Exhibit_F_-_SMC_Employee_Housing_Demand_Study_May_2026.pdf

Prepared by Community Planning Collaborative

County of San Mateo Employee Housing Demand Study Employee Perspectives and Lessons from Other Local Initiatives

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO EMPLOYEE HOUSING DEMAND STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Employee Survey

Focus Groups

Lessons from Local Agencies’ Programs

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Current Housing and Commute Situation

Perspectives on Housing Affordability

Profile of Respondents Interested in Employee Housing

FOCUS GROUPS

LESSONS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES’ PROGRAMS

Santa Clara Unified School District

City of Foster City

Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD)

San Mateo County Community College District

Jefferson Elementary School District (JESD)

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the City and County of San Francisco

City and County of San Mateo

Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD)

APPENDIX A: HUD FMR AND INCOME LIMITS

FY 2025 HUD FMR Limits for San Mateo County

2025 San Mateo County Income Limits

APPENDIX B: EMPLOYEE SURVEY

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

San Mateo County is exploring the potential for County-owned employee housing to help address affordability concerns and support talent recruitment and retention. To inform this effort, the County team conducted an employee survey, held two focus groups, and interviewed agencies that have implemented similar programs.

Employee Survey

The online survey was open to all full-time employees and received 1,899 responses (over 35% of the employee base). Key takeaways from the survey included:

Housing affordability affects long-term employment.

• Over two-thirds of respondents indicated they are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their gross income on housing costs.

• Most respondents highlighted concerns about housing affordability’s impact on their long-term employment, with over 59% indicating they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “The high cost of housing negatively impacts my long-term ability to keep working at the County of San Mateo.”

• County-owned employee housing is seen as a tool that can help recruit and retain employees. Over 70% of respondents said they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “Having the opportunity to live in discounted County-owned employee housing would increase the likelihood that I continue to work for the County.”

There is strong interest in living in non-market rate County-owned employee housing.

• Over 80% of respondents said they were very interested or possibly interested.

• Affordability is the primary factor driving their interest.

• Roughly 90% of respondents indicated that less than $3,000 would be a reasonable rent for the unit size that meets their needs.

• When given a specific housing scenario (similar to the proposed Law Library site, with rents set at 75% of market rate and limited annual increases), the number of respondents who were possibly or very interested decreased from over 1,400 to roughly 700. 228 respondents were very interested (as opposed to over 1,000

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 4 respondents who initially shared they were very interested), and over 500 were possibly interested.

Focus Groups

Two focus groups were conducted, one virtual and one in-person, with 24 participants in total. Key takeaways from the focus groups included:

County employees overwhelmingly feel priced out of the communities they serve.

• There was near-universal agreement that the proposed rents at 75% of market rate were still out of touch with County wages. Employee housing was viewed as a strong recruitment tool, but only if rents are truly affordable.

• Even higher-earning employees reported that rents feel unworkable once childcare, student loans, commuting, and other costs are factored in.

• Focus group participants suggested rents clustered around: 1BR: $1,500–$2,000, 2BR: $1,700–$2,300, and 3BR: $2,200–$2,800, with caps on annual rent increases.

Participants preferred long-term or permanent housing over time-limited arrangements but had mixed views on income caps for eligibility.

• A longer limit (e.g., 7 years) was viewed as reasonable to many participants but as a deterrent for some, particularly for families with school-age children and employees nearing retirement.

• A 3- to 6-month transition period after job separation was widely viewed as fair.

• Many were uncomfortable with the idea of allowing very high-income households to compete equally for limited units.

Guaranteed, secure parking and in-unit laundry were top priorities.

• Parking was repeatedly framed as essential, not a luxury.

Lessons from Local Agencies’ Programs

We collected information and conducted interviews with seven school districts and cities in the region that offer employee housing programs. Key takeaways included:

High and sustained demand across many of the programs—often with multi-year waitlists—suggests employee housing is a strong recruitment and retention tool.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 5

• Many of the programs emphasize time-limited tenancy (typically five to seven years) to support employee transitions to homeownership while ensuring ongoing access for new hires.

Independent governance structures (housing foundations or corporations) consistently emerged as a best practice.

• These structures separate housing operations from HR, labor, and employment decisions while providing continuity and accountability.

Programs that offer units with near-market rate rents that were affordable to higher-income households saw less demand.

• In response, some programs lowered rents without changing household income thresholds.

Rents set too far below market in early years can result in long-term financial strain.

• Programs that gradually adjusted rents or indexed them to AMI or county benchmarks were better positioned for long-term sustainability.

• Early and proactive capital planning is critical, particularly as projects age and require renovations or upgrades.

Figure 1: Signage promoting the survey at the County Employee Benefits Fair

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 6

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

The San Mateo County Employee Housing Survey was launched on October 22, 2025, and remained open until November 12, 2025.

