Santa Clara County committee debates Stanford in‑lieu housing fees, alternatives to on‑campus requirement

The Housing, Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors held a study session to review the county’s handling of Stanford University’s housing obligations and to consider policy alternatives to the 2023 Community Plan’s on‑campus housing requirement.

Chair Margaret Abe‑Koga opened the 1:02 p.m. session and staff from the Department of Planning and Development and consultants from M Group summarized the history and performance of Stanford’s in‑lieu affordable housing fee program. The presenters said roughly $56 million in fees had been collected under the 2000 General Use Permit framework and that interest and other charges brought the total to about $61.3 million; staff said those funds have supported financing for about 910 affordable units, with 660 completed and occupied and roughly 250 units in the pipeline. “Approximately $60 million has been collected with interest,” a staff presenter said.

The committee heard that the 2023 Community Plan update shifted policy toward meeting housing demand generated by campus growth through construction on or near campus rather than relying mainly on off‑campus fee payments. Under the updated policy, staff said, new housing tied to campus growth would be required to locate 75% on campus and allow up to 25% on adjacent lands within the City of Palo Alto.

Consultants and staff presented a set of alternative approaches for the committee to consider. Options included allowing Stanford to pay in‑lieu fees targeted to “missing middle” households (above traditional affordable thresholds but below market), using fees to subsidize affordable projects elsewhere in the county, requiring missing‑middle units up to a higher AMI while charging fees for units above that tier, allowing greater geographic flexibility (for example county sites near transit), and accepting land dedication instead of built units.

Committee members pressed staff on several technical points. One supervisor asked whether student dormitories would count toward Stanford’s housing obligation; staff replied that typical freshman/sophomore dorm rooms are not counted as housing units for credit because they lack private kitchens or baths, while graduate‑style apartment units and faculty/staff housing may count depending on their form and affordability. “Dorms are off the table. We can’t count them for anything,” staff said during the exchange.

Supervisors also questioned whether the fee pool has kept pace with rising construction costs. Staff noted that more recent projects have approached roughly $1 million per unit, making the existing fee balance cover a relatively small share of total project costs. Committee members raised concerns about whether units built on campus primarily benefit Stanford employees and whether in‑lieu fees should be directed to high‑resource, well‑served neighborhoods or to areas with greater need across the county.

Public comment included Stanford representatives who urged preserving an in‑lieu fee option alongside on‑campus housing. A Stanford project executive said the university had “built thousands of units on campus” over the last decades and described the university’s interest in keeping a fee tool available “to address affordable housing needs.” A Stanford land‑use official said the university provides discounted rents and that it has about 2,100 rental units for staff; she asked staff and the county to engage further on the alternatives staff had outlined.

Housing advocates and a representative of Working Partnerships cautioned that past in‑lieu fees were too low and too slow to produce units and urged designing a faster, larger scale fee that could be directed to areas of the county with higher need. One advocate told the committee that the challenge is to develop “a new kind of fee — faster, of a scale so it could significantly offset the consequences of not building on campus.”

No formal action was taken; staff did not request a vote to receive the report. Committee members asked staff to return with feasibility analysis, outreach results and more detailed cost and allocation scenarios that would show how many units different approaches could produce, how credits would be counted, and options for securing upfront payments or guarantees so fee revenues translate more quickly into built housing. The committee adjourned and noted the next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 20, 2026.

The discussion reflects the county’s wider tension between seeking on‑campus solutions to growth tied to a major employer and designing off‑campus financing that can rapidly produce affordable units across neighborhoods that need them.