 study of seven teachers who voluntarily
left their LEAs in Santa Clara County found thatthe desire for homeownership (not renting) wasa driving factor motivating their departure. All ofthese teachers reported that homeownership was
effectively impossible in their LEA area.35
While there are a limited number of education
workforce housing projects developed by school
districts to examine, the handful in California
suggest promising positive impacts. Casa delMaestro, developed by Santa Clara Unified School
District as a way to house beginning teachers
while they build equity to purchase their own
home, has high employee satisfaction—so much
12

so that roughly 80% of tenants have stayed fullterm (Figure 8).36 The project initially contained
40 units, but its success in retaining teachers
made the case for a second phase that added
30 more units. The attrition rate for teachers
supported by the rental housing is less than
one-third of other teachers with the samehiring date.37 Casa del Maestro celebrated its
fifteenth anniversary in 2017 and continues tohave a waitlist, which points to not only theeffectiveness of workforce housing to recruitand retain teachers but also the local need for
additional workforce housing developments tomeet existing demand.38 The Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) reports that there is little
turnover among its housing units that carry an
employee tenant preference.39 Of 185 total units
LAUSD has developed, 152 carry an employee
preference, and 33 units are available to anyone in
need of affordable housing. Casa del Maestro and
LAUSD’s projects are frequently cited as primeexamples of the successful implementation of
housing or rent assistance as a teacher retention
and recruitment strategy. We discuss theseprojects in more detail later in the report.

Figure 8: Casa del Maestro

Photo Credit: KTGY.

A Number of Financial Tools andState Legislative Efforts Support
the Production of Housing on
School Lands
While there is demonstrable need for affordable
housing solutions for teachers—and there are
early indications that such efforts to build on
LEA-owned land can have positive impacts—
developing housing is a complex endeavor. Doingso as a public entity that does not specialize
in housing development and making projects
financially feasible at below market rents is evenmore complicated. In this section, we describe
three important aspects of education workforce
housing development: financing, state policy,
and the planning process. We describe each inthe context of LEAs and provide more detailed
technical appendices.

Financing Levers
A number of financial tools can be used to fundthe development of housing on school lands.
Each comes with its own considerations, andhow multiple sources of funding layer together
can shape what the project looks like and who it
serves. (For more detail on financing mechanisms,
see Appendix 3.) As local governments with taxing
and bonding authority, school districts can also
use local general obligation bonds, certificatesof participation, and/or local parcel taxes. The
Teacher Housing Act of 2016 added to thisarsenal by allowing LEAs to utilize Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which leverage tax
credits for private equity investment and havebeen available to affordable housing developers
since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. LIHTC funds
have financed more than 3 million housing units
nationally, making it the primary mechanism for
funding affordable housing in the country.40
New housing construction generally requires a
combination of debt and equity financing. To

make many affordable housing projects financially
feasible, this requires loans, private capital frominvestors in exchange for tax credits though
LIHTC, and other subsidies from public andprivate sources. Because the amount of debt aproject can take in loans is based on the income
generated by tenants, multiple funding sources
and subsidies allow for lower rents to be charged
in the completed development. Additionally, rent
levels must still be structured to yield enoughrevenue to both pay off the debt and fundongoing operations costs (e.g., maintenance).
While LIHTC typically contributes a significant
portion to total development costs, it is mostoften insufficient for closing the gap between
project costs and revenues. Because rents are kept
low, affordable housing projects typically needa more diversified and layered mix of financing
mechanisms (i.e., “capital stack”) compared tomarket-rate developments. The makeup of thecapital stack looks different for every affordable
housing development depending on local
conditions and project parameters, but It is notuncommon for LIHTC projects to layer between
four and eight sources of funding.41 The financing
mechanisms a developer pursues depend on
local factors such as target resident incomes(and desired rent structure), project priorities,
location, amenities, and community needs. Of
course, each funding source in the capital stack
has its own requirements that must be met (e.g.,target population, sustainability goals, labor wage
requirements), which ultimately shape the end
product in significant ways (e.g., type and size ofthe development or the inclusion of specific-use
spaces).

Leveraging LEA Land Ownership as a
Finance Tool
Being landowners in their communities, LEAs
have a unique advantage that may be leveraged in
the affordable housing development process. The
cost of land is typically a major piece of overall
project cost. If an LEA is developing education
13

workforce housing on land it already owns, it ispotentially removing that major expense from theequation. However, LEAs may also leverage theirland ownership as a finance tool in other ways.
For example, LEAs are able to trade land/property
to obtain land that is better suited for workforce
housing. LEAs are also able to sell land they own
and use the proceeds to fund workforce housing
elsewhere.
No matter the financing structure, affordable
housing development is a time-intensive,
strategic, and technical endeavor. LEAs
considering the feasibility of creating education
workforce housing ought to give thought tobringing on consultants for financial feasibility
analysis, project management, and otherspecialized roles. Consultants can be hired as earlyas the beginning stages of the predevelopment
and due diligence processes.

An Emerging State Policy Framework
State legislative action in recent years is paving
the way for more housing development on schoollands. (Refer to Appendix 4 for an in-depth
timeline of state legislative efforts.) The Teacher
Housing Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 1413, Leno)
established the core of California’s emerging
policy framework on education workforce
housing. Most fundamentally, the Act formallyauthorizes LEAs in California to pursue affordable
housing for employees. The legislation sets thestate’s policy tone by recognizing school employee
housing as an important avenue for stabilizing
its workforce, stating that the goal of creating
access and maintaining housing stability for LEA
employees is “critical to the overall success andstability of each school in California.” The Act also
shifts the playing field on development financeby authorizing LEAs to establish and implement
programs to address employee housing andto leverage federal, state, local, public, private,nonprofit programs, and fiscal resources available
to other housing developers, namely LIHTC.42
14

The Act also allows LEA-owned housing projects
to be available exclusively to LEA employeesby allowing these projects to override the Fair
Housing law restriction that limits the extent towhich housing can favor or be targeted toward acertain subgroup or occupation when tax credits
are involved. In making the link between rising
housing costs and growing teacher turnover rates,
the Act provides justification for why teachers andother LEA employees should be designated as a
special class.

“Students and thecommunity at large arebenefited by teachers
living in the community inwhich they practice theirprofession. It ensures
stability, community
involvement, and stronger
ties between teachers,
their students, and theirfamilies.”—Teacher Housing Act of
2016
While the Teacher Housing Act established abroad and enabling framework for LEAs to tap
into new revenue sources, subsequent legislation
has tried to make building education workforce
housing a viable option for California LEAs (e.g.,
AB 1157 (Mullin) and SB 2 (Atkins)).
Momentum for legislation to support LEA
workforce housing continues in California,
with at least six bills on the topic introduced in
the 2021-2022 legislative season. These bills fall
into three categories based on what they aim toaccomplish with regard to creating incentives
for the development of education workforce
housing: legislation for increasing flexibility inthe use of LEA funds for education workforcehousing development (e.g., SB 616, Rubio; SB 1017,
Portantino; AB 1248, O’Donnell; ACA 1, Aguilar);legislation aimed at removing local zoning and/or
design obstacles to education workforce housingdevelopment (e.g., AB 306, O’Donnell; AB 780,
Ting); legislation aimed at establishing priority
in state policy for education workforce housing(e.g., SB 791, Cortese); and legislation aimed atincreasing flexibility in the use of public lands
for affordable housing development (e.g., AB
1271, Ting; AB 1390, Horvath).43 With the notable
exceptions of SB 791 and AB 1390, the remaining
bills failed to pass this year, but could be revisitedin the second year of the session.
While California’s policy and finance landscapefor education workforce housing is taking
shape, it yet remains an in-progress patchwork.
Clearly there is legislative progress on expanding
education workforce housing in California, but
LEAs remain far from having a cohesive statepolicy framework or set of funding mechanisms,
which makes financing projects and developing
projects at scale a major challenge.

Building Trust in Local Planning Processes
is Essential
While finance tools and supportive statepolicies are important, developing workforce
housing is a complex local process. Engaging
local stakeholders effectively and building trust
among participants will be essential. In addition
to following planning processes similar toconventional housing developers, LEAs mustnavigate additional responsibilities as a publicagency. To build trust and foster engagement withthe local community, processes and decisionmaking must be transparent and occur within
the democratic structure of local LEA governance(i.e., school boards and committees). All of thisextends project timelines and impacts costs.
Genuine engagement with neighbors, interest
groups, school families, and local leadershipwill substantively affect any development andwill require good-faith negotiation, effective
communication, and accountability.

By building trust among
all the stakeholders fromthe earliest stages of theplanning process, fewer
unforeseen hurdles willarise.
Just as no two housing projects are exactly thesame, the processes necessary to build trustand engagement in the local planning anddevelopment process will differ from one LEA toanother. Because the timelines for development
are lengthy, maintaining trust and continuity
among stakeholders is a long-term undertaking.
If a housing development typically takes from 3
to 5 years to be planned and completed, for LEAs
it can take from 5 to 7 years—or even longer—
despite using properties they already own.
To effectively embark on a workforce housingdevelopment planning process in which trustis maintained, LEAs must take the time toholistically define and communicate goals for theuse of their properties. The decision to develop
takes place after conducting comprehensive
real estate assessments and district-wide masterplanning. Some legislation has streamlined
housing development processes, such as AB
1157, which removed the need for an additional
advisory “7-11” committee to declare property“surplus.” Starting early to build public trust
and understanding of LEA efforts to develop
education workforce housing through outreach isimportant. Clear communication, transparency,
and accountability create a shared understandingthat district-wide options are being weighedcarefully to create benefits for the community
as a whole. This report continues by diving into
the “where” and “how” of education workforce
housing for LEAs to consider the best use of theirschool lands.
15

3

Where Might Education
Workforce Housing Work
Well?

While housing costs are rising statewide and many LEAs haveworkforce recruitment and retention challenges, the shape ofthese challenges differ from one locale to the next. The amountof land—and any potential “extra” land—owned by LEAs that may
be developable also differs from locale to locale. In this section, we
analyze the potentially developable acreage on LEA-owned land in
California. To do so, we created a spatial inventory of all land andexisting buildings under the ownership of California’s LEAs (K-12
school districts and county offices of education) in the state andoverlaid this information with local characteristics (i.e., indicatorsof staffing challenges) that outline the need for education workforce
housing on each property, and developmental characteristics (i.e.,
indicators of housing affordability challenges or housing opportunity)that might improve project feasibility (Figure 9).1

Every County has Lands Held by Public
Education Entities
Statewide, there are nearly 11,000
properties totaling 151,500 acres of land
owned by California LEAs—roughly 10
times the size of Manhattan.2

16

Every county has lands held by LEAs.3 The
majority (80%) of these properties—totaling
129,377 acres statewide—have one or more
schools operating on them.4 The remaining 2,218
properties—totaling 22,122 acres statewide—
do not currently have an operating school onthem. Figure 10 shows the breakdown of theseproperties by LEA type and presence of a school.

LEA-owned properties vary widely in size, butthey tend not to be very large. For the properties
with schools, elementary schools tend to besmaller (often 10-20 acres) while middle schools
and high schools tend to be larger schools, both inenrollment and physical size, and have more andlarger outdoor playfields.5 Of the 2,218 properties
without a school, 36% (N=790) are less than an
acre.

Figure 9: Indicators of Staffing Challenges, Housing Challenges, and Housing Opportunity

Local Educational Agency Challenge Indicators
LEA’s annual teacher turnover rate is above the statewide median(12%)6

Indicators of staffing challenges

LEA’s percentage of beginning teachers is above the statewide median(12%)7
Median asking rent in the county is unaffordable to teachers at thelowest scheduled salary in the LEA8

Indicators of housing affordability challenges

LEA’s lowest scheduled salary is below 80% AMI

Housing Opportunity Indicators
Indicators that a housing development could beparticularly competitive for funding

Indicator that local zoning/built environment
may be amenable to multifamily construction

Property is located in an area designated as “High” or “Highest”
resource in the state’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
Opportunity Area Map designations9
Property is located in a Transit Rich Area10
Property is located in a census tract with at least one large multifamily
development

Note: See Appendix 1, Methods and Data Sources, for data sources and descriptions. When there was missing schooldistrict level data on teacher turnover, beginning teacher salaries, or other salary data, we use the county median.
While each property would need further analysis for development potential, our findings provide a first-ever statewide
assessment of the scale, scope, and geography of education workforce housing opportunities on LEA-owned land in
California.

Figure 10: Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies, by LEA Type

By LEA Type

Properties with Schools
K-12 School
District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Officeof Education
Total

Number of Median
Properties
Acres
8,441
10

Properties without Schools

All Properties

Total
Number of MedianAcres
Properties
Acres
124,616
2,060
2

Total Number of MedianAcres Properties
Acres
18,127
10,501
9

Total
Acres
142,743

2,150

10

25,388

488

3

3,249

2,638

10

28,637414

35

14,828

219

3

3,931

633

25

18,7595,877

1084,4001,353

210,9477,230

995,347

228

5

4,762

158

2

3,995

386

4

8,757

8,669

10

129,377

2,218

2

22,122

10,8879 151,500

Source: Author analysis of the California School Campus Database (CSCD) and California County Assessors’ Offices
parcel ownership data.

17

Determining which LEA properties might becontenders for workforce housing depends not
only on the size of the parcel, but also on its
existing uses. For properties that currently houseone or more schools, we assume that the school(s)will remain and, if feasible, education workforce
housing would be built and operated alongside
the school on the property. For LEA-owned land
without a school, the property may already bevacant, have few existing uses, or house uses that
could be relocated to another property to makeway for education workforce housing. Of course,
it is also possible that these properties are being
fully used and the LEA may not want to trade
those uses for workforce housing.

After tallying existing building footprints, PE
space needs, and bus drop-off space needs, theresult is each property’s “potentially developable”
acreage. For workforce housing development
purposes, we assume that properties with lessthan one acre of “potentially developable” land
will likely be too small in most locales to belogistically or financially feasible for housing.11

To estimate potentially developable acreage on
both property types, we run two key tests on each
property:

These 7,068 properties have a very wide range ofpotentially developable acres and can be found ineach county, as shown in Appendix 1. The medianpotentially developable acres per property ranges
from county to county. In San Francisco County,
the median potentially developable acres is 2.0
and in Amador County it is as high as 12.9 acres.

••

Across California, there are 7,068 properties
with potentially developable land of one acre or
more totaling more than 75,000 acres statewide,
as shown in Figure 11. The median potentiallydevelopable acreage of these properties is 5.9
acres.

First, we measure existing building footprints
on the property and quantify the unbuilt
acres on each property.
Second, for properties with schools on them,we:
1. Estimate and exclude the amount of
outdoor physical education space neededon each property; and2. Estimate and exclude the minimum bus
drop-off space needed on the property.

Every county has
potentially developableland owned by LEAs.
Next, we report findings on the total potentiallydevelopable acres in relation to the indicators

Figure 11: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies, by Local
Educational Agency Type

By LEA TypeAll Properties

K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Education
Total

Number of Properties

Total Acres

Total PotentiallyDevelopable AcresMedian PotentiallyDevelopable Acres

6,847

122,294

67,7295.9

1,828

24,102

13,753

5.7

465

17,698

9,958

11.8

4,554

80,49344,019

5.8

221

8,299

7,745

5.0

7,068

130,593

75,474

5.9

Source: Author analysis of the California School Campus Database (CSCD), California County Assessors’ Offices parcel
ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physical education and bus drop
off space from CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).

18

of staffing challenges, housing affordability
challenge, and housing opportunity. For each,
we report the results in two ways: first by LEA
type (K-12 school district— further subdivided
by elementary district, high school district, andunified district—and county office of education);and second, by geographic place type (“city,”“rural,” “town,” or “suburb”) using the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) urban
centric locale codes.12

Staff Recruitment and Retention
Challenges are Greater in SomeAreas
To identify the number of potentially developable
acres located in LEAs with education staff
recruitment and retention challenges, we define
housing affordability as a challenge if:••

Annual teacher turnover rate is above thestatewide median (12%)
The percentage of beginning teachers isabove the statewide median (12%)

Statewide, 40% (2,814) of potentially developable
properties owned by LEAs are located in LEAs
where the district’s annual teacher turnoverrate is above the statewide median of 12%. Even
more potentially developable properties (49%)
are located in LEAs where the district’s share of
beginning teachers is above the statewide medianof 12%. A higher share of properties in “rural”
and “town” geographies meet both of these
recruitment challenge indicators compared tothose in “cities” and “suburbs.” In summary, 64%of potentially developable LEA-owned properties
in California are in LEAs that are characterized
by at least one of the two teacher recruitment
and retention challenge indicators (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies in Areas
Where Teacher Retention and Attraction Challenges Are Above Statewide Medians, by LEA Type andGeographic Place Type
Where the District-Level Teacher
Turnover Rate is Above theStatewide Median

By Place Type

By LEA Type

Number of
Properties
K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Ed.
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

Percent of
Properties

Where the Share of Beginning
Teachers in the District is Above theStatewide Median
Number of
Properties

Percent of
Properties

2,748

40%

3,330

49%

823

45%

848

46%

178

38%

185

40%

1,747

38%

2,297

50%

66

30%

115

52%

2,814

40%

3,445

49%

796

31%

1,316

51%

1,128

36%

1,259

41%

499

66%

482

64%

386

62%

382

62%

5

42%

6

50%

2,814

40%

3,445

49%

Source: Author analysis of CDE teacher turnover and beginning teacher data obtained from the Learning Policy Institute(2017-2018), California School Campus Database (CSCD), California County Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data,
Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physical education and bus drop off space from
CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).

19

Housing Affordability Challenges
are Greater in Some Areas
Turning to regional housing cost burdens, we
identify the potentially developable acres locatedin areas where housing affordability is likely achallenge for LEA employees. We define housing
affordability as a challenge if:•

potentially developable properties (61%) arelocated in districts where the lowest scheduledsalary is below 80% AMI. A greater percentage
of properties in “city” and “suburb” locations
face these affordability challenges than in lessurbanized areas. These findings reveal that morethan half (61%) of potentially developable LEAowned properties in California are in areas wherebeginning—and other lower salaried teachers—
face housing affordability challenges (Figure 13).

Median asking rent in the county isunaffordable to teachers at the lowest
scheduled salary in the LEA
Lowest scheduled salary is below 80% AMI

Some Properties are More
Competitive for LIHTC Financing

Statewide, 61% (4,291) of potentially developable
properties owned by LEAs are located in LEAs
where the median asking rent in the county
is unaffordable to teachers at the lowest
scheduled salary in the district.13 Even more

Given that LIHTC are a dominant source offinancing for affordable housing, assessing
competitiveness for them is important to gauge
where education workforce housing may be mostfeasible. To do so, we look at the relationship•

Figure 13: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies in Areas
Where Teachers Face Housing Affordability Challenges, by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type
Where the Median Asking Rent
is Unaffordable to Teachers at theLowest Scheduled Salary

By Place Type

By LEA Type

Number of
Properties
K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Ed.
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

Percent of
Properties

Where the Lowest Scheduled Salaryis Less than 80% AMI
Number of
Properties

Percent of
Properties

4,226

62%

3,542

52%

1,107

61%

1,000

55%

290

62%

249

54%

2,829

62%

2,293

50%

65

29%

52

24%

4,291

61%

3,594

51%

1,861

72%

1,666

64%

2,098

68%

1,677

54%

165

22%

113

15%

165

27%

136

22%

2

17%

2

17%

4,291

61%

3,594

51%

Source: Author analysis of CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits data (2018-2019), American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates (2014-2018), HUD 2018 Income Limits data, California School Campus Database (CSCD), California County
Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physicaleducation and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).
Note: Median asking rent reflects county-level ACS estimates of asking rents on all vacant units.

20between potentially developable LEA properties
and two key LIHTC criteria in California, which
serve as indicators of housing opportunity:••

Whether the property is located in an area
designated as “High” or “Highest” resource inthe state’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee(TCAC) Opportunity Area Map designations
Whether the property is located in a Transit
Rich Area

Having either of these amenity indicators gives
LEA properties a competitive edge in obtaining
LIHTC financing.

Opportunity Area Maps (2,885 out of 7,068). This
percentage of properties is fairly even acrossgeographic place types, with the majority of total
acreage located in high-opportunity suburbs(Figure 14). These areas have too often lacked
affordable multifamily housing options.14 Locating
education workforce housing in these areas also
increases affordable housing options in areas ofopportunity (which by definition have higher
performing K-12 schools).

Transit Rich Areas

Figure 14: Potentially Developable Land Owned
by California Local Educational Agencies in
TCAC Designated “High” or “Highest” Resource
Areas, by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type

Figure 15: Potentially Developable Land Owned
by California Local Educational Agencies inTransit Rich Areas, by LEA Type and Geographic
Place Type

Located in TCAC DesignatedHigh or Highest Resource Area
Number ofPercent of
Properties
Properties
2,814
41%
762
42%
160
34%
1,892
42%
71
32%
2,885
41%
1,148
44%
1,222
40%
280
37%
231
37%
4
33%
2,885
41%

Located in a Transit
Rich Area
Number ofPercent of
Properties
Properties
534
8%
98
5%
23
5%
413
9%
6
3%
540
8%
340
13%
191
6%
7
1%
2
0%
0%
540
8%

K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Ed.
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

Source: Author analysis of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Map data (2021), California
School Campus Database (CSCD), California County Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building
Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physical education and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide to
School Site Analysis and Development (2000).

By Place TypeBy Place Type

By LEA TypeTax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
Opportunity Area Map Designations

By LEA Type

More than 40% of the potentially developable
properties are located in areas designated “High”
or “Highest” Resource Areas on the TCAC

Locating workforce housing near high qualitytransit, may reduce auto dependency forresidents, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled(VMT) associated with the development. By
nature of the location and limited footprint ofhigh quality transit corridors (which tend to beclustered in more dense and/or populated urban
areas), only 8% (540) of potentially developable

K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Ed.
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

Source: Author analysis of the Othering & Belonging
Institute’s data on transit-rich areas, California School
Campus Database (CSCD), California County Assessors’
Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physicaleducation and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide to
School Site Analysis and Development (2000).

21

properties are located in a Transit Rich Area, as
shown in Figure 15. Not surprisingly, properties
in the most urbanized locations (“city”) are more
likely to be in Transit Rich Areas.

Some Properties May Garner Less
Community Opposition
For employee housing to be financially feasible,
the developments themselves will likely need
to be reasonably dense. In some areas however,
local density restrictions may hinder the LEA
from including enough units per acre to make thedevelopment financially feasible. Additionally,some California communities have seen strong
local opposition to new development andparticularly new development that is more
dense than surrounding neighborhoods.15
LEA properties located in areas where somemultifamily units already exist may be moreamenable to additional multifamily development,
both from a zoning and community acceptanceperspective. To quantify this, we look at one
additional indicator of housing opportunity:•

Whether the property is located in a census
tract with at least one large multifamily
development that contains 20 or more units

We find that 76% (5,352) of the potentiallydevelopable properties are located in census tracts
that already contain at least one multifamily
housing development with at least 20 units, as
shown in Figure 16. Even in rural locales, morethan half (52%) of properties have multifamily
housing with 20 or more units nearby.
While LEAs should not exclude potentiallydevelopable property located in lower density
neighborhoods, the properties with higher density
in close proximity may garner stronger local
community support—and/or less opposition—for
new, higher density workforce housing.

Figure 16: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies in Areas
with at Least One Large Multifamily Development, by LEA Type and Geographic Place Type
Located in a Census Tract with At Least One Mutifamily Housing Development

By Place Type

By LEA Type

Number of
Properties
K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Education
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

Percent of
Properties
5,176

76%

1,307

71%

367

79%

3,502

77%

176

80%

5,352

76%

2,099

81%

2,361

76%

568

76%

319

52%

5

42%

5,352

76%

Source: Author analysis of American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2014-2018), California School Campus Database (CSCD), California County Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage
recommendations for physical education and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).
Note: Multifamily Housing Development refers to structures with 20 units or more.

22

Statewide, Education Workforce
Housing Development
Opportunity on LEA-Owned Land
Appears Widespreadin California should be investigated more closelyfor education workforce housing development
feasibility.
Figure 18 demonstrates how one district could
hypothetically evaluate its sites. Here, twoproperties in San Mateo County (those outlined
in light blue) are characterized by real need(all four challenge indicators apply) and by
especially strong development potential metrics(all three housing opportunity indicators apply).
The northern property is currently occupied
by an elementary school with a small building
footprint relative to the total acreage, resulting
in 7 potentially developable acres. The southern
property hosts an adult/continuation schooland has 9.4 potentially developable acres.
These metrics represent clear starting points
for assessing the opportunities for education
workforce housing development.

Our analysis reveals substantial possibilities foreducation workforce housing development onland currently owned by California LEAs. Basedon the analysis above, 98% of the potentiallydevelopable properties are characterized
by at least one of the LEA challenge andhousing opportunity indicators, while 71% arecharacterized by three indicators, as shownin Figure 17. Even across the four geographic
place types, more than half of the properties ineach place type are characterized by at least 3 ofthe indicators. Thus, the majority of the 7,068
properties already owned by LEAs and that haveone acre or more of potentially developable space

Figure 17: Number and Share of Potentially Developable Properties that Meet LEA Challenge andHousing Opportunity Indicators
Number and Share of Potentially Developable Properties that Meet LEA Challenge and Housing
Opportunity Indicators

By Place Type

By LEA TypeNo Indicators 1+ Indicators
K-12 School
Districts
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Ed.
Total
City
SuburbTown
Rural
Unclassified
Total

124

2+ Indicators

3+ Indicators

4+ Indicators

5+ Indicators

98%

6,071

89%

4,885

71%

3,080

45%

1,341

20%

252

4%

1,790

98%

1,578

86%

1,288

70%

824

45%

365

20%

92

5%

458

98%

415

89%

315

68%

179

38%

67

14%

18

4%

2%

4,475

98%

4,078

90%

3,282

72%

2,077

46%

909

20%

142

3%

3%

214

97%

44%

2%

6,723

38

2%

7

2%

79
7

6+ Indicators

169

76%

98

43

19%

21

10%

5

2%

131

2% 6,937

98% 6,240

88%

4,983

71% 3,123

44%

1,362

19%

257

4%

19

7%

2,576

99%

2,397

92%

2,005

77%

1,410

54%

692

27%

130

5%

72

2%

3,020

98%

2,704

87%

2,184

71%

1,358

44%

557

18%

110

4%

16

2%

735

98%

634

84%

458

61%

206

27%

69

9%

12

2%

23

4%

595

96%

497

80%

334

54%

147

24%

43

7%

5

1%

1

8%

11

92%

8

67%

2

17%

2

17%

1

8%

-

0%

98% 6,240

88%

4,983

71% 3,123

44%

1,362

19%

257

4%

131

2% 6,937

Source: Author analysis of CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits data (2018-2019), American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates (2014-2018), HUD 2018 Income Limits data, the Othering & Belonging Institute’s data on transit-rich areas,
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Map data (2021), CDE teacher turnover and beginning teacher
data obtained from the Learning Policy Institute (2017-2018), California School Campus Database (CSCD), California
County Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations forphysical education and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).
Note: Table only reflects properties with at least 1 acre of potentially developable land. Properties with less than 1 acre ofpotentially developable land were not evaluated against LEA challenge and housing indicators. For properties meeting
more than one criteria, properties were evaluated if they met any combination the possible criteria.

23

Site Types Define Design
Opportunities and Constraints
Each LEA property is unique: some properties
have few buildings clustered together; others have
many buildings that are spread across the site;others have environmental conditions that deter
development.
While our analysis reveals tremendous
opportunity on LEA-owned land across thestate—especially in locales where LEA employees
face housing affordability challenges—each
property requires careful, on-the-groundassessment for its development feasibility.
In the subsequent section we define a series of site
types. These typologies are derived from a surveyof sites owned by LEAs across California andconsidered for education workforce housing.

We have categorized and identified the particular
opportunities and constraints they present basedon their spatial relationship to other district
campuses and facilities. More on this survey is in
the section that follows.
The vast majority of property owned by LEAs haveone or more active schools on them. Dependingon site characteristics, it may be possible forthese sites to also hold education workforce
housing. Most often, using school sites requires
subdividing the land or severing portions from alarger campus to meet lender requirements andin consideration of disrupting school operation.
For example, remote parking lots or fields that are
no longer in use can present site opportunities.
There are also an array of district facilities
that support schools such as administrative

Figure 18: Sample LEA-Owned Properties and Building Footprints in Proximity to Transit Rich Area

Building Footprint
School Land
Transit Rich Area

Source: Author’s analysis of California School Campus Database (CSCD) and county assessor’s parcel ownership data,
Microsoft Building Footprint data, and the Othering & Belonging Institute’s data on transit-rich areas.

