Senators, college leaders press for more funding and flexible rules for community college student housing

At an informational hearing convened by the California State Senate Select Committee on Community Colleges, senators, system leaders and college presidents detailed progress on student housing projects, remaining gaps in funding and policy barriers that they say keep many community college students unhoused or commuting long distances.

"A place that is safe, a place that is stable, a place that is yours," Dr. Sonia Christian, Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said of the role housing plays for students. "Affordable housing is not a luxury. It's a basic infrastructure." The hearing gathered system leaders, college presidents, student representatives and policy advocates to describe completed projects, projects in development and legislative fixes they say would increase affordability and accelerate construction.

Why it matters: Panelists said housing insecurity undermines student persistence and completion. Speakers cited systemwide data and local surveys showing a substantial share of students face housing instability, including students who are parents, working adults and formerly foster youth. They urged funding and regulatory changes aimed at creating deeply affordable beds and family‑friendly units suited to community college populations.

What leaders reported: Dr. Christian said 13 community college projects have been completed and 14 more are under development across the state, and noted that several projects are intersegmental partnerships with CSU and UC campuses. Willie Duncan, president of Sierra College, described a nearly finished, three‑story project with three wings and 354 beds located at the center of his campus and linked to campus support programs. "Our rents are going to be 50.55 percent of the maximum allowable under SB 169 calculations," Duncan said, adding that Sierra also created an endowed‑bed program to provide rent‑free placements for students in greatest need.

Los Angeles Community College District Chancellor Alberto Román outlined a multi‑pronged approach for the nation's largest community college district: rapid purchases and conversions of existing buildings, leasing beds from nearby CSU/UC campuses, and on‑campus development via public‑private partnerships (P3). Román said LACCD's voters in 2022 approved a $5.3 billion facility bond that dedicates $500 million to equitable and affordable housing for students and staff. He estimated roughly 23 percent of LACCD students have experienced housing insecurity at some point.

San Bernardino Community College District executive vice chancellor Jose Torres described "Legacy Village," a mixed‑use P3 project at Moreno Valley College designed to include a first phase of 230 student units (about 450 beds), 182 workforce/family housing units and 80 units for youth and families on roughly 15 acres the district purchased to enable development. Torres said the district is seeking a $50 million state investment to make 200 of those units deeply affordable; without that subsidy, units would be priced at market rates he said students could not afford.

Policy and program issues: Panelists highlighted several constraints. They said the state's existing grant and lease‑revenue programs generally measure affordability by area median income (AMI), which can leave projects unaffordable for low‑income students in high‑cost counties such as Napa. Advocates urged measuring affordability against student incomes or financial aid to ensure deeply affordable rents. Several speakers also raised the statutory 12‑unit threshold (the requirement that students live in on‑campus housing only if enrolled in a minimum number of units), saying it excludes many part‑time students and parents and recommended removing or loosening that requirement.

Panelists discussed financing models. The state housing grant program reduces rent pressure by removing debt service from rents; P3 models can close gaps but often embed debt in rents, potentially raising costs for students. Several campuses are pursuing P3s, joint projects with CSUs/UCs, or local bond and general obligation financing. Representatives from Public Advocates and student leaders urged prioritizing housing‑insecure and homeless students and ensuring student participation in project design and allocation rules.

Costs and timing: Campus leaders warned of construction cost escalation since projects were first designed: Sierra College reported roughly a 25 percent cost increase on its project. The panel also noted that some projects already awarded state approval still face unallocated shortfalls; hearing testimony cited about $218 million in unallocated funds within the lease‑revenue bond program that could be used to shore up cost increases for approved projects.

Student perspective: Jasmine Garcia, student trustee for San Bernardino Community College District, described her own experience with housing insecurity and urged lawmakers to center students in policymaking. "Stable housing isn't a luxury," she said. Student advocates said community college students are on average older than other segments (the coalition cited an average age near 29) and often need family units or other non‑traditional housing forms.

Next steps and requests: Panelists asked the legislature to expand state investments in affordable student housing, to revise program rules to allow family‑friendly and student‑income‑based affordability standards, and to consider AB 648 (a bill discussed at the hearing that would ease permitting barriers by adjusting how local zoning applies to community college housing projects). Speakers also asked legislators to consider using unallocated bond funds to close shortfalls on shovel‑ready projects.

The hearing record included examples of campuses at various stages — completed projects (Coast, Feather River, Lake Tahoe, Lassen, Napa Valley, Shasta, Sierra, Sonoma, State Center, West Hills, West Kern, Columbia College) and projects in development (Cabrillo, Cerritos, Compton, Imperial Valley, Bakersfield, Cosumnes, Merced, College of the Redwoods, Riverside City, College of San Mateo, College of the Siskiyous, Fresno City, Ventura, among others) — and multiple districts noted interest in intersegmental partnerships with CSUs and UCs to expand capacity.

The committee did not take formal votes at the informational hearing. Legislators and witnesses said they will return to budget and policy committees with specific requests for additional state funding, statutory changes on zoning and unit requirements, and program rule modifications to prioritize housing‑insecure students.