The online survey received 1,899 total responses (over 35% of the employee base it was emailed to).

Current Housing and Commute Situation

About half of the respondents were renters, and half were owners. The vast majority lived with at least one other adult, and about half with dependents.

• The split between renters and homeowners was even. Slightly over half of respondents currently rent their room, apartment, or house.

• Over 85% of respondents live with at least one other adult.

• Slightly over half of respondents have one or more dependents.

Question 1: Which of the following best describes your current housing situation?

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 7

More than half of the respondents reported a household income of less than $150,000.1

• This is roughly aligned with the County at large, where the 2024 median household income was $158,855.

• Slightly over a quarter of respondents shared that their household income is between $50,000 and $99,999, and over 27% between $100,000 and $149,000.

Question 6: What was your before-tax household income in 2024?

Over two-thirds of respondents are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their gross income on housing costs.

1 In January 2026, the Median income for Regular employees was $126,817.60.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 8

• Most respondents in all income ranges under $300,000 indicated that they were rent-burdened, but rates were highest for those earning under $100,000.

• Over half of respondents currently spend $2,999 or less on monthly housing costs, excluding utilities.

Question 7: How much do you pay in monthly housing costs, i.e. rent or mortgage payments, excluding utilities/insurance? (Estimate if unsure)

Employees most appreciate practical aspects of their current housing: many highlight proximity to work, affordable rent, and access to amenities such as shops, parks, and transit.

• Employees most dislike their housing costs and commute time.

Respondents largely drive to work, and some travel considerable distances to their work site.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 9

• Over 88% of respondents indicated that their primary mode of transit to a work site was driving a car or motorcycle.

• The median distance that respondents travel to work is 10 to 19 miles one-way.

However, over 8% of respondents indicated that they travel 50 miles or more to work.

• Most respondents commute less than 40 minutes one-way. However, over 10% of respondents commute over 80 minutes each way.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 10

Perspectives on Housing Affordability

Many respondents highlighted concerns about housing affordability in the County and its impact on County employees staying employed long-term with the County, including themselves.

• Over 63% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “I cannot afford to rent in San Mateo County,” and over 83% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “I cannot afford to own or buy a home in San Mateo (County?).”

• Over 59% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “The high cost of housing negatively impacts my long-term ability to keep working at the County of San Mateo,” and over 83% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “The high cost of housing negatively impacts the County of San Mateo's ability to retain current employees.”

Respondents also indicated that their commutes negatively impact their quality of life.

• Over 66% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “I would like to live closer to work.”

• Over 68% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “Commuting distance affects my quality of life.”

Respondents see discounted County-owned employee housing as a tool to increase the County’s ability to recruit and retain employees.

• Over 70% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “Having the opportunity to live in discounted County-owned employee housing would increase the likelihood that I continue to work for the County.”

• Over 75% indicated that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “County-owned employee housing would increase the County of San Mateo’s ability to recruit employees.”

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 11

Profile of Respondents Interested in Employee Housing

There is strong interest in living in county-owned employee housing.

• Over 57% of respondents indicated they were very interested, and an additional 26% indicated that they were possibly interested.

Renters were more likely to indicate interest in employee housing, but 25% of those who indicated interest were homeowners.

Hispanic or Latino/a respondents were more likely to be interested in employee housing.

• Nearly 90% of Hispanic or Latino/a respondents are possibly or very interested in employee housing.

Interest in employee housing decreased with age, but there was still significant interest amongst older respondents.

• Ninety-seven percent of respondents under age 25 expressed interest.

• Half of respondents over age 75 expressed interest in employee housing.

Respondents interested in employee housing have lower household incomes on average.

• Sixty-seven percent of those who shared they were very interested have a household income of less than $150,000.

Most respondents cannot afford San Mateo County market-rate rents.

• Sixty percent of respondents who shared they were very interested currently spend less than $3,000 monthly on housing.

Respondents who expressed interest in employee housing have been employed by the County for a shorter period on average (under 10 years).

Respondents interested in employee housing face financial pressure due to housing costs and see County-owned employee housing as an effective retention tool.

• Over 75% of those very interested in employee housing shared that they are experiencing financial pressures due to high housing costs, and 66% are currently cost-burdened.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 12

• Over 70% shared that they cannot afford to rent in San Mateo County, and over 90% that they cannot afford homeownership in the County.

• Seventy percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “The high cost of housing negatively impacts my long-term ability to keep working at the County.”

• Over 90% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “Having the opportunity to live in discounted County-owned employee housing would increase the likelihood of me continuing to work for the County.”

Those who indicated interest are nearly twice as likely to live with two or more adults.

• Many of those very interested in employee housing (46%) live with family members other than a spouse or partner.

There was not a notable difference in commuting distance or time between those interested and not interested in employee housing.