24

offices, satellite facilities, maintenance yards,
warehouses, storage areas, and nutritional
centers that can be reimagined for residentialuse. Former school campuses that have beenclosed, abandoned, or are not needed for future
growth can also be evaluated for future education
workforce housing. While demand for parking
can be high for staff at school sites, surface
parking lots are one of the “low-hanging fruits”
among site types because they have few built
improvements on them.16 Beyond LEA-owned
sites, there are other sites where agreements withlocal governments or with a private developer canlead to education workforce housing provision.
City-owned land or property from other publicagencies may be available to support LEAs increating more affordable housing generally. LEAs
may also consider exploring agreements to offer
preferences or rent concessions for local teachersand staff in privately developed housing projects.
These common site types are summarized in
Figure 19. (For more detail see Appendix 5.)

Figure 19: Summary of Site Types
Site TypePros

1) Underutilized LEA Land:
Land not associated with a
specific LEA use (i.e., vacantland, miscellaneous storage
areas, and vacant noneducational buildings)

1) The land is lying dormant and is not actively
used by the LEA

1) Naylor Act may apply for publicserving open space

2) The land may have been an eyesore before
so neighbors may support development

2) If land was used as a park, thecommunity may resist conversion tohousing3) No need to relocate an existing structureCons4) Not likely to need remediation
1) The land is lying dormant and not actively
used by the LEA

1) May have structures that need to be
demolished2) Possible to leverage already built structures,lowering costs2) Former School Campus:
Portions of an inactive school
campus (recreational fields,
parking, and classrooms/
building area)

3) Often already integrated into residential
community fabric
4) No construction and school instruction
conflict2) Removes an already built out schoolparcel (potentially useable again if
enrollment increases) from the district’s
land holdings

5) Often large open sites6) Existing building indicates the site isdevelopable3) Surrounding recreational fields
may already be actively used by local
7) Surrounding residents are used to a building community (can be addressed in building
design proposal)
existing on the site
1) Close to school campuses

1) Loss of parking spaces may hinder
2) Large, flat sites with minimal built structures school and district operations

3) LEA Parking Lot:
Surface parking lots or
multistory parking structures3) These sites have little community
attachment associated with them4) Growing trend towards fewer parking
spaces per development
5) Parking area allows for efficient construction
staging and limited impact on surrounding
buildings

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.
Note: Listed from most amenable to development to most challenging based on authors’ and advisors’ assumptions.

25

Figure 19: Summary of Site Types (continued)
Site Type4) Active School Campus:
Underutilized portions of anactive school campus (excess
recreational fields, excess
parking, and underutilizedclassrooms/building area)

Pros

Cons

1) Guaranteed proximity between home andemployment for residents, reducing commute
times1) May raise privacy concerns among staff
who live at the site2) Almost every LEA owns this type of land

2) Coordination of construction schedules
and classroom schedules can provedifficult3) Consolidation of facilities can mean more
efficient use of space4) Design opportunities are presented byproximity to active campus spaces5) Clear symbol of housing, education, andcommunity being linked

3) Can elicit strong community pushback
for perceived educational impacts/
6) Possible to leverage already built structures, proximity of students and adults
thereby lowering costs7) Existing building indicates the site isdevelopable4) Subdivision of land for construction canbe complicated8) Often already integrated into residential
community fabric
1) Often a large site area
2) Often underbuilt5) LEA Facility:
LEA operations andmaintenance offices,
warehouses, or bus depots

3) Facility may be in a mixed use context
4) Can often support taller building proposals5) Most facility types will have fewer neighbors
concerned with development

1) May cause the relocation of a district
facility on the site2) Historic uses of the site may require
environmental remediation for residentialuse6) Strong opportunity for mixed use projects

3) Facility may be located far from otherresidential
areas7) Strong opportunity for joint use agreements
1) Enables the district to form a partnershipwith the city towards a common goal

1) Purchasing or leasing city owned-land
is not feasible for all districts

2) Utilizing city-owned land can allow forseveral districts to work together. Such apartnership allows multiple districts to benefit
from the same development

2) Difficult to find cities willing to set
aside land6) City-Owned Land:
City land that is given to the
LEA for the expressed purpose
3) The city donating (or reducing the costof constructing educationof) their land indicates tacit acceptance ofworkforce housing
the project and may lead to a smoother3) City may retain project/design control
over what is done on the parcel

entitlement process4) The LEA retains its other land holdings for
future use7) Set Aside Agreements:
LEA obtains units in an
independent residential
development for their staff

1) Viable for an LEA which does not havepotentially developable land but needs
education workforce housing

1) Primary control of the rental units rests
with an outside party

2) Viable for an LEA that does not have thecapacity to initiate and develop education
workforce housing but wants to secure suchhousing for its staff

2) LEAs will have to conform to the plansof the developer

3) LEA can test demand for education
workforce housing at a small scale with low
risk3) Management is outside of district
control which could lead to issues withtenancy4) Units can be obtained quickly4) Often restricted to a small number ofunits5) Purchasing or leasing the units is notfinancially feasible for all districts

261) Underutilized LEA Land

5) LEA Facility2) Former School Campus

6) City-Owned Land

3) LEA Parking Lot

7) Set-Aside Agreements

4) Active School Campus

27

4Which Local Educational Agencies
Have Considered Building
Education Workforce Housing andWhat Have They Considered?
Despite tremendous opportunities statewide to develop housingon owned lands, existing projects remain few. California is home tofour built education workforce housing developments undertaken
by two school districts: Los Angeles Unified and Santa Clara Unified.
However, it is clear that interest is growing in pockets across thestate and more and more LEAs are taking steps to build suchhousing developments. Since June 2018, eight California LEAs have
put propositions or measures before local voters to fund education
workforce housing development, as shown in Figure 20. Six of thenine measures passed.

Local Educational Agencies Across California
are Taking Initiative
To understand the scope and distribution of local interest in
developing education workforce housing among LEAs across thestate, we conducted a statewide scan.1 This scan found nearly twenty
times more projects in consideration than already built: 46 LEAs (seeFigure 21) pursuing projects on 83 sites that stand at various stages ofcompletion, ranging from a public expression of interest in education
workforce housing to completed and occupied developments (for a fulllist see Appendix 1). Common among all projects is the identificationof a specific property for development with the education workforce
housing initiative. Many of the LEAs we identified investigatedmultiple potential sites as they moved forward with their process.
28

Figure 20: Recent Local California Ballot Measures to Fund Education Workforce Housing
School District

CountyProposition
or Measure

Date

AmountVote
ResultJefferson Union High School
District

San Mateo

Measure J

Jun-18$33 Million

City of Berkeley (for Berkeley
Unified School District)

AlamedaMeasure O

Nov-18Portion of the city’s$135M affordable hous- Passed
ing bond to be used

San Francisco

Prop A

Nov-19$20 Million

PassedSan Mateo

Measure L

Mar-20$385 Million

PassedSan Diego

Measure M

Mar-20$300 Million

PassedSanta Clara

Measure J

Mar-20$26 Million

FailedStanislaus

Measure N

Mar-20$32.5 Million

FailedSoledad Unified School District

Monterey

Measure E

Mar-20$11.5 Million

FailedSoledad Unified School District

Monterey

Measure N

Nov-20$13.5 Million

PassedSan Francisco Unified School
District
San Mateo Union High School
District
Chula Vista Elementary School
District
East Side Union High School
District
Patterson Joint Union School
District

PassedSource: Author online analysis. See Appendix 1.

Next, we look more closely at these 46 LEAs andtheir projects.

Many Local Educational Agencies are
Interested in Education Workforce Housing

The 46 interested LEAs
tend to face greater
teacher recruitment andhousing affordability
challenges compared to all
LEAs in the state.
(See Figure 22). Interested LEAs tend to havehigher annual teacher turnover rates and alarger share of beginning teachers, compared
to statewide medians. Tellingly, nearly all (98%)
of the interested LEAs are in counties where
the median asking rent for all vacant units is
unaffordable to teachers at the lowest scheduledsalary in the district, compared to 52% of LEAs
statewide. Similarly, a much higher percentage(80%) of interested LEAs have their lowest
scheduled teacher salary below 80% AMI,
compared to 43% of LEAs statewide. These local
differences are partly evidenced in the muchhigher average median household income in the
counties of the 46 interested LEAs, comparedwith the statewide median ($95,458 compared to$66,137).
The 46 LEAs that have shown interest inbuilding housing on LEA land tend to be larger,
with teacher and student enrollment figures
substantially higher than those of the rest of thestate. As a result, these LEAs, which account for
5% of all California LEAs, represent more than
20% of both the student and teacher populations
in California. They also tend to have more total
land holdings compared to the rest of the state’s
LEAs. The median total acreage of potentially29Figure 21: Map of LEAs Interested in Education Workforce Housing

Novato Uniﬁed
Lagunitas Elementary
San Francisco Uniﬁed
Jeﬀerson Elementary &Jeﬀerson Union
Cabrillo Uniﬁed
Los Altos
Cuper�no Union HighSouth San Francisco Uniﬁed
Redwood City Elementary
Ravenswood City Elementary
San Mateo Union
Mountain View Whisman Uniﬁed &Los Altos Union
Paciﬁca
Palo Alto Uniﬁed
Campell Union HighSanta Cruz City HighSan Lorenzo Valley Uniﬁed
East Side Union HighMonterey Peninsula Uniﬁed

Sonoma County Oﬃce of Educa�onSanta Rosa City High & ElementaryPi�sburg Uniﬁed
Newark Uniﬁed
West Contra Costa Uniﬁed
Berkeley Uniﬁed
Alameda Uniﬁed
Oakland Uniﬁed
New Haven UniﬁedPa�erson Joint Uniﬁed
Fremont Uniﬁed
Menlo Park City
Santa Clara Uniﬁed
San Jose Uniﬁed
Sunnyvale
Soledad Uniﬁed
Panoche ElementaryOrcu� Union
Las Virgenes Uniﬁed

Pasadena Uniﬁed
Los Angeles Uniﬁed
Inglewood Uniﬁed
San Diego Uniﬁed
Chula Vista
Elementary

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.

30

Figure 22: Characteristics of LEAs interested in Education Workforce Housing
All California Local
Educational Agencies

Local Education Agencies Witha Demonstrated Interest in
Education Workforce Housing

1,889

8,605

12%

15%

District Level Share of Beginning Teachers(Median)12%

14%

Percent of LEA’s where the median asking
rent in the county (for all vacant units) is
unaffordable to employees at the lowest
scheduled salary in the district

52%

98%

Percent of districts where the lowest
scheduled teacher salary is below 80% of
Area Median Income (AMI)

43%

80%

$66,137$95,458

4 Properties

11 Properties

Acres of Potentially Developable Land per
LEA (Median)

35 Acres78 AcresShare of Potentially Developable Properties
in High/Highest Resource TCAC Designated
Areas per LEA (Median)

33%

35%

Share of Potentially Developable Properties
in Transit Rich Areas per LEA (Median)

0%9%Share of Potentially Developable Properties
in a Census Tract with at least one othermultifamily development per LEA (Median)

82%

87%

Median Student Enrollment
District Level Teacher Turnover (Median)Median Household Income Averaged Across
LEAs
Number of Properties per LEA (Median)

Source: Author analysis of CDE Certificated Salaries & Benefits data (2018-2019), American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2014-2018), HUD 2018 Income Limits data, Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2014-2018), the Othering & Belonging Institute’s data on transit-rich areas, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Map data (2021),
California School Campus Database (CSCD) and California County Assessors’ Offices parcel ownership data, Microsoft
Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physical education and bus drop off space from CDE’s Guide.
Note: Median household income data reflects the median household income for the county that the LEA is located in.

developable land among the interested LEAs is
more than twice that of the median across all
California LEAs.
However, it is important to note that while the46 LEAs own more land, at the district level, theirproperties do not appear to have substantiallymore potential for development than the land
other California LEAs own. Across the threehousing opportunity indicators: located in a

TCAC-designated High/Highest Resource Area,
located in a transit rich area, and located near an
existing large multifamily development, the shareof properties among interested LEAs that arecharacterized by these indicators is very similar
to the shares seen for all LEA properties acrossthe state. Smaller LEAs not yet pursuing thedevelopment of education workforce housing still
have ample housing opportunities compared tothese large LEAs.
31

Sites that LEAs Identify with Potential Vary
by Local Conditions
The 83 sites investigated by the 46 LEA housing
projects demonstrate that there is no single
developmental approach or site type that has
led to guaranteed success. Yet the numerous
examples helped us to identify the general factorsthat frame site considerations and influence
decision makers as to whether particularproperties have development potential, which
are outlined further below (Figure 23). The
surrounding neighborhood context of a site alongwith its physical size and shape are what mostdirectly impact whether districts consider theirland holdings potentially developable. The 83 sites
investigated for education workforce housing alsoscored consistently above average across the threehousing opportunity indicators identified above:
High or Highest Resource Area designations from
TCAC, proximity to high quality transit, andproximity to multifamily developments.

Geographic Locale, Site Area, and Site Yield
Differences between geographic locales wheresites are located help explain the wide range
in project sizes observed. The physical size ofthe property itself often reflects the geographic
locale. Of the 83 sites, the majority are between
1-11 acres, although the median site area varies bycontext. In the various designated locales, mediansite area for projects is 1.4 acres in city, 4.6 acres insuburban, 12.5 acres in town, and 23 acres in ruraldesignated locales. These differences are reflectiveof the variation in site areas found across all
LEA-owned properties in the state. Site size is also
associated with site yield, which is the numberof units that can be produced, and projects
ranged from the smallest at 12 units to the largest
proposals at 325, with a median project size of 75
units. The wide range of project sizes and yields
suggests LEAs have found education workforce
housing feasible across a variety of contexts.
Across the projects, the median percentage of
32

district teachers that could be housed in each
proposed development was 12%. Some districts
were more aggressive, proposing projects thatwould potentially house over 20% of the teachers
in their district. Of the districts that intended tohouse more than 20% of their teaching staff, theirproject sites were characterized by a large mediansite area of 10.45 acres even though all of theseparcels were in urban or suburban designatedlocales.

Zoning Designation
Site size and site yield can make a particularproperty a desirable option for development,
but it is the local zoning code that governs what
can be built. The two most common zoning
designations where projects were proposed by
LEAs are residential (41%), where housing is
expressly permitted by designation, and public
facilities (37%), which is typically reserved forgovernment facilities to provide public services
and requires a zoning designation change forresidential uses. While zoning changes requiretime for local administrative approval, the roughly
equal share of proposed sites in public facilities
and residential zoning suggests they are not amajor barrier for considering education workforce
housing. As might be expected, public facilities
zoning covers the majority of LEA properties.
All of the built education workforce housing
projects have been completed on properties
that were initially zoned for public facilities.
Yet even if existing zoning is aligned with useof a site for education workforce housing, there
can be hurdles. Residential zoning covers a
disproportionate number of the projects thatwere abandoned, most likely because community
opposition to new development can be strong inresidential areas.

Site Type
While some LEAs may have properties in eachof the variety of site types identified, LEAs with

Figure 23: Characteristics of Education Workforce Housing Projects

Project Characteristics

Site Geography

Housing Opportunity

Sites Considered for Education Workforce Housing

All LEA Owned Sites in CA

Share in High/Highest
Resource TCAC

42%

38%

Share in proximity to High
Quality Transit

43%

13%

Share in Proximity toMultifamily Developments

88%

78%

Share in City Geography

65%

42%

Share in Suburban Geography

28%

40%

Share in Town Geography

4%

9%

Share in Rural Geography

4%8%

Potentially Developable
Acreage per Site (Median)

4.5

3.0

Number of Units (Median)75

Financing (54 Sites have Financing Information)

Site Zoning
Manufacturing,4%
Agriculture,1%

LowͲIncome
HousingTaxCredit, ProceedsfromSiteSale,
7%9%MixedUse,1%

4%Planned,5%

SpecificGovernmentSet
Aside,9%
13%

Commercial,11%
Residential,41%

CertificatesofParticipation,
16%

PublicFacilities,37%

SchoolIssuedGeneral
ObligationBond,42%

Site Types
35%

17%

16%

14%

8%

6%

4%

Active School
CampusLEA Facility

Former School
CampusUnderutilized
LEA LandLEA Parking Lot

City Owned
Land

Set Aside
Agreements

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.

33

properties in city locales have most often turnedto active school campuses, district facilities,
former school campuses, and district parking
lots to locate their development projects.
Properties identified in suburban locales havemore often been on active school campuses,
former school campuses, underutilized districtland, and city-owned land. Across all contexts,
the most common site types were active school
campus (35%; 29 projects), district facility (17%; 14
projects), former school campus (16%; 13 projects),
and underutilized district land (15%; 12 projects).
While the range of site types considered fordevelopment has grown with increased interest,
two of the four built projects were constructed on
district parking lots.

Financing
Project financing can also be influenced by thecontext surrounding a site. Three of the fourbuilt projects were financed using LIHTC.
Furthermore, more state funding sources are
beginning to use the TCAC opportunity scorein their allocation decisions. The most common
funding approaches across all sites where
financing information was available were theissuance of a General Obligation Bond (42%),which relies on ballot approval from voters inthe surrounding community, and Certificates ofParticipation (16%), a funding mechanism overwhich the LEA has more direct control in issuing.
A plurality of the abandoned sites were notassociated with a defined funding source.
This analysis shows how in many ways these
LEAs (large, small, urban, and rural) and thesites they have selected are representative of
the opportunities available across the state ofCalifornia. Subsequent sections of the report will
delve deeper into a handful of successfully built
projects, as well as a few that failed to materialize,
in order to uncover the processes, successes, androadblocks that inform our recommendations fordeveloping the 21st century public school campus.
34

Existing Projects Show thePromise as well as Pitfalls ofDevelopment
California is home to four built education
workforce housing developments undertaken
by two school districts. These are Los Angeles
Unified School District’s (LAUSD) threedevelopments, Sage Park Apartments, Selma
Community Housing, and Norwood Learning
Village, and Santa Clara Unified School District’s(SCUSD) development, Casa del Maestro (Figure24). All of these projects are constructed on
LEA-owned land through a long-term groundlease with joint occupancy, where the school
district retains ownership of the land and sharesa designated use on site. In this arrangement,at the end of the ground lease the ownership ofimprovements, including the buildings, will revert
to the LEA from the development entity. Detailsof each project are summarized in Figure 25.
Casa del Maestro is a workforce housingdevelopment of 70 suburban townhouses,
housing 10% of SCUSD’s current teachers.
Although the development faces parking
challenges and has a maximum seven-year
tenancy (extended from five years), the projectcontinues to be in great demand for teachers
in the district. SCUSD funded the nearly $6.5
million construction of Casa del Maestro byissuing “certificates of participation”—financial
instruments in which rent payments are divided
up and paid directly to investors. Meanwhile,
independent third parties manage the financialtransactions, along with the day-to-day
operations of the housing complex. According
to the district, this arrangement is designed
to protect district dollars.2 Casa del Maestro
is an example of the promise of using creative
financial solutions, though it is also a reminderthat complex financing must be accompanied bysystematic development processes and politicalengagement at an early stage.

LAUSD has had more success in developing
affordable housing projects than any other
district in the state, and in 2020 it announced
its second initiative to construct even more
workforce housing. Along with covering an
area with high housing costs, LAUSD is thesecond largest school district in the nation andas such, carries a sophisticated in-house realestate development and asset management team.
LAUSD has partnered with non-profit affordable
housing developers to build four apartmentcomplexes via joint occupancy, three of which“were characterized as workforce housing andprovided a preference in rental to Los Angeles
Unified employees.”3 Rio Vista Apartments (built
on LAUSD-owned land in 2011) piloted thejoint occupancy development approach that thefollowing projects used, but the development
team was unable to secure an employee
preference for tenants for the particular project.
Through the development of these workforce
housing projects, staff learned that on average
it takes from five to seven years to complete a
project.4
All four of the developments by LAUSD utilized
a mixture of financing sources, including LIHTC
which required the restriction of units to thosein the 30% to 60% AMI bracket. While LIHTC
funding provided generous subsidies to coverconstruction costs and ensure affordable rents,

its income restrictions also limited access to thededicated units. No district teachers occupy thebuildings because they make too much to qualify
for housing assistance—despite being unable
to afford market-rate rents.5 LAUSD classified
staff and their households make up the majorityof building tenants, such as full and part-timeteacher’s assistants, library aides, cafeteria
workers, school office workers, and custodians. In
November 2020, LAUSD announced its second
initiative to house employees, recommendingthat the Board of Education renew its strategy forthe development of approximately 2,000 unitsof employee housing to include both staff andteachers.6
Besides the challenge of connecting financing toproject goals, LAUSD is also a case study in the
difficulties of managing a housing asset. In recent
years, the district has seen a decreasing share(82% to 59%) of employees living in its apartments
due to attrition. In 43 of the district’s units,tenants have taken new jobs and are no longer
LAUSD employees, although they continue tolive in district-developed apartments. LAUSD isreluctant to evict non-employee tenants, though
the district is developing new lease agreements
for future residential projects so that they cancontinue to primarily benefit employees. Since
stable, affordable housing is one factor promoting
economic mobility for its residents, LEAs may

Figure 24: Built Education Workforce Housing Projects

Photo credits (left to right): KTGY, Bridge Housing, Abode Communities, Thomas Safran & Associates.

35

Figure 25: Summary of Existing Education Workforce Housing Developments in California
Sage Park Apartments

Selma Community
Housing

Norwood Learning
Village

Santa Clara Unified

Los Angeles Unified

Los Angeles Unified

Los Angeles Unified

3445 Lochinvar Ave

1310 W 177th St

1605 N Cherokee Ave

2003 S Oak St

Year Completed

2002 (Phase 1)
2009 (Phase 2)

2014

2016

2017

Site Type

Active School Campus(Underutilized Fields)

Active School Campus(Vacant agricultural
fields)LEA Parking Lot

LEA Parking Lot

Joint Occupancy

n/a

LAUSD Joint-Use Facility

LAUSD Parking

LAUSD Parking

Developer

Education Housing
Partners

Bridge Housing

Abode Communities

Thomas Safran &Associates

Architect

KTGY Architects

Steinberg Architects

Abode Communities

William Hezmalhalch
Architects

Total Units
Total Parking Spots

70 (40 P1, 30 P2)

90

66

29

-

164 Spaces

117 Spaces

72 Spaces

Site Area

3.5 Acres

3.87 Acres (1.07 for Joint
Use).62 Acres.73 Acres

Gross Building Area-

110,305 sq ft

80,158 sq ft

31,571

Building Density

20 dwelling units/acre23.3 dwelling units/acre

106.5 dwelling units/acre

39.7 dwelling units/
acre

FAR

-

0.51

1

1.43

Unit Mix

1 BR: 48 Units
2BR: 22 Units

1BR: 29 Units
2 BR: 31 Units
3 BR: 30 Units

1 BR: 8 Units
2 BR: 35 Units
3 BR: 23 Units

1 BR: 13 Units
2 BR: 7 Units
3 BR: 9 Units

Casa Del Maestro
School District
Address

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.
Note: LAUSD’s Rio Vista Apartments is not included in the table though it was a pioneering example constructed on LEA
owned land through the joint occupancy model. As the development does not carry tenant preferences for LEA staff, it is
not considered education workforce housing.

need to take such changes in employment into
greater account. Building quality and lack ofstigma in such housing allows residents to plan
more for the future and pursue opportunities forthemselves and their families.7
SCUSD and LAUSD are two LEAs that havesuccessfully built housing for their employees
from the ground up, but there have also beensuccesses with LEAs using different approaches.
For example, Ravenswood City Elementary
School District partnered with Facebook to secure
below market rate apartments in an existingdevelopment, 777 Hamilton, for five years.
Another project currently underway at 231 Grant
Avenue in Palo Alto demonstrates how multiple
districts can work together to fund and construct36

housing to collectively house their employees.
Yet for every success story, there is a story ofa district hitting a roadblock and halting theirprocess. For example, the Oakland Unified
School District announced a teacher workforce
housing initiative in 2015, but the effort has only
seen small steps forward since then.8 In nearby
Cupertino, the Cupertino Union School District
sought to emulate the success of the SCUSD
when it announced plans to convert a former
elementary school into education workforce
housing in 2015. Cupertino Union was quickly
forced to drop the idea in the face of fierce
opposition from local residents who alleged the
district had been opaque in its process and did notconsult the community in a timely manner.

Existing Projects Highlight
Untapped Opportunities
At a macro level, the successfully built projects—
as well as the myriad projects being investigatedby LEAs across the state—belie a narrow viewof development opportunity that can be readily
expanded. The conceptual starting point foran education workforce housing project liesat the intersection of the issues of housing
affordability and teacher retention. While the
46 interested LEAs face acute affordability andstaffing challenges, especially when comparedto the average values across the state, there
are numerous other districts that face similaraffordability and staffing challenges. What seems
to set these 46 interested LEAs apart is that they
are larger than the average California LEA withmore staff capacity and resources, and that theyhold more land than other LEAs in the state.
However, administrative capacity and landholdings represent only part of the developmental
equation. Up until now, LEAs seem to not haverealized that even if they have limited land attheir disposal or have limited capacity to initiate
a housing development project, there are site
specific qualities that suggest many of them
have sites that present robust development
opportunities.
Among LEAs in California (with at least one
property of one or more acres of developableland) that face significant recruitment andstaffing challenges (i.e., Local Educational Agency
Challenge Indicators—see Section 3 of the reportfor more information), over half have fewer
parcels than the state median (four parcels or
fewer) or less acreage than the state median (35acres or fewer). Yet their comparatively small
number of land holdings does not preclude
education workforce housing from being possible.
On the contrary, many of these LEAs holdparticularly developable parcels that they canleverage effectively even without the land assetsof larger districts in the state. With regards
to limited total acreage, about one-tenth (115)
of California LEAs have less than 35 acres ofpotentially developable land and face bothsignificant staffing challenges and housing
affordability challenges. Eighty-one percentof these LEAs hold potentially developable
properties because of their strong TCAC score,proximity to quality transit, or proximity
to other multifamily projects. Even moreencouraging, some of these districts have landthat is characterized by all three of these housing
opportunity indicators. Looking at LEAs withlimited total number of properties, 121 LEAs
in California own four properties or fewer andexhibit both staffing and housing affordability
challenge indicators. Still, 83% of these LEAs holdpotentially developable properties that present
the same indicators of housing opportunity.
While previous education workforce housing
initiatives have been driven by large LEAs with
substantial land holdings, our research sheds
light on untapped development potential for
California’s smaller LEAs, where potentiallysuccessful and impactful opportunities exist toserve their employees (Figure 26). LEAs that do
not yet face affordability and staffing pressures,or those without parcels satisfying the housing
opportunity indicators, can still consider the
benefits to providing education workforce
housing. This report’s LEA-owned land databaseand research into previous initiatives demonstratethat there are numerous scenarios in whichdeveloping housing can be effective and efficientin tackling multiple, intersecting planning issues
at once. Significant opportunities exist for smaller
LEAs across the state to develop education
workforce housing at a scale which meets theirneeds. The following section of this reportattempts to outline how to do just that.

37

Figure 26: Example School Districts with Strong Development Potential but No History of Education
Workforce Housing
Winters Joint Uniﬁed School District

Sebastopol Union Elementary

Duarte Uniﬁed School District

Total Teachers

Total Teachers

Total Teachers

81

51

223

Retention Challenges?

Retention Challenges?

Retention Challenges?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Affordability Challenges?

Affordability Challenges?

Affordability Challenges?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Number of District Owned Properties With >1 Acre of Developable Land
7

2

6

Total Potentially Developable Acres
24

4

19

Share of Properties in High/Highest Resource TCAC Areas
71%

100%

33%

Share of Properties in Transit Rich Areas
0%

0%

17%

Share of Properties in Tracts with Multifamily Developments
86%

100%

83%

2/3 Housing Opportunity
Indicators Above CA
Values2/3 Housing Opportunity
Indicators Above CA
Values3/3 Housing Opportunity
Indicators Above CA Values

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.

38

How Can Local
Educational Agencies
Design Housing to Meet
Their Needs?
Completing a project that successfully addresses the myriad issues
facing LEAs is an inherently complex process. Housing development
in California is already complicated, and the process is made moredifficult when rents must be affordable and the properties in question
are owned by public LEAs. Much of what makes education workforce
housing development unique occurs in the “predevelopment” stage
where initial decisions about site, design, tenancy, and financing
are made, and where the community engagement process begins.
After predevelopment, subsequent phases follow relatively standard
development, financing, and construction practices. For LEAs, which
typically do not have experience in housing development, partnershipagreements are routine to connect with experienced consultants,
developers, and financial professionals who provide technicalexpertise and guide the way. While adding challenges in some areas,
education workforce housing projects present opportunities in others.
Thoughtful decision-making and progressive design ideas can lead toprojects that change the reality of an LEA and the everyday experienceof the community that it serves.

