Housing in demand for Burlingame School District workforce

Three areas need to be met for the project to be considered feasible — high demand for housing units among the population being served, a buildable site where the project can be located and an adequate funding model for building and maintaining the project, Jennings said.

Staff support for employee housing appears strong, Jennings said, referring to an internal survey of 88 employees, a sample size of about 31% of employees. A majority of respondents were either newer to the district at about 49% and non-home owners at about 66%.

Of respondents who do not own homes, 72% felt positive about below-market-rate housing and 74% said they were either interested or somewhat interested in living in district housing. Jennings noted that those against living closer to the district cited concerns with the area being too expensive, not wanting to live too far away from their families.

“Obviously, again, this was a 31% sample size. However, from the responses we did receive, the survey does lead us to believe that there is a general demand for employee housing,” Jennings said, noting districts often gear housing toward newer employees on the lower end of the pay scale as a short-term assistance for employees to work toward home ownership.

Three sites were identified as being potentially feasible for housing, the 0.3-acre district office site at 1825 Trousdale Drive, a 2.8-acre lot of land between Burlingame Intermediate School and Franklin Elementary and a 4.5-acre undeveloped hillside above Hoover Elementary.

But after further review, only the first two would be developable, Jennings said, noting that the hillside plot is greatly sloped and has access constraints. Despite the substantial lot size differences between the Trousdale and BIS sites, Jennings said both could only welcome a 22-unit project.

At the Trousdale site, Jennings said units would be incorporated into a six-story apartment building with underground parking. Initial estimates show the development could cost the district more than $17.8 million.

Alternatively, about $15 million would be needed to develop 12 townhomes and a two-floor flat stacked apartment building with 10 units at the BIS housing site. That configuration would maximize the land use while adhering to single-family zoning policies in the residential neighborhood.

About $10 million from Measure O, a $97 million bond approved in 2020, could potentially go toward funding staff housing but a gap of $7.8 million and $5 million would remain for the Trousdale and BIS projects respectively, or nearly $13 million if the board were to pursue both.

To fill in the gaps, Jennings said the district could look for outside grant funding including from the city which collects housing fees from commercial developers, a general obligation bond which community members would need to approve or through certificate of participation bonds which would pull financing from private investors and to who the district would make payments.

Superintendent Chris Mount-Benites advised against taking out CIP bonds given that the debt would be taken out with the expectation that repayment would come from the district’s General Fund if annual rent amounts fell short.

“The idea that we would take out a loan or a mortgage if you would and we guarantee it with the money we’re supposed to use to run the school district and we already know that we could not collect enough in rents to keep the rents reasonable for our employees pretty much says that a COP is not a financially smart move in either direction. It’s in here because it’s one of the legal options for a school district to utilize. It doesn’t mean it’s a good financial solution with the problems that we’re dealing with,” Mount-Benites said.

BCG Strategies estimates the district will bring in $578,000 and $591,000 in annual revenue depending on which project it backs but those figures depend on the level of affordability the district will pursue and whether the units are quickly rented out. It would also need to be adjusted to account for property upkeep.

After holding informal discussions with Burlingame’s Planning Department, Jennings said staff indicated the city would support the district’s housing goals in any way they could and shared that the city has its own work-housing ambitions. But it’s unlikely the district would receive all of the $8.7 million it has collected in development fees for housing and projects that need general plan amendments could be drawn out through standard planning processes, increasing a project’s price tag.

Board President Florence Wong, pulling from her experience advocating for housing for those with developmental disabilities, also cautioned her colleagues from accepting grant support without assurances the district would get final say over site operation.

Funds from selling off one or more of the city’s parcels could also go toward helping pay fund the initiative. Most recently, the district was offered about $3 million for the Trousdale property which Wong called a “super lowball offer.”

Still, Trustee Dan Devoy asked that staff return with additional information on the value of the 1825 Trousdale Drive property.

Ultimately, trustees agreed a community-supported bond measure would likely be their best and only option for developing the housing and directed staff to begin the work to survey the community.

“I really feel like whether the door is open or closed is whether or not our community will fund it with bonds,” Wong said. “If they won’t, we can’t do it.”

Note to readers: This story was updated to reflect a more accurate estimate of the most recent offer to purchase 1825 Trousdale Drive. 

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106