• However, those who indicated strong interest were significantly more likely to agree or strongly agree with the statements “Commuting distance affects my quality of life” and “I would like to live closer to work.”

• Those living over 50 miles away were more likely to indicate interest, with 63% very interested and another 26% possibly interested.

There were no significant differences in work locations when comparing those interested and not interested in employee housing.

Affordability is the primary reason respondents are interested in county-owned employee housing.

• Respondents highlighted that the opportunity to live in discounted county-owned employee housing would reduce financial burden and stress. Some respondents indicated that access to this type of housing would allow them to save to buy a home or save for retirement.

• Reduced commute time was also a strong motivator for many respondents.

• Many respondents indicated that they would like to live in or continue to live in San Mateo County and that access to discounted county-owned employee housing would help them do so.

Demand among survey respondents was largely for two or three-bedroom apartments.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 13

• Most would need a two or three-bedroom apartment to meet their needs, with 35% indicating that each of these sizes is their preference.

• A more detailed breakdown showing rent by unit size is available at:

https://bit.ly/smcrentunit.

Roughly 90% of respondents indicated that less than $3,000 would be a reasonable rent for the unit size they indicated.

Question 18: Looking at the floorplans below, what sized apartment would meet your household’s current needs?

https://bit.ly/smcrentunit

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 14

Question 19: What would be a reasonable rent that you would pay for the unit you picked above?

Respondents indicated that the top factors weighing into their decision to live in County of San Mateo-owned employee housing are rental cost, a guaranteed parking space, and unit size.

• Rental cost is the top priority for respondents, with over 95% indicating this is either Extremely Important or Very Important.

• Another factor that respondents indicated was of great importance was a guaranteed parking space, with over 83% indicating it was Extremely or Very Important.

• The third priority that emerged was unit size, with over 75% indicating this was Extremely or Very Important.

When given a specific housing scenario (similar to the Law Library site), 50% of respondents were interested.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 15

• Sixteen percent of respondents indicated that they were very interested (228 respondents), and over 36% indicated that they were possibly interested (519 respondents).

• For those who were not interested, the cost of rent was the primary reason.

• Respondents also brought up other reasons they would not be interested in this housing opportunity, including wanting to live in a single-family home, needing access to two parking spots, looking to buy not rent a home, and preferring to live in other areas.

Question 21: How interested would you be in living in an apartment that costs approximately 25% below comparable recently built apartments nearby, with limited annual rent increases, with bike storage and car-share opportunities, within ½ mile of Caltrain and SamTrans bus lines, but does not come with parking? For reference, if the county-owned apartments were available today, 25% below market rents could fall in the following ranges: $2,500-$3,000 for a 1-bedroom, $3,000-$3,500 for a 2-bedroom, and $4,500-$5,000 for a 3-bedroom.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 16

Question 22: If you are NOT interested, please indicate why.

Respondents shared that limited annual rent increases and having a washer and dryer in unit would weigh into their decision-making.

• Over 86% ranked limited annual rent increases as Extremely or Very Important.

• Over 83% rated having a washer and dryer in-unit as Extremely or Very Important.

• Air conditioning was the third highest rated priority, with over 50% rating it as Extremely or Very Important.

Question 23: How important would each of the following amenities be in your decision to live in County of San Mateo-owned employee housing?

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 17

When asked for additional thoughts, respondents emphasized affordability, many stating that these rents would still be out-of-reach for them.

• Some respondents pushed for income-based discounts to market rather than a blanket 25% discount to market, and other respondents shared that County should provide an additional discount for long-time employees.

• Others inquired about or suggested County programs to support homeownership or highlighted that the County should instead support more telework options.

• Some asked about the availability of street parking and EV charging, and others highlighted the importance of neighborhood safety.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 18

FOCUS GROUPS

In January 2026, Community Planning Collaborative conducted two focus groups – one in-person and one virtual – with a total of 24 participants representing diverse backgrounds, ages, tenure, and County departments.

Below are several key themes that emerged from the discussions:

County employees who took part in the focus groups overwhelmingly feel priced out of the communities they serve.

• Most participants said homeownership is out of reach, and current rents are unsustainably high.

• Even higher-earning employees reported that rents feel unworkable once childcare, student loans, commuting, and other costs are factored in.

• Focus group participants suggested rent ranges around:

o 1BR: $1,500–$2,000 o 2BR: $1,700–$2,300 o 3BR: $2,200–$2,800 o with caps on annual rent increases.

Participants expressed feeling “shocked” or “disheartened” by the gap between their public service roles and the rents presented in the survey.

• Some participants suggested basing rents on the average county employee’s income.

Many live with family, commute long distances, or take part-time jobs to be able to afford rent.

• Long commutes (1.5–2.5 hours each way) are common for those who live outside the county, causing stress and fatigue.