5

To outline the development process we investigated 7 LEAs and theirhousing projects, constructing detailed timelines by pulling extensive
information from school board meeting minutes, presentations, anddesign documents. What follows are the most important takeaways
from that investigation, a development timeline that outlines andclarifies what can be a daunting process. Initiating conversations,completing due diligence, determining feasibility, and coming to an39

agreement to move forward takes additionaltime and care for LEAs compared to otherdevelopments. This research outlines one
pathway to follow, although LEAs may pursue
avenues forward that vary from this timeline inpractice (Figure 27).
Later in this section, we also walk the reader
through some of the more arcane portions of thedevelopment process, including design decisionmaking. How does an education workforce
housing project take shape? How are decisions
weighed about site design, unit mix, parking,and community amenities? How can a schoolboard be certain about costs? If the surrounding
community is skeptical or even oppositional,
can design mediate some of the controversy?
By generating two hypothetical projects, one
highly schematic and one in greater depth, wewalk readers through the projects’ evolution stepby step. Although these are real schools in realcommunities, the proposals here are conceptual:neither school district has been involved in thesescenarios. These projects are not meant to be fully
fledged design proposals, but instead they raise
instructive questions and tensions, and weighmultiple trade-offs and opportunities.

40

Understand the Development Process
Figure 27: Development Process Overview

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

41

Figure 28: Stage 1. Preliminary Exploration

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Stage 1: Preliminary Exploration (1 - 2
Years)
During this initial stage of education workforce
housing development, the focus is on
familiarizing an LEA board with the process,understanding an LEA’s land holdings, gathering
feedback from staff, soliciting preliminary
information regarding funding sources,
introducing the project to the surrounding
community, and selecting sites to move forwardwith (Figure 28). (1.1) The process often begins
with staff or an LEA board member expressing
interest and initiating conversations among theboard and district leadership. This can include
giving a presentation to the rest of the agency,
highlighting precedent projects, featuringother LEAs that have engaged in this type orwork, or inviting a consultant to present on
42

their experience. (1.2) After the idea has been
introduced, an LEA board will then determine thelevel of support through a vote before beginninga thorough investigation of their land holdings.
While often constrained in many of their financial
decisions, LEAs control substantial landholdings
and can leverage this land to produce housing.
However, to do so LEAs must first understand thetypes of land they have at their disposal and how
the land is intended to be used into the future(Figure 29).
Often consultants are brought onto the teamto help with this land asset survey and masterplanning. While some LEAs may have a site inmind that they want to pursue for development,
conducting a full land survey ensures that all
properties have been duly considered and canhelp convince reluctant community members andboard members that the selected sites are indeed
the best to pursue. (1.3) In addition to surveying
land holdings, consultants can be importantin gathering information about LEA staff andtheir interest in a housing project. Conducting
a staff opinion survey is hugely important forunderstanding the needs of the future residents
and ultimately crafting a project that responds tothem.
Alongside the land and staff investigations,
understanding the political climate in acommunity is essential, especially regarding
the type of project and ballot measures orfunding mechanisms that a community would
support. (1.4) With a preliminary idea of sites,
staff needs, financing avenues, and political will,conducting community outreach to introduce
neighbors to the potential project is fundamental
to a successful project. Early outreach canhelp community members not feel left out ofthe process and create support and buy-in for
the LEA’s initiative. The unique possibility foreducation workforce housing to include a mixed
tenant population, of district employees and thelarger public or of market-rate and rent-restrictedaffordable units, presents both an opportunityand potential barrier for community acceptance.
These combinations can push a project in orout of feasibility, particularly in its finances. It
is exceedingly crucial for LEAs to follow a full,robust, and transparent process in neighborhoods
under consideration, so these possibilities can beunderstood and given due discussion and leadto a suitable development program. (1.5) After
gathering the information above and listening to
feedback from the community, LEAs can narrow
down the list of potential sites to a handfulof parcels that could be feasibly developed.
Consultants continue to be helpful at this stage
as they further investigate and help define the“developability ” of sites as the process moves
forward (Figure 31). A short list of suitable sites
now become the focus for a feasibility analysis
RFP issued by the LEA.

Figure 29. Site Types with Massing

Active School Campus

LEA Facility

Former School Campus

Underutilized LEA Land

LEA Parking Lot

City Owned Land

Set-Aside Agreements

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.

43Figure 30: Stage 2. Feasibility

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Stage 2: Feasibility (1 - 1.5 Years)
During the feasibility stage of education
workforce housing development, the focus is on
the production and dissemination of a feasibility
report, sharing the designs with the community,and finalizing site, design, financing, and land
agreement plans before ultimately issuing an
RFP for development (Figure 30). (2.1) Having
issued an RFP for feasibility, the next step is for
the LEA board to select a firm out of those thathave responded. Looking at the portfolio of afirm’s work and their familiarity with the project’s
jurisdiction can help an LEA determine the firm
they most want to work with and the kind ofcreative expertise they may bring to defining what
is possible on their sites.
Alongside selecting a firm to conduct thefeasibility analysis, an LEA should establish theirown core team to carry the project forward.
Champions are especially important for these44

projects as long timelines can span school board
elections and changes in political winds. The
feasibility report itself can take approximately
six months to complete after which it will bepresented to the full school board. This reportwill contain substantial information to share withthe community, including initial design proposals(Figure 34). (2.2) Community feedback can help
inform the decisions ultimately made to finalize
development plans, a process that begins withthe consideration of different sites and promotes
buy-in and acceptance for a project. (2.3) While
initiated during Stage 1, pinning down the project
goals and intended tenant population will allow
subsequent decisions to be made on financing,number of units, types of units, and other key
characteristics that clarify the development
program to move forward with.
Making the decision on a final site and building
design can feel like a daunting task, but technicalexperts and consultants will assist throughout

Figure 31: Common Site Assessment Factors
Site Assessment Factors
Zoning Designation

The zoning designation of a selected parcel has a direct impact on what can be built and how quickly
it can be built. It is not uncommon for zoning to be changed to accommodate education workforce
housing. However, parcels that are already zoned for residential use allow for a quicker entitlements
process as there is less back and forth with the city authority.

Site Area

Site area has a direct impact on the size of the building that can be built on a particular parcel of land.
Large site areas are usually desirable, more easily adapted for development, and can readily houseadditional programs. On the other hand, building on small sites can help LEAs make more efficient useof properties that would otherwise lay vacant.

Site TypeLEAs often have multiple site types at their disposal, and each site type offers its own unique possibilities and challenges for use as education workforce housing. Site types are discussed more extensively
on in Section 3 of the report.

Site Yield

Site yield is the number of units possible to develop on property and a byproduct of zoning and site
size. The maximum site yield is not always used on a site, but it does help to determine the bounds ofa project and particularly its finances, in terms of construction costs and rental income. The numberof units ultimately built in a project is scaled up or down to ensure financial feasibility. Site yield canalso be considered in relation to the total number of employees in an LEA. Depending on an LEA’s
goals and level of support for its staff, the site yield can guide which sites to pursue for housing development.

Site Context

Site context is broadly the surrounding neighborhood of a project location. It includes the residential,commercial, urban, or otherwise constituted fabric of the community and a project’s potential fit,
and also its proximity to additional resources: transit stops, parks, grocery stores, pharmacies, among
others. These amenities and services are building blocks of successful housing and there is a higher
likelihood that the project will be able to receive financial support earmarked for affordable housing.
Opportunity Maps created by TCAC categorize the level of neighborhood resources according to thesefactors by census tracts in major regions of the state and block groups in rural areas. Increasingly,
state funds for affordable housing are being targeted towards the High and Highest Resource Areas.
Yet education workforce housing can both improve investment and stability in lower resource neighborhoods and increase access to education in High and Highest Resource neighborhoods. Site context
is also closely related to site size, with rural LEAs often owning larger properties than urban LEAs thathave smaller, infill sites.

Funding Availability

There are many funding approaches available to LEAs and each is associated with its own requirements, opportunities, and challenges (Appendix 3). The physical location of a project can often determine what financial resources are available to it. For example, infrastructure grants may require urban
infill sites, transit-oriented development funds can be limited to areas with reliable access to public
transportation, and a general obligation bond will require voter approval and political support fromlocal residents in the area.

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

the process. Furthermore, it can be useful for
LEAs to work largely with a dedicated consultant,called an owner’s representative or a project
manager, that is distinct from the development
entity, throughout this process. An owner’s
representative helps protect an LEA’s interests andcan provide sustained input as well as expedite
construction approvals by submitting applications
and discussing with local planning agencies whileother administrative decisions are occupying the
LEA board. The last step before the issuance of a

new RFP, this time for the full development of the
project, is defining the required land deal. There
are numerous types of land transactions that havebeen explored for education workforce housing
projects (Figure 32), but the most common
agreement used for education workforce housing
is a long-term ground lease with joint occupancy.
With the preceding developmental decisions
made, an LEA board will be ready to issue an RFP
for development, concluding the predevelopment
portion and beginning the portion of the process45Figure 32: Methods of Land Disposition for LEAs
Options

Sale

Benefits

Limitations

Generates short term income

Must go through surplus property procedure

Removes land from LEA control (no liabilities/costs)

No flexibility for future LEA use
Funds can only be used for capital outlays

Long Term Lease

Generates long term income

Must go through surplus property procedure

Retains LEA ownership of land

99 year lease maximum

Returns improvements to the LEA after lease Funds can only be used for capital outlays

Joint Use

Exchange

Generates short term income

Recreational or educational uses only

Retains LEA ownership of land

Often limited to a 5 year term

Trades an underutilized parcel for one withmore benefits

Few suitable partners

Can generate short-term income if parcels
are of unequal value

Hard to identify land that would be ideal

Can generate long-term income if parcel has If housing exists on the land, exchanging for it
active housing
opens an LEA up to liability

Joint Occupancy

Generates flexible revenue (not only forcapital outlays)

Requires an LEA use for the site

Retains LEA ownership of land

66 year lease maximum

Returns improvements to the LEA after lease LEA retains liability
Source: Adapted from LAUSD Facilities Services Division Presentation to Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee (2017).
Note: Surplusing LEA property is typically governed by the formation of a “7-11” committee. The steps and requirements
for this are outlined in Education Code § 17388. See Appendix 4 for recent legislation regarding surplus procedures.

Figure 33: Stage 3. Development

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Stage 3: Development (1 - 3 Years)
During the development stage of an education
workforce housing project, the focus is on
selecting a developer to execute the project,
46

completing community outreach as the design
is finalized, completing the final documentation,and soliciting bids for the construction contract(Figure 33). (3.1) Similar to the process forselecting a firm from the feasibility RFP process,Figure 34: Education Workforce Housing Connects Housing, Schools, and Context

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 1.
Note: There are numerous contextual influences that can play a part in sighting and designing an Education Workforce
Housing Development. An LEA alongside their development team will work to define what is most important in theirlocal context.

selecting a developer can be done alongside a
consultant who will look primarily at the firm’s
proposed project timeline, expected cost, andprevious portfolio of work. In this development
period, additional community outreach should
be conducted to inform neighbors on project
timeline and final design decisions. (3.2) Oncethe developer has been selected, they will apply
for the requisite entitlements and approvals fromthe local city authority. Having received anotherround of feedback, and now fully understanding
the cost implications of the project design, thedeveloper (often with an architect on the team aswell) will finalize the building proposal, produce

final construction documentation, complete
their financial package, and ultimately select acontractor to build the project. The responsibilityof selecting a contractor and overseeing theconstruction timeline and process largely falls
on the developer, who coordinates with the
LEA’s requirements. It is worth highlightingthat if an LEA has worked alongside an owner’s
representative or project manager throughout theprocess, the development stage can be shorter at
1-2 years, since they can assist with submitting theproper entitlement applications towards the endof Stage 2: Feasibility.
47

Figure 35: Stage 4. Construction

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Stage 4: Construction (2 - 2.5 Years)
During the construction stage of education
workforce housing development, the focus
is on completing the physical building andestablishing strategies to manage the building
and tenants once units are ready to be leased(Figure 35). (4.1) For a multistory building in
California, the standard construction timeframe
is approximately two years. During this time, the
LEA’s role becomes more of an advisory one as it,or more likely a housing committee subgroup, will
monitor construction progress via consultation
with the developer, and deal with changeorders or other concerns that come up during
construction. Most importantly, the LEA board
during this stage must establish tenancy andproject management strategies to formalize thetenant population decisions they made earlier on.
Often LEA boards establish independent housingcommittees, which can consist of board members,
LEA staff, employee representatives, and local
neighbors, to take the lead during this process as
decisions are made on how to allocate units andhow to deal with tenant turnover over time. For
ongoing project management, another contract
can be issued by the LEA. Many developers havein-house property management firms that can
48

be contracted to manage the completed housing
project. (4.2) The Construction Stage is completed
after the LEA and their developer conduct an
on-site review and create a “punch list” of any
remaining work to be done before the appropriate
public agency inspects and issues a Certificate ofOccupancy for the project.

Stage 5: Leasing Up (6 months - 1 year)
During the leasing stage of education workforce
housing development, the focus is on filling thecompleted units with eligible tenants (Figure36). (5.1) At this point the tenant and project
management strategies established during theconstruction stage will be implemented, andit becomes the responsibility of the project
management firm to advertise availability, apply
any defined employee preferences, and selectapplicants through lotteries to move into theproject. (5.2) With the proper due diligence,
demand for units should be high and the project
should lease up quickly. Occupancy is crucial toproviding benefits for educators and staff but also
for financial sustainability of the project. Somefinancing methods require near-full lease up
before their funds are disbursed, and the rental
income helps sustain the costs of the project.

Figure 36: Stage 5. Leasing Up

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Figure 37: Stage 6. Management and Operations

Source: Author analysis. See Appendix 6.

Stage 6: Management and Operations(Ongoing)
Management and operations is the final stage ofthe development process and continues throughthe usable life of a project, which can be 50-100
years (a period of time that includes the typical
66-year length of a long-term ground lease). (6.1)
During this time, the property managementcompany will work with the LEA and its tenants

to ensure that the building remains in goodcondition (Figure 37). This includes securing rents
from the project, managing demand and turnoverof apartments, certifying tenant eligibility,
and reserving funds for ongoing maintenanceand major repairs. In summary, the property
management team works to maintain the projectand ensure its ongoing benefits to the LEA and its
employees. (6.2)

49

Create Responsive Options
As discussed earlier in the report, after completingits due diligence and assessing the various sites
available for housing development, an LEA willneed to determine what exactly can be done with
its selected site. In this section, we use two cases
at different scales of consideration to show how
intentional design is crucial to creating education
workforce housing. The first, located in San Jose

Unified, offers a case for creative site planning andthe second, located in Berkeley Unified, offers acase to understand the nuances of project design.
Full discussion of the particulars for these twocases are available in Appendix 7 and 8, and here
we look at the key takeaways highlighted by thetwo design exercises. These two cases use actual
sites considered by LEAs for education workforce
housing, although for various reasons neither
were ultimately selected for development.

Figure 38: Design Case 1. Overview of Housing Approaches

Source: Author Analysis. See Appendix 7.

Design Case 1: Site Planning in San Jose
Unified School District
At a high level, relationships between thecampus and its surrounding community areparamount. The combined campus of Bret Harte
Middle and Leland High School is a large, active
school site nestled into the low-rise, suburbanneighborhood fabric of the Almaden Valley in
San Jose. Its spacious and sprawling campus
has many portions that could be subdivided tocreate sites for education workforce housing.
50

Yet this particular site type can stir impassioned
responses from the community over how theschool and neighborhood will be impacted—
which the experience of SJUSD has shown. Active
school campuses have been explored the mostoften by LEAs for their ubiquity and potential,
but they remain some of the most challenging
sites to build on. Offering multiple approaches
for an active school site can create a productive
conversation with community members overpossibilities on the campus (Figure 38).

In this design case, the campus is studied to
strategically locate where and what type of
housing can share space with the schools.
Different types of housing define two schematic
approaches on the campus: 1) a multifamily“podium” building, and 2) townhomes (examples
in Appendix 9). These two approaches balance
the opportunities available on the campus anddemonstrate how the precise placement of a
project can define responsive and appropriate
development.
In the first approach, a multifamily podium
building could be located on an unused corner ofthe campus. (Approach 1) As shown in Figure 39,
this underused corner could hold a single, largerscale development without greatly impacting
the character of the campus or surrounding
neighborhood. A development on this corner
would help to visually anchor and mark an entry
to the campus, and its proximity to the school
could allow for shared-use spaces. The greatest
advantage of a high-density development isthat it would occupy less space on the campus
while being able to create more units of housing.

Additionally, the larger scale may create an
opportunity to include market-rate apartments
or to expand unit eligibility beyond the education
workforce community.
In the second approach, townhomes could be
proposed in smaller areas around the campus toreflect the more familiar scale of development in
the neighborhood fabric. With a greater numberof townhomes, education workforce housing
could help redefine the edge of the campus
and activate a stretch along a public greenway.
(Approach 2A) A linear series of townhomes
would make walking along Camden Avenue more
pleasant for students on their way to school, it
would help blend the campus into the scenic
neighborhood by hiding away its vast parking
lot, and it would offer views outward for thetenants within. At the same time, other locations
on campus could also accommodate similar
townhomes in different configurations. A site
more nestled within the campus (Approach 2B),
which would exclusively house teachers and staffof the LEA, could replace portable classrooms andhelp stitch together the campus’ various parts.

Figure 39: Site Planning Strategies
Campus Strategy: Tactical Additions

Source: Author Analysis. See Appendix 7.

51

Deep within the campus, it would be hidden fromthe neighborhood beyond. At another location,
townhomes could turn inward to create a selfenclosed courtyard building (Approach 2C) that
limits the project’s relationship to nearby schoolbuildings.
These approaches show how housing can beaccommodated in multiple ways on the same

campus, and how design decisions can help
address community concerns. As discussed
above, a single building could offer a localizedintervention with greater density while reducing
disruption elsewhere on the campus. If the scaleor visibility of such a project is of major concern,then smaller townhome developments could
be utilized and located in other pockets of thecampus.

Figure 40: Design Case 2. Urban Site and Context

Source: Author Analysis. See Appendix 8.

Design Case 2: Crafting a Development
Proposal in Berkeley Unified School District
At a smaller scale, a clearly defined site stillrequires the consideration of many choices andtradeoffs. This design case looks at a staff parking
lot for Berkeley High School located in Downtown
Berkeley amid a dense, mixed-use urban fabric(Figure 40). The LEA parking lot site type is often
ideal for development because there are few site
improvements that need costly replacement or
demolition. Context, however, matters. LEAs
52

must still consider the history of the particularsite, its relationship to the nearby schools, andits connection to the local community, allowing
these insights to inform conversations about
the land’s reuse. Considering existing andsurrounding land uses is critical and will informthe project’s development parameters. How
the desired program will be accommodated, or
what exactly will be built, shapes the outcome infundamental ways. These form the development
parameters of the project, regardless of what its
final appearance may be.

The key considerations discussed here thatshape the development proposal are: context,site type, program and proposed use, zoning anddevelopment standards, parking, construction
types, project yield, and financing. (An in-depth
and step-by-step discussion of these factors canbe read in Appendix 8.) At this location, the urban
context makes a high-density and more intensive
use of the site possible and appropriate for theneighborhood. Downtown Berkeley already has
a mix of high-rise residential and commercial
buildings nearby, and the existing surface lot
is underutilized relative to the benefits a new
development could provide. That being said, thefirst and crucial thing for the LEA to decide iswhat it wants to create among the different usesand possibilities at the site. This site in particular
has been used as tennis courts for Berkeley HighSchool, as a staff parking lot, and it recently wasa candidate for housing development. Deciding
amongst multiple competing alternatives, andbalancing the LEA’s needs, are developmental
realities that guide what is ultimately constructed.
Local zoning and development standards will
determine the buildable envelope of the projectand how intensively the site can be used. The
site’s constraints are commonly defined byheight limits and required yards or setbacks. The
site’s overall development potential can also be
limited by maximum floor area ratio, density, lotcoverage, parking requirements, and open spacestandards. Not all of the buildable envelope needs
to be used, but understanding the site’s maximum
potential allows a comparison with what will
ultimately be built.
Parking is a crucial factor in residential
development because of its cost and the amountof space it requires. The amount of parking canoften limit how many housing units are created.
Lower ratios of parking spaces to apartmentsallows more of the area to be used for housing,the main purpose of the development. Parking

ratios can be set based on the tenant population,
whether they are expected to have many personalvehicles, if there will be car sharing services
provided, or if there is access to robust public
transportation. This urban site can justify much
lower parking ratios, and not require the project
to create so many spaces for cars, due to theample public transportation and the proximitythat many tenants will have to their workplaces inthe LEA.
The cost of parking is closely tied to the typeof construction required. For example parking
garages are built with costlier steel-reinforced
concrete. The construction type is also affectedby how tall the building will be. Wood-frame
construction is typically the most cost-effective
for residential construction, yet building codes
only allow it to be used in a limited numberof stories above ground. Building beyond thisrequires a change in materials for fire and life
safety reasons, and high-rise construction requires
additional equipment and services to be provided
in the building. These design choices have aconnection with real materials and their costs,
which can outweigh the benefits of additional
housing units provided.
The project’s yield, or the number of housing
units it will create, depends on the combinationof these choices and the size of units within its
buildable envelope (Figure 41). Planning anddevelopment incentives can also increase theproject’s yield by augmenting the buildable
envelope or offering concessions on development
standards. These can include administrative
approvals that allow height increases within
particular zones, the statewide density bonusthat incentivizes affordable housing construction,
or transit-oriented development incentives thatallow for reduced parking ratios. All of thesecan be applied at this site and help to increase
the number of new homes built as education
workforce housing.

53

The type of financing that is used by the project
also shapes its development parameters, because
many programs have additional requirements
to be eligible for funding. These requirements
include certain building amenities, a particularmix of unit sizes, and private and shared open
space on site. There may be other options as well,including mixed-income projects that may requireless subsidy and offer more flexibility in the
populations served by the project.
To illustrate the implications of these varied
options, we conducted a financial analysis(known as a pro forma analysis) of three different
housing scenarios on the Berkeley Unified School
District site. The results of this analysis illustrate
the various paths that LEAs may take to build
housing, and how much subsidy might be neededfor each of these scenarios.
This analysis considered three possible
development scenarios: a 100% affordable housing
project funded through the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit program (Scenario A); a half moderate
income/half traditional affordable housing
model (Scenario B), and; a fully moderate income
project (Scenario C). Each of these were analyzed
Figure 41: Development Program

Source: Author Analysis. See Appendix 8.

54

in both a low and high parking option, with thehigh parking scenario incumbent on building
replacement parking for the existing parking
available on the school site today. Current rents
and development costs were used to illustratefeasibility in each scenario. For a full breakdownof pro forma variables and results, please see
Appendix 8.
While all of our development scenarios may befeasible, a source of subsidy would still be neededfor each. The 100% affordable scenario requires
the most subsidy, at $25.5 million. Scenario B
requires $21.1 million, and Scenario C requires$16.3 million. These additional subsidies in
addition to tax credits could come in many
forms, including city sources such as bondmoney (in Berkeley, this could be from Measure
O bond dollars) or federal pass through dollars
such as HOME or Community Development
Block Grant funds. Aside from direct subsidies,
local governments can help lower development
costs overall, thereby reducing the need for
direct subsidies. These policies could include
reducing or waiving development impact fees,
reducing required parking (as discussed below), or
expediting approval timelines.

Other sources may also be available from thestate in addition to the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit, such as the Multifamily Housing Program(MHP), or the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (AHSC).¹ For larger
required subsidy amounts, such as in Scenario A,
it is likely that several sources of funding would be
required. Research indicates that multiple funding
sources increases the overall cost to develop due
to additional administrative costs and potential
impacts on timelines and carrying costs given thetime required to assemble multiple sources.
We also analyzed the impact that parking has on
development costs. Specifically, we conducteda sensitivity analysis to determine how muchless subsidy may be required when parking was
reduced, specifically when replacement parking(i.e., creating parking for residents as well as
replacing parking that was previously on site
for staff and students) was not required. Acrossthe board, we found that lower on site parking
greatly reduces the need for subsidy. In Scenario
A, the amount needed was reduced to $20 million.
In Scenario B, the amount was lowered to $15.3
million, and Scenario C was reduced to $10
million.
All of these factors, from site to financing, remainin play while crafting a proposed development.
While discussed in a linear fashion here, defining
any project is most often an iterative processthat seeks to balance among many competing
goals and possibilities, and a successful projectwill achieve its benefits in a feasible and costeffective way for the LEA. The design process
shown here establishes a preliminary idea fordevelopment. Also understood as a massing study
or yield study (Figure 41), it provides the first basis
for understanding what is possible to create on
the site while balancing the project’s goals, cost
implications, and the many tradeoffs inherent to
the process.

As the development project moves toward a single
outcome among competing possibilities, theprocess opens up many questions and decisions
that an LEA must think through carefully. Due
diligence from the LEA opens up conversations
among LEA leaders, LEA staff, educators, school
workers, and the school community to begin
understanding the potential for education
workforce housing and creating sharedexpectations. As the LEA continues forward withselecting developmental partners to deliver the
project, it will offer a baseline to size up proposals
and determine which solutions will best meet its
goals.
The project, at this point, is not set in stone.
Its specific parameters, including costs and thelook and feel of its architecture, will be refinedwith a selected developer that will bring its own
expertise and creative approaches into making
the project a reality with extensive community
involvement (Figure 42). There is still much left tobe designed to create a welcome and appropriate
addition to the neighborhood. Whether
completed with contemporary design aesthetics
or traditional styles, as shown here, the structure
and parameters of the project can carry throughto offer lasting benefits to the LEA, schools, andcommunity.

55

Figure 42: Potential Design Options

Contemporary Design

Traditional Design

Source: Author Analysis. See Appendix 8.

56

Recommendations

As many California LEAs struggle to attract and retain teachers (andin some cases other staff), coupled with the continued rise of housing
costs across the state, opportunity exists for experimenting withaffordable workforce housing solutions in the public education sector.
Our analysis reveals that there is a growing interest in LEAs building
employee workforce housing to help teachers and other school staff
live in the communities where they work. Our analysis also reveals
that there is significant development potential on tens of thousands of
LEA-owned properties across the state.

6

For LEAs interested in pursuing workforce housing development,
there are a number of steps they can take to prepare for and effectively
navigate what can be a complex process to build housing. At the sametime, while legislative action in recent years appears to be working tosupport LEAs in developing housing, progress has often been limited
and piecemeal. More can be done through state and local policy action
to better support LEAs in their efforts to plan for, finance, and build
employee housing.

What LEAs Can Do to Effectively Pursue
Workforce Housing Development
LEAs that have considered building education workforce housing, as
well as the vast number of LEAs with the need and the sites for suchhousing, can take appropriate steps to advance projects.
57

58

Develop Partnerships with Community
Before and Throughout the Process

Design Solutions Must Be Specific to the
School, the Site, and the Neighborhood

Early, continuous, and long-term engagementwith community groups, parent groups, andneighbors is necessary for education workforce
housing to succeed. Because the public school—
its campus and its teachers—hold a special
status in many communities, transforming theland to a different use must be discussed andnegotiated. LEAs can initiate those conversationsin “safe” settings, where differing points of view
are welcomed. It can be helpful to work with
one or more community leaders early on, togather insight into important issues and possible
solutions. Robust community support can often
be the crucial difference that sustains momentum
throughout a lengthy and occasionallychallenging project lifespan.

The standard solutions for housing development
will not apply to education workforce housing.
The education-based tenants, the public school
campus, and the community’s vested interests
will uniquely frame any development. Any project
for education workforce housing will need tonegotiate specific conditions on the ground incommunities with a wide range of circumstancesand challenges. One of the most significant issues
is how to envision the change all stakeholders
want to see. Design studies and alternatives help
everyone visualize the possibilities, providing avehicle for gathering pointed, specific suggestions.
Using architectural design in this manner,particularly in the early phases of a project, canoffer assurance as well as accountability.

Prepare for a Lengthy Process: Due
Diligence and Project Champions are Key

Keep the Process of Site Evaluation and
Selection Transparent

Education workforce housing will require yearsof planning, development, and construction
before the first resident moves in. Over the life of
the project, there will be changes in community
issues, school board membership, housing andconstruction costs, and other relevant concerns.
The most important stabilizing factor will bethoughtful due diligence that gives confidence
to the stakeholders, which will serve as thefoundation when necessary adaptations arise.
LEAs and school board members must commit
and identify ongoing leadership that can advancesuch initiatives over the long timeframes theyrequire. Due diligence and engagement with all
the stakeholders of any project can easily exceed
the appointment of individual school board
members or the tenure of district administrators.
Commitment to supporting projects should be
conveyed and implemented institutionally.

Some LEAs, knowing that there will be
community push-back, might begin theirconsideration of sites “behind the scenes” withclosed, internal conversations that try to headoff public discussion, but this starts the process
on the wrong foot. Building trust means beingtransparent and listening to voices with concerns.
Bringing examples and using models, such as
the precedents and site types shared in thisreport, can build a shared understanding of thepossibilities, constraints, choices, and tradeoffs
required of such developments. Defining project
goals along with the surrounding community sets
up the process for success, which can look likeeducation workforce housing “plus” additional
community goals. These shared, desired outcomes
bolster support in the community and can help
sustain LEAs through the life of a project.

