A newly constructed $88 million apartment complex in Mountain View, California, designed to provide affordable housing for local educators and city workers, remains more than a quarter vacant despite rental prices sitting well below the regional average.
The 144-unit development, known as the Scholars Rows at The Sevens, opened in February 2025 after 12 years of planning. Located near Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, the complex features a fully equipped gym, game rooms, pools, a sauna and an outdoor barbecue area.
Despite these amenities and rent prices far lower than Mountain View’s average one-bedroom rent of $3,507, the complex has reached only a 72 percent occupancy rate, according to a report by SFGate. Twelve of the 73 apartments reserved specifically for the Mountain View Whisman School District’s 680 employees are currently vacant, with all openings being the more expensive one-bedroom units.
Peter Ingram, the interim executive director of the nonprofit managing the property, told the outlet that the vacancies were typical for the initial leasing phase of a new building.
“Lives are complex, and so for somebody to make a decision to make a move, even in the face of the extreme cost of housing in the area, it’s still a big decision for people,” Ingram said. “I think people are just naturally kind of cautious and taking it slow and sure, rather than everybody just piling on.”
The remaining units in the complex are split between a local community college district, which has 50 allocations, and the city of Mountain View, which has 20.
Monthly rents at Scholars Row range from $1,350 to $1,850 for a studio, $1,550 to $2,200 for a one-bedroom and $2,150 to $2,900 for a two-bedroom. To qualify for the lowest rates, tenants must earn below 80 percent of the area median income, or AMI, which stands at $162,400 for a family of four. The higher-end tier applies to families earning up to $246,600.
Starting teacher salaries in the Mountain View Whisman District begin around $72,000, while the average salary for experienced educators sits near $95,000. These compensation levels put the majority of local school employees squarely within the income thresholds required to qualify for the complex.
Filling subsidized educator housing has presented challenges across the Bay Area. School districts that use federal tax credits to fund these projects are legally required to tie eligibility to county AMI metrics.
In San Francisco, teachers initially struggled to qualify for Shirley Chisholm Village, the district’s housing development in the Outer Sunset neighborhood, because their salaries exceeded the maximum income limits. A school district spokesperson told SFGate that the building had since filled, with more than 5,000 applicants joining the waitlist when it reopened in April.
Lyn Hikida, a spokesperson for the facility’s operator, MidPen Housing, stated in an email to the outlet that 76 percent of the residents were teachers, paraeducators and pupil services staff. Another 14 percent are other district employees, and 10 percent of the units are occupied by residents with mobility, hearing and vision accessibility needs.
Workforce housing for public school employees remains a relatively new strategy with few established precedents.
Other local districts report high demand for their programs. The Jefferson Union High School District has maintained a 60-person waitlist for its 122-unit housing development, 705 Serramonte, for the last two years.
Denise Shreve, the district’s director of communication, career and technical education, and housing, told SFGate that the housing option allowed employees to remain in the communities where they grew up.
Several other local districts are pursuing similar strategies to address these retention issues.
The San Mateo-Foster City School District Board of Trustees is scheduled to vote this week on whether to place a bond measure on the November 2026 ballot to fund 80 units of staff housing. An internal survey by that district found that 96 percent of its employees viewed high local housing costs as a primary barrier to recruitment.
