Palo Alto commission backs focused El Camino Real changes, splits on daylight-plane standard

The Planning & Transportation Commission voted on March 26 to advance a package of updates to the El Camino Real focus area that would add selected Tier 1 parcels and adjust several development standards — while failing to reach agreement on a proposed daylight-plane rule for parcels that back onto single‑family (R‑1) lots.

The commission’s recommendation to the City Council would expand the focus-area boundary to include the Tier 1 sites discussed in staff materials, remove the current height transition standard, standardize setbacks, encourage lot consolidation, and adopt incentives for below‑market-rate (BMR) units — while leaving the daylight‑plane question unresolved for council action.

Why it matters

The focus-area ordinance is part of the city’s housing-element implementation and is designed to promote housing in areas near transit as an alternative to developers using state density‑bonus or builder’s‑remedy pathways. The commission’s split on the daylight‑plane rule leaves a key design tradeoff unresolved: tighter controls to protect back‑yard sunlight and privacy for adjacent single‑family lots versus looser controls that proponents say increase feasibility for higher‑density housing.

What the commission recommended

• Expansion scope: The commission supported including the Tier 1 expansion sites shown in staff materials (the sites discussed by staff and several members of the public) and one additional builder’s‑remedy site that staff identified as part of the Tier 1 grouping.

• Development standards: Commissioners voted 6–0 to remove the existing height‑transition standard and to standardize front, rear and interior setbacks in the focus area; they approved incentives intended to encourage lot consolidation and to reward on‑site BMR units. Staff materials set the proposed maximum in the focus area at 4.0 FAR and an 85‑foot maximum height for qualifying larger lots (10,000 sq. ft. and above), with reduced standards for smaller lots.

• Fee waivers and BMR administration: The package also included a recommendation that certain development fees be waived for units restricted to low‑income levels (staff specified that fee waivers would not apply to moderate or above‑moderate affordability levels). The commission voted 6–0 to apply the state’s AB 1893 builder’s‑remedy BMR thresholds to existing builder’s‑remedy applications in the corridor only (see Actions at a glance).

Daylight‑plane debate

Commissioners debated competing daylight‑plane options for parcels directly adjacent to R‑1 properties. Staff and the Architectural Review Board discussed replacing the current height transition with a daylight plane; the ARB recommended a 45‑degree plane measured at 16 feet above the property line. Vice Chair Aiken presented an alternative diagram proposing a shallower (about 30‑degree) plane measured at 16 feet.

A motion to adopt a 30‑degree daylight plane at 16 feet failed on a 3–3 vote. After additional discussion the commission approved a split recommendation — flagging both the ARB’s 45‑degree option and the 30‑degree alternative for the City Council to consider. The split recommendation carried unanimously (6–0) and will be provided in the staff transmittal to council.

Upper‑story stepbacks and other form controls

The commission voted to adopt staff’s simplified upper‑story stepback approach that the ARB had reviewed. The motion passed 4–2. Supporters said the streamlined stepback requirement helps avoid a canyon effect while retaining design controls; opponents said the chosen stepback level risks reducing unit counts and unit size on constrained sites.

Affordable housing and builders‑remedy projects

A new state law that took effect earlier this year (referred to in the hearing as AB 1893) changes the BMR obligations that apply to developers who proceed under the builder’s‑remedy (Housing Accountability Act) pathway. Staff asked whether the focus‑area ordinance should match the state’s revised builder’s‑remedy thresholds or retain the focus‑area’s existing 20% BMR on‑site requirement.

After discussion the commission voted 6–0 to recommend that the city apply AB 1893’s builder’s‑remedy thresholds only to the corridor’s existing builder’s‑remedy applications, leaving the city’s broader focus‑area policy questions (including whether to change the 20% on‑site BMR standard for non‑builder’s‑remedy projects) for further Council consideration.

Public comment

Property owners and developers and nearby residents offered contrasting views. Peter Giovannato, an owner of two El Camino sites, told the commission his family planned “about 500 new apartment homes, via the builder’s‑remedy process,” and urged changes (including raising a prior 70% lot‑coverage cap to 80% and reducing an upper‑story stepback) to make projects feasible. Laura Bowser, representing Sand Hill Property Company (owner of a large 3,300 El Camino parcel), supported the staff revisions and asked that the Hansen Way special setback be reduced and that rear/interior setbacks be clarified to allow below‑grade parking. Liz Gardner, a resident at 2500 El Camino Real, urged the commission not to reduce the city’s 20% low‑income requirement and to preserve affordability.

Next steps and unresolved items

The commission’s recommendation — including the expansion map, the package of revised development standards and the split daylight‑plane recommendation — will go to the City Council for final action. Two items were left for staff and council consideration rather than finalized by the commission: the Hansen Way special setback (a 50‑foot special setback in parts of the Stanford Research Park that staff said the city’s transportation division would not support removing entirely but might consider reducing) and a possible rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue (a parcel with historical commercial use and ongoing groundwater monitoring) — both were discussed but not acted on; staff said rezoning or special‑setback changes should be tied to future project proposals and additional technical review.

Ending

Commissioners said the El Camino Real changes are intended to make targeted parcels more receptive to housing while protecting adjacent neighborhoods. The split daylight‑plane recommendation leaves a clear question for Council: whether to favor a stricter 45‑degree standard for R‑1 adjacencies (ARB recommendation) or a shallower plane (about 30 degrees) that supporters say preserves more developable area.

Actions at a glance

- Motion (move staff package: expand Tier 1 sites; remove height transition; standardize setbacks; incentives for lot consolidation and BMR units; clarify office FAR limits): passed, 6–0 (one commissioner recused from the conflicted portion). - Motion (adopt 30‑degree daylight plane measured at 16 ft): failed, 3–3. - Motion (submit split recommendation on daylight plane so Council sees both 45° and 30° options): passed, 6–0. - Motion (simplified upper‑story stepback per staff/ARB recommendation): passed, 4–2. - Motion (apply AB 1893 builder’s‑remedy BMR thresholds only to existing builder’s‑remedy applications in the corridor): passed, 6–0.

Speakers quoted in this article are listed in the speakers field below; direct quotations are attributed to those speakers.