What State Agencies and Other
Partners Can Do To Help LEAs
Pursue Workforce Housing
Development

housing on LEA-owned land, streamline (oreliminate) Division of State Architect approvalof education workforce housing,1 and allow
increased density in education workforce housing
projects.2

To encourage and incentivize LEAs in California
to explore developing workforce housing on
their property, certain policy changes should beconsidered.

Even without—or in advance of—state action,
localities can review their housing and land
use policy and processes as they relate to LEAs
to encourage and support the development ofworkforce housing. Such steps could also assist
cities across California as they look to amend
their zoning code in order to meet ambitious new
Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA) targets.

Increase Land Use Flexibility andStreamline Approvals Process
State or local policy action can ease regulatory
constraints and reduce other barriers todeveloping workforce housing on LEA-owned
property. For example, a locality may impose
minimum parking requirements that can increase
costs and use up available land, or place limits
on density (building height, massing, etc.) thatboth reduce the number of housing units that
may be built and can make some developments
financially infeasible. Jurisdictions may also
impose burdensome fees or exactions on new
development that can increase costs. In addition,
the local entitlements process—through whichdevelopers get approvals for their development
plans—can be lengthy, resource-intensive, anduncertain, which can add complexity, time, andcosts to a project.
Any policy changes that address these kindsof constraints can support increased housing
production more generally. But absent broader
policy shifts at the state or local level, each ofthese policies, processes, and exactions should
be examined as to whether and how they could
be reformed to be more supportive of workforce
housing development on LEA-owned land. For
example, policymakers at the state level could passlegislation to: allow LEAs by-right entitlements,
by-right zoning for residential use, and by-rightparcel subdivision when building workforce

Expand Financing Tools Available
Financing affordable housing is complex.
Projecting costs is riddled with uncertainty,
particularly as the cost of construction continues
to rise each year.3 To help catalyze developments,
LEAs need access to funding for both the “softcosts” of predevelopment (e.g., soils testing,architectural plans, community engagement) as
well as the “hard costs” of actual construction.
To make projects feasible, LEAs need accessto both capital as well as cost containment
options. State policymakers could support these
efforts by establishing a revolving fund forpredevelopment activities that provides grants
to qualifying LEAs to support project start-up
costs, staffing, management, and other feasibility/
predevelopment analysis. The state could alsoestablish a grant and/or loan program for capitalcosts associated with education workforce
housing development. To set up these grant
programs, the state could look for partnerships
with philanthropy and/or the private sector.
These funds should aim to leverage local funding(e.g., local general obligation bond funds or otherlocally-derived sources), but do so in a way that
promotes equitable access to funding, even for
LEAs with very low bonding capacity or taxable
property values.

59Given the costs of construction and limited
resources available for affordable housing
production, LEAs interested in pursuing
workforce housing strategies could explore cost
containment options (e.g., alternative models
of development such as scattered site or smallerscale, use of innovative building technologies
and materials, and alternatives to conventional
ownership and rental, such as cooperative,
community land trusts, limited equity, rental
equity) that may increase the feasibility of a
project and/or make limited resources stretch
further. But understanding the array of options
available and appropriate tools for a given projectwill likely require additional technical assistancefor LEAs learning the development process.

Build the Capacity of LEAs
Relaxing regulatory constraints and providing
funding will go a long way to catalyzing education
workforce development, but LEAs need to build
the knowledge capacity to leverage opportunities.
Of utmost importance is that training andtechnical assistance be made available to LEA
leaders on how to effectively plan, finance, anddevelop employee workforce housing.
The state (e.g., HCD and the Department of
Education) should form strategic partnerships
with professional associations (such as theCalifornia School Boards Association (CSBA),
California Association of School Business Officials(CASBO), California’s Coalition of Adequate
School Housing (CASH)) and philanthropic
organizations to build the knowledge capacity of
LEA leaders across the state.
Activities these entities can support include:•60

Establishing a central clearinghouse of
relevant data, best practices, and documentsfrom completed developments. Theseshould include template employee housing
survey instruments,4 template Request•

for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P) for
consultants,5 template feasibility analysis
documents,6 template tenant leaseagreements, case study examples of successfulprojects, and a statewide inventory of LEAowned land and facilities.7
Establishing a learning network (e.g.,
Education Workforce Housing Academy) for
LEA leaders offers regular workshops to LEAs
considering education workforce housing.

In building LEA capacity, it will be essential
to effectively engage local stakeholders inproject planning and design. Ideally, schoolboards of education should be leading these
efforts. For any project under consideration,community engagement should begin as earlyas possible. Stakeholders include local residents,
impacted students, and school families, as well
as school board members, superintendents,
school administrators, teachers, and potential
developers. Local communities often havea strong interest in the uses on the publicschool campus in their neighborhoods. Local
communities are also typically vocal about new,proposed development in their neighborhoods.
Some stakeholders support development(including housing development), while others
oppose it. To build relationships with thesestakeholders, early and transparent engagement
should be prioritized.
The recommendations listed above will bring
additional knowledge, funding, and policy clarity
to LEA leaders pursuing workforce housingdevelopment. These resources should aid in
localized processes of stakeholder engagement
by ensuring LEA leaders are good stewards oftheir land assets: learning from past projects,
learning from their peers, and leveraging
guidance and templates to save time and money.
All of these resources should aid in structuring
effective dialogues with local stakeholders andin communicating the feasibility (and value) of a
local education workforce housing project. The

result, hopefully, will be strong local political andcommunity will for education workforce housing.
The clearinghouse should include a “toolkit”
for effective local stakeholder engagement inplanning education workforce housing.

61

7

Conclusion: Housing andthe 21st Century Public
School Campus

Building education workforce housing may prove to be a key
ingredient to (re)developing the 21st century public school campus. As
school leaders look at innovative new uses on their properties, they
will need to be thoughtful. An LEA’s first priority is public education,
as they are stewards of a significant amount of local public investment
in land and facilities. Local leaders will need to make decisions—andtradeoffs—when considering land for education workforce housing
as building housing requires land that might otherwise be used forother important educational programming responsibilities, such as
sports fields or building more classrooms in the future. At the sametime, for public school facilities and grounds already in need of repair
and upgrading, considering how housing could be incorporated
into broader efforts to modernize these campuses could provide an
opportunity to move forward complementary goals of improving
school quality and equity.1
For LEAs interested in pursuing workforce housing development, it
can be daunting to know where to start. This report, paired with thecompanion Handbook, offers relevant information about education
workforce housing to LEA administrators, school board members,
community members, and other local stakeholders. It provides thebasis for shared understandings among these groups, who will need
to work together as they evaluate whether such housing makes sensein their LEA. That process is made more efficient when best practices
and relevant information are shared.

62

Additional research will also be needed to shape
the field and guide future efforts. As more LEAs
move forward with education workforce housing
projects, these processes and outcomes should
be carefully studied. Researchers should also
examine the costs and benefits of these projects,
with a focus on questions such as: How do project
costs compare to other housing assistance options
an LEA might consider (e.g., higher salaries, down
payment assistance)? Does education workforce
housing reduce teacher turnover and increaseteacher tenure in a district? Which community
engagement strategies contribute to better projectsuccess? And how can financing mechanisms andcost containment strategies be best utilized andleveraged? While this report has begun to answer
these questions, much will be learned throughlocal experimentation in education workforce
housing development.

63

8
64

AppendixAppendix 1: Methods and Data Sources
A variety of methods and data were used in this report.
Figure A1.1 Data Sources for Housing, Staffing, and Property Analyses
LEA and School Data
Data Category

Entity Name

Year

Note

LEA and school- level
administrative data

California Department of
Education (https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/pubschls.asp)

2020

Contains all active, pending, closed, and merged publicschools, LEAs, and county offices of education.

LEA and school- level
enrollment andsocioeconomic data

California Department of
Education (https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/documents/cupc1920-k12.
xlsx)

20192020

California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data Systems(CALPADS) provides data pertaining to the Unduplicated Pupil
Count (UPC) of free or reduced-price meal (FRPM) eligibility,
English Learner (EL), and foster youth.

Teacher salary data

California Department of
Education (https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/index.asp)

20182019

Lowest scheduled salary offered. For most LEAs, this is theentry-level (“beginning”) teacher salary.

Teacher turnover andattrition data

Learning Policy Institute
Understanding teacher
shortages in California: A
district- and county-level
analysis of the factors influencing teacher supply
and demand (interactive 2017map). Palo Alto, CA:
2018
Learning Policy Institute.
(https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
interactive-map-understanding-teacher-shortages-california)

Data obtained from the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), whichdraws from several public-use and restricted-use California
data sources.
Teacher turnover refers to teachers who left teaching in the
district/county during the 2017–18 school year, including
those who left teaching in California public schools entirely
and those who left to teach in a different LEA/county.
Teacher attrition refers to the percentage of teachers who left
public school teaching in California during the 2017–18 school
year.
Beginning teachers refers to the percentage of first- andsecond-year teachers in 2017-2018.

Housing Data
Housing data

U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates(https://www.census.
gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html)

20142018

County and census tract-level pretabulated estimates wereused as were Public Use Microdata (PUMS).

Income Limits

Department of Housing
and Urban Development(HUD) (https://www.
huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#2018_data)

2018

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted
housing programs.

LEA Property and Building Data
LEA-Owned Land

California School Campus
Database (CSCD) andCounty Assessor’s Offices

2020

Parcel ownership data from all 58 California counties was
obtained from GreenInfo Network. Parcels/property owned by
LEAs was identified and geocoded in a Geographic Information
System (GIS).

65

Microsoft (https://www.arcgis.com/home/
Existing buildings data
item.html?id=f40326bon LEA-owned land
0dea54330ae39584012
807126)2020

Microsoft released a set of deep learning generated building
footprints covering the entire U.S. Building footprints on LEAowned properties in California were identified for analysis in
Geographic Information System (GIS).

California Department of
Education (https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/schoolsiteanalysis2000.pdf)

2000
(most
current)

The California Department of Education provides
recommended acreage for PE and bus drop off for K-12
schools in its document, “Guide to School Site Analysis andDevelopment. These numeric requirements were utilized inanalyzing potentially developable acres on each property.

Physical Education(PE) and bus drop off
space

Locale and Transit Data
Geographic locale codes for each public school and LEA in
the U.S. are reported NCES Common Core of Data (CCD). The
locale code is a general geographic indicator that classifies thetype of area where a school is located. Locale codes are basedon a twelve-category framework that includes four primaryclassifications (city, suburban, town, and rural) that each havethree sub-types:
11 = City, Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside aprincipal city with population of 250,000 or more.
12 = City, Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and insidea principal city with population less than 250,000 and greaterthan or equal to 100,000.
13 = City, Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside aprincipal city with population less than 100,000.

Geographic Locale
Codes

National Center for Education Statistics, Common
Core of Data (https://
2020
nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/Geographic/SchoolLocations)

21 = Suburban, Large: Territory outside a principal city andinside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more.
22 = Suburban, Midsize: Territory outside a principal city andinside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000
and greater than or equal to 100,000.
23 = Suburban, Small: Territory outside a principal city andinside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000.
31 = Town, Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is lessthan or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area.
32 = Town, Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that ismore than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from anurbanized area.
33 = Town, Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that ismore than 35 miles from an urbanized area.
41 = Rural, Fringe: Census-defined rural territory that is lessthan or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as
rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from anurban cluster.
42 = Rural, Distant: Census-defined rural territory that ismore than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from anurbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5
miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.
43 = Rural, Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is morethan 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10
miles from an urban cluster.

66

Transit Rich Areas
data

TCAC Opportunity
Map datan.d.

Transit Rich Areas are those within ¼ mile of a high quality
bus stop and/or ½ mile of a major transit stop. Criteria for“high quality” derived from Senate Bill 827, Weiner (https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201720180SB827) Geographic buffers around transit stops
were created in a Geographic Information System (GIS).

California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee(https://www.treasurer.
2021
ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.
asp)

To allow TCAC and HCD to incentivize equitable development
patterns in each region to the same degree, the TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map allocates tracts (or block groups in ruralcounties) to one of five categories. The 20% of tracts in eachregion (or rural block groups in a rural county) with the highest
relative index scores are assigned to the “Highest Resource”
designation and the next 20% to the “High Resource”
designation. The remaining tracts are divided into “Moderate
Resource” and “Low Resource.” Tracts or rural block groups
with poverty rates of 30% or higher AND a racial Location
Quotient of 1.25 or higher are designated as “High Segregation& Poverty.”

Othering & Belonging
Institute at the Universityof California, Berkeley(https://mappingopportunityca.org)

Statewide Inventory and Analysis of LEA-Owned Properties
The data listed above was used to create and analyze a statewide inventory of LEA-owned properties.
California has the second largest public K-12 education system in the U.S., enrolling about 6 million
students in more than 10,000 K-12 schools. Each of these schools sits on land owned by an LEA. There
are two main types of LEAs: K-12 public school districts (classified as either elementary school districts(ESD), high school districts (HSD), or unified school districts (USD) depending on the grades they enroll)and County Offices of Education (COEs).1 In 2020, California had 944 K-12 public LEAs (524 ESDs, 76
HSDs, and 344 USDs) and 58 COEs.
Most of the land these LEAs own has one or more schools operating on it. But they also own land for“non-school” uses, which can include land for administrative buildings, bus barns, maintenance shops,
or land/facilities that are rented out to other users. LEAs may also own land that is vacant. Often vacantland has been purchased to house a future school or administrative facility. It is important to notethat ESDs, HSDs, and USDs each have unique boundaries and often overlap geographically (and rarely
coincide with other local government boundaries), while COEs share the same geographic boundaries ascounties.
To analyze the potentially developable land/acreage on LEA-owned land in California, we created arobust geo-spatial inventory of all land and existing buildings under the ownership of California’s
LEAs in the state. The spatial inventory was created in partnership with GreenInfo Network2 and is
an expansion on the existing California School Campus Database (CSCD). CSCD is a curated databasethat uses the California Department of Education school list, county assessor parcel ownership datafrom all 58 counties, and imagery (aerial and street view) to accurately define all of California’s public
K-12 school campuses.3 We then assembled relevant characteristic data on each school operating onthese lands (e.g., enrollment, grade levels served, and student socioeconomic indicators) and the LEA it
belongs to (e.g., LEA teacher turnover rate, percentage of LEA teaching staff that are beginning teachers,
lowest scheduled salary in the LEA). Characteristics for each school were then joined to the geo-spatial
representation of each LEA property. This enabled us to create a profile of each property relative to theschool(s) currently operating on it and the LEA it is owned by.
67Building footprint data for each property was assembled to quantify the amount of built and unbuilt
land on each property. The unbuilt acreage was calculated by subtracting out the existing building
footprints on each property.
Estimating Potentially Developable Acreage on LEA-Owned Properties.
Determining which LEA properties might be contenders for workforce housing depends not only on thesize of the parcel, but also on its existing uses. For properties that currently house one or more schools
on it, we assume that the school(s) will remain and, if feasible, education workforce housing could bebuilt and operate alongside the school on the property. For LEA-owned land without a school operating
on it, the property may already be vacant, have fewer existing uses present, or have uses present that
could be relocated to another property and make way for education workforce housing.
To estimate potentially developable acreage on both property types, we: 1) measure existing building
footprints and quantify unbuilt acres per property. For lands with schools on them we also: 2) estimate
and exclude the amount of outdoor physical education space needed on each property; and 3) estimate
and exclude minimum drop-off space needed for busses on the property (see the maps below for
examples of school site configurations). We walk through each technique in detail below.
Figure A1.2: Calculation Process

Figure A1.3: Spatial Database Output

68

1. Measuring Existing Building Footprints and Quantifying Unbuilt Acres per Property.
Using the spatial inventory, we quantify the existing building footprints on each property andsubtract that from the total property acres to arrive at each property’s “unbuilt acres.” Themedian amount of unbuilt acreage for all LEA-owned properties is 7.97 acres.
2. Estimating and Accounting for Outdoor Physical Education Space Needs.
The California Department of Education recommends minimum acreage to meet statemandated physical education curriculum and minutes requirements by grade. Elementary
schools are required to have between 0.5 to 7.4 acres depending on enrollment size, while highschools are required to have between 13.8 and 25.3 acres depending on enrollment size.4 Based on
the grades enrolled in the school(s) located on the property, we quantify the recommended PE
acreage for each property.5 This total acreage is then subtracted from the “unbuilt acres” on each
property.
3. Estimating and Accounting for Bus Drop-Off Needs.
The California Department of Education recommends the minimum area needed for bus
drop-off (15,000 square feet). We assign 15,000 square feet to each school enrolling students inkindergarten up through high school.6 This total space is then also subtracted from the “unbuilt
acres” on each property.
After tallying existing building footprints, PE space needs, and bus drop-off space needs, the result
is each property’s “potentially developable” acres. For workforce housing development purposes, we
assume that properties with less than one acre of “potentially developable” land will likely be too small inmost locales to be logistically or financially feasible for housing.
We purposefully do not tally acres on each property needed to accommodate automobile parking
demand. While some parking for staff, students, and visitors is likely needed on most school sites,
we feel there are opportunities for creative parking solutions that will ultimately take up less space
on a property. For example, under- or above-ground parking structures could be built in conjunction
with workforce housing development or parking demand could be reduced by improving non-autotransportation access (e.g., installing bike racks and/or providing free or reduced-priced transit passes tostudents/staff). As the state law and individual localities across California increasingly look to reduce onsite parking requirements, education workforce housing planning should also consider such options.7
Across California, there are 7,068 properties with potentially developable land of one acre or more—totaling more than 75,000 acres statewide, as shown in Figure A1.4 below. The median potentiallydevelopable acreage of these properties is 5.9 acres.

69

Figure A1.4: Potentially Developable Land Owned by California Local Educational Agencies, by Local
Educational Agency Type

By LEA TypeAll Properties
K-12 School District
ESD
HSD
USD
County Office of Education
Total

Number of Properties

Total Acres

Total PotentiallyDevelopable AcresMedian PotentiallyDevelopable Acres

6,847

122,294

67,7295.9

1,828

24,102

13,753

5.7

465

17,698

9,958

11.8

4,554

80,49344,019

5.8

221

8,299

7,745

5.0

7,068

130,593

75,474

5.9

Source: Author analysis of the California School Campus Database (CSCD) and California County Assessors’ Offices
parcel ownership data, Microsoft Building Footprints data, and acreage recommendations for physical education and bus
drop off space from CDE’s Guide to School Site Analysis and Development (2000).

From there, we assembled data on the urban density and affordability found near each property using
U.S. Census data to understand the relationship between teacher salaries and area rent prices. When
there was missing school-district level data on teacher turnover, beginning teacher salaries, or othersalary data, we used the county median. We then overlaid transit stops and service near each property
and 2020 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Maps. Transit stop locations
by service type and frequency allow us to gauge the transit access of each school property. TCAC
Opportunity Maps assign each census tract in the state to one of five opportunity categories based on
an index of economic, education, and environmental characteristics that research has shown to beimportant for improving outcomes for low-income children and adults.8 These designations are usedin tax credit allocation decisions, making applications for housing developments in High and Highest
Resource areas particularly competitive.

Statewide Inventory of Education Workforce Housing Projects
The statewide scan for education workforce housing projects was conducted as follows. We searched
every California Local Educational Agency by name using the Google query “[Name] LEA employee
housing.” We uncovered evidence of LEAs with demonstrated interest in education workforce
housing from a variety of sources including news articles, district meeting minutes, press releases, andarchitectural documentation. We reviewed these sources more extensively using search terms such as“workforce housing,” “teacher housing,” “building teacher housing,” and “building workforce housing,”
in addition to “employee housing.” From the results, we compiled a database of built, in progress,
interested, and abandoned education workforce housing initiatives undertaken by California LEAs. We
also compiled data on the types of sites being pursued, the zoning and neighborhood characteristics ofthe sites chosen for development, the physical size and shape of the sites, rental costs and the projected
numbers of housing units, the financing mechanisms used for the projects, who the expected tenantswere, and demographic information for the LEAs pursuing the projects. This scan found 46 LEAs
pursuing projects on 83 sites across the state (see Section 4).

70Figure A1.5: 46 California LEAs associated with Education Workforce Housing Projects
Alameda Unified
School District

Inglewood Unified
School District

MontereyPeninsula Unified
School District

Berkeley Unified
School District

Jefferson
Elementary School
District

Mountain View Los Palo Alto Unified
Altos Union HighSchool District
School District

Cabrillo Unified
School District

Jefferson Union
Mountain View
High School District Whisman School
DistrictCampbell Union
Lagunitas
High School District Elementary School
District

Pacifica School
District

San Diego Unified
School District

Santa Rosa HighSchool District

San Francisco
Unified School
District

Soledad Unified
School District

San Jose Unified
School District

Sonoma County
Office of Education

New Haven Unified Pasadena Unified
School District
School District

San Lorenzo Valley
Unified School
DistrictSouth San
Francisco Unified
School District

PanocheElementary School
District

Chula Vista
Elementary School
District

Las-Virgenes
Unified School
District

Newark Unified
School District

Patterson Joint
Unified School
District

San Mateo Union
Sunnyvale School
High School District District

Cupertino Union
School District

Los Altos
Elementary School
District

Novato Unified
School District

Pittsburg Unified
School District

Santa Clara Unified West Contra Costa
School District
Unified School
District

East Side Union
Los Angeles
High School District Unified School
District

Oakland Unified
School District

Ravenswood City
Elementary School
District

Santa Cruz City
High School District

Fremont Unified
School District

Orcutt Union
Elementary School
District

Redwood City
Elementary School
District

Santa Rosa
Elementary School
District

Menlo Park City
Elementary School
District

Source: Author analysis.

71

Figure A1.6: LEA Properties by County
All Properties

CountyAlamedaAlpineAmadorButte
Calaveras
ColusaContra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
FresnoGlenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
LassenLos Angeles
MaderaMarin
Mariposa
Mendocino
MercedModoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
NevadaOrangePlacerPlumasRiverside
Sacramento

Potentially Developable Properties

Number of
Total Acres
Total
MedianPotentially in Potentially Potentially
Property Size
Developable Developable Developable(Acres)Properties
Properties
Acres

Numberof Properties

Total Acres

380

3,840

8

200

2962

5

4

22

4

3

19

14

6

13

195

8

7

175

111

13

100

1,307

8

64

1207

783

6

25

377

10

19

352

250

10

25

245

5

17

227

108

3

285

4,238

10

224

3912

2209

7

19

226

10

14

211

144

7

75

1,529

12

62

1518

1133

10

294

5,344

11

198

4631

2512

6

24

210

6

15

175

82

5

88

1,043

8

63

985

634

5

103

1,222

9

65

1071

689

6

20

204

3

6

153

104

8

327

5,989

11

234

5470

3552

9

65

1,227

13

49

1177

756

8

44

359

6

27

315

162

5

20

358

13

16

341

217

8

2,460

23,182

7

1249

16631

8123

4

74

1,687

12

57

1601

1139

7

91

4,125

10

64

4054

3636

7

17

155

6

11

136

81

4

60

785

9

41

720

443

8

139

2,727

10

111

2590

1910

8

8

81

7

6

66

53

6

12

155

8

7

127

89

9

169

2,206

10

111

1903

1090

6

46

973

10

38

918

657

6

40

814

11

30

780

599

10

565

8,383

10

390

6956

2728

6

135

2,765

10

103

2585

1878

6

20

160

3

10

129

70

3

476

9,004

12

374

8122

4376

7

391

5,763

10

267

4850

2519

6

* Each column is independent from all other columns in this table.

72

1367

MedianPotentiallyDevelopable
Acres

Figure A1.6: LEA Properties by County (continued)
Potentially Developable Properties

CountyAlamedaAlpineAmadorButte
Calaveras
ColusaContra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
FresnoGlenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
LassenLos Angeles
MaderaMarin
Mariposa
Mendocino
MercedModoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
NevadaOrangePlacerPlumasRiverside
Sacramento

Percent ofPercent ofPercent ofPercent of
Properties
Properties
Properties
Percent of
Properities
Where theWhere theWhere theProperties
Located inMedianPercent ofDistrict-Level
Share of
Where thea Census
Asking Rent
Properties
Teacher
Beginning
LowestTract thatis UnafLocated in a
Turnover
Teachers in
Scheduled Contains at
fordable toTransit Rich
Rate isthe District
Salary is Less Least One
Teachers at
Area
Above the is Above thethan 80%
Multifamily
the Lowest
Statewide
Statewide
AMI
Housing DeScheduledMedian*Median*velopment
SalaryPercent of
Properties
Locatedin TCAC
DesignatedHigh orHighestResource
Area

74%

47%

100%

63%

90%

34%

43%

100%

100%

100%

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

57%

0%

0%

56%

25%

0%

0%

80%

2%

34%

84%

42%

74%

26%

79%

0%

37%

35%

82%

0%

0%

71%

0%

47%

45%

31%

100%

100%

78%

7%

33%

100%

0%

0%

0%

29%

0%

36%

24%

32%

3%

15%

60%

0%

53%

23%

82%

0%

0%

74%

1%

54%

13%

80%

0%

0%

100%

0%

60%

75%

71%

2%

0%

57%

0%

41%

35%

35%

0%

0%

75%

0%

31%

33%

33%

0%

0%

83%

0%

50%

45%

83%

0%

0%

67%

1%

42%

71%

43%

0%

0%

69%

2%

43%

89%

100%

0%

0%

70%

0%

44%

88%

81%

0%

19%

63%

0%

38%

18%

47%

99%

85%

80%

14%

44%

37%

79%

0%

0%

54%

0%

26%

58%

36%

100%

100%

83%

9%

55%

100%

91%

0%

0%

64%

0%

36%

98%

85%

100%

0%

51%

0%

46%

22%

74%

0%

0%

63%

1%

35%

100%

100%

0%

0%

50%

0%

50%

0%

57%

0%

0%

100%

0%

43%

85%

84%

89%

45%

74%

1%

25%

82%

3%

100%

0%

79%

0%

18%

80%

33%

57%

0%

63%

0%

30%

1%

9%

100%

100%

85%

4%

38%

26%

13%

86%

70%

69%

5%

66%

100%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

20%

5%

23%

29%

0%

61%

1%

48%

27%

68%

19%

24%

85%

10%

27%

* Each column is independent from all other columns in this table.

73

Figure A1.6: LEA Properties by County
All Properties

CountySan Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
ShastaSierraSiskiyou
SolanoSonomaStanislaus
SutterTehamaTrinity
TulareTuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Total

Potentially Developable Properties

Number of
Total Acres
Total
MedianPotentially in Potentially Potentially
Property Size
Developable Developable Developable(Acres)Properties
Properties
Acres

Total Acres

23

400

10

16

374

240

6

628

9,973

10

448

8657

4931

7

805

11,44510581

10,282

5,620

6

156

490

2

12

128

58

2

288

3,894

10

187

3,403

1,899

5

88

1,151

10

63

1007

538

6

218

2,177

7

141

1,845

914

5

133

1,753

9

83

1,438

787

6

402

6,446

10

322

5,840

3,084

6

72

1,048

10

46

882

507

6

103

1,989

10

78

1,929

1,470

7

7

43

4

4

26

20

2

47

850

8

33

808

583

8

145

2,109

8

90

1,830

1,214

6

177

2,171

9

120

1,874

1,053

4

213

2,682

10

145

2,329

1,192

6

51

582

8

26

477

280

6

48

854

9

38

842

608

8

15

208

10

13

200

114

6

250

4,626

11

185

4,374

3,128

8

37

716

8

24

685

569

9

241

3,251

10

178

2,778

1,478

5

77

1,047

9

47

857

509

6

49

695

8

36

660

460

5

10,887

151,500

9

7,068

130,593

75,474

6* Each column is independent from all other columns in this table.

74

MedianPotentiallyDevelopable
Acres

Numberof Properties

Figure A1.6: LEA Properties by County (continued)
Potentially Developable Properties

CountySan Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
ShastaSierraSiskiyou
SolanoSonomaStanislaus
SutterTehamaTrinity
TulareTuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Total

Percent ofPercent ofPercent ofPercent of
Properties
Properties
Properties
Percent of
Properities
Where theWhere theWhere theProperties
Located inMedianPercent ofDistrict-Level
Share of
Where thea Census
Asking Rent
Properties
Teacher
Beginning
LowestTract thatis UnafLocated in a
Turnover
Teachers in
Scheduled Contains at
fordable toTransit Rich
Rate isthe District
Salary is Less Least One
Teachers at
Area
Above the is Above thethan 80%
Multifamily
the Lowest
Statewide
Statewide
AMI
Housing DeScheduledMedian*Median*velopment
SalaryPercent of
Properties
Locatedin TCAC
DesignatedHigh orHighestResource
Area

43%

41%

100%

99%

78%

5%

45%

77%

54%

100%

86%

72%

21%

49%

89%

63%

100%

100%

87%

0%

43%

81%

81%

100%

50%

63%

0%

19%

34%

63%

2%

0%

67%

2%

31%

48%

23%

100%

93%

82%

13%

40%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

33%

67%

60%

1%

1%

67%

3%

55%

57%

49%

100%

37%

71%

2%

41%

89%

59%

100%

100%

76%

16%

55%

58%

81%

5%

5%

68%

1%

33%

75%

100%

0%

100%

100%

0%

0%

76%

58%

0%

12%

67%

3%

45%

92%

100%

97%

69%

76%

3%

4%

69%

69%

100%

85%

88%

3%

24%

8%

46%

1%

0%

74%

1%

32%

15%

15%

15%

4%

88%

0%

38%

37%

29%

0%

0%

66%

0%

53%

15%

69%

0%

0%

38%

0%

54%

34%

77%

0%

0%

82%

0%

37%

75%

38%

0%

0%

75%

0%

33%

28%

20%

100%

100%

78%

4%

50%

57%

77%

85%

85%

98%

0%

49%

72%

86%

0%

0%

75%

0%

53%

40%

49%

61%

51%

76%

8%

41%

* Each column is independent from all other columns in this table.