There was near-universal agreement that the proposed rents at 75% of market rate were still out of touch with County wages.

• While a 25% discount sounded appealing, participants found the actual rents much too high.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 19

• Participants expressed that at the proposed rents, they would expect luxury apartments with amenities such as gyms and balconies.

• Employee housing was viewed as a strong recruitment and retention tool, but only if rents are truly affordable.

Participants preferred long-term or permanent housing over time-limited arrangements.

• A longer limit (e.g., 7 years) was viewed as reasonable to some participants but as a significant deterrent for others, particularly for families with school-age children.

• Participants wanted the ability to save while renting, not just short-term relief.

• A 3- to 6-month transition period after job separation was widely viewed as fair.

There was broad agreement that income caps are reasonable.

• Many were uncomfortable with the idea of allowing very high-income households to compete equally for limited units.

• Many participants felt comfortable with an income cap set at double the median County employee income.

• Participants emphasized that gross income is not reflective of take-home pay and discussed whether it would be possible to consider other financial obligations (e.g.

student debt).

• When asked about homeowners being ineligible for housing, some participants raised the question of homeowners who are at risk of displacement.

• Participants were open to mixed-income or mixed-employer developments and did not see an issue living alongside non-county employees.

Participants felt comfortable with a lottery system to randomly select residents.

• Some emphasized that a weighted lottery based on income tranches could be an effective approach.

Guaranteed, secure parking and in-unit laundry were top priorities.

• Parking on-site or very nearby was repeatedly framed as essential, not a luxury.

• Pet-friendly policies were another top priority.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 20

• Other priorities included proximity to work, safe and walkable environments, community spaces, and gardens.

• Participants were not interested in car-share programs, and access to transit was not a high priority for most.

County of San Mateo Employee Housing:

Employee Perspectives and Lessons from Other Local Initiatives

LESSONS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES’ PROGRAMS

We collected information and conducted interviews with administrators and developers of eight different employee housing programs in the region. The following pages include a summary table followed by an overview of each project.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit

Santa Clara Unified School District

(SCUSD)

Casa del Maestro 3445 Lochinvar Ave. Santa Clara

SCUSD owns the building.

Thompson | Dorfman Partners was selected as the developer through an RFP process.

70 units of teacher housing. The first building (40 units) opened in 2001 and the second building (30 units) in 2008.

Annual household income limit of $189,000.

Goal of 80% FMR. While initially set much lower, rents have been steadily increasing and are currently at roughly 75%

FMR.

Rent increases governed by applicable state and local ordinances.

Recent increases have been around $100 per year, with actual amounts varying depending on how close current rents are to the 80% FMR threshold.

Must have worked for the district for under 10 years.

Must not be in a management position.

Must be certified staff.

Occupancy limit of seven years.

Residents must vacate if they leave the district.

City of Foster City

"The Pilgrim” 610 Foster City Blvd. Foster City

The City of Foster City owns 22 of the units. The project was not selected through a traditional city RFP

22-unit building. 14 BMR units and seven workforce units with preferences for City employees. Built in 2022.

No income restrictions.

Rents restricted to 30% of 130% AMI (as set by

HUD).

Annual rent increases capped at 5%.

Tiers of preferences, including people with mobility-related disabilities, first responders, and City employees.

No occupancy limit.

Residents do not lose unit if they no longer qualify for the preference tier.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit for developers but rather built as part of an established master-planned development agreement, with SummerHill Homes serving as the developer. HIP Housing Affordable Ventures manages the development.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit

Jefferson Union High School District

(JUHSD)

705 Serramonte 705 Serramonte Blvd.

Daly City

JUHSD developed the property in partnership with developers Brookw ood Partners, Eden Housing, and The Core Companies.

The district utilized an alternative RFP process, authorized by a waiver of typical state-level, sealed-bid education codes. JUHSD owns the property, and development management services were provided by Brookwood Advisors. Design- Build Team selected through an RFQ/RFP process.

122-unit building.

Opened in 2022.

No income restrictions but priority given to employees below an income threshold.

Set at 50-60% of HUD

FMR.

Annual rent increases of 2% in 2024 and 2025.

Must be employed for a minimum of 18 hours per week in a non-administrative role.

Must not have owned a home previously (with some exceptions).

Two waitlists: one for certified staff and another for classified staff, with a goal of maintaining a 60/40 ratio of certified staff to classified staff.

Occupancy limit of seven years.

Residents have 60 days to vacate if they leave the district.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit

Jefferson Elementary School District

(JESD)

Eastmoor Heights 305 Eastmoor Ave.

Daly City

JESD developed, owns, and manages the property.

56 units of educator housing.

Priority given to staff and faculty earning less than 80% of AMI or 81% to 120% of AMI.

Set at 60% of HUD FMR.

