CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 13, 2026
Report #: 2603-6071
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [24PLN-00162 & 25PLN-00243]:
Request for Approval of Applications for Major Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map to Merge Seven Existing Parcels to Create a 113,907-Square-Foot Parcel and to Construct a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 321 Units, Thirteen Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on February 15, 2024. CEQA Status:
Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Consider the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66); and
2. Approve the Major Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed residential project includes 321 rental units, thirteen percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below, with two levels of above ground parking.1 The project includes demolition of 38 residential units as well as approximately 12,572 square feet of commercial floor area across seven existing parcels located at 3508, 3516, 3606, and 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and unaddressed parcel on Matadero Avenue, as well as 524-528 and 530 Kendall Avenue. These parcels are proposed to 1 Inclusionary percentage is based on the pre-density bonus count of 284 units.
be merged under a vesting tentative map to create a single parcel for the proposed development.
The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 on February 15, 2024 (24PLN-00047). Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. In addition, the project is considered a “Builder’s Remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted AB 1893.
Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections as detailed below.
On September 22, 2025, the applicant requested that the project be considered exempt under AB 130 [Public Resources Code section 21080.66]. AB 130 exempts infill housing projects meeting certain criteria from CEQA and sets strict timelines for City review and decision. The City has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with AB 130 and is therefore subject to strict timeframes for City action. Pursuant to these timelines, in addition to a 60-day extension agreed to by the applicant at the City’s request, a decision is required on both of these applications by April 26, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) have held a public hearing for the project, and the current plans incorporate some of the feedback from their reviews, as described herein.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On February 11, 2026, the PTC considered the Vesting Tentative Map and recommended denial (3-2-1), with Chair Akin and Commissioner Hechtman dissenting, and Commissioner Peterson abstaining. The Subdivision Map Act sets forth a series of reverse findings and requires denial if any one finding can be made in the affirmative. The recommendation for denial was based on the conclusion that Finding #6, which states: “..the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems” could be made in the affirmative and therefore recommended denial. The PTC expressed that insufficient information had been provided to show that the project would not cause a public safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians along safe routes to school.
The PTC also recommended that City Council consider the following in its review:
Project and cumulative traffic safety analysis;
Providing sidewalk easements;
Relocating ingress/egress to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and reduce congestion near El Camino Real intersections; and
Incorporating portions of the site for a bike path.
Specifically, the PTC was concerned that a traffic analysis had not yet been conducted for the site and that cumulative impacts from proposed projects within the vicinity, particularly a proposed project at 3400 El Camino Real, across Matadero Avenue, had not been evaluated. The PTC encouraged relocating the vehicular access to the site from side streets to avoid congestion on Matadero and Kendall Avenue, particularly on Matadero Avenue as a safe-routes to school route. Multi-modal access, particularly in response to feedback from public comment and the PTC is discussed further below in the analysis.
Architectural Review Board
On December 4, 2025, the ARB held an early hearing to provide feedback on the proposed project design as summarized with the following key comments:
Building Massing/Façade Articulation: Board members encouraged additional articulation, step-backs, and architectural detailing to reduce perceived bulk and enhance visual interest.
Height Transitions: Board members encouraged stepping down the building, particularly at the rear, to better transition to adjacent lower-scale development and reduce impacts on neighboring properties.
Open Spaces and Amenity Design: Board members encouraged improvements in usability and overall quality.
The applicant addressed most ARB comments and submitted a visual design updates document outlining how the design responds to the feedback (Attachment F).
Project Description
The proposed project includes 321 residential rental units, thirteen percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below. This percentage is based on the total number of units allowed prior to the application of state density bonus (284 units), resulting in a total of 37 new affordable units. The building would include two levels of above- grade parking, ground floor residential amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real.
The project includes demolition of the existing uses, including 38 residential rental units, none of which are currently deed restricted, and approximately 12,572 square feet of commercial floor area across seven existing parcels located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue. These seven parcels would be merged under the tentative map application to create a single 113,907-Square-Foot resulting parcel for the proposed development (25PLN-00243). Attachment A includes a location map. Attachment F includes a summary from the applicant asserting their legal rights and Attachment G includes the project plans.
The applicant submitted a SB 330 pre-application on February 15, 2024 (24PLN-00047).
Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. The project is also being proposed in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) (also known as Builder’s Remedy) and qualifies for additional protections as a “Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project,” under AB 1893. The applicant’s project description is provided in Attachment F and includes a list of waivers requested in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. As detailed further in this report, if the project is designed to comply with all relevant objective standards, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed.
Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview
The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to Council purview:
Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. The Director may instead forward a project directly to City Council for final action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.180. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.
The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Vesting Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the PAMC and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections
21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative Maps require PTC review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474, Title 21 of the PAMC, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the PAMC and State law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Findings for Council to approve the Vesting Tentative Map are provided in Attachment B.
Purview of the formal application is limited by the following State law in the following ways:
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project,” as well as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate income households” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings.
Among those findings are: that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. “Specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed” at the time of the preliminary application.
Because the project is a “Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project,” under AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. If there are no such zoning districts or general plan designations in the City, then the applicant may identify any City standards that facilitate the project and only those standards shall apply. If the project meets these identified standards, the City cannot impose conditions of approval that preclude the project from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. Because the project is a “Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project,” under AB 1893, the “base density” for purposes of State Density Bonus Law shall be the maximum density permitted for Builder’s Remedy projects (e.g. three times the density permitted in the zoning code or general plan). The project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards.
ANALYSIS
Staff evaluated the project in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable goals and policies of the City and found the project consistent or otherwise deviates in a manner permissible under State law.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines The project site includes seven parcels with varying Comprehensive Plan land use designations, including Service Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Multiple-Family Residential designations as reflected in Attachment A. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations in the Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land use designations. The project is located along a high-quality transit corridor and the portions of the project site that are within these land use designations are identified as Housing Inventory Sites under the adopted Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed use multi-family residential use is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan land use designations.
Other portions of the project site are designated multiple-family, where the permitted number of housing units varies by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from 8 to 90 persons per acre (8 to 40 units). Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. However, densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
While the density on the site exceeds the stated maximum of 40 units per acre set forth under the land use designation, the proposed density is allowed pursuant to California Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) as detailed further in Attachment D. Under these provisions the base density allowed for the site as a whole is 108 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which is approximately 284 units for this site, plus a 24.5% bonus (70 units) based on the number and income level of the below market rate units provided, resulting in a total of 335 units allowed (density of approximately 136 du/ac). The project is providing a total of 321 units, which is within the allowed density in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy provisions set forth in AB 1893.
Housing Element Consistency
Four of the seven parcels on which the proposed project would be located are identified as housing inventory sites as detailed in the following table:
Address Capacity Income Levels
3508 El Camino Real 7 Units 7 Units (Above Moderate Income) 3516 El Camino Real 7 Units 7 Units (Above Moderate Income) 3606 El Camino Real 15 Units 6 Units (Very Low Income); 6 Units (Low Income); 3 Units (Above Moderate Income)
3630 El Camino Real 8 Units 8 Units (Moderate Income)
Total Capacity 37 Units 6 Units (Very Low Income); 6 Units (Low Income); 8 Units (Moderate Income); 17 Units (Above Moderate Income)
The project exceeds the estimated capacity redeveloping the site, with a total of 321 units. The project plans currently reflect that a total of a total of thirteen percent of the units (37 units) would be provided at a rate affordable to low income. The project would result in 283 net new residential units that contribute to the housing inventory.
El Camino Real Design Guidelines Consistency
The project is also subject to the El Camino Design Guidelines and South El Camino Design Guidelines to the extent that these guidelines include objective standards. The design guidelines are intended to direct the project design process toward solutions that, given site conditions and the requirements of the development program, best meet City goals and community values and expectations. Notable recommendations include landscaping buffers, screening of mechanical equipment and parking areas, pedestrian oriented designs in the CN district, minimizing the number of driveways, limiting building colors to no more than three primary colors, and defining corner elements. As proposed, the project is generally consistent with these guidelines, although only objective standards may be applied to the project. Where the guidelines encourage specific requirements such as colors and defining corner elements, the project complies with the related objective standards set forth under PAMC Chapter 18.24.
Although the project does not include a ground floor commercial use and, accordingly, does not provide ground floor glazing/transparency, ground floor commercial uses are not required for Housing Inventory Sites as noted in PAMC Section 18.14.020(b)(i).
