When the Palo Alto City Council endorsed a new vision for a 60-acre portion of the Ventura neighborhood last fall, it deliberately chose the most cautious path toward redeveloping the centrally located but historically underserved area.

Though consultants and housing advocates argued that redevelopment would be economically feasible only if the city were to greatly relax density limits and allow more office development, the council majority chose the most modest proposal on the table. The plan would net an additional 530 dwellings and allow buildings an additional 10 feet in height, changing limits to 45 feet near single-family zones and 55 feet in high-density mixed-use zones. (The latter zones formerly allowed both commercial and mixed-use.)

But as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan moves toward formal adoption, the city is now confronting an uncomfortable reality: Thanks to state housing laws, the future of the planning area bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue and Park Boulevard may look startlingly different from the plan in their imagination.

The California Density Bonus Law, which was amended last year, now allows developers of 100% affordable housing to claim an additional 33 feet in height. This means that sites in Ventura where the council and its advisory commissions were hoping to see five- and six-story developments would now accommodate eight- and nine-story projects.

The impact of the state law on the city's Ventura plan emerged as an issue of concern during recent public hearings on the draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, which was released in late May and which follows more than two years of debate and discussion by the council and a specially appointed citizen workforce consisting of civic volunteers and neighborhood stakeholders.

Both the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board expressed particular concern for the single-family areas along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue and whether the homes could find themselves overshadowed by new 88-foot-tall buildings down the block.

Several Architectural Review Board members raised concerns about the "fortress" configuration that could result, with high-rise buildings surrounding the 30 or so homes on the two streets between Ash Street and El Camino Real.

Peter Baltay, who chairs the Architectural Review Board, said during the board's June 1 review of the plan that the city needs to refine its policies on "daylight plane" – regulations that ensure that new developments don't cut off light from existing buildings. This often entails creating tiered developments, with higher stories positioned further back. The new rules would be required to protect the houses on Pepper and Olive avenues, Baltay said.

Board member Kendra Rosenberg questioned whether simply refining the daylight plane rules would be enough.

"I think that the 33 feet of additional height is super problematic next to residential," Rosenberg said. "While I understand the daylight plane (rules) will hopefully prevent that from going too tall, I have some serious concerns."

The new Ventura plan proposes concentrating the tallest and densest developments along El Camino Real, near Portage and Lambert avenues and along Park Boulevard, between Page Mill Road and Lambert. Parcels in these areas would be zoned for "high-density mixed use," with the goal of accommodating between 61 and 100 dwelling units per acre. (Traditionally, the city's zoning code has allowed a maximum of 40 units per acre in its densest areas.)

These parcels, along with the Page Mill site that today houses the headquarters of Cloudera, would have a height limit of 55 feet -- or 88 feet by state law if they provide 100% affordable housing.

The remaining parcels along El Camino, Page Mill and Lambert would all be designated as "medium-density" areas with a height limit of 45 feet, or 78 feet if a developer invokes the state law.

Ironically, aside from the single-family zones, the only major property in the 60-acre planning area that would not see its height limit relaxed is the much-debated cannery building that formerly housed Fry's Electronics. The city and property owner The Sobrato Organization have worked out a separate development agreement that would govern that central portion of the neighborhood.

Planning commission Chair Doria Summa, who served on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group, suggested during the commission's review that the impacts of the additional height will extend well beyond the single-family zones.

"If you live in a 45- or 50-foot building and you have an 88-foot building right next to you, there's going to be impacts on everyone," Summa said. "And I think as we move forward with the NVCAP and the Housing Element, we need to keep in mind that we don't want to create areas of Palo Alto that are completely different in terms of how people live than most of Palo Alto."

Not everyone is alarmed about the additional height. City staff noted during the reviews that developing 100% affordable projects is challenging and it's highly unlikely that the city will see a wave of such projects going up in the Ventura area any time soon. Planning Commissioner Bart Hechtman shared that view and suggested that staff return with additional analysis about a more realistic development scenario.

"While we can look at a worst-case scenario and you can add 33 feet to all these areas, the reality is it's not that easy to build 100% affordable housing," Hechtman said. "There aren't that many who do it and it's not going to happen throughout here."

That said, one such development is already advancing in the Ventura area.The nonprofit Charities Housing is planning to build 129 apartments for low-income residents on the former site of Mike's Bikes at 3001 El Camino Real. According to plans, the proposed five-story building would be 66 feet tall, well above the city's 50-foot height limit but below the 83 feet of height that Charities could have under the state's Density Bonus Law.

While the council has yet to formally approve the Ventura plan, the document has already proved polarizing. Some members of the North Ventura working group have complained that the plan doesn't go far enough in ensuring that the new housing would be affordable, while others have lobbied for more retail or open space.

And while some have protested the council's decision to allow Sobrato to demolish a portion of the historic Fry's building to make way for townhouses, others suggested that the current proposal doesn't go anywhere far enough when it comes to housing.

Former council member Gail Price, who served as co-chair of the working group, lamented to the council last October that the city didn't pursue the most ambitious proposal, which would have resulted in about 1,500 new dwellings and 126,000 square feet of new office space. (By contrast, the current vision calls for just 5,000 square feet of new office development.)

"The refined preferred alternative has lost this opportunity for generations to come and it is looking to the past and not to the future," Price said.

But Lauren Bigelow, who serves as board chair of the advocacy group Palo Alto Renters Association, called the draft a "step in the right direction." During the planning commission's May 30 review of the new document, Bigelow called the proposal to add 530 dwelling units near transit and other amenities "very exciting."

"NVCAP gives us the opportunity to get back to the Palo Alto we once were, which is innovative and productive in terms of building affordable housing and able to be accessible to a diverse group of people," Bigelow said.

The council is set to review the plan when it returns from its summer break.