75Appendix 2: Existing Housing Assistance Programs for LEA Employees
At the federal level, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers affordable homes
to pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade teachers along with firefighters, full-time law enforcement
officers and emergency medical technicians through their Good Neighbor Next Door program. Workers
in these occupations can purchase homes in HUD-designated “revitalization areas” for 50% off thelist price and finance their purchases with down payments as low as $100. However, one of the major
limitations of the program is only HUD real estate-owned foreclosures are eligible, resulting in alimited supply. Teachers who qualify must work in their field for one year after purchase and continue
to occupy the home for at least three years thereafter—serving the program’s goal of strengthening
communities by making homeownership possible for public servants.
On the state side, CalHFA’s MyHome Assistance Program offers deferred payment junior loans of anamount up to the lesser of 3.5% of the purchase price or appraised value of a home with a cap of $10,000.
First time homebuyers who are either school or fire department employees are not subject to the loan
cap amount. Many counties and cities also offer programs to help teachers pay the down payment andclosing costs on a home. San Francisco administers a Teacher Next Door (TND) program that offers
zero interest loans for San Francisco Unified School District educators (making less than 200% AMI)
purchasing their first home in San Francisco. San Francisco’s TND Program provides $40,000 for amarket rate home or $20,000 for a below-market rate home. The loan is forgiven after 10 years.
Alternatives to public homeownership programs in the private sector include the Educator Mortgage
Program and Homes for Heroes. Supreme Lending’s Educator Mortgage Program offers up to $800 in
discounts on closing costs and realtor fees as well as a $400 donation to the teacher’s or LEA employee’s
school of choice. Intended for firefighters, military veterans, and teachers, Homes for Heroes discounts
25% of the realtor fee when buying and selling a home as long as the realtor or broker used is a program
affiliate. Applicants also receive reduced closing and home inspection fees. On the local level, Landed,a San Francisco-based startup, matches down payment assistance for educators by working as a coinvestment; teachers have the company cover 50% of their down payment in exchange for 25% of theteacher’s home value appreciation after buying out of the investment or selling their home. Tools likethis can help address the affordability challenge many educators face in high-cost cities across California
and allow them to stay in the community where they work.
While various housing assistance programs have catered to subsidizing homeownership for teachers,
rental subsidies for LEA employees are not common practice, although employee housing programs
have cropped up in high-cost areas in California as illustrated in this report.

76

Appendix 3: Finance Mechanisms for Education Workforce Housing in
California
The following is a brief description of finance tools available for California LEAs to combine with theirland assets to develop workforce housing.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is a federal program that gives state and local allocating agencies
the authority to issue tax credits to investors in exchange for equity to acquire, rehabilitate, or newly
construct rental housing targeted to lower-income households.9 LIHTC includes two types of federal
tax credits for affordable housing projects, referred to as the 9% and 4% tax credit. Each type consistsof a separate application process administered at the state level through the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC), with their respective numbers approximating the percentage that is
multiplied against a given project’s “qualified basis” to arrive at the amount of annual federal credits the
project will be awarded. The 9% federal credits are the most desirable because they are better able tofund larger projects (generating about 70% of a project’s equity). However, because they are in limited
supply, TCAC awards them through a competitive process using scoring criteria and a tiebreaker
formula. A 4% LIHTC deal pairs tax credits with federally funded tax-exempt private bonds and arelimited by the state’s bond cap, generally contributing about 30% of a project’s equity.10 The 4% credits
have traditionally been awarded non-competitively to all projects that met designated criteria, however
the program has become over-subscribed and may be subject to competition in the near future.
LIHTC units must restrict household incomes to one of the federal set-aside requirements: a minimumof 40% of units at 60% AMI; 20% of units at 50% AMI; or 40% units at 80% AMI with an average ofunits at 60% AMI.11 Despite the prevalence of housing cost burden for many teachers, their incomes areoften above federal income requirements for affordable housing financed with tax credits. Just 27% of all
California teachers and 52% of teachers with the lowest salaries are below 80% AMI.

State Funds
Important sources of public funds exist at the state level, intended to help fill the capital stack for
affordable housing development projects through a myriad of financial assistance programs.
California Department of Housing and Community Development:
Specifically, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which
implements and administers the state’s housing policies, provides grants and loans to a variety of
projects that further the state housing goals, including affordable housing, multifamily housing
and transit-oriented, sustainability, and infill development. HCD is additionally responsible formanaging and overseeing the deployment of federal programs and funds, including the National
Housing Trust Fund.12 While HCD often administers funding directly to approved project
developers, they also act as a conduit for deploying state and federal resources to local city andcounty governments. HCD serves as the local housing authority and administers all housing77

programs in the following 12 rural California counties: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Glenn,Inyo, Modoc, Mono, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Tuolumne.
California Housing Finance Agency:
The California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) offers multifamily programs like taxexempt or CalHFA funded Permanent Loan programs for the long-term financing of affordable
multifamily rental housing projects as well as the CalHFA Conduit Issuer Program, designed tofacilitate access to taxable and tax-exempt bonds by developers for eligible affordable multifamily
housing projects. Another financing source is the Mixed-Income Program, which provides longterm subordinate financing for the new construction multifamily housing projects that restrict
units at a mix between 30% and 120% AMI. This program was created as a result of SB 2 (2017),
the Building Homes and Jobs Act, which gives CalHFA 15% of an annual housing appropriation
for creating mixed income multifamily housing for lower to moderate income residents.

Local Funds (City and County)
At the local city and county levels, there are a number of avenues for affordable housing project funds.
Decision making authority to allocate funds ultimately rests with the city council, mayor, and boardof supervisors. The committed money is then administered as financial assistance to developers in theform of grants and loans. In certain cases, a city or region will establish a housing trust fund dedicatedto receiving public funding to preserve and produce local affordable housing supply. Cities and counties
may also receive federal funding directly from HUD or indirectly through the state (e.g., in the caseof the Community Block Development Program or HOME Program, some cities and counties qualify
to receive a direct allocation of funds from HUD, while others may receive resources from the state’s
allocation). City and county governments may also issue G.O. bonds and/or levy taxes specifically for
affordable housing (e.g., Berkeley's Measure O13).
The following are local-level financing options available to and often utilized by local governments and
LEAs in particular.
General Obligation Bonds:
Under California law, LEAs are granted taxing and bonding authority. A main capital financing
tool used by LEAs is issuing general obligation (G.O.) bonds, which are used to build new school
facilities or major renovations and expansions of existing schools. G.O. bonds are repaid througha tax on local residential and commercial property. Like other municipal bonds, the LEA’s
general revenue and ability to levy taxes guarantee bonds sold to investors in the open market
in exchange for upfront capital and subsequently paid back with interest over time. These typesof bonds are a particularly attractive option for investors due to tax exemptions on generated
profits and the issuer’s creditworthiness.14 LEAs must first put bond measures on their local
ballot and receive voter approval to issue bonds. California law gives LEAs options in how theystructure the bonds and what level of voter approval is necessary, ranging from 55% to 2/3rds.15
LEAs are allowed to issue G.O. bonds to fund workforce housing development.

78

Certificate of Participation:
A certificate of participation (COP) is another tax-exempt alternative to bonds for investors thatallows for a share in the revenue generated from a project and does not require voter approval. In
the case of workforce housing development, the revenue would be derived from rents collectedonce the project is complete and operating. COPs can be a worthwhile funding tool in places
with a strong economy, but present potential risk in the event of decreased rental rates. If rental
revenues dropped, the LEA would still be liable and may need to draw from the general fund tocover COP payments.16
Parcel Tax:
Parcel taxes, passed through 2/3 voter approval in elections, raise revenues through a special
property tax paid by the owners of parcels or units. Rather than basing the taxed amount on
property value like a standard property tax however, a parcel tax is based on parcel characteristics
like square footage, number of units, or a flat rate per parcel. Parcel taxes notably tend to beconcentrated in wealthy LEAs and are not widespread. While parcel taxes are one of the only
local revenue options allowed by Proposition 13, they comprise less than 1% of statewide K-12
funding and 87% involve a simple flat fee for all parcels.17 Furthermore, they have not typically
been used to fund housing development; more precedents exist for G.O. bonds and COPs.

Private Funds (Public-Private Partnerships)
Lastly, there are private sources (e.g., philanthropy, developer-contributed equity) that can be leveragedin public-private partnerships. For example, philanthropic partners could serve as a source of financing
to cover critical early stage resources needed to fund predevelopment activities. This helps reduce
project cost by avoiding more costly and rigid predevelopment sources of money.

79

Appendix 4: California Legislation on Education Workforce Housing
Although land owned by LEAs is completely locally controlled, there are a variety of state laws thatdefine how LEAs can use their land and processes they must go through to change the use of land(including sale, lease, rental, or construction). AB 1157 (Mullin) passed in 2017, giving LEAs more
flexibility in designating already-owned land for workforce housing. The bill waived the requirement in
Education Code § 17388 that LEAs must appoint an advisory committee (known as a “7-11 Committee”)
and facilitate a public process to deem any LEA owned property “surplus” and eligible for sale, lease, orrental if the LEA intends to develop workforce housing. 7-11 Committees can take up to a year or more
to facilitate, so this reform is an important effort to streamline development. AB 1157 also provides two
financial incentives to LEAs building workforce housing: first, it grants tax exemptions for property
used to provide rental housing for employees; and second, the bill allows LEAs to invest funds generated
from the sale or lease of surplus property into the development of education workforce housing.18
SB 2 (Atkins), the Building Homes and Jobs Act, passed in 2017 and established a permanent ongoingsource of local funds for affordable housing development as a whole. The legislation further requiredthat 20% of annual allocations be dedicated to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing. In recent
years, the state legislature has additionally taken action to solidify a commitment to affordable housing
more broadly on publicly owned surplus lands. These changes have potential to bolster partnership
opportunities with LEAs for affordable workforce housing specifically. In early 2019, Governor Newsom
signed Executive Order N-06-19, prioritizing excess state-owned property for affordable housing andaligning with the Surplus Land Act, which prioritizes affordable housing on local publicly owned
surplus lands. Later in 2019, AB 1486 revised the Surplus Land Act to require designated local agencies,
including LEAs themselves, to provide a notice of availability to interested parties. In 2020, AB 3308
(Gabriel) was signed into law and allows local governments to collaborate with LEAs on building
affordable housing for employees or the general public on LEA-owned land while utilizing LIHTC.
The combined momentum of these policy changes build the foundations for more state and local-level
coordination with LEAs on affordable housing projects located on public lands overall.
AB 305 (O’Donnell), approved by Governor Newsom in July 2021, exempts LEA workforce housingfrom the existing Field Act. The Field Act requires the Department of General Services to supervise thedesign and construction of any school building exceeding $100,000 in estimated costs to ensure plans
and specifications comply with current rules, regulations, and building standards. By excluding thisrequirement for any building or facility that serves or is intended to serve as residential housing for
LEA teachers, staff, employees, and their families, the bill removes design obstacles for LEA workforce
housing in California.
While recent state policy shifts make incremental progress toward promoting education workforce
housing, there have been numerous other bills proposed that have not become law. Most of these
unsuccessful proposals have generally attempted to accomplish two goals: 1) further define andprioritize affordable housing options within LEA-owned workforce housing; and 2) provide financing
assistance to LEAs for the purpose of developing workforce housing on LEA property. The latter goal—
financial assistance—appears to be the most difficult to pass.

80

Assemblymember Tony Thurmond (currently serving as California’s State Superintendent of Public
Instruction) made multiple attempts in the legislature to provide funding to LEAs to build workforce
housing. Thurmond authored AB 2200 (2016), AB 45 (2017), and AB 2788 (2018), each of which proposeddevelopment funds through the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) or HCD. In each
iteration, the proposal weakened in strength from setting aside $100 million to $25 million, then lastly
calling for the administration of a program to provide an undefined amount of financial assistance.
This may suggest that there has not been enough support among legislators in Sacramento to dedicate
state funds for education workforce housing development over affordable housing for other target
populations. AB 1318 (Mullin 2019) sought to define the purchase of property for use as LEA employee
housing as an allowable capital outlay expenditure within existing funding streams.
A number of other legislative bills—all without funding tied to them—have also failed to become law
in recent years. These included a repeated focus on further defining and prioritizing affordable housing
options within LEA-owned workforce housing. AB 1648 (Levine, 2019) would have designated a majorityof housing on LEA-owned land to be restricted to employees with incomes under 200% AMI. The
author’s intent with AB 1648 was to ensure that education workforce housing targeted more entry-leveland beginning teachers, as opposed to senior-level teachers (who likely make more money). SB 1017
(Portantino, 2020) would have required rental housing for LEAs to be affordable while expanding theallowable uses for proceeds from the sale or lease of property used to construct LEA workforce housing.
AB 2755 (Levine, 2020) would have simply stated the Legislature’s intent to expand affordable housing
opportunities for teachers and employees through the Teacher Housing Act of 2016. A successful billwould have signified a clear commitment to supporting low-salaried educators and improving retention
through targeted affordable workforce housing, separate from affordable workforce housing more
broadly.

2021 Proposed Legislation
Legislation for Increasing Flexibility in the Use of LEA Funds for Education Workforce Housing
Development:
A handful of bills were proposed in the first year of the California 2021-2022 legislative session,
but ultimately failed to pass. It is possible that these proposals could be revisited in the second
year of the session. These proposals followed suit of recent legislation that have granted
fund-related authorizations and exemptions which LEAs already enjoy to additionally coveractivities related to utilizing LEA-owned lands and/or workforce housing development. SB
616 (Rubio) proposed that when proceeds from the sale or lease of surplus school property areused for creating rental housing facilities for LEA employees, the units are made affordable inaddition to flexibility in use of the proceeds for one-time capital expenditures and LEA property
maintenance. This a familiar bill, echoing that of the failed SB 1017 (Portantino, 2020) which
offered the same proposals with the exception of more allowable expenses using proceeds fromthe sale or lease of surplus school property.

81

AB 1248 (O’Donnell) would have made inoperative in July 2027 and repeal in January 2028 thefollowing: 1) the requirement for LEA governing boards to adopt a resolution before entering
a lease or agreement related to school property; 2) existing law that authorizes an LEA to lease
real property for a minimum of $1 per year when a lessee is constructing a building to be usedby the LEA and requires the title to the building to vest in the LEA at the end of the lease; and 3)
requires a competitive solicitation process and certain procedures when awarding construction
subcontracts. While most of the changes would increase overall flexibility, the bill also restricts
it in some areas by requiring written approval from the Department of General Services (DGS)
before receiving preconstruction services and no longer allowing LEAs to identify specific typesof required subcontractors to be included in a proposal.
ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry), which will be reconsidered in 2022, takes matters further by adding
an additional exception to the 1% ad valorem tax rate limit on full property values imposedby Prop 13 for the purpose of paying off bond debt that supports the creation of local public
infrastructure and affordable or permanent supportive housing with a 55% vote.19 Secondly, theproposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment lowers the special tax (i.e., parcel and sales taxes)
voter approval required from 2/3 to 55%, much in the same way Prop 39 did for bond measures
supporting school facilities and capital outlays.
Legislation Aimed at Removing Local Zoning and/or Design Obstacles to Education Workforce
Housing Development:
AB 780 (Ting) sought to exempt LEAs from existing zoning restrictions if the proposed use ofproperty is to offer LEA employee housing under specified conditions. The bill did not advance
this year, but could be revisited in 2022. California state law enables LEAs to override local
zoning by a 2/3rds school board vote when they wish to build an educational facility (California
Education Code § 53094). However, LEAs may not override local zoning when building otherfacilities, including workforce housing. Similarly, under existing law, the LEA must adhere todensity and other design restrictions in the local zoning code. While LEAs can take advantageof new state-mandated rules around density bonuses when building workforce housing, AB
780 would have allowed them to override local zoning and density standards altogether whenbuilding workforce housing. The bill would create these changes on a statewide basis, applying
to all cities, including charter cities.20
Legislation Aimed at Establishing Priority in State Policy for Education Workforce Housing:
While the previous proposals stalled, one bill that did pass is SB 791 (Cortese). This bill
establishes a new California Surplus Land Authority, which will primarily facilitate thedevelopment of residential housing on state and local surplus properties, providing technicalassistance and consultative service to local agencies with surplus land and developers that seek todevelop housing on surplus land. The bill further established the California Surplus Land Fundin the state treasury and requires the authority to be administered and governed by the sameboard of directors as the CalHFA, which can then designate a nine-member advisory committee
and executive director.

82

Legislation Aimed at Increasing Flexibility in the Use of Public Lands for Affordable Housing
Development:
The idea of building affordable housing on public lands more broadly has also gained traction.
The passage of AB 1390 (Horvath) makes an exception to existing requirements to reserve aneasement when the State Lands Commission determines that it is in the state’s best interest
and authorize the delegation of authority to the Commission’s executive director to makenonrefundable down payments on potential acquisitions of property and remove the existing 5%
limitation on costs and expenses paid from the School Land Bank Fund.
AB 1271 (Ting), which stalled, would have added to the definition of “exempt surplus land” aformer military base or other planned residential or mixed-use development of adjacent or
nonadjacent parcels greater than 5 total acres, that are subject to a written plan, where at least
one of the owners is a local agency and meets other specified criteria.

83Appendix 5: Site Types of LEA-Owned Land
Active School Campus:
The most prevalent site type considered for education workforce housing is land that is part of an active
school campus. The 29 projects proposed for active campuses engaged with their sites in various ways,
with the physical location of the development within the larger campus area adding a layer of nuance.
The subtypes we observed are listed below, from most amenable to development to most complicated.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

No school demolition—vacant land
No school demolition—underused land
No school demolition—sport court
Auxiliary building reuse
School building reuse
Demolition of school

The benefits of building on an active school campus are numerous and compelling, with some of theexamples being short commute times for residents and the creation of a visual link between education,
housing, and community. Depending on which subtype is being pursued, the opportunities for taking
advantage of adjacencies with existing campus amenities change. For example, an addition to an
existing school building could include a renovation of classroom facilities in the school itself, generating
net positive impacts for staff and students. Alternatively, a project that is sited on a part of the campus
where a set of tennis courts once stood could include tennis courts on its roof or a gym facility within
the development, becoming a multi-use space that combines education workforce housing with new
campus amenities. While active school campuses may offer these kinds of creative design synergies,
the fact that the school will likely be in operation during housing construction poses one of the mostdifficult problems for this site type. Strategies such as modular construction to reduce construction
time, or staging the project to construct mostly during breaks in the school year can be turned to tolessen this negative impact.
LAUSD and SCUSD have successfully built on properties with active schools. Sage Park Apartments(LAUSD) was built on a portion of an active school site that was previously used as farmland foran agricultural educational program no longer offered. Casa del Maestro (SCUSD) was built on theouter unpaved edge of the school’s sports fields, a portion of the campus that was deemed excess torecreational requirements. These “edge” areas of campuses may be easier to subdivide and may have less
impact on the active school during construction. However, building housing on more interior site land
may also be feasible, especially when taking advantage of existing structures, consolidating campus uses,
and inserting housing within, above, or around campus buildings.

Underutilized LEA Land:
Underutilized LEA land is a broad site typology, and many properties may fall under this designation.
In addition to land utilized for educational purposes, LEAs often own parcels of vacant land, parkland,
miscellaneous storage space, and vacant non-educational buildings. Similar to LEA facilities, some of84

these sites may be in locations that do not lend themselves to housing production, but for those thatare near residential areas or in mixed use downtowns, underutilized land may offer an efficient path todevelopment. These sites often require little to no demolition, they do not host an active or essential
LEA activity, and developing these sites often does not cause major changes to the LEA’s facilities plan.
A number of LEAs in the Bay Area (e.g., San Francisco Unified, Oakland Unified, and Novato Unified
School Districts) have considered underutilized land for their proposed housing developments.

LEA Facility:
LEA facility sites including LEA operations and maintenance offices, warehouses, and bus depots, canoffer strong development potential as they are often large, underbuilt, and are in areas that are zoned
for taller structures. However, the type of LEA facility impacts the desirability of housing development
on a particular site. LEA office buildings often are compelling sites for development as they are likely
to exist in a commercial area with increased height allowances and amenities in close proximity. Bus
depots on the other hand— large flat sites that could in theory house many tenants—are often situatedin industrial areas that do not lend themselves well to residential development. In any case, LEA facilitysites offer impressive housing potential and can present an untapped resource for education workforce
housing projects. As the “developability” of an LEA facility site varies depending on facility type andlocation, LEAs must be intentional when selecting a site for housing development to ensure it is well
suited for housing.
While District Facilities are less predictable in their siting, compared to school campuses that are
typically in residential neighborhoods, the examples considered by LEAs for development were nearlyall (12 of the 14) in mixed-use or residential contexts that could be amenable to housing development.

Former School Campus:
Former school campuses offer great opportunities for housing development as they are often large, thesite has been lying dormant for years, and there is already an existing building on the campus, bothindicating the land is developable and indirectly conditioning the neighbors to expect a structure inthat location. Issues arise when considering the cost of potentially demolishing the existing structure(though it may also be reused), as well as when considering the long-term land use plan of the LEA. As
these sites already have school buildings and are set up for educational operation, they are ripe for use if
the LEA were to expand and an LEA may want to retain the site as such for the future. Even in this case,an LEA could decide to construct on parts of the site that are underutilized, or to expand by adding to
the existing school building.
San Francisco Unified School District is currently in construction for a project at the former Francis
Scott Key Annex, where a closed school was demolished. In San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District,a project at the closed Ravenswood Elementary School intends to retrofit the old school buildings andcampus for housing.

85

LEA Parking Lot:
This typology includes sites that were previously utilized as surface parking lots or parking structures.
It is not a coincidence that many of the built education workforce housing projects have been sitedon LEA-owned parking lots. This typology is often characterized by large, flat sites close to school
campuses that are not complicated by deep emotional community attachment. These factors combinedwith the current gradual shift away from the use of personal automobiles could make LEA-owned
parking lots prime sites for education workforce housing developments. However, one drawback tokeep in mind is that normally these lots are actively providing parking, and any proposal to completely
remove active parking spots will likely spark strong community pushback. To ensure smooth operations,the proposed project could include some parking that is made available to previous lot users to help
encourage community acceptance for the project.
LAUSD has seen success using this site type and has built projects such as Selma Community Housing
and Norwood Learning Village on former surface parking lots owned by the School District.

City-Owned Land:
This typology refers to land originally owned by the city that is either purchased by, loaned to, or giftedto an LEA. This is a viable and advantageous option especially for LEAs that do not see parcels they own
as potentially developable. Furthermore, a city-provided lot offers an opportunity for multiple LEAs tocome together to construct a joint education workforce housing project. While not all municipalities
may be in a position (or willing) to give land and help with financing a project, for those that are, thisroute can offer an LEA inexpensive land, tacit approval by the city, and the ability to keep hold of other
LEA land for future flexible use.
A prominent example of education workforce housing on this site type is the 231 Grant Avenue
development underway in Palo Alto.

Set Aside Agreements:
The typology is less of a site-specific designation as it is a project-based one. In some instances,
LEAs have been able to secure units for their staff within another in-progress or completed housingdevelopment. LEAs have done so through purchasing units, renting units, or partnering with a privatecompany who subsidizes the rents for LEA staff. Especially for LEAs without many land holdings or withstrong ties to local businesses and investors, this approach can be very efficient and lead to education
workforce housing without the need to pursue a lengthy development process. Other than the difficultyof securing such units, in a piggyback approach the LEA has minimal control over what is planned,
designed, and built. Instead, LEAs are able to slot in after the major decisions have been made to secureunits for their employees. One significant caution: it can be especially problematic that the LEA does
not control management or maintenance when there are problems for their staff-tenants.
Two examples of this type of site are 777 Hamilton in Menlo Park and the Alexan Webster in Oakland,
California. At 777 Hamilton, Facebook helped to subsidize units in a private existing development for
LEA staff. At the Alexan Webster, Oakland Unified and the Oakland City Council were able to secure a
promise from the developer that teachers will have preference for the 80-100% AMI units.
86Appendix 6: Development Timeline and Process
A key takeaway from the study of development processes and timelines among the 46 interested LEAs
is the lack of homogeneity among their projects. Even when looking only at projects in a specific site
context (e.g., suburban surroundings), or of a particular site type or size (e.g., 2 acres of LEA parking lot),
there is substantial variation in the type of projects pursued by LEAs. Despite the variety, this researchdemonstrates that building on LEA-owned land can be separated into two macro approaches: A) using
the land to build affordable housing for LEA employees and B) using the land in order to generate
revenue through a sale, lease, or exchange with a property developer.
Both the education workforce housing and revenue-generating approaches have their positives andnegatives. This report emphasizes the use of land to construct housing for LEA employees for several
reasons: it engages the LEA’s role as a public sector entity; it addresses California’s affordable housingcrisis; it preserves the land and housing stock for the long term benefit of LEA staff; and it improves an
LEA’s ability to recruit and retain experienced staff.
For both of these approaches, the development process begins in a similar fashion but diverges after
the feasibility stage. The following section of this appendix will outline the entirety of the development
process, first breaking it down into stages, then breaking the stages down into steps, and finallyoutlining defined goals within each step. The conclusions, takeaways, and timeframes listed were
informed by a deep dive into a number of LEAs with housing projects at various levels of completion.
Data was drawn from board meeting minutes, news articles, and public statements made by the LEAs todetermine the stages in the process, how long these stages took, and whether partners and consultants
helped along the way. Timelines for each LEA project were then re-constructed after sequentiallygoing through the types of documents outlined above. While each LEA’s timeline and process was
unique, there were significant moments of overlap that informed the following framework. The LEAs
investigated and the key parts of the process they helped illuminate are listed in Figure A6.1.
Figure A6.1: LEA References by Stage in Development Process
STAGE 1:Preliminary
Exploration

STAGE 2:
Feasibility

STAGE 3:Development

STAGE 4:
Construction

STAGE 5:
Leasing Up

STAGE 6:
Management
and Operations

Berkeley Unified
School District

Berkeley Unified
School District

Berkeley
Unified School
District

Los Angeles
Unified School
District

Los Angeles
Unified School
District

Los Angeles
Unified School
District

Cambrian School
District

Cambrian School
District

Cambrian
School District

Jefferson Union
School District

Jefferson Union
School District

Jefferson Union
School District

Jefferson Union
School District

San Jose Unified
School District

Los Angeles
Unified School
District

Los Angeles
Unified School
District

San Jose Unified
School District

San Francisco
Unified School
District

UniqueProcess/
Goal
Cambrian
SchoolDistrict
Cupertino
Union School
DistrictJefferson
Union School
District87

Development Process Framework
The following framework of the development process was created to show the process and timeline that
LEAs undertake when pursuing workforce housing. Each stage of this framework will be singled out for
explanation below.
Figure A6.2: Approaches to LEA Property Development

Description

Approach A: Education Workforce Housing
Construction

Approach B: Income Generation

Directly addresses staff and educational quality,
improves the school and local community, and leans
into the unique public status that LEAs possess.

Directly addresses LEA finances and the businessaspect of running an LEA. Indirectly addresses qualityof staff and education.

