State education and San Diego Unified outline push for workforce housing on public land

California Department of Education officials and San Diego Unified representatives told the State Board of Equalization on Sept. 16 that school districts statewide control land that could be developed into workforce housing for educators and other public employees, but that a lack of upfront predevelopment funding and gap financing has limited projects to date.

“School districts up and down the state own about 75,000 acres of land that could be developed into housing,” said Richard Barrera, Deputy State Superintendent, California Department of Education, during an informational hearing. He cited research showing that at a moderate density — roughly 30 units per acre — that land could theoretically support roughly 2.3 million housing units.

The board heard that districts have several tools and advantages, including the ability of school and community college districts to pass general obligation bonds at a 55% voter threshold and to use district land through ground leases or public–private partnerships. But officials stressed that moving from interest to completed projects requires relatively small but critical predevelopment investments and targeted gap financing for “missing middle” households.

Why it matters: California school districts and other public agencies face chronic recruiting and retention problems when employees cannot live near their workplaces. Developing affordable workforce housing on publicly‑owned land could shorten commutes, stabilize staffing and attract employees, but doing so at scale requires policy changes, seed funding and financing products geared to employees who earn too much for traditional low‑income tax‑credit programs yet still cannot afford market housing.

Most important details - Predevelopment gap: State and district speakers said many districts lack the $100,000–$200,000 needed to hire professional consultants, perform site analyses and issue requests for proposals. Assemblymember Moriscucci’s AB 1381 (as described in the hearing) was cited as a proposal to create a $20 million statewide predevelopment pool to accelerate district projects. Barrera said such a pool could lead to “tens of thousands of units” going to RFP in a few years if funded. - Funding and policy levers: Districts can include housing in bond measures (San Diego’s Measure U allocated $206 million for teacher/employee housing) and pursue Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financing for lower‑income units, but LIHTC typically does not reach many certificated staff in the “missing middle.” Speakers named CalSTRS, philanthropy and unions as possible partners on early financing. - San Diego examples: Lee Delgaroff, Senior Executive Director for Facilities Planning and Construction, San Diego Unified School District, described completed and planned projects. He said the district entered a 66‑year ground lease for a Scripps Mesa project with 264 units, 53 (20%) of which are set as affordable to district staff, and described a former Central Elementary School site planned for 270 units with a 30–100% Area Median Income (AMI) affordability band. Delgaroff gave a construction cost example of about $614,000 per unit for the Central project (including parking), noting that the district’s land lowers the capital stack compared with projects that must purchase land. - Project design choices: San Diego emphasized family‑sized units (1–4 bedrooms), on‑site amenities (shared kitchens, child care, farmer’s market space) and joint‑occupancy schemes that colocate housing and school facilities; the developer agreed to renovate school buildings for the district at no cost in one model. Delgaroff said the district’s “North Star” is affordability; revenue generation is a secondary benefit. - Regional / joint models: Speakers described joint public entities enabled by SB 440 (regional housing finance agencies) and similar statutes as a way for multiple public owners (school districts, community colleges, transit agencies, cities) to pool parcels and finance projects.

Discussion, direction and next steps - Discussion only: The hearing was informational; the board did not take formal action on policy or funding. Board members pressed presenters on affordability bands, three‑bedroom/family unit counts, how to preserve public ownership and how to structure homeownership or shared‑equity opportunities. Presenters repeatedly distinguished between rental models (often financed by LIHTC) and ownership/shared‑equity models (community land trusts) as separate policy choices requiring different subsidies. - Direction/assignments: No formal motions were made. Presenters asked the board to consider policy support for predevelopment funding, clarity on legal authority for districts to include housing in bond measures, and incentives for gap financing targeted at middle‑income employees. - Unresolved needs: Multiple presenters said the missing link is gap financing for staff who earn too much for LIHTC but too little for market housing; also needed are consistent zoning/CEQA pathways in jurisdictions where upzoning is not available.

Ending: Board members thanked presenters and asked staff to track the policy proposals and pilot examples. Officials said they will continue coordination with unions, CalSTRS and philanthropy to assemble predevelopment capital while continuing to pursue bond and ground‑lease models at the district level.

Attribution: Quotations and attributions in this article come from witnesses who appeared at the BOE hearing and are listed below.