Affordable housing fees from Stanford could raise $156 million

Funds dependent on how much new nonresidential development is built at university

Santa Clara County could collect at least $156 million in affordable housing dollars from Stanford University in the coming years if the university opts to build out all the new space it plans for, based on a fee supervisors voiced support for on May 8.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors supported nearly doubling the affordable housing fees that Stanford currently pays – and halving the maximum amount it could require – to address the affordable housing needs Stanford's ever-expanding campus generates.

The supervisors supported raising the per-square-foot affordable housing fee for new nonresidential development on Stanford's campus to a floor of $68.50, up from the current $35 per square foot, with the details of further policy points for to be sent through the county's Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation Committee (HLUET) and some matters to the Finance and Government Operations Committee (FGOC).

The matter of whether there is an option for the university to not pay fees if units are built is still up for discussion, according to Stanford spokeswoman Jean McCown.

Stanford is seeking permission from Santa Clara County to build 2.275 million square feet of new academic space and 3,150 new housing units or dorm rooms on its campus between 2018 and 2035, proposals listed in its a General Use Permit application awaiting approval from the county.

Where and how that money will be spent is still a big question.

Nonresidential fee

Setting the fee at $68.50 per square foot means potentially giving up roughly half of the "maximum" supportable amount of $143.10 that a nexus study by Keyser Marston Associates found would be needed to fully mitigate the demand for below-market-rate housing triggered by the university's planned expansion of its academic spaces.

At that rate, the fees would be intended to cover the housing needs for households making up to 80 percent of the area's median, or $84,900 for a family of four in the county, instead of the full below-market-rate housing needs of people making up to 120 percent of the area median income ($135,950 for a family of four in Santa Clara County).

At Supervisor David Cortese's recommendation, the board agreed to use the figure as a floor, while the $143.10 per square foot would be a maximum.

Supervisor Cindy Chavez said that continued housing growth without requisite housing expansion has resulted in a "crisis that's frankly untenable. ... We need service workers in this county." The $68.50-per-square-foot fee factored in average housing costs in the broader region, not just within six miles of the Stanford campus, she noted.

Residential fee

The nexus study also found that the university's proposed 3,150 new units of housing would, in turn, create more housing demand. The concept is that new residents in the area increase the demand for services, thereby generating jobs. The people working those new jobs, in turn, generate more demand for housing – especially affordable housing. The study determined that charging $69.10 per square foot of new housing would cover the subsidies needed to help meet the affordable housing demand from new workers earning up to 120 percent of the area's median income.

But some questioned the logic of levying fees on the university for building housing that it already subsidizes.

In public comment, Matt Regan, senior vice president for the policy advocacy group Bay Area Council, said the group generally supports the creation of affordable housing but opposes taxing housing to pay for housing.

The notion of imposing new housing taxes on an institution like Stanford, which already subsidizes the bulk of its housing, he said, is "a circular firing squad with flamethrowers of a public policy idea."

For now, the supervisors decided to consider instead addressing the housing demand new housing creates through a different policy: inclusionary housing. Such a policy would require new housing to come with a per-square-foot fee to go toward funding affordable housing, or require that a certain percentage of the new housing be dedicated to affordable housing.

The supervisors opted to hold off on determining what fees should be for residential and commercial development in other parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County until 2019.

Related content:

Webcast: Stanford's planned expansion

Editor's Note: A previous version of this story inaccurately indicated that the supervisors had voted more formally on the $68.50-per-square-foot non-residential price floor. The matter is expected to be returned to them as an ordinance for a formal vote later, after review by the two county commissions listed above, according to McCown.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Kate Bradshaw writes for The Almanac, the sister publication of


15 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Old Guy
a resident of Palo Alto Orchards
on May 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm

In this day and age, shouldn't we be telling Stanford to diversify its campus locations? It doesn't matter how much Stanford pays to develop their land to the county. It will never offset the fact that their campus facilities are exempt from property taxation. Thus, the future costs are borne by everyone except them. And those future costs will be extreme. Environmental (100% recycling) - water, waste, power conservation, and traffic congestion will be the start.

This may be sacrilege. . but Stanford should create a new campus east of the Bay Area. How about near Stockton/Livermore/Manteca/Merced? Land costs are lower; less congestion, less student/faculty housing costs. Students (perhaps undergrads or lower division classes) can transition to the Palo Alto campus as they progress to graduate level programs.

And studies show that where schools and transportation develops, the community around them develops. Look at the history of the towns next to BART developments - Walnut Creek, Concord, Milpitas, Fremont.

RSanta Clara County needs additional students/faculty and buildings like a hole in the head regardless of the monies Stanford offers. It's already a world class facility; adding to that reputation results in permanent damage to an already stressed out infrastructure.

Go Cardinals! Go Bears!

Doesn't that make more sense for the county that we don't allow any company/school dominate our county and our resources? (Think San Jose Google). We already have a diverse business, academic and residential mix.

By having Stanford move east, they can spread their wealth to the Central Valley, mid-point between Sacramento and here. It's a win win for all.

2 people like this
Posted by Vasche LaMou
a resident of Green Acres
on May 16, 2018 at 9:13 pm

No doubt Stanford prefers to buy its way out of providing on-campus housing for its support workforce. It's cheaper, it puts the burden on the county, and Stanford won't have Those People living in its academic ghetto.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Flights to replace Shiva's in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 7 comments | 4,063 views

Palo Alto's problems -- crows, rats and airplanes
By Diana Diamond | 15 comments | 1,457 views

Thought and Matter: A Young Man's Search for Interest and Meaning
By Aldis Petriceks | 5 comments | 1,315 views

Couples: When You’re Frustrated with Your Teen
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 652 views

Use-Mention distinction fading; Idiocracy ascendant
By Douglas Moran | 15 comments | 353 views