Anticipated rental rates of:

1 bedroom $1,643- $1,750 2 bedroom $2,147- $2,22 3 bedroom $2,805

No annual rent cap. As of 2025, they have had one rent increase of 2%.

Priority criteria based on part vs full time status, AMI level, and previous homeownership. Full-time permanent employees (defined as at least 0.8 FTE for certified staff, and .67 FTE for classified staff).

Goal of maintaining a 64/36 ratio of certified to classified staff.

Planned occupancy limit of seven years. During a three-year Evaluation Period, the maximum length of tenancy will be five years.

No savings plan for residents, but the property management company does offer sessions in the community room that help support and plan for future home ownership.

SMC

Community College District

(SMCCCD)

College Vista 3403 CSM Dr.

San Mateo

Cañada Vista 1 Olive Ct.

Redwood City

College Ridge 10 & 12 Miraluna Dr.

San Bruno

SMCCCD

developed, owns, and manages its own housing units.

They have engaged partners in design and construction.

134 units across three campuses.

The first building came online in 2005.

Restricted based on title and salary schedule.

Director level or below. They do not look at employee or household income.

Rents set at the annual San Mateo County Maximum Affordable Rent Payments for "Very Low" income, i.e. 50% of

AMI.

Goal of maintaining a 55/45 ratio of staff to faculty.

Must not have owned a home previously.

Occupancy limit of five years.

Residents have 90 days to vacate if they retire or leave the district.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the City and County of San Francisco

Shirley Chisholm Village 1360 43rd Ave.

San Francisco

Shirley Chisholm Village is owned by MP Francis Scott Key 2 Associates, L.P and was developed by MidPen Housing in collaboration with SFUSD. MidPen Housing was selected through an RFP process.

Managed by MidPen Property Management Corp, with services provided by MidPen Resident Services.

135 units of educator housing.

35 low-income units and 100 moderate-income units.

Income limits range from 40% to 120% of AMI.

Rents are affordable to households ranging from 40% to 120% of AMI, following MOHCD rent limits.

Priority tiers in place.

Educators are the first tier, all other employees the second tier. City preferences below that.

No occupancy limit.

Residents have six months to vacate if they leave the district.

Local Agency Project Developer Brief Description Income Limits Rent Other Eligibility

Requirements Occupancy Limit

City and County of San Mateo

Kiku Crossing 480 East 4th Ave.

San Mateo

MidPen Housing developed and owns Kiku Crossing in collaboration with the City and County of San Mateo. MidPen was selected through a City RFP process. Managed by MidPen Property Management Corp.

225 units, a subset of which have live/work preferences or preferences for General Public Employees.

Income limits range from 30% to 80% of AMI

Rents originally set at maximum HUD tax credit rents (30% of the maximum qualifying income) but rents for units serving 60-80% AMI households were later reduced due to insufficient demand.

70 units give live/work preference to eligible applicants. 57 of the remaining units give preference to General Public Employees.

No occupancy limit.

Mountain View Whisman School District

(MVWSD)

The Sevens 699 N Shoreline Blvd.

Mountain View

The Sevens is owned by MVWSD and was developed by Miramar Capital. It was created in partnership with the City of Mountain View and includes Foothill DeAnza Community College District as a partner.

144 units. 73 units for MVWSD staff and teachers. Additional units are reserved for City and Foothill- De Anza Community College District employees.

Income limits are set at 80% and 150% of

AMI.

Rents originally set slightly under maximum HUD tax credit rents but later reduced due to insufficient demand.

Units with income limits of 80% AMI now have rents affordable to 40% AMI; units with income limits of 150% AMI now have rents affordable to roughly 72% AMI.

Considering maximum annual rent increases between 2% and 5%.

Full-time and employees in hard-to-fill positions have higher priority. Hard-to-fill positions are determined by the districts.

Occupancy limit of 5 years but discussing increasing it to seven years, with the possibility of extension.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 27

Santa Clara Unified School District Casa del Maestro

OVERVIEW

Casa del Maestro is a teacher housing program operated by the Santa Clara Unified School District through an independent Teacher Housing Foundation.

The Teacher Housing Program was designed to support teacher recruitment and retention while allowing participants to save for homeownership. The housing foundation operates independently from the district to maintain a clear separation between employment and housing responsibilities. The foundation has its own board, hires third-party property management, and oversees eligibility, rent setting, and compliance. Over time, the district has had to address challenges related to aging buildings, parking shortages, and the need for capital planning, including unit renovations and refinancing early debt.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

SCUSD owns the building. Thompson | Dorfman Partners was selected as the developer through an RFP process.

POPULATION SERVED

Units are exclusively available for certified staff, though the district is considering expanding eligibility to classified personnel, which would require a change to the bylaws.