Improves ability to recruit and retain quality
workforce

Generates income within 2–4 years

Addresses the California housing crisis

Can be structured as either a one time revenue bumpor as a consistent annual source of revenue

Improves overall financial circumstances ofparticipating staff (i.e., residents) by means ofmonthly rental savings

Tends to be more of a hands-off process for theschool board

Integrates school staff into the local community

Can garner community support as market rate
developers often build at lower densities thanaffordable developers

Leads to less pollution, less stress on staff, and more
possibilities for after school programs because of
reduced commutes

With a land exchange, can generate revenue that canbe freely applied to changing LEA needs

Positives

Retains the LEA’s long term land control and flexibility
for the future
Enables public use of public lands
Can garner community support as a sign ofappreciation for teachers and school staff

Negatives

Can take 5–10 years to complete the development
process

Provides no direct help to LEA staff

Is predicated on demand from LEA staff

Offers limited community benefit

Includes complex processes, such as tenancy control

Can lead to the loss of long-term ownership/flexibility
over the land

Requires consultant assistance in order to finance

Minimal recruitment improvement
Shifts burden of school support from taxpayers toentrepreneurial LEAs
Requires a lengthy surplusing process, especially inthe case of land sales or long-term leases, and therevenue can often be linked to only capital outlay
projects

Modeof Land
Disposition

88

Joint Occupancy (Must identify an LEA use—66 year
ground lease term)

Sale (Requires surplus declaration)
Lease (Requires surplus declaration—99 year term)
ExchangeFigure A6.3: Development Process Framework89Detailed Development Process
Stage 1: Preliminary Exploration (1-2 Years)
Step 1.1: First Conversations
Goal 1.1.1: Familiarize LEA Members with Land Development
The first stage in the process of constructing education workforce housing can be called “preliminary
exploration”. Based on LEAs’ past experiences (Figure A6.1), board members or staff interested ingenerating a conversation around housing begin by engaging the full board, LEA leadership, andcommunity leaders. These early conversations usually involve board members presenting research on
precedents (i.e., projects that are already built), communicating information on area housing costs, or
consulting with experts in education workforce housing. Early conversations lead to further researchand information gathering, a process streamlined by this report. Previously LEAs have found that
communities should be involved from the very outset of a development project, even if later community
participation is more structured. (See Step 1.4: Initial Community Outreach).
Step 1.2: Initial Research—Land
Goal 1.2.1: Survey Property Holdings
Once LEA members decide to consider using their land for housing, LEAs can then undertake a surveyof their property holdings to get a sense of what land they own, where this land is, and how this land iscurrently being used. This initial land survey can be conducted by the staff themselves or by an external
entity, though some larger LEAs may already have this information readily available and have designatedemployees who oversee facilities and land assets. For the majority of LEAs without such resources, it
is important for board members and staff to then collaborate on a land asset master plan. This plan
describes all of the LEA’s land holdings in their current condition, as well as the future use and planned
renovations for each parcel. Importantly, the land asset master plan is useful to any LEA, even when
there is no desire to construct education workforce housing. As such, the land survey can be seen as
part of general LEA business which ties an understanding about the available land and its developability
to the LEA’s larger educational mission. Understanding this, some LEAs pursuing education workforce
housing projects see development as an opportunity to consolidate land uses, to make their property
more efficient, and even to correct enrollment imbalances in their jurisdiction. For LEAs where building
education workforce housing may not be immediately actionable, tying the land asset master plan toother educational goals can be a potent strategy.
Goal 1.2.2: Select Potential Parcels
Once board members and staff have created this inventory of LEA-owned land and considered current
and future uses, they can then turn to selecting parcels from their land holdings to investigate theirpotential as sites of development. At this point it is useful to hire a consultant with experience in realestate development. Identifying “developability” involves a complex evaluation process, and consultants
bring an understanding of land conditions, zoning regulations, geological requirements, and other90

factors that contribute to a smooth development process. The most common consultants for this phase
are nonprofit housing developers or real estate advisors.
Word of Warning: Consider Multiple Sites
Rather than engage in a detailed look at their property holdings, some LEAs may target a specificparcel—perhaps one with a recently closed school or one that has long been vacant—as the idealsite to pursue a housing development. Such a site may, in fact, be ideal, and an LEA could save thetime of conducting a full land survey. However, even if that is the case, an LEA would benefit from
evaluating the specific parcel in the grand scheme of a land asset master plan. By conducting a fullland survey, an LEA demonstrates their due diligence, illustrates to the surrounding community
the suitability of a particular site over others, and mitigates opposition to a project. An LEA
with a specific parcel in mind can be intentional and successful in education workforce housingdevelopment, but conducting the process in full gives the LEA’s project a greater chance of success.
Step 1.3: Initial Research—Survey and Financing
Goal 1.3.1: Survey LEA Staff
It is essential that an LEA understand not only the land it owns but also the demand for housing
amongst its staff. If an LEA can prove that there is demonstrated need amongst its staff for education
workforce housing, then it can promote the efficacy and positive impacts of such housing to thecommunity at large. LEA employees can conduct a survey themselves, but consultants are often
helpful in crafting and administering a survey on housing demand. As the LEA will likely have hired aconsultant for Goal 1.2.2, it is possible to use the same consulting company to conduct the staff survey as
well.
Goal 1.3.2: Understand the Political and Financial Landscape
The previous goals introduce the possibility of hiring a consultant, but consultants are especially usefulwhen an LEA begins to face essential political and financial questions. As the process moves forward,
it is crucial that an LEA understands the political will of local politicians to support a development, as
well as the political will of the surrounding community to support financing mechanisms like a bondissuance. In addition to placing a bond measure on the ballot, there are a number of financing paths
that LEAs can pursue. Some financing mechanisms are specific to affordable housing development(Approach A: Affordable Housing Construction) and other financial tools are specific to land exchanges
and sales (Approach B: Income Generation). As indicated by the mention of specific land ownershipstrategies, project financing is directly linked to the land agreement an LEA intends to pursue. A
consultant with development experience will be able to help guide and answer questions in all of theseareas. (For more information on financing mechanisms, see Appendix 3. For more information on land
agreements, see Goal 2.3.4: Finalize Land Agreement.)91

Step 1.4: Initial Community Outreach
Goal 1.4.1: Conduct Initial Community Conversations
By this point, an LEA has gathered a substantial amount of information: an initial list of sites thatcan be developed, survey results indicating the demand for housing among LEA staff, initial financing
possibilities, and an understanding of the political climate. An LEA can use this information when
it reaches out more broadly to the surrounding community and familiarizes neighbors with thedevelopment proposal and the potential sites. In the past, when an LEA failed to introduce its plans
early in the development process, it encountered vocal pushback: members of the surrounding
community alleged that the LEA had completed too much work behind closed doors without the input
of its neighbors. It is essential that LEAs understand which of their developable sites may be suitable
to its neighbors and which amenities may appeal to the surrounding community. Most importantly, it
is crucial that LEAs ensure, first and foremost, that the surrounding community feels engaged in thedevelopment process.
Goal 1.4.2: Decide on Development Path
With the collected information gathered through initial community conversations (outlined in Goal
1.4.1), the LEA must make a decision about which pathway they want to follow with their land holdings.
Approach A: Affordable Housing Construction is the pathway that this report most heavily supports
because the benefits accrued are numerous both for the LEA and for its surrounding community.
Approach B: Income Generation is a worthwhile pathway as well and one that leads to a muchneeded increase in funds available to an LEA. It is worth noting the disparities in liability and risk
between Approach A and Approach B. Exchanging or selling a property to a developer comes with thebenefit—and the drawback—of the property no longer belonging to the LEA. Although we support
the construction of affordable housing on LEA-owned land, we understand that this approach exposes
an LEA to more liability than the exchange or sale of that land. That said, the information gathered
by following the proceeding steps should help make this a clear choice. In California, 46 LEAs, which
together represent almost a quarter of the students and educational staff in the state, have already foundthe evidence in favor of building affordable housing for their workforce to be substantial and actionable.
These two development pathways most distinctly diverge during Step 2.3: Finalize Development Plans,
but before the full divergence there are some goals that do not directly apply to LEAs interested inincome generation on their parcels. LEAs interested in leveraging their land for income generation
would benefit from completing every goal in order to fully understand and exhaust the affordable
housing construction option as well, but the diagram above identifies (shown with an encircled A next
to the number) the goals that might be extraneous to an income generation approach.
Goal 1.4.3: Outline Resident Population Options
In the past, LEAs have frequently discussed the intended tenants of their education workforce housing
projects at community meetings. While some members of the community push back against housingdevelopments regardless of the population served, an LEA’s identification of employees (i.e., people
already familiar to the community) as the target resident population helps increase project acceptance.
While LEA-employee tenancy directly improves an LEA’s attractiveness to potential staff members,
92

some LEAs have discussed tailoring their projects towards hybrid populations, expanding the list of
possible tenants to include additional in-need community members. There are many tenant options for
LEAs to discuss, and there are many different financing options that LEAs can utilize depending on thetarget population. The tenancy conversation is an important one, and it is a conversation that should befrequently revisited throughout the development process. Starting early, and including the surrounding
community in the decision making process, helps align funding approaches with project design andleads to more robust community support as the project moves towards completion.
Potential Opportunity: Mixed Tenancy
There is potential in this mixed approach. There are numerous innovative ways an LEA may beable to approach the question of tenancy. For example, welcoming students with families at risk ofhomelessness into the project, or including a handful of market rate units that help fund even moredeeply affordable unit options, can make for a housing development that further enmeshes the LEA
in its surrounding community. Furthermore, opening up the project to tenants of differing income
levels can make additional funding sources available and can help mitigate the concern voiced bysome teachers of being worried about living with others who are too similar to themselves.
Word of Warning: Pursue a Complete Process
The importance of the preliminary exploration stage cannot be overstated. While checking off eachof the steps and goals above may seem tedious and unnecessary, LEAs that have failed to do so inthe past have run into serious roadblocks, stalling many projects and forcing some to be abandoned.
Furthermore, simply bringing a consultant on board does not ensure a smooth process. Having
consultants survey an LEA’s land holdings is useful, but if they do not also help with the staff survey
or investigate the political climate, the project may face future issues that could have been avoided.
Each step in this process is incremental and important to the overall success of an education
workforce housing development. Following this thorough step-by-step process will help an LEA’s
project stand up to criticism because it can demonstrate the need for such a project and the benefits
expected for LEA staff, LEA students, and the larger community.
Step 1.5: Move Forward with Site Options
		

Goal 1.5.1: Narrow Down Site List

After gathering the information above and listening to feedback from the community, it is time tonarrow down the list of developable parcels that will be further explored for their potential to generate
housing. Having a consultant on board is helpful during this step since they can talk an LEA throughways of narrowing in on a concise list for final scrutiny. (For more discussion on selecting sites see
Section 3 of this report.)

93

		

Goal 1.5.2: Issue RFP for Feasibility Analysis

The preliminary exploration stage concludes with the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) fora feasibility analysis. The RFP asks for submissions from companies, including architecture firms,
developers, and design-build firms, who will then be tasked with researching the sites and generatingarchitectural schematics with robust financial and development plans. These plans are created todemonstrate the feasibility of making the scheme a reality. The RFP should at a minimum ask for thefollowing:• Massing studies• Renderings/visualizations of the proposed developments• Predicted constructions costs• Numbers of units, unit mix, and preliminary plan layout of spaces in the building• Site geotechnical analyses• Site environmental considerations• Zoning regulations and allowable envelope dimensions• Financing plans to fund development
Stage 2: Feasibility (1 - 1.5 Years)
Step 2.1: Produce Feasibility Report
Goal 2.1.1: Select a Firm for Feasibility Report and Complete Analysis
While an RFP allows an LEA to choose between multiple submitters and potentially expands therange of companies with which an LEA might work, it is also common for LEAs to select firms forthe feasibility analysis with which they already have a relationship. Sometimes an LEA will retain the
consultants that conduct the initial research for the feasibility stage as well (the consultant firm canpartner with an architecture firm to create building proposals). If an LEA does issue an RFP, it usuallytakes 1–2 months to select a firm with which to proceed, after which it takes approximately 6 months
to conduct the full feasibility analysis on the narrowed site list of 2–4 sites. LEAs can winnow down thefirms that respond to the RFP based on the firms’ previous experience with these types of projects andwith local regulations, their proposed cost for their analysis, and their portfolio’s compatibility—or lackthereof—with the school board’s vision for development.
Goal 2.1.2: Establish Core LEA Team
Because the feasibility study is a major step that begins to make plans for housing production seemtangible and achievable, at this point it is worthwhile for an LEA to establish a subcommittee focused on
housing. In the past, LEAs have established a facilities subcommittee, assigned the task of shepherding
the housing process to an existing facilities subcommittee, or created an entirely new housing
subcommittee to more directly oversee the remaining process. Any of these routes can allow LEA
business to continue efficiently alongside the development process as the specified committee takes
the lead on planning outreach, selecting a site, communicating with the architect about design options,investigating financing approaches, and other such responsibilities before bringing their suggestions to
the full board for a vote. Finding champions among LEA employees can prove invaluable for successful94project construction, especially as LEA board members can change and overall priorities can shift
throughout the development process.
Goal 2.1.3: Present Feasibility Report to Board (Only for Approach A)
The feasibility analysis will include a number of deliverables to help an LEA make a final decision on asite and building proposal. This report should at a minimum include the requirements listed in Goal
1.5.2: Issue RFP for Feasibility Analysis.
Step 2.2: Continue Community Outreach		Goal 2.2.1: Conduct Sustained Community Outreach

The information included in the feasibility analysis gives an LEA a strong foundation from which to
conduct concerted community outreach. If the LEA has systematically followed this process from the
beginning, then community members should be aware that the LEA is pursuing a housing development
on a handful of sites and should have been given the opportunity to voice their opinions on the project.
Now, with the additional massing, design, and financing information, the community members will
be given the opportunity to comment on the advanced project designs. To do so, LEAs often organize
public meetings with the design team that conducted the analysis on hand to answer design-oriented
questions. In addition, comments can be gathered by making parts of the feasibility report available
online for public viewing. Conducting a process that allows for robust involvement from LEA families
directly supports the mission of the LEAs while helping to avoid any appearance of an opaque process,which could derail a development project.
Step 2.3: Finalize Development Plans
Word of Advice: Define the Target Tenant Population
Additional community outreach and the completed feasibility report can help LEAs make a final
decision about who they hope to house in their education workforce housing project. Our research
has shown that this conversation often occurs late in the process, but the earlier this is established,
the better. In some of the earliest education workforce housing projects initiated by LAUSD, theselected funding approach did not allow their targeted population of district teachers to meet theincome requirements for units. This lesson instigated legislative and financing changes that offer
new avenues for LEAs to consider. These new avenues give LEAs more flexibility in defining atenant population, and the earlier a population is established the more explicitly project financing
and building design can be aligned. Building upon earlier tenancy conversations should also allow
an LEA to consider how they intend to manage and enforce their decisions (Goal 4.1.3: Establish
Tenancy and Management Strategy describes the management decision making process in moredetail). As such, as the LEA finalizes its development plans it is essential that it defines the target
resident population.

95

Goal 2.3.1: Select Site
Taking into account the tenant possibilities, feasibility analysis, community feedback, and financing
options, the next step requires an LEA to make a final decision on which site they want to pursue. The
site is inextricably linked to the number of units, massing, and overall spirit of the project, and it is at
this point in the process that all of these decision points start to come together (see Section 3 for more
information on site types).
Goal 2.3.2: Select Project Design
Similarly, taking into account the previously completed analyses, this next goal requires an LEA to selectthe design direction they want to pursue. The design will undergo further minor changes as it proceedsfrom conceptual drawings to construction drawings and finally to a finished building, but choosing an
option from the feasibility analysis defines the direction for the project. As mentioned in Goal 2.3.1, siteand project design are directly linked, so selecting a site also often means selecting the design direction
already proposed for that site in the feasibility study. (See Appendix 7 and Appendix 8 for an examples ofdesign proposals on specific sites.)
Goal 2.3.3: Finalize Financing Strategy
With an advanced idea of the scale, tenant population, and construction costs of the proposed project,
as well as an idea of the feasibility and impacts of various funding approaches, an LEA should have theinformation necessary to make a decision about which funding approach it intends to pursue. Eachfunding approach comes with its own set of positive and negative implications. Furthermore, eachfunding approach requires preparation in order to secure the finances. (For more information about
financing, see California’s Emerging Policy and Financing Landscape for Education Workforce Housing.)
Goal 2.3.4: Finalize Land Agreement
There are numerous types of land agreements that LEAs have pursued as they consider the best means
to leverage their property holdings (see Figure 32: Methods of Land Disposition for LEAs in the fullreport). As the subsequent stage involves the finalization of development plans, deciding which typeof land deal the LEA will pursue is fundamental to the rest of the process. Joint Occupancy is, thus
far, the most successful type of agreement for education workforce housing. In most joint occupancy
agreements, an LEA strikes a deal with the developer they select via the development request for
proposals (RFP) process. The type of land agreement an LEA pursues, while discussed earlier in theprocess (see Goal 1.3.2), is finalized at this point, when an LEA makes a decision about ownership of theland and moves towards design completion and building construction.

96

Approaches Diverge: Disposing of Land
Approach A: Affordable Housing Construction and Approach B: Income Generation diverge before
the issuance of an RFP for development. If an LEA decides to use their land for income generation
by selling it, long-term leasing it, or exchanging it with a developer, the LEA can move forwardwith the land deal and no longer needs to be regularly involved in the process. However, it is worth
noting that selling or long-term leasing a parcel of land requires the LEA to go through the processof declaring the land as surplus (as outlined in Education Code § 17388). Exchanging the parcel, or
entering into a 66-year joint occupancy lease avoids this requirement. If an LEA decides to constructeducation workforce housing on its land, at this point their role changes mostly to an advisory one,
although they remain an active participant in subsequent developmental decisions.
Figure A6.4: Approaches Diverge

Goal 2.3.5: Issue RFP for Development
With the site and building design selected from the options in the feasibility report, the next steprequires the LEA to issue an RFP for development. This RFP outlines what is expected from the selectedcompany:• Procurement of planning and zoning entitlements• 100% construction documentation for the project and related site improvements• Enumeration of a construction timeline• Coordination of job site and project phasing• Coordination and facilitation of initial occupancy• Execution of any necessary post-construction corrective work

97

Stage 3: Development (1 - 3 Years)
Step 3.1: Finalize Development Team
Goal 3.1.1: Select Developer
Choosing between RFP submissions can be a challenge, but each response will come with aproject timeline, fee proposal, and expected project cost. Although budgetary constraints or hiring
requirements may compel an LEA to choose the proposal that is least expensive and has the shortest
timeline, it is important to consider that the lowest proposed fees and costs may not lead to the lowest
final cost, given later change orders and budget adjustments. In any case, an LEA should examine whichof the submitting companies have experience delivering projects on time and within budget in orderto make their selection. An LEA should always ask for references and contact prior clients. An LEA may
also lean on an owner's representative to facilitate this process.
Common Refrain: Continue Community Outreach
Past projects demonstrate that a common reason for an LEA to pause or abandon its education
workforce housing efforts was strong community pushback tied to feelings of being ignored by the
LEA or being under-informed about project decisions, even late in the process. Public meetings
that outline what developer team has been selected, which site has been chosen, what the updated
design looks like, and how long the process (especially construction) is expected to take can go along way to improving community feelings about the project. Furthermore, last minute designcomments fielded during these meetings still have the potential to be incorporated before the final
construction drawings are created.
Baton Pass:
While throughout development consultants are hired to guide decision making and to lend theirexpertise, after a developer is selected they take on much of the responsibility for bringing the
project to fruition. At this point the heavy lifting shifts to the developer themselves, and the LEA
steps back to advise the remainder of the process.
Step 3.2: Complete Pre-Construction Process
Goal 3.2.1: Secure Entitlements
In addition to producing construction documents, the selected developer must obtain entitlementsfrom the city to allow construction to commence. These entitlements include environmental reviews,
zoning changes, and other such civic amendments that allow a project to move forward. If an owner's
representative has been contracted by the LEA, they will have begun this process already, expediting
entitlement procurement and allowing pre-construction to proceed without delay.

98Goal 3.2.2: Finalize Project Design
Now, with the funding approach decided upon, community comments addressed, a site and design
direction selected, and a tenant population targeted, the project design can be finalized. As previously
mentioned, the broad strokes of a schematic design during the feasibility analysis phase provide a
guide for the evolution of a project’s design. The final feedback from community members and otherstakeholders will be incorporated by the developer/architect team to finalize all decisions for building
construction. As a project moves from schematics to final documentation, important decisions are madeabout details, materials, program specifics, building systems, and costs.
Goal 3.2.3: Produce Final Documentation
As mentioned in Goal 2.3.5: Issue RFP for Development, it is the job of the selected developer and thearchitecture team to produce construction documents. During this time—sometimes termed the “preconstruction” phase of development—the developer will work alongside the architect to prepare therequired documents and acquire the permits necessary for construction.
Goal 3.2.4: Select Contractor
This task falls under the purview of the developer chosen via the RFP process, but the General
Contractor is the person/company that executes the construction of the project. The contractor
will be in charge of scheduling construction activities, overseeing the jobsite, and ensuring that theconstruction drawings are accurately followed and completed.
Stage 4: Construction (2 - 2.5 Years)
Step 4.1: Begin Construction
Goal 4.1.1: Break Ground
With the construction documents completed and the requisite entitlements secured, construction
can proceed and the project can break ground. While there is inevitable variability in the construction
process, the standard timeframe for multistory projects across the state is approximately two years fromgroundbreaking to project opening.
Goal 4.1.2: Monitor Construction Process
During the construction process, the LEA further transitions from a position of driving the project
to one of providing project oversight. The LEA coordinates with the development team to monitor
progress and approve change orders and agreements with subcontractors. These conversations takeplace approximately once a month with a regular cadence until construction is complete.
Goal 4.1.3: Establish Tenancy and Management Strategy
With construction proceeding in the background, LEAs shift their focus to managing their newly
constructed asset. One of the most important management strategies is defining an LEA’s approach to99

tenancy. As mentioned previously in this timeline, an LEA will hopefully have already made a tenancy
decision and aligned their funding approach with these tenants in mind. However, questions regarding
tenancy bring up two difficult issues that LEAs have previously tried to address through the creation of
independent housing corporations consisting of LEA board members as well as unelected community
members. The first issue arises when such a housing corporation considers how to allocate the units
to those who are eligible. In the past, LEAs have used a lottery system paired with a waiting list for
those unable to initially secure a unit. Even if an LEA intended for a project to only house beginningteachers, California’s high housing demand and high housing prices will likely mean that demand forthe units will far exceed supply. As such, a lottery system can help fairly allocate the units among thetargeted population. The second issue arises when a housing corporation considers how to address unit
turnover and the changing characteristics of the tenant population. What happens when a teacher has
been living in the same building and teaching in the same LEA for many years, increasing their income
and advancing beyond an entry-level designation? Even more drastically, what happens when a teacher
leaves the LEA altogether? These are complicated questions, and no LEA has sufficiently answeredthem in the past. However, strategies like tenancy length limits or income limits owing to the use ofgovernment affordable housing funds can be avenues for managing the units after they have been filled.
It is a task for the independent housing corporation to establish the rules it thinks will best govern the
project, and subsequently it is up to the property management company to enforce those rules.
Many developers—both those that construct affordable housing and those that specialize in market
rate housing—have property management wings that they operate in-house. Moving forward withan in-house property management team is often the most efficient option for education workforce
housing projects, and whether or not a developer includes an in-house management company may
factor into the selection of a firm via the RFP process. Alternatively, an LEA can elect to hire an outside
management firm to manage their project if they do not believe that the developer’s management will
be adequate.
Step 4.2: Finish Construction
As construction concludes, the final task requires an LEA and its primary consultants to conduct an onsite review and to create a “punch list” of any remaining work to be done before the appropriate publicagency issues the Certificate of Occupancy. Approximately 2 years after breaking ground, the building
should be complete and ready to fill with tenants.
Stage 5: Leasing Up (6 months - 1 year)
Step 5.1: Act on Tenancy Strategy
With the building complete and ready to be occupied, the Tenancy and Management strategies
mentioned in Goal 4.1.3 are ready to go into effect. It is the responsibility of the property management
team (see Step 6.1) to enforce the rules established by an LEA or their independent housing corporation.
This part of property management can be difficult and can lead to strained ties between the LEA and its
staff. However, clear communication about the requirements and restrictions will help reduce conflictand lead to smooth project operation for the life of the project.

100

Step 5.2: Lease Up Units
Following the assigned tenancy strategy, the project’s developer or property management company will
advertise for applicants and select tenants, most often through a combination of employee preferences andlottery. The property management team will execute lease agreements with tenants, and it is important that
units lease up quickly in order to avoid unnecessary loss of revenue. Financing structures include contingencies for a certain percentage (often 5%) of units being vacant, but the faster an LEA leases the units, thefaster the cash flow of the building can reach full capacity, and the faster the rental income can sustain building costs. It is imperative that an LEA clearly outlines the tenancy management strategy, and that a property
management company quickly enacts this strategy so that tenants can move in at the earliest possible time.
Stage 6: Management and Operations (Ongoing)
Step 6.1: Act on Property Management Strategy
As mentioned above, the LEA decides whether to use the developer’s property management services
or whether to secure the property management services of a separate entity. Either way, the property
management team will be responsible for enforcing the tenancy management strategies as well as
ensuring the smooth operation of the building itself. The property management company will be thepublic face of the project, handling tenant concerns, property fixes, and overall building maintenance. It
is worth noting that as part of the property management agreement, the management company will set
aside funds for repairs and maintenance over the life of the project.
Step 6.2: Maintain the Property Through its Useable Lifetime
The length of time that a building remains in operation can vary dramatically, but generally, wellmaintained buildings are expected to last 50–75 years before they require extensive repairs or
demolition. Depending on the land use agreement established with the local jurisdiction and thedeveloper team, the usable lifespan of the building can align with the terms of land use (e.g., a 66-year
ground lease). If an LEA pursues a joint occupancy 66-year land lease, then at the end of that time theland and the building return to the LEA.

101

Appendix 7: Design Case Study for San Jose Unified School District
Figure A7.1: Two different approaches, one with several variations, are sketched out to show ways toaddress community concerns, improve campus conditions, and provide affordable housing.

Figure A7.2: Housing Approach Organization (left), Public Park and Pathway (right)
Campus Strategy: Tactical Additions

102

Concept & Design Decisions: Approach 1
Figure A7.3: Podium Building Campus Connection (left), Proposed Building Massing (right)

Design and Campus Connection:
Taking into account zoning, community feedback, and the site contextual restrictions, our design
proposals are separated into two typological buckets. The first typology (Approach 1) is that of a podium
building with two levels of parking below and two levels of housing above. Approach 1 demonstrates
how relatively tall (4-5 stories to fit zoning requirements) and dense housing (approximately 75 dwelling
units/acre) can be accommodated on campus, especially if a few important considerations are met.
Firstly, the housing units themselves are conceptually designed around a townhome model. This way,community concerns about large, out of character housing structures invading San Jose would not beborne out. Instead, neighbors would see a type of housing that they are familiar with rather than one
that changes their community. Secondly, thoughtfully siting this type of dense housing is fundamental
to the success of the project. Construction causes disruption, and a multistory building is a relatively
intensive construction undertaking. As such, we identified a pocket on the site with few neighboring
residences, where the operations of the school would be minimally affected, and where the building
would establish a defined street edge.
As mentioned in the overview of the San Jose Unified Design Case Study, seeing the active school
campus as a site for strategic housing intervention opens the door to combining housing development
alongside campus improvement, using the construction of one to renovate and improve the other.
With Approach 1, the NW corner of the site is adjacent to existing classroom wings in Leland HighSchool. This adjacency led us to think about strategies to unite the projects, including the potential
construction of new classrooms in the base of the podium or of taking the opportunity of construction
to renovate the existing classrooms at the ends of each wing. Engaging in a campus giveback such as thismore firmly connects the housing development to LEA business.
103Housing Type:A multi-story podium building such as this would lend itself well to a housing product with mixed
levels of affordability. Alongside affordable units for LEA staff, market rate apartments could besold as well, increasing the monthly income generated and helping offset the reduced rents fromthe affordable units. This type of project could also effectively accommodate multiple affordability
levels. Beyond the inclusion of market rate units, the project would likely include affordable units at
a variety of AMI levels.
Typological Example:
Because the project outlined for San Jose is schematic, to help imagine outcomes we present
similar built projects from California as well as other cities and countries. The photos associatedwith each design approach show existing housing projects that are not associated with schools but
demonstrate the ethos of the design proposals shown here. These are not replicas of what could
be built on a school campus, nor do the building styles match what might make sense in a specificneighborhood context. Instead, the related typological examples show related massing, building
organization, and how a general strategy might appear.

Figure A7.4: Section Cut Through Podium and Neighboring Context

Figure A7.5: MAD Architects, Gardenhouse. Los Angeles, CA.