UNITS & DEMAND

The program consists of two buildings totaling 70 units on district-owned land, developed in phases in 2000 and 2008. Demand is high, with a waitlist of roughly 200 households and an average wait of about two years.

RENTS

Rents are set below market rate, with a long-term goal of reaching approximately 80% of FMR. Currently, rents for new units are set at roughly 75% of FMR. Rent increases are governed by applicable state and local ordinances, and the Foundation does not exceed those established caps. Each year, the Teacher Housing Foundation evaluates potential

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 28 increases carefully, considering the impact on residents. While recent increases have often been around $100 per year, the actual amount varies depending on how close current rents are to the 80% FMR threshold. The Foundation aims to keep increases manageable and consider salary adjustments staff have received from the District in the prior year. Once rents reach 80% of Fair Market Value, they will not increase further unless Fair Market Value itself increases. The rent discount is not considered a fringe benefit or taxable currently.

TIME LIMITS

Employees can live in teacher housing for up to seven years.

AMENITIES

The buildings have limited amenities, including 1.7 parking spaces per unit and a community room.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Independent governance helped avoid conflicts between HR functions and landlord responsibilities.

• Rents were initially set too low, limiting long-term revenue.

• Strong demand persists, especially for two-bedroom units.

• Time limits (7 years) reinforce the program’s homeownership pathway goals and allow more employees to benefit from the program.

• Early projects benefit from proactive capital replacement and sinking fund planning for refreshing units.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 29

City of Foster City “The Pilgrim” Workforce Housing

OVERVIEW

Pilgrim Housing is a city-owned housing development in Foster City completed in 2022, consisting of 22 units adjacent to a market-rate project. The project originated as a standalone inclusionary housing requirement and was later purchased by the City, which now owns and operates the building with HIP Housing serving as developer and property manager. The project was not selected through a traditional city RFP for developers but rather built as part of an established master-planned development agreement. City staff emphasized the operational challenges of being a public-sector landlord, including prevailing wage requirements, budgeting constraints, and the need for a large contingency reserve.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

The City of Foster City owns 22 of the units. The project was not selected through a traditional city RFP for developers but rather built as part of an established master-planned development agreement, with SummerHill Homes serving as the developer. HIP Housing Affordable Ventures manages the development.

POPULATION SERVED

Eligibility and leasing are structured around a lottery system with preference tiers, prioritizing city employees, first responders, teachers, and people with disabilities.

UNITS & DEMAND

The units include 9 one-bedroom units, 4 one-bedroom plus den units, and 9 two-bedroom units. The project has seen high demand, with a waitlist of over 1,000 people.

RENTS

The project includes 4 Very Low-Income Units, 5 Low Income Units, 5 Moderate Income Units, and 7 Rent Restricted Workforce Units not to exceed 30% x 130% AMI.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 30

TIME LIMIT

Unlike some school district programs, there is no time limit on residency, though staff recommend considering one to ensure ongoing access for new employees.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Owning and operating housing directly creates some administrative and financial risk for cities.

• Prevailing wage and public procurement rules can significantly increase maintenance costs.

• Lottery-based allocation with clear preferences supports equity and transparency.

• Technically advanced appliances and amenities can prove problematic, particularly for senior tenants.

• A generous contingency budget is essential, especially in early years of operation.

• Third-party property management is critical; in-house management is not recommended.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 31

Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD) 705 Serramonte

OVERVIEW

JUHSD developed one of the first K–12 staff housing projects in the country, beginning planning in 2018 to address teacher turnover, staffing instability, and associated negative impacts on student learning.

The district financed the development through a dedicated bond measure combined with a loan and opened the project in 2022. Since opening, the district has reported improvements in recruitment and retention, including multiple years with little to no staffing vacancies.

The program is governed by an independent Educational Housing Corporation (EHC), which sets eligibility, rents, and policies, maintaining separation from district employment decisions. The EHC Board is comprised of a CFO, two school board members, and two members of staff who have no intention of living in staff housing. To select the developer, the district utilized an alternative RFP process, authorized by a waiver of typical state-level, sealed-bid education codes.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

JUHSD developed the property in partnership with developers Brookwood Partners, Eden Housing, and The Core Companies. The district utilized an alternative RFP process, authorized by a waiver of typical state-level, sealed-bid education codes. JUHSD owns the property, and development management services were provided by Brookwood Advisors.

The Design-Build Team selected through an RFQ/RFP process.

POPULATION SERVED

Housing is limited to non-administrative staff who are employed for a minimum of 18 hours per week. Tenants cannot own homes. The Education Housing Corporation has priority levels based on income and strives to maintain a 60/40 ratio of certified to classified staff.

UNITS & DEMAND

The project includes 122 units. Demand remains strong, with full occupancy since opening and a 50-person waitlist. Demand among certified staff and 1-bedroom+ units (which include dens) has been particularly high.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 32

RENTS

Rents are set roughly 40–50% below market and have increased 2% annually over the last two years.

TIME LIMITS

The project has a seven-year residency cap.

AMENITIES

The project includes a robust set of amenities, including a gym, community spaces, outdoor areas with a barbeque and playground, bike storage room, and shared laundry facilities on each floor.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Staff housing can improve teacher recruitment and retention, and educational continuity for students.

• Independent housing corporations are key to maintaining clear boundaries with HR and labor issues.

• Union collaboration, early buy-in, and community-building efforts within the housing are key.

• Have educational information in place upon opening, connecting employees with information on next steps when your lease is up, how to get their name on BMR housing waitlists, and how to save for a home.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 33

San Mateo County Community College District College Vista, Cañada Vista, and College Ridge

OVERVIEW

SMCCD operates one of the region’s largest and longest-running employee housing programs, with 134 units across three campuses developed between 2005 and 2021. The program was created in response to hiring challenges and long employee commutes, with the goal of supporting workforce stability and enabling employees to eventually purchase homes.

The program is overseen by an independent housing corporation with its own board, bylaws, and third-party property management. The Board is made up of a faculty member, staff member, two Board of Trustee members, and three to five community members.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

SMCCCD developed, owns, and manages its own housing units. The district has engaged partners in design and construction.

POPULATION SERVED

Units are available to both staff and faculty under a roughly 55/45 allocation. Eligibility is based on job classification and salary schedule rather than household income. Initially, the program allowed visiting administrators to stay in employee housing temporarily and utilized open units for emergency housing. They have since moved away from this model to ensure equitable access to the units.

UNITS & DEMAND

There are 134 units across three campuses. Units range from one- to three-bedroom apartments, many with garages and views. Demand is consistently high, with a waitlist of approximately 300 people and expected wait times of two to three years.

RENTS

Rents are intentionally set well below market rate. In the following years, the Board did not regularly raise rents, and it was not until the pandemic that the Board began to more consistently raise rents. In 2024, the Board formally implemented an exemption that if the rent is over 30% of household income, they can file for an exemption.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 34

TIME LIMITS

All three properties have an occupancy limit of five years.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Independent housing corporations provide accountability and continuity over time.

• Clear and transparent eligibility rules tied to job classification simplify administration.

• Long-term underpricing of rent can create financial sustainability challenges.

• Stable property management relationships reduce disruption and risk.

• Early and ongoing community engagement can help address neighborhood opposition.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 35

Jefferson Elementary School District (JESD) Eastmoor Heights

OVERVIEW

Jefferson Elementary School District’s faculty and staff housing, Eastmoor Heights, opened in 2024.

Located at 305 Eastmoor Avenue, it is the first of its kind in San Mateo County for a California K-8 school district. The program’s goal is to increase JESD’s ability to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and staff.

The program is overseen and managed by the Educational Housing Corporation, which was established in 2022 and is comprised of seven members including JESD administration and staff and community members.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

JESD developed, owns, and manages the property.

POPULATION SERVED

To allocate units, the Educational Housing Corporation has established several priority categories. The highest priority is given to full-time employees, who are first-time home buyers and whose household income is less than 80% of AMI. Efforts will be made to maintain a proportional representation of 64% certified and 36% classified staff assigned to the apartments, representative of the district at large. Staff are considering reserving a unit for homeless staff to provide them with one week’s rent-free housing.

UNITS

The complex features 56 one-, two-, and three-bedroom units in two- and three-story buildings. One-bedroom units have had the highest demand to date.

RENTS

Rents are expected to be set at $1,643- $1,750 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,147-$2,224 for a two-bedroom unit, and $2,805 for a three-bedroom unit. Originally, staff were planning to have rent taken directly from tenants’ paychecks but received significant pushback.

Residents now have the option to have their rent taken directly from their paycheck, a

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 36 larger amount taken from their paycheck for the 10 months of the school year, or to pay independently by check. If residents opt to have their rent taken directly from their paycheck, rent is pulled after taxes.

TIME LIMIT

The maximum tenancy, while not yet confirmed, will be between five and seven years.

AMENITIES

Community amenities include a courtyard, community building, and a play area for children, as well as numerous sustainability features including solar panels, electric vehicle chargers, modular construction, and water-conscious landscaping and drainage.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Work with the same property management across properties for cohesion.

• Provide a resident with a stipend to serve as an on-site maintenance contact to ensure quick attention to maintenance issues.

• Avoid lining up unit doors, as this makes it more difficult to install security cameras without compromising tenant privacy.

• Allow residents the option of paying their rent by check or having it taken directly from their paycheck.

• Clearly communicate the potential downsides of moving into a new building (e.g.

leaks) in lease.