104

Concept & Design Decisions: Approach 2
Higher density construction projects are worthwhile as they produce more dwelling units per acre,potentially housing more tenants and having a greater impact on LEA’s goals, like teacher recruitment
and retention. However, collaborating with community members to consider the benefits ofconstructing a substantial housing development on campus and finding a place to locate the project
may prove difficult. Approach 2 demonstrates a different way forward, i.e., one that uses the traditional
townhouse to create a number of spatial organizations that can fit into pockets and along edges acrossthe school’s campus. Not only more adaptable, this two- to three-story housing type can be constructed
more inexpensively and fit more contextually into the neighborhood fabric.
Figure A7.6: Section Cut Through Townhomes and Neighboring Context

2A - Linear Townhomes
Figure A7.7: Linear Townhome Campus Connection (left), Proposed Building Massing (right)

Design and Campus Connection:
Many school campuses set aside substantial site areas to accommodate parking for students and schoolstaff. Parking area remains an important consideration for school design, but parking lots often muddle
the site organization of school campuses as they obscure the intended entry sequence and project anunwelcoming outward appearance to the neighborhood surrounding the school itself. To establish
105

a street edge, lessen the abrupt change between the single-family residential district and the school
campus, and to better frame the entry to the school, we propose a linear ribbon of townhomes runningalong the NE edge of the campus. Rather than couple with a targeted amenity or addition to the existing
structure (like Approach 1), Approach 2A gives back to the school by improving campus organizationand edge definition, while creating a more welcoming residential environment out of what was an
unwelcoming sea of concrete. The massing of the townhomes mirrors that of the surrounding building
context, and townhomes are clustered into small pods with shared green frontage between them. Thisapproach can be widely replicated as the linear nature of the homes can adapt to a variety of edge shapes
in a variety of contexts. Each of these varieties can still generate the positive impacts of framing thecampus, creating more well-defined entries and exits, and softening the boundary between residential
areas and educational ones.
Housing Type:A series of townhomes could offer an opportunity to explore paths to ownership for residents. We are
imagining that the townhomes would be built with multiple units within each building, but options
could exist for residents to buy and combine units as they come on the market, or to transition from
renting an apartment to owning it as a condo. A large source of wealth for American families is property
equity, and creating a pathway for lower-income residents to establish long-term wealth could begin tochange this dynamic among LEA staff.
Typological Example:
Figure A7.8: A linear row of townhomes organized along a water boundary on one side and a roadway on the other; pH+, Old Ford Road. London, UK.

106

2B - Townhome Community
Figure A7.9: Townhome Community Campus Connection (left), Proposed Building Massing (right)

Design and Campus Connection:
Taking the linear townhome and turning the line in on itself can generate a tightly packed minicommunity able to fit into small spaces between buildings, or in this case, between the recreational
fields and the back end of Leland High. This version of the townhome typology is especially flexible, as
it can change its shape enough so as to not disrupt school activities nor any of the important existingsite uses.
Housing Type:The mini-community aspect of this housing organization could lend itself well to a limited equity
cooperative ownership model. Rather than the normal system of de-centralized ownership with units
paid for by individual tenants, collectives own their land as a whole, with residents joining together toform a group that controls the land and the buildings on top of it. Such a model may lend itself well to a
housing community nestled within the interior of campus.

107

Typological Example:
Figure A7.10: Townhouses can be connected in linear fashion, but designed to express the individual
units; 745 Bonita Place. San Jose, CA.

2C - Courtyard Townhomes
Figure A7.11: Courtyard Townhome Campus Connection (left), Proposed Building Massing (right)

Design and Campus Connection:
Wrapping the linear townhomes around a central courtyard creates yet another variation on thetypology, i.e., a courtyard-facing community with shared public space at the center. This strategy can beused in parts of the site where the surroundings are not visually pleasing, or near streets with a lot of car
traffic. By turning the focus of the development inward, there are also opportunities presented by theexterior outward-facing facades. Here, as the project abuts Bret Harte’s gym and existing tennis courts,
we propose a climbing wall for student use on the exterior building facade. This approach demonstrates
that the housing itself can resonate against and directly improve the built structures that already exist
around it.
108Housing Type:
Each housing model could feasibly support multiple approaches to tenancy, but this courtyard housing
approach would be well suited for the more traditional affordable apartment rentals for LEA staff. With
unit turnover and tenancy limits, projects that create an internal community where new neighbors can
get to know each other could help ease transitions.
Typological Example:
Figure A7.12: Courtyard housing emphasizes the shared open space around which dwelling units areoriented; Baca Architects & Stolon Studio Ltd, Kaolin Court Housing. London, UK.

Site Specific Considerations
While this case study is intended to show conceptual examples of housing models and types thatcan be inserted on active school campuses across the state, the specific site in San Jose posed design
considerations, environmental constraints, and legislative regulations that an education workforce
housing projects would have to respond to. Other active school campuses will have their own set of
unique circumstances and considerations.
Design x Safety:
School buildings come with unique safety considerations, not least of which is the requirement for
direct fire truck access to the school buildings. This need for access required maintaining entries atboth ends of the site and ensuring that the street edge was not fully built out.
Design x Edge Conditions:
As is, there is an overly porous and unwelcoming property edge defined by a chain link fence. To
counter the issue, and to establish a street frontage which improves the pedestrian experience, we
looked at placing housing interventions along the edges of the site. Additionally, as is common forneighborhood schools, the transition from single-family homes to the school campus is abrupt. By
placing housing at specific locations around the edge of the campus, we were able to soften thistransition while creating a much more visually interesting property edge condition. Bringing the109

residential neighborhood into the campus, while simultaneously establishing a more well defined
campus edge, improved the campus’ stance towards the community.
Design x Campus:
Learning from the community feedback about SJUSD’s original proposal, our design leaves all athletic
fields as they were and only touches the existing school buildings when adding amenities accessible tostudents. Our interventions are innovative but not revolutionary. Owing to the existing suburban fabricand neighborhood fears about changes to existing systems and structures, our schematic proposals
show sensitive ways of increasing density and adding height. Furthermore, all design options we show
are works in progress. LEAs interested in strategically inserting housing on an active campus will haveownership over design direction, style, building scale, and all the major factors that determine what is
ultimately constructed on their land.
Environmental:
The western edge of campus abuts a drainage channel. In order to make this area of campus more
beautiful and to mitigate the flood risk posed by the channel, we propose a landscaped greenway. Thisgreenway acts both as a unifying element connecting each potential zone of intervention and as anextension of Los Alamitos Creek Trail. It also acts as an additional drainage area protecting potential
housing from flooding through natural water infiltration.
Legislative:
The zoning plan and general plan in San Jose are mismatched. An easy way to think about these two
documents and how they operate is that the general plan acts as the constitution, a document thatlays out what a municipality wants to happen on each parcel of land and what they hope will occur asa result of that specific land use. The zoning code on the other hand is more like the series of laws thatmake that goal a reality. Builders have to follow the zoning code, even if the goals of the general plan are
not fully realized by the zoning code. This is the case in San Jose at the moment, where school parcels
across the city are zoned R1-5 which restricts building on these parcels to very low residential densities.
However, per the general plan, parcels like Bret Harte/Leland should be zoned in such a way to match
the General Plan’s R-M Residence District that allows for multifamily zoning, higher unit densities, andtaller buildings. The Mayor of San Jose and his team have been working to fix this inconsistency, andthey are proposing a law that allows for more efficient changes to the zoning code in regards to theseparcels. Such a law would reduce the delay in the development process associated with waiting for azoning change. Our building proposals assume a zoning code similar to that which is outlined in the
General Plan.
In conclusion, active school campuses are a widespread resource for LEAs interested in constructing
education workforce housing. As we demonstrated with the preceding case study, large campus sites
offer numerous opportunities. Through the intentional selection of housing type, housing location,and campus connection, residences can be developed on active campuses in ways that benefit those
associated with the school as well as those in the community at large. The examples and housing types
investigated in the preceding section are not meant to be definitive, nor to prescribe an approach thatwill work for all LEAs all of the time.
110Appendix 8: Design Case Study for Berkeley Unified School District
Overview
In the following Design Case Study, we walk through steps of designing an education workforce
housing project for a selected site in the Berkeley Unified School District. The example builds upon
lessons learned from previous teacher housing projects, demonstrates strategies of site assessment,shows the implications of one site type, and extends strategies of developing projects that contributeto school campuses. We explain common trade-offs that occur in decision-making about project designand show ways housing incentives can help make projects feasible.
Figure A8.1: The case study site is across from Berkeley High School and adjacent to the
Downtown Berkeley area.

Context and Site TypeThe site used for this example, located at 2309 Milvia Street, is currently a surface parking lot used forBerkeley High School staff (Figure A8.1). The school and parking lot are centrally located in the city’s
downtown neighborhood, close to a major public transportation hub along its main avenue, which
carries a number of bus routes and the regional light rail system. The downtown area is densely built,
with commercial storefronts and mid- and high-rise apartments in a number of buildings withinwalking distance of the site.
Surface parking lots, a site type common to all LEAs for employee and visitor use at schools, areamenable to new development because there are few improvements or structures that require111

demolition before a new project is created. Many of the completed education workforce housing
projects have used surface parking lots that are physically detached from school campuses for precisely
this reason, and also because subdivisions and ground leases can be readily defined. Although this typeof site may be ideal, each LEA must also consider the history of the particular site, its relationship to the
nearby schools, and its connection to the local community to inform conversations about its reuse.

Program and Proposed Use
This parking lot, which previously held the Berkeley High School tennis courts (Figure A8.2), wasconverted to surface parking after serving as a construction staging area for expansion of the school’s
gymnasium. While the existing parking is critical to operational needs of the adjacent school, acommunity’s memory of its school campuses often persists and shapes expectations for its future. Somewould like to see the lot turned back into tennis courts for the school’s use. Engaging these expectations
with thorough conversations about the benefits and tradeoffs of a proposed program or mix of uses
is essential for building community support, creating transparency, and making the most of an LEA’s
limited resources of time, funding, and space.
Currently, the site provides approximately 135 staff parking spaces (Figure A8.3). It is directly acrossfrom the active school site, and the spaces will still be needed even if the site is redeveloped for otheruses. Replacing the existing parking is often the largest barrier for this type of site, and the amount of
space and kind of construction required to do so adds considerable cost to any project that follows in its
footprint. The existing surface lot is also at its maximum capacity and cannot accommodate any more
spaces without improvements.

Figure A8.2: Before its use as a parking lot, the site was home to Berkeley High School’s tennis courts.

112

Figure A8.3: The site is used in 2021 for surface parking for Berkeley High School employees.

Figure A8.4: A dedicated parking structure would increase staff parking capacity at the school.

113

To meet growing and expected operational demands, the site could be developed with a dedicatedparking structure to increase the number of cars it holds (Figure A8.4). Increased capacity in the lot
would also make it attractive to lease parking spaces and allow public use in evening hours to generate
revenue for the LEA. Yet future opportunities to easily use the empty lot would disappear. Once
substantial investments are made in a structure, an LEA’s goal will likely be to gain as much value fromit as possible and maximize its usable lifespan. The site would be built up with a parking structure,and now with existing improvements, any future redevelopment of the site would require expensive
demolition. Long-term planning is needed in considering what mix of uses will make the most of thesite’s current development potential and create the most lasting benefits to the LEA and community.
One proposal on the table is to create a parking structure that also carries tennis courts on its roof
(Figure A8.5). This idea expands the amount of staff parking and also brings tennis courts back to thesite. Compared to the parking lot-only structure, construction costs would be greater to provide aroof deck, rather than an open-air top level, that doubles for hardcourts. The site would again provide
tennis courts for Berkeley High School students and could also be opened to the neighborhood andsurrounding community outside of school and competition hours. This arrangement would expand thenumber of users for the site and beneficiaries for the project, although the impact of the development
would remain mostly limited to those attending the school or near the site area itself.
Another possibility is to create education workforce housing, which would provide a major ongoing,
LEA-wide benefit at the site (Figure A8.6). While the scale of development of the project would be muchgreater, it would also be appropriate to the scale of opportunity available at the site. On this open lot
close to Downtown Berkeley, public transportation, and a dense mix of uses, a larger scale project would

Figure A8.5: Currently the site is slated for a parking structure combined with tennis courts on its
upper level.

114

easily fit into the neighborhood and context, even as it sits across the school campus. The project’s
context paves the way for a more ambitious project and can help it achieve multiple goals for the schooland larger LEA, including long-term staff retention and recruitment goals. The steps that follow shapea development proposal to capitalize on various incentives available for affordable housing that would
make such a mixed-use project for education workforce housing the “highest and best use” for the site.
Figure A8.6: A project can retain its connection with the school campus, replace parking, and still
provide new uses.

Figure A8.7: The buildable envelope of the site is determined by local zoning regulations.

115

Zoning and Development Standards
The first step in envisioning a project on the site is to determine the maximum envelope within which
any new structure must be built, defined by the local zoning code and development regulations (FigureA8.7). This envelope will determine the yield, or number of apartments, that can be fit into a project.
The site here is located within a downtown mixed-use zone that requires some setbacks and shapingof the building mass but otherwise allows up to five stories “by-right,” or in other words, without
additional reviews, permits, or conditions that add time and cost to the project. Common development
standards that shape the buildable envelope in zoning codes are height limits and required yards or
setbacks. The site’s overall development potential can also be limited by maximum floor area ratio,
density, lot coverage, parking requirements, and open space standards. The project is not required
to maximize the buildable envelope or to be constructed to its fullest extent for it to fulfill its goals,
but visualizing the envelope provides a necessary baseline to understand how the site is being usedcompared to what is possible within its current zoning.

Parking & Construction
In residential developments, parking is often a constraining and determining factor for the project(Figure A8.8). The balance of the intended use and areas that support it (i.e., apartments for school staff
to live in and parking spaces for their use) greatly affects the scale and cost of the entire project. Parked
vehicles require a substantial amount of space and pose a direct trade-off with apartment units, themain value of the project. Minimizing parking costs preserves resources for the intended use, and asurface lot is often the most economical solution.
Figure A8.8: Minimizing the cost of providing parking can also limit the project’s potential

116Here we start by considering what a balance of parking and apartments looks like at a ratio of one
space per unit, located on the ground level. Approximately half the site is dedicated to surface parking,requiring minimal improvements, and the number of units that it can support is shown on the rest.
In a walkable urban setting such as this one with convenient access to numerous public transportation
options, the parking ratio can be lower than the usual calculations based on bedroom counts (FigureA8.9). This depends upon prospective tenants accepting the number of parking spaces assigned to eachapartment. Already, the City of Berkeley has codified parking maximums, rather than minimums, intransit-rich areas such as its downtown. Limiting residential parking meets multiple goals of promoting
livable, mixed-use density, allowing more affordable housing, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lowering the ratio of parking spaces to apartments from the initial scenario would accommodate more
residents on the site without dedicating more space to cars.
Changing how much parking is provided can greatly increase the number of apartments on the site. In
this scenario, reducing the parking ratio further, to 0.5:1 instead of 1:1 (meaning that half the apartments
are rented to tenants without cars or parking spaces), doubles the number of units supported by thesame parking area. Rather than one space per unit, which would rely on each household to own a car inorder to use the space efficiently, one space is provided for every two households. A lower ratio reduces
the risk of excess space being built beyond the actual demand from residents. This scenario also uses
roughly half of the buildable envelope, and the additional units are accommodated within increased
building height. The overall cost of the project is greater when compared to before but it is directly tied
to apartments, since the parking being provided with minimal development costs on the surface lot.
Figure A8.9: Reducing the parking ratio allows relatively more residential units to be built.

117

These design options show that a consideration of parking, just one element of the project, affects its
scale, cost, and ability to meet its intentions.
The project’s type of construction is another key element of the design, which dovetails with its
approach to parking. Rather than a surface lot, dedicated space can be constructed with a larger
investment and upfront cost to the project. A full ground level of parking could be accommodated
within the building structure, with apartments built above (Figure A8.10). This type of design iscommonly referred to as a podium building, where a concrete structure contains the heavy car-related
uses and bears lighter wood-framed apartments above it.
At the 0.5:1 parking ratio, where one parking space is built for every two units, a greater number ofparking spaces allows many more units to be constructed and comes closer to maximizing use of thesite’s buildable envelope. The project design capitalizes on more of the site’s potential, reaching closer tothe 50’ height limit allowed by-right within the zoning code. Building codes typically limit wood frame
construction to four stories, where each is about 10’ tall, but in combination with a story of concrete orconcrete block on the ground floor, economical wood framing can be used up to the maximum heightof 50’.
Within the by-right envelope in this strategy, the project can accommodate more parking spaces but
they would come at the cost of apartments units (Figure A8.11). The diagram demonstrates these
tradeoffs by showing how an additional level of parking in the concrete podium would increase theparking ratio closer to 1.5:1, or three parking spaces for every two units, for residents in the project,
by reducing the total number of apartments. Parking spaces could be created on just a portion of the

Figure A8.10: The cost of structured parking can create greater value for the project as a whole.

118

level, but the dimensions of a typical parking structure are different from the measurements typical toresidential units and for illustrative purposes an entire floor is used.
The potential for additional parking shows how the site can support multiple uses beneficial to the LEA
and campus: these additional spaces can be dedicated for school staff use and help replace the existing
surface lot’s spaces (Figure A8.12).
Figure A8.11: Within the buildable envelope apartments and parking can often compete for space.

Figure A8.12: Parking can be a shared use between the project and the school campus.

119

The parking reserved for apartment tenants could be provided at a lower ratio while serving the school
campus, since residents would live close to public transportation and close to work. Note again that theCity of Berkeley zoning code does not have a minimum parking requirement in this area, so the LEA
and its residential development consultant can ultimately decide the amount of parking needed basedon its expected tenants. For many young teachers and staff, especially those within walking distanceto their workplace at neighboring Berkeley High School, a personal car and parking space may not beneeded. Car sharing options could also be provided within the project, meeting the need for occasional
trips. Additionally, the parking dedicated for school staff could be leased outside of school and event
hours for visitors to the downtown area, creating additional revenue to support the project and LEA
operations.

Increasing Yield
More intensive use of the site can also come from additional permits and planning incentives foraffordable housing. If the project applied for a Use Permit with the City of Berkeley, its limit on buildingheight would increase up to 60’ (Figure A8.13). The extra 10’ of height allows a greater number ofunits in the project with an extra story of apartments. With two floors of parking, both in concrete
construction, the podium can still support four floors of wood framing to fill out the expanded, taller,
building envelope. This height reaches the upper limit for this kind of podium building, known as TypeV over Type I construction, which combines housing and parking in the same structure.
Projects that provide affordable housing are eligible for the State Density Bonus, a program enacted
locally throughout California. The “density bonus” is a percentage of units awarded to projects thatcreate homes reserved for households with lower incomes and permits a development to include moreunits than local zoning regulations otherwise allow. Greater density in a project helps spread the total

Figure A8.13: The potential to build more is often checked by additional costs in time andconstruction.

120

cost of development over more units—reducing the costs for each apartment and in effect subsidizing
their affordable rents or sales prices. Incentives, waivers, and concessions from local development
standards are also awarded under the program in order to accommodate the number of affordable units
and reduce their associated project costs. Developers can propose what modifications to development
standards best serve the project. Each development standard to be modified counts as a single incentive
or concession, and up to four incentives can be requested for a project. The number of incentives
granted is based on the project’s percentage of affordable housing units and the income levels of thehouseholds they support.
An education workforce housing project benefiting entry- and junior-level teachers and classified staff,
who often make salaries less than the area’s median income, would be eligible for such incentives. In
this case, the project can apply for a density bonus to create more units within the project and gain aconcession for additional height to accommodate them in an extra story (Figure A8.14). Considering theresulting construction costs will help limit just how many additional units and how tall the project willbe.
With the state density bonus and a city use permit, the project could rise up to 75’ and still be cost
efficient. A structure above 75’ tall is considered a high-rise building under the California Building Code.
It requires additional fire and life safety equipment and standards to be included at substantial cost to
the project. At this height limit, the relatively economical Type III construction can be used rather thancostly Type I concrete and steel. Although Type III construction is more expensive than the previously
considered Type V, it can be built up to five stories above a concrete podium, compared to four stories.
Building materials in this construction type can still be wood or light-gauge steel framing and havegreater fire resistance in the overall structure. A successful project design creates balance between the
total number of units and the total cost of construction.

Figure A8.14: LEAs can tap into existing support for affordable housing if they design with program
requirements in mind.

121

All together, thinking through the development program, construction costs, and housing policies has
maximized the LEA’s use of its site and increased its yield of apartments for teachers and staff. As canbe seen here, the design process is iterative, and each decision can affect previous assumptions andoutcomes like the total number of units, parking ratios, and building height, and number of units. These
parameters of the project are all in conversation with one another. Up to this point the project’s design
has assumed smaller households and shown smaller unit sizes—mostly studios and one bedrooms(Figure A8.15). This mix of units reflects the LEA’s pressing operational need to recruit and retain youngteachers who are costly to train and can turnover quickly without support. Studios and one bedroom
apartments may be appropriate for this target population, yet the size of units also have important
implications for the project’s costs and ultimate yield.

Financing
A final point for consideration in this case study is the financing that will be used to support the project.
LEAs creating education workforce housing can use funding for affordable housing to help develop theirprojects, but they will need to incorporate any additional requirements to meet program priorities andpolicy goals. The largest source of such funding, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC),
is established by Federal law and implemented through state programs to help subsidize construction
costs.
To be competitive in California’s allocation process, a housing type created by the project must be
specified. The housing type relates how the project’s design will support resident populations ofinterest, such as Seniors housing or Special Needs housing. One category fitting for LEAs is Large
Family housing. Large families are identified for support within LIHTC because large apartments withaffordable rents are often difficult to find in the private rental market. This housing type’s additional
requirements include larger bedroom counts in the project’s design. To compete for LIHTC funding in
the Large Family category, the project must provide at least 25% of its units as 2 bedroom units or larger
and another 25% as 3 bedroom units or larger.
To account for this and be eligible for LIHTC funding in the category, the proposed development’s unit
mix is adjusted to provide the proper ratio of bedroom counts (Figure A8.16). Incorporating these unit
sizes will affect the project in two ways. First, within the same building envelope, larger units that havemore bedrooms will reduce the total number of units created. Second, although the exact numbers
will depend on incomes and the level of affordability assigned, the size of units may change the relative
proportions of certificated teachers and classified staff within the project. The final number of units
here is reduced to a total of 125.
The following tables show a pro forma analysis of different financing scenarios that could be usedwith the project’s development program (Figures A8.17, A8.18, A8.19). All use the same mix of units, as
designed above, and assumptions for development costs in the project area (Figures A8.20, A8.21). The
three scenarios differ in their mix of income level restrictions and consider total costs with and without
replacement of the existing parking spaces.

122Figure A8.15: Smaller unit sizes can mean more apartments are created on the site, but they may notsuit all households they are intended for.

Figure A8.16: A mix with larger units would mean fewer apartments but could support a greater diversity of households and gain.

123

DRAFT For Internal Review Only
Figure A8.17: Summary of Preliminary Results from Financial Analysis of Alternatives

Table 1
Summary of Preliminary Results from Financial Analysis of Alternatives
Alameda County
Scenario 1
100% TCAC Affordable

Target Household Income (Affordable)
Number of UnitsWith Replacement Parking
Residual Value Per Unit
Residual Value Per Site
Without Replacement Parking
Residual Value Per Unit
Residual Value Per Site

124

48% AMI per TCAC
125

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

50% TCAC 50%
Moderate Affordable
84% AMI per TCAC/HCD
125

100% Low/Moderate
Affordable
110% AMI per HCD
125($204,000)($25,500,000)($169,000)($21,125,000)($131,000)($16,375,000)($160,000)($20,000,000)($123,000)($15,375,000)($80,000)($10,000,000)

DRAFT For Internal Review Only

Figure A8.18: Preliminary Financial Analysis of Development Alternatives (Replacement Parking)Table 1aPreliminary Financial Analysis of Development Alternatives
School District Housing and Property Ownership
Alameda County

Development Program
Total Number of Units% of Affordable Units
Target Household Income (Affordable)
Density
Market Rate Unit Size
BMR Unit Size
Average Unit Size
Average No. Bedrooms
Average Parking Ratio (w/Replacement Parking)
Revenues
Market Rate Gross Revenue (Sales/Rents)
BMR Gross Revenue (Sales/Rents)
Average Gross Revenue
Vacancy
Effective Gross Income (EGI)
Base Operating Expenses
Property Taxes
Net Operating Income

Scenario 1
100% TCAC Affordable

Scenario 2
50% TCAC 50% Moderate Affordable

Scenario 3
100% Low/Moderate Affordable

125 units
100%
49%
AMI per TCAC
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
1.38 spaces/unit

125 units
100%
84% AMI per TCAC/HCD
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
1.38 spaces/unit

125 units
100%
110%
AMI per HCD
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
1.38 spaces/unit

Per NSF
$0
$19
$19
($1)
$18
($8)
$0
$10

Per Unit$0$15,480$15,480($774)$14,706($6,700)$0$8,006Development Costs (Without Land)
Per NSFPer Unit
Hard Construction
Site Improvement$10$8,200Parking$59$48,300
Building$406$333,000$24$19,500
Contingency
Subtotal$498$409,000Planning & Building Permits$6$5,000Inclusionary Housing Fee$0$0City Impact Fees
$37
$30,000
Level 1 School Impact Fees
$5
$4,200
Other Soft Costs$74$61,000$28$23,000
Construction Financing
Development Costs (Without Land)$648$532,200$290$238,000
Revenue from Sale of Tax Credits
Net Development Costs (Without Land)$358$294,200
Per Unit
Residual Land Value (Supportable Debt Basis) Per NSF
Permanent Loan TypeTax Exempt Revenue Bond
Supportable Debt
$139
$114,000
Less: Net Development Costs (Without Land)($358)($294,000)($29)($24,000)
Less: Developer Margin/Profit
Residual Land Value (Per Unit)($249)($204,000)
Residual Land Value (for the Site)($25,500,000)

Per NSF
$0
$33
$33
($2)
$31
($8)
$0
$23

Per Unit

Per NSFPer Unit$0$26,760$26,760($1,338)$25,422($6,700)$0$18,722

Per NSF
$0
$42
$42
($2)
$40
($8)
$0
$32

Per Unit

Per NSFPer Unit

Scenario 1
Hide$0$34,560$34,560($1,728)$32,832($6,700)$0$26,132$10$8,200$10$8,200$59$48,300$59$48,300$406$333,000$406$333,000$24$19,500$24$19,500$498$409,000$498$409,000$6$5,000$6$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37
$30,000$37$30,000$5$4,200$5$4,200$74$61,000$74$61,000$28$23,000$25$23,000$648$532,200$572$532,200$146$120,000$0$0$502$412,200$648$532,200
Per NSFPer Unit
Per NSFPer Unit
Tax Exempt Revenue BondTax Exempt COP Bond
$325
$267,000$521$428,000$88($412,000)$69($532,000)($29)($24,000)($33)($27,000)($206)($169,000)($160)($131,000)($21,125,000)($16,375,000)

Note: Please
see Exhibit
A-1 for key
assumptions.
Note:
Pleasesee Figure
A8.20
for Key Assumptions.

125

DRAFT For Internal Review Only

Figure A8.19: Preliminary Financial Analysis of Development Alternatives (No Replacement Parking)Table 1b
Preliminary Financial Analysis of Development Alternatives
School District Housing and Property Ownership(No Replacement Parking)Alameda County

Development Program
Total Number of Units% of Affordable Units
Target Household Income (Affordable)
Density
Market Rate Unit Size
BMR Unit Size
Average Unit Size
Average No. Bedrooms
Average Parking Ratio (No Replacement Parking)
Revenues
Market Rate Gross Revenue (Sales/Rents)
BMR Gross Revenue (Sales/Rents)
Average Gross Revenue
Vacancy
Effective Gross Income (EGI)
Base Operating Expenses
Property Taxes
Net Operating Income

Scenario 1
100% TCAC Affordable

Scenario 2
50% TCAC 50% Moderate Affordable

Scenario 3
100% Low/Moderate Affordable

125 units
100%
49%
AMI per TCAC
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
0.30 spaces/unit

125 units
100%
84% AMI per TCAC/HCD
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
0.30 spaces/unit

125 units
100%
110%
AMI per HCD
90 DUANSF
821 NSF
821 NSF
1.78 bedrooms
0.30 spaces/unit

Per NSF
$0
$19
$19
($1)
$18
($8)
$0
$10

Per Unit$0$15,480$15,480($774)$14,706($6,700)$0$8,006Development Costs (Without Land)
Per NSFPer Unit
Hard Construction
Site Improvement$10$8,200Parking$13$10,500
Building$406$333,000$21$17,600
Contingency
Subtotal$450$369,300
Planning & Building Permits$6$5,000Inclusionary Housing Fee$0$0City Impact Fees
$37
$30,000
Level 1 School Impact Fees
$5
$4,200
Other Soft Costs$67$55,000$25$20,900
Construction Financing
Development Costs (Without Land)$590$484,400$285$234,000
Revenue from Sale of Tax Credits
Net Development Costs (Without Land)$305$250,400
Per Unit
Residual Land Value (Supportable Debt Basis) Per NSF
Permanent Loan TypeTax Exempt Revenue Bond
Supportable Debt
$139
$114,000
Less: Net Development Costs (Without Land)($305)($250,000)($29)($24,000)
Less: Developer Margin/Profit
Residual Land Value (Per Unit)($195)($160,000)
Residual Land Value (for the Site)
Note: Please
see Exhibit
A-1 for keyA8.20
assumptions.
Note:
Pleasesee Figure
for Key Assumptions.