• Avoid promising an exact move-in date, as unexpected delays inevitably arise.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 37

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the City and County of San Francisco Shirley Chisholm Village

OVERVIEW

Shirley Chisholm Village, a collaboration between SFUSD and the City and County of San Francisco located in the Outer Sunset in San Francisco, is a first-of-its kind educator housing development.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

Shirley Chisholm Village is owned by MP Francis Scott Key 2 Associates, L.P and was developed by MidPen Housing in collaboration with SFUSD.

MidPen Housing was selected through an RFP process. Managed by MidPen Property Management Corp, with services provided by MidPen Resident Services.

POPULATION SERVED

Tier 1 priority was given to SFUSD educators, Tier 2 priority to all other SFUSD employees.

The remaining units were available according to City preferences.

UNITS & DEMAND

The Village is home to 135 units, which include a mix of studios, 1-bedroom units, and 2-bedroom units. Thirty-five units are funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and 100 units are moderate-income units. During the lease-up process, the City held two lotteries exclusively open to SFUSD employees through San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development on the San Francisco Housing Portal, DAHLIA. All but six units (five of which were accessible units) were leased up to district employees. Preference categories are only applicable at lease-up and do not impact access to housing later.

RENTS

Rents are affordable to households ranging from 40% to 120% of AMI. Rent and income limits will be set according to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) levels.

There is no limit to occupancy.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 38

AMENITIES

Amenities include 48 parking spaces, a fitness room, BBQ area, and private resident outdoor courtyards, among others.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Robust, continuous marketing and consistent messaging regarding eligibility prior to lease-up is key.

• Engaging Human Resources and Payroll staff early in the process can lead to more effective collaboration and coordination, particularly when it comes to income verification.

• Lengthy application processes can be a deterrent to applicants.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 39

City and County of San Mateo Kiku Crossing

OVERVIEW

Kiku Crossing, located in downtown San Mateo, offers affordable housing for families and individuals, including those with supportive housing needs.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

MidPen Housing developed and owns Kiku Crossing in collaboration with the City and County of San Mateo.

MidPen was selected through an RFP process. Managed by MidPen Property Management Corp.

POPULATION SERVED

70 non-project-based voucher units give preference to eligible applicants who live, work, or have been offered work (and who subsequently accept such offer) in the City of San Mateo, with an additional preference for qualified households displaced by activity by the City, the City’s code enforcement activities. Fifty-seven additional non-project-based units voucher give preference to eligible applicants who are General Public Employees (those who work for the City or County of San Mateo, eight additional taxing entities, or the State or federal government) who live or work in San Mateo. If the threshold is not met, the remaining available units will be rented to General Public Employees regardless of the location of their employment or residence.

UNITS & DEMAND

Kiku Crossing is home to 225 units, which include a mix of studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, and three-bedroom units. To allocate units, Kiku Crossing filled the majority of the Project Based Section 8 units via the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo’s waitlist and the remaining 143 units via the MidPen waitlist.

RENTS

Initially, rents were set at the maximum HUD tax credit rents for income levels ranging from 30% to 80% of AMI. However, project staff found that demand was low for units affordable to 40%, 70%, and 80% of AMI, leading them to reduce the rents and rerelease the application.

There is no limit to occupancy.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 40

AMENITIES

Amenities include a Community Room with a lounge Area and kitchen, a Learning Center (after school classroom), on-site laundry facilities, an outdoor courtyard and rooftop deck, and bicycle parking.

LESSONS LEARNED

• Engage Human Resources early in the process to ensure alignment and mutual understanding.

• Typical affordable housing financing structures including Low Income Housing Tax Credits and state and local capital subsidies can be successfully utilized to create affordable units for public employees.

• Tying the rents to affordability standards for higher-income households can result in lower demand. Market studies can help ensure there is demand for the units at the set rents.

• Ensure marketing is clear and digestible for potential applicants.

SMC Employee Housing: Perspectives and Lessons 41

Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) The Sevens

OVERVIEW

The Sevens, the Mountain View Whisman School District’s teacher and staff housing facility was created in partnership with the City of Mountain View. Foothill-De Anza Community College District later purchased 50 units. MVW Residences Corporation, an independent nonprofit entity established by the MVWSD Board of Trustees, serves as the asset administrator and oversees property management. The small Corporation Board comprises professionals with experience in residential real estate and/or finance.

OWNERSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT

The Sevens is owned by MVWSD and was developed by Miramar Capital. It was created in partnership with the City of Mountain View and includes Foothill DeAnza Community College District as a partner. Much of the construction funding came from a general obligation bond measure specifically for employee housing, and the City, school district, and developer also contributed funds.

POPULATION SERVED

The 144-unit development includes 73 units for MVWSD staff and teachers. Additional units are reserved for City and Foothill De-Anza employees. Preference is given to full-time employees and those in hard-to-fill positions. What constitutes a hard-to-fill position is determined at the district level.