126($20,000,000)

Per NSF
$0
$33
$33
($2)
$31
($8)
$0
$23

Per Unit

Per NSFPer Unit$0$26,760$26,760($1,338)$25,422($6,700)$0$18,722

Per NSF
$0
$42
$42
($2)
$40
($8)
$0
$32

Per Unit

Per NSFPer Unit$0$34,560$34,560($1,728)$32,832($6,700)$0$26,132$10$8,200$10$8,200$13$10,500$13$10,500$406$333,000$406$333,000$21$17,600$21$17,600$450$369,300$450$369,300$6$5,000$6$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37
$30,000$37$30,000$5$4,200$5$4,200$67$55,000$67$55,000$25$20,900$22$20,900$590$484,400$520$484,400$144$118,000$0$0$446$366,400$590$484,400
Per NSFPer Unit
Per NSFPer Unit
Tax Exempt Revenue BondTax Exempt COP Bond
$325
$267,000$521$428,000$32($366,000)$11($484,000)($29)($24,000)($29)($24,000)($150)($123,000)($97)($80,000)($15,375,000)($10,000,000)

Scen
Hi

Figure A8.20: Key Assumptions

DRAFT For Internal Review Only
Exhibit A-1
Key Assumptions
Alameda(a) With
Replacement
Parking(b) Without
Replacement
Parking

Podium2.62 persons
1.78 bedrooms
821

Podium2.62 persons
1.78 bedrooms
821

Residential Parking (spaces)
Replacement Parking (spaces)

135
38

0
38

Monthly Utility Allowance

$150

$150

Vacancy Rate
Monthly Base Operating Expenses
Property Tax Rate

5%
$550
1.12%

5%
$550
1.12%

$10
$35,000
$406
5%
$499
$34,200
15%
5.6%
5% of Development
Costs$2.5M + $20,000 per
unit above 100 units$10$35,000
$406
5%
$499
$34,200
15%
5.7%
5% of Development
Costs$2.5M + $20,000 per
unit above 100 units

Building Type
Average Household Size
Average Number of Bedrooms
Average Unit Size (net square feet)

Site Improvement Cost Per Net Square Foot
Parking Construction Cost Per Space
Bilding Construction Cost Per Net Square FootContingency
Total Hard Construction Cost Per Net Square Foot
Impact Fees (City/School) Per Unit
Other Soft Costs (% as of Hard Construction Costs)
Financing Cost (% as of Hard Construction Costs)
Developer Margin/Profit (Assuming Fee Developer)
Developer Margin/Profit Limitation Based on Tax Credit Regulations

Notes on Assumptions:Utility allowance is calculated based on local Housing Authority schedule.
Operating expenses are based on TCAC minimum operating expense for non-targeted units in elevator buildings.

127

Figure A8.21: Household Income Levels and Estimated Rents

DRAFT For Internal Review Only

Exhibit B-1
Household Income Levels and Estimated Rents
Based on Illustrative Apartment in Alameda County
Alameda County
Household Income Levels

Affordable
Rent*
Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

100% TCAC
Affordable

50% TCAC
50%
Moderate
Affordable

100%
Low/Moderate Affordable

25%
40%
35%
0%
0%
0%

13%
20%
17%
0%
0%
50%

0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
60%

100%
$1,292100%$2,221100%$2,884

Bedroom Count 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
HCD Household SizeTCAC Household Size
BMR Units (% of Total)
Target Income Level
30% of AMI (TCAC)
50% of AMI (TCAC)
60% of AMI (TCAC)
80% of AMI (HCD)
110% of AMI (HCD)
120% of AMI (HCD)

1
1

2
1.5

3
3

$28,770$47,950$57,540$70,350$96,700$105,500$30,830$51,380$61,650$80,400$110,500$120,550$36,990$61,650$73,980$90,450$124,350$135,650(Estimated
Average)$740$1,340$1,630$2,060$2,880$3,160

Total
Weighted Average Rent
*Assumes average unit mix of 1.8 bedrooms, 821 net square feet (NSF) unit size.

Source: Income limits are based on the 2021 Income Limits published by the State and Federal government (HCD/HUD) or published by
the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) that provides the income and rent standards for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Income levels by Area Median Income (AMI) are calculated based on the household income standards in the Health and Safety Codein order to determine affordable housing cost for various household income levels per HCD/HUD.
Affordable rent is estimated based on 30% of household income toward rent given an assumed mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units
and a standard deduction for tenant-paid utilities based on published utility allowances from the County Housing Authority.

128Endnotes
01. Introduction: Education Workforce Housing in California
1

Bates et al. (2018). California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities, Final Statewide Housing Assessment
2025. California Department of Housing and Community Development. Retrieved from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/
policy-research/plans-reports/docs/sha_maindoc_2_15_final.pdf.

2

We use the term “local educational agencies” (LEA) to refer collectively to California public K-12 school districts andcounty offices of education.

3

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2020). America’s Rental Housing 2020. Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/
files/Harvard_JCHS_Americas_Rental_Housing_2020.pdf.

4Hansen, L. (2021, September 13). “Bay Area Housing Prices Land Hard on School Teachers.” Mercury News. Retrieved
from: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/13/bay-area-housing-prices-fall-hard-on-school-teachers/.

5

Forestieri, K. (2018, April 6). “Teachers struggle with skyrocketing housing costs.” Mountain View Voice. Retrieved
from: https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2018/04/06/teachers-struggle-with-skyrocketing-housing-costs.

6

Knight, H. (2017, May 9). “Low pay, high SF housing costs equal 1 Homeless math teacher.” San Francisco
Chronicle. Retrieved from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Low-pay-high-SF-housing-costs-equal-1homeless-11130936.php.

7Lambert, D. (2019, April 18). “Rising rents in coastal California outpace teacher pay.” EdSource. Retrieved from:https://edsource.org/2019/rising-rents-in-coastal-california-outpace-teacher-pay/611216.

8

Westervelt, E. (2016, March 24). “More teachers can't afford to live where they teach. NPR.” Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/24/470710747/more-teachers-cant-afford-to-live-where-they-teach.

9

Mongeau, L. (2015, July 24). “Teachers can't afford homes in Techville.” The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.
theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/silicon-valley-housing-tough-on-teachers/399071/.

10 Perry, A. M. (2019, June 20). “Too many teachers can’t afford to live near their schools.” Brookings. Retrieved from:https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/06/20/too-many-teachers-cant-afford-to-live-near-theirschools/.
11

Darling-Hammond, L., Sutcher, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Teacher shortages in California: Status, sources, andpotential solutions. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/
default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Darling-Hammond.pdf.

12 See appendix for descriptions of programs noted in this paragraph.
13“Los Angeles Unified Launches Effort To Provide Affordable Housing for Teachers and Staff (06-09-21)” Retrieved
from: https://achieve.lausd.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=4466&ViewID=644
6EE88-D30C-497E-9316-3F8874B3E108&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=107017&PageID=1.

14 Doocy (2018) uses an in-depth survey to examine housing challenges and needs for employees in the Berkeley
Unified School District (BUSD). The study found broad interest among employees, especially among entry-

129

level employees. Davis (2017) profiles of employee housing developments from across the country to determine
applicability for Denver Public Schools (DPS) to pursue similar projects. The report distinguishes between
developer-driven and LEA-led projects, which are further grouped by sale of LEA property, use of ground lease, andLEA-run delivery methods, but the different processes they follow are not described in further detail. Seminatore(2020) outlines the pathways for LEA-led housing by evaluating data on four example projects. The report identifies
the need to “secure land, funding, and public support during the planning phase,” as three major hurdles that LEAs
must overcome to build workforce housing. Yet the focus on describing how each LEA met these hurdles as casestudies limits discussion of how to evaluate a range of possibilities, choose among them, and assess the impact ofparticular decisions. Blumenfeld et al.’s report for the City of Los Angeles (2007) takes an approach closest to ours
here by producing a joint use study for campus reconfiguration and new housing construction at a Los Angeles
Unified School District high school. The report models a process for determining a site, speaking with community
members, developing design alternatives, and analyzing financial feasibility. It walks through these considerations
on a single site in order to demonstrate the potential for further connecting school campuses with communityserving uses like affordable housing and open spaces.

02. Why Build Housing on Lands Owned by Local Educational Agencies?
1

During the Great Recession, many California LEAs reduced their teacher staff and increased class sizes. As a result,
California’s student-teacher ratio became the highest in the country (24:1 compared to a 15:1 national average). As
LEA budgets have slowly recovered in more recent years, many LEAs are working to bring class sizes down to prerecession levels by hiring more teaching staff. The Learning Policy Institute estimates that California needs morethan 4,100 additional teachers per year to return to its overall pre-recession student-teacher ratio of 21:1. Source:
Carver-Thomas, D., Kini, T., & Burns, D. (2020). Sharpening the divide: How California’s teacher shortages expand
inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/
files/product-files/Sharp_Divide_California_Teacher_Shortages_REPORT.pdf.

2

Teacher turnover refers to teachers who left teaching in the LEA/county during the 2017–18 school year, including
those who left teaching in California public schools entirely and those who left to teach in a different LEA/county.
Teacher attrition refers to teachers who left public school teaching in California during the 2017–18 school year.

3

Between 2012-13 and 2016-17, the number of teachers entering teaching on emergency-style permits in California
increased more than six-fold. Darling-Hammond, L., Sutcher, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Teacher shortages in
California: Status, sources, and potential solutions. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Darling-Hammond.pdf.

4

Learning Policy Institute. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages in California: A district- and county-level analysisof the factors influencing teacher supply and demand (interactive map). Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/interactive-map-understanding-teacher-shortagescalifornia/.

5

Carver-Thomas, D., Kini, T., & Burns, D. (2020). Sharpening the divide: How California’s teacher shortages expand
inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/
files/product-files/Sharp_Divide_California_Teacher_Shortages_REPORT.pdf.

6130

Learning Policy Institute. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages in California: A district- and county-level analysisof the factors influencing teacher supply and demand (interactive map). Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/interactive-map-understanding-teacher-shortagescalifornia/.

7

Carver-Thomas, D., Kini, T., & Burns, D. (2020). Sharpening the divide: How California’s teacher shortages expand
inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/
files/product-files/Sharp_Divide_California_Teacher_Shortages_REPORT.pdf.

8

Carver-Thomas, D., Kini, T., & Burns, D. (2020). Sharpening the divide: How California’s teacher shortages expand
inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/
files/product-files/Sharp_Divide_California_Teacher_Shortages_REPORT.pdf.

9

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). “How teacher turnover harms student achievement.” American
Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. Retrieved from: https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/4.full_.pdf.

10 Guin, K. (2004). “Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(42),1-30. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26394150_Chronic_Teacher_Turnover_in_Urban_
Elementary_Schools/fulltext/55dc107508aec156b9affe13/Chronic-Teacher-Turnover-in-Urban-Elementary-Schools.
pdf.
11

Podolsky, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Doss, C., & Reardon, S. (2019). California’s positive outliers: Districts beating theodds. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/
product-files/Positive_Outliers_Quantitative_REPORT.pdf

12 Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about
it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/
product-files/Teacher_Turnover_REPORT.pdf.
13

Staff recruitment and training costs can vary from LEA to LEA, but The Learning Policy Institute estimates costs canbe more than $20,000 for each newly hired teacher in an LEA (https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/the-costof-teacher-turnover).

14 Much research has looked at what drives teacher turnover and attribution. For example, see: Hanushek, E. A, Kain,
J.F., and Rivkin, S.G. (2004). “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers.” Journal of Human Resources 39(2): 326-354.
15

Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L.(2016). Solving the Teacher Shortage: How to Attract andRetain Excellent Educators. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.
org/sites/default/files/product-files/Solving_Teacher_Shortage_Attract_Retain_Educators_REPORT.pdf.

16 Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher
supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf.
17 California State Teachers' Retirement System. (2021, February 10). Understanding the increase in teacher
retirements. CalSTRS.com. Retrieved from: https://www.calstrs.com/blog-entry/understanding-increase-teacherretirements.
18 Carver-Thomas, D., Leung, M., & Burns, D. (2021). California teachers and COVID-19: How the pandemic is
impacting the teacher workforce. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/
default/files/product-files/California_COVID_Teacher_Workforce_REPORT.pdf.
19 Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). “How teacher turnover harms student achievement.” American
Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. Retrieved from: https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/4.full_.
pdf; Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher

131supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf.
20 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2018). California's Housing Future: Challenges
and Opportunities Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025. Retrieved from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearch/plans-reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf.
21 California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) works with each regional council ofgovernment (COG) in the state to determine the regional housing needs assessment segmented by income levels.
From this, each COG allocates the housing need for each city/county in the COG. The result is a Regional Housing
Need Allocation Plan (RHNA Plan). As of this writing, HCD is on the 6th Cycle RHNA Plans. For more information,see: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/rhna/index.shtml.
22 Kneebone, E., & Trainer, M. (2019). How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Entry-Level Homeownership. TernerCenter for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/How_Housing_Supply_
Shapes_Access_to_Entry-Level_Homeownership_2019.pdf.
23 Kneebone, E., & Trainer, M. (2019). How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Entry-Level Homeownership. TernerCenter for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/How_Housing_Supply_
Shapes_Access_to_Entry-Level_Homeownership_2019.pdf.
24 Kneebone, E., & Trainer, M. (2019). How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Entry-Level Homeownership. TernerCenter for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/How_Housing_Supply_
Shapes_Access_to_Entry-Level_Homeownership_2019.pdf.
25 Marino, J. (2016, September 20). “California Fails the Affordability Test for Teachers.” Redfin. Retrieved from: https://www.redfin.com/blog/2016/09/california-housingaffordability-for-teachers.html.
26 Marino, J. (2016, September 20). “California Fails the Affordability Test for Teachers.” Redfin. Retrieved from: https://www.redfin.com/blog/2016/09/california-housing-affordability-for-teachers.html.
27 Data reported in this section come from Terner Center analysis of American Community Survey 2018 5-year
estimates, California Department of Education data on Staff Demographics and Certificated Salaries & Benefits ,Department of Housing and Urban Development Income Limits, and Learning Policy Institute. See appendix for
additional detail and findings.
28 “Beginning teachers” refers to first and second year teachers.
29 The California Department of Education reports each LEA’s “lowest scheduled salary” for teachers. For most LEAs,
this is the beginning teacher salary. Retrieved from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/index.asp.
30 Estimates are derived from American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year PUMS data, which are self-reported
survey data collected between 2014 and 2018 and thus differ somewhat from estimates reported by the California
Department of Education for a given school year. The ACS does not directly ask whether a person works in public
education, so these estimates rely on the combination of responses to multiple questions which allow us to identify
people who report that they 1) are working in the education industry, 2) for a local or state government, and 3) arecurrently working. We do not distinguish between part-time or full-time work, which may account for some of thedifferences between these estimates and other sources of reported totals.

132

31

Reading, Christopher. (2019). “A Teacher Like Me: A Review of the Effect of Student–Teacher Racial/Ethnic
Matching on Teacher Perceptions of Students and Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes.” Review of
Educational Research Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545.

32 Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What We Can Do About
It. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/
Teacher_Turnover_BRIEF.pdf.
33 Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bishop, J. (2019). Strategies for attracting and retaining
educators: What does the evidence say? Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne-Podolsky/
publication/332276262_Strategies_for_attracting_and_retaining_educators_What_does_the_evidence_say/
links/5d1241f8458515c11cf82331/Strategies-for-attracting-and-retaining-educators-What-does-the-evidence-say.pdf.
34 Doocy, S. (2018). To Live in the Community You Serve. Center for Cities + Schools. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Doocy_2018_School_District_Housing_final.pdf.
35 Culkar, T. E., & Raineri, L. (2017, April 14). Can Affordable Housing Attract Teachers? California Association of
School Business Officials (CASBO) 2017 Conference.
36 Culkar, T. E., & Raineri, L. (2017, April 14). Can Affordable Housing Attract Teachers? California Association of
School Business Officials (CASBO) 2017 Conference.
37 Aliek, C. (2008, July 18). Getting schooled. REBusinessOnline. Retrieved from: https://rebusinessonline.com/gettingschooled/.
38 Christopher, B. (2017, March 1). “To attract teachers, pricey school districts are becoming their landlords.”
CalMatters. Retrieved from: https://calmatters.org/education/2017/03/to-attract-teachers-pricey-school-districtsare-becoming-their-landlords/.
39 Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (2020, November 10). Regular Meeting Order of Business.
Retrieved from: https://boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/11-10-20RegBdOBMaterialsWithLinks.pdf
40 Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html.
41 Kneebone, E., & Reid, C. K. (2021). The Complexity of Financing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Housing in
the United States. Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/LIHTC-Complexity-Final.pdf.
42 California Legislative Information. Bill Text - SB-1413 School districts: employee housing. Retrieved from: https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1413.
43 See appendix for a description of current legislation.

03. Where Might Education Workforce Housing Work Well?
1

A full description of the data and methods to build and analyze the inventory can be found in the appendix.

2

Manhattan is 14,600 acres. For additional size reference, the surface of Lake Tahoe is 122,616 acres and Rhode Island,
the smallest state, is 776,960 acres.

133

3

See LEA-Owned Properties by County table in appendix.

4

Of the 8,669 LEA properties with a school on them, 87% (7515) have only one school operating on it while 10% (858)have two schools, and 3% (296) have three or more schools operating on it.

5With the fairly generous recommended acreage standards for elementary, middle, and high schools set by the
California Department of Education, California LEAs have, in essence, land-banked on their school sites. Whilespecific sizes by enrollment are listed in the CDE’s “Guide to School Site Analysis and Development” (https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/schoolsiteanalysis2000.pdf), the general rule of thumb according to CDE School
Facility and Transportation Services Division staff is 10 acres for Elementary Schools, 15-18 acres for Middle Schools,
and 40-50 acres for high schools.

6

Teacher turnover refers to teachers who left teaching in the district/county during the 2017–18 school year,
including those who left teaching in California public schools entirely and those who left to teach in a different LEA/
county.

7

Beginning teachers are those in their first or second year of teaching.

8

Lowest scheduled salary offered. For most LEAs, this is the beginning teacher salary.

9

Housed in the California State Treasurer’s Office, the TCAC administers the federal and state Low Income Housing
Tax Credit programs, which are primary financing tools for affordable housing development. In conjunction with
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), TCAC adopted an Opportunity
Area Map as part of its scoring process to incentivize the production of more affordable housing for families in“opportunity-rich” areas. The map assigns each census tract in the state (or in the case of rural areas, block groups)
to one of five resource categories based on an index of economic, education, and environmental characteristics thathave been found to be important to improving outcomes for low-income children and adults. Areas designated“High Resource” or “Highest Resource” are given priority for LIHTC, in order to increase affordable housingdevelopment in high opportunity areas. The Opportunity Area Map is increasingly being used to allocate state
funds for affordable housing, including LIHTC (see: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/tax.asp). HCD also uses theOpportunity Area Maps in its Multifamily Housing Program funding decisions (see: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/active-funding/mhp.shtml) and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) also recently
moved to incorporate the Opportunity Area Map into its funding considerations.

10 Transit Rich Areas are those within ¼ mile of a high quality bus stop and/or ½ mile of a major transit stop.
11

It is possible that some of these properties may have feasibility for other community benefits, such as parks,
community centers, etc.

12 Geographic locale codes for each public school and LEA in the U.S. are reported NCES Common Core of Data
(CCD). The locale code is a general geographic indicator that classifies the type of area where a school is located.
Locale codes are based on a twelve-category framework that includes four primary classifications (city, suburban,
town, and rural) that each have three sub-types. For more detail see the methods appendix and https://nces.ed.gov/
programs/edge/Geographic/SchoolLocations.
13

Median asking rent statistic represents the median rent asked for vacant units of any size.

14 Mallach, A. (2020, November 17). “More Housing Could Increase Affordability-But Only If You Build It in the
Right Places.” Shelterforce. Retrieved from: https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-increaseaffordability-but-only-if-you-build-it-in-the-right-places-urban_housing/.

134

15

For a discussion of opposition to new housing (i.e., “Nimbyism”) in California, see: Monkkonen, P., & LivesleyO’Neill, W. (2017). Overcoming Opposition to New Housing. UCLA: The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional
Policy Studies. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01g0297v.

16 In recent years, numerous laws have been passed in California including Assembly Bill 744 (Chau, 2015), Senate Bill
35 (Wiener, 2017), and Assembly Bill 1763 (Chiu, 2019), limiting the amount of parking required at certain housingdevelopment types.

04. Which LEAs Have Considered Building Education Workforce Housing, and What
Have They Considered?
1

A full description of the methods used to build the project inventory can be found in the appendix.

2

Christopher, B. (2017, March 1). “To attract teachers, pricey school districts are becoming their landlords.”
CalMatters. Retrieved from: https://calmatters.org/education/2017/03/to-attract-teachers-pricey-school-districtsare-becoming-their-landlords/.

3

Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (2020, November 10). Regular Meeting Order of Business.
Retrieved from: https://boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/11-10-20RegBdOBMaterialsWithLinks.pdf.

4

Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (2020, November 10). Regular Meeting Order of Business.
Retrieved from: https://boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/11-10-20RegBdOBMaterialsWithLinks.pdf.

5

Christopher, B. (2017, March 1). “To attract teachers, pricey school districts are becoming their landlords.”
CalMatters. Retrieved from: https://calmatters.org/education/2017/03/to-attract-teachers-pricey-school-districtsare-becoming-their-landlords/.

6

Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (2020, November 10). Regular Meeting Order of Business.
Retrieved from: https://boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/11-10-20RegBdOBMaterialsWithLinks.pdf.

7Reid, C. (May 2019). “Rethinking ‘Opportunity’ in the Siting of Affordable Housing: Resident Perspectives on
the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.” Housing Policy Debate, 29(4): 645-669. Retrieved from: https://doi.
org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1582549.

8

As of this report writing, OUSD is moving ahead with education workforce housing at two sites. In 2018-19, OUSD
conducted a 7-11 process (as outlined in Education Code § 17388) for 5 sites, then hired a firm to help evaluate
options generated through the process and solicit bids from developers. The OUSD Board of Directors approved
moving forward in Fall 2020. See: https://oaklandside.org/2021/07/01/oakland-unified-affordable-teacher-housing/.

05. How Can Local Educational Agencies Design Housing to Meet Their Needs?
1

Both MHP and AHSC are administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The Multifamily Housing Program exists to “assist the new construction, rehabilitation and preservation of
permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households.” More information on the program isavailable at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/mhp.shtml. The Affordable Housing andSustainable Communities Program “funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to
support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” More on this program is available
at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/ahsc.shtml.

135

06. Recommendations
1

Public school capital development projects of all types must be reviewed by the Division of the State Architect (DSA).
DSA review primarily focuses on making sure the design meets Field Act requirements for seismic safety. Non-LEA
housing developments obtain their approvals entirely from local governments. But LEA-owned projects must be
reviewed both at the local level and by the DSA. Further, the state should clarify Field Act approval requirements
for non-school buildings (e.g., housing, parking structures) on LEA-owned land. The DSA approval process is
independent of local building and safety review, adding time and uncertainty to the process.

2

This reform is proposed in Senate Bill 780, Ting.

3

Terner Center for Housing Innovation. (2021, July 27). The Cost of Building Housing Series. Terner Center for
Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-buildinghousing-series/.

4

Example Survey of School District Staff on Housing: BUSD Employee Housing Survey. (2017). Berkeley Unified
School District and University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools. Retrieved from: https://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/uploads/BUSD_Employee_Survey_FINAL_2017.pdf.

5

Example Request for Proposals for Pre-Development Work:
Berkeley Unified School District Request for Proposal for Architectural Services. (2019). Berkeley Unified
School District. Retrieved from: https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.
aspx?AttachmentID=1006400&IsArchive=0/.
Request For Proposal/Qualifications for Teacher Workforce Housing Project Advertisement. (2021). Soledad
Unified School District. Retrieved from: https://soledadusd.org/blog/2021/01/28/rfp-for-teacher-workforcehousing-project/.

6

Example Feasibility Studies:
Workforce Housing Feasibility Report Presented to Mountain View Whisman School District. (2018).
Dutra Cerro Graden. Retrieved from: https://mvwsd.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/AttachmentViewer.
ashx?AttachmentID=1118&ItemID=669/.
BUSD Employee Affordable Housing Development: Predevelopment Study and Feasibility Analysis of
BUSD Sponsored Housing. (2020). Mithun. RCD. The Housing Workshop. Retrieved from: https://www.
berkeleyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BUSD-Housing-Report-7-24-20.pdf.
San Jose Unified School District Faculty-Staff Housing Assessment from Education Housing
Partners. (2020). Education Housing Partners, Inc. Retrieved from: https://sjusd.box.com/s/
wykwnrlpt6eu8nb4i9ew467zgq4la1a7.

7

The inventory could be used as an online tool by LEAs in planning and managing their properties (and existing
facilities) as well as assess workforce housing developability on each of their properties. The inventory should enable
LEAs to identify, quantify, and categorize their properties with regard to development potential.

13607. Conclusion: Housing and the 21st Century Public School Campus
1

Brunner, Eric and Jeffrey M. Vincent. (2018). Financing School Facilities in California: A Ten Year Perspective Getting
Down to Facts II Series. Palo Alto: PACE and Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://gettingdowntofacts.com/
sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Brunner-Vincent.pdf.

08. Appendix
1

There are 58 COEs, 522 ESDs, 76 HSDs, and 344 USDs in California.

2GreenInfo Network is a non-profit organization that assists others in the use of Geographic Information Systems(GIS) and related information technologies. GreenInfo Network’s mission is to create, analyze, visualize andcommunicate information in the public interest. Retrieved from: https://www.greeninfo.org.

3

Based on the parcel ownership data from the 58 county assessor’s offices statewide, we found additional lands
under the ownership of public K-12 educational entities. 154 properties totaling 62,879 acres statewide are ownedby the State of California. Fifteen of these properties have charter schools operating on them, with the charter
being granted by the State Board of Education. Most of the remaining state owned properties are located in veryrural or mountainous areas and are likely not optimal for workforce housing. Seventy-nine properties (totalling 499
acres) are under other public K-12 ownership, about a third of which have Regional Occupational Programs (ROP)
operating on them.

4

The precise physical education space guidelines can be found in: California Department of Education. 2000. Guide
to School Site Analysis and Development. Sacramento, CA: CDE. See site requirement tables, pp 19-25. Retrieved
from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/schoolsiteanalysis2000.pdf.

5

When the site consists of elementary, middle, and/or high school students, we allot the larger of the gradebased PE space allocation. Source: California Department of Education. 2000. Guide to School Site Analysis
and Development. Sacramento, CA: CDE. Retrieved from: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents/
schoolsiteanalysis2000.pdf.

6

We only account for bus drop off space for properties with one or more schools enrolling students in school. We do
not account for bus drop-off space for preschools, adult schools, or other nontraditional schools.

7

For example, see Assembly Bill 1401 (Friedman, 2020-21) Residential and commercial development: remodeling,
renovations, and additions: parking requirements. For a discussion of AB 1401 impacts, see: Garcia, D. and J. Tucker.
April 13, 2021. How AB 1401 May Impact Residential Parking Requirements. Berkeley: Terner Center for Housing
Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ab-1401-residential-parkingrequirements/.

8

California Fair Housing Task Force. December 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.
Sacramento, CA: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. Retrieved from: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/
opportunity/2021-hcd-methodology.pdf.

9

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html.

10 Novogradac & Company LLP. (2020, November 9). About the LIHTC. Retrieved from: https://www.novoco.com/
resource-centers/affordable-housing-tax-credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc/.

137

11

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee: Program Overview
Retrieved from: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/program.pdf.

12 The National Housing Trust Fund is a federal affordable housing production and formula grant program thatcomplements existing state and local efforts to create housing for extremely low- and very low-income households,
established under Title I of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and administered by states. Retrieved
from: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/National-Housing-Fund-Trust-Factsheet.pdf.
13

Raguso, E. (2020, October 18). “Berkeley wins $42 million in grants for 150 units of affordable housing.” Berkeleyside.
Retrieved from: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/07/09/berkeley-wins-42-million-in-grants-for-150-units-ofaffordable-housing.

14 Robinson, N. (2018, November 8). “How Do School Bonds Work?” BizFluent. Retrieved from: https://bizfluent.com/
how-does-4566176-school-bonds-work.html.
15

Traditionally, school bonds needed a 2/3rds voter approval to be successful. In 2000, Proposition 39 provided analternative path for the structure of local bonds and reduced the voter approval required down to 55%. Since then,most local school bonds have been structured under the Proposition 39 requirements. For a description of the
Proposition 39 local bond requirements, see: https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2000/39_11_2000.html.

16 Chen, J. (2020, July 1). Certificate of Participation (COP). Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/
certificateofparticipation.asp.
17 McGhee, E. & Weston, M. (2013) Parcel Taxes for Education California. Public Policy Institute of California.
Retrieved from: https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_913EMAI.pdf.
18 California Legislative Information. Bill Text - AB-1157 School property: school district advisory committees: teacher
and school district employee housing: property tax exemption. Retrieved from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1157.
19 California Constitution - CONS, Article XIII A [Tax Limitation] [Section 1 - Sec. 7]. (2000). Retrieved from: https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&article=XIII+A.
20 California Legislative Information. Bill Text - AB-780 Local Zoning Ordinances: school district employee housing.
Retrieved from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB780.

138

Notes139

December 2021