Zoning Compliance
Because the site area is comprised of seven lots, there are varying zoning designations across these lots, including portions zoned CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. However, the site is located within the El Camino Real Focus Area. The El Camino Real Focus Area modifies and replaces some of the development standards provided in base zone districts and applicable combining district regulations for housing development projects. In some instances, the El Camino Real Focus Area standards refer to the governing base district regulations. Therefore, Attachment C includes a summary of the project’s consistency with the El Camino Real Focus Area standards as it would apply to each zone district on the site. Additionally, Attachment D includes a summary of the project’s consistency with the objective design standards set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.24.
Because the project is a Builder’s Remedy project, inconsistencies with the objective standards in Attachments D and E do not constitute a basis for denial. These inconsistencies are provided for informational purposes only.
In addition, the applicant may request a waiver under State Density Bonus Law from any development standard that would physically preclude development at the proposed density. If the project is designed to comply with all objective standards that would apply to a site that allows the density requested, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed.
Multi-Modal Access
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus line 22 operates along El Camino Real, with a bus stop located near the far northern corner of the project site. The project is located approximately 1.2 miles from the California Avenue Caltrain Station and fronts El Camino Real.
California Department of Transportation recently installed Class III and Class IV bicycle facilities along El Camino Real adjacent to the project frontage, further enhancing multimodal access for cyclists.
Vehicular access to the project site is provided from Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue.
Although some members of the public and the PTC encouraged modifications to the plans to provide access along El Camino Real, minimizing congestion on side streets, the location of driveway access points is consistent with both objective standards set forth in PAMC Section
18.24.030 as well as best practices for roadway engineering design. El Camino Real is a state freeway under Caltrans jurisdiction and is designed to carry high volumes of traffic at higher speeds over longer distances. Introducing or expanding curb cuts directly along this corridor creates additional turning conflicts, reduces traffic flow efficiency, and increases safety risks for cyclists and motorists, especially given the newly installed bicycle lanes along the project’s El Camino Real frontage. By contrast, Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue are collector streets that are intended to gather traffic from local areas and distribute it to arterial roadways.
Locating driveway access along these collector streets helps maintain the operational efficiency of El Camino Real while reducing potential conflict points along the arterial corridor.
Members of the public also expressed concern with respect to bicycle and pedestrian safety associated with the location of the garage entrances, particularly due to concern that the garage entrance on Matadero Avenue conflicts with the Safe Routes to School Route for Barron Park Elementary School. However, the project includes widening of the right-of-way along Matadero Avenue and Kendall Avenue to create a new sidewalk where no sidewalks currently exist, improving pedestrian safety on both of these collector streets, though it may be noted that this safety enhancement is somewhat out of character for the Barron Park neighborhood, which generally does not include sidewalks. Additionally, although this project would result in more cars entering and exiting the site on Matadero Avenue (in comparison to existing conditions) the overall risk of conflict is less with the proposed design than it would be for a design with curb cut(s) along El Camino Real, due to the lower volume of cars and lower speeds on Matadero Avenue.
Because the project is exempt pursuant to AB 130, the project is not subject to analysis in conformance with CEQA. Nevertheless, staff requested a Local Transportation Analysis in conformance with Council’s adopted transportation policy3, particularly to assess site specific circulation as a result of the project. Although the applicant expressed that this report was being prepared, it was not possible to complete the report within the strict timelines required by AB 130 and the City cannot delay the decision on the project because one has not yet been provided. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to require the preparation of this report and that recommended measures identified in the report to address safety be implemented and reflected in the plans submitted for building permit.
Parking and Loading
The project includes 391 parking spaces, exceeding the 321 spaces required under the Zoning Code. Of the provided spaces, 321 would be electric vehicle (EV)–capable, including 45 tandem spaces, two accessible EV spaces, and one van-accessible EV space. Bicycle parking is provided within the parking garage near the El Camino Real frontage and includes 280 long-term bicycle spaces. An additional 12 short-term bicycle racks are located within the front setback along El Camino Real. The Zoning Code requires 321 total bicycle spaces as well as 32 short-term spaces.
Staff has strongly encouraged the applicant to consider adding more bicycle parking in conformance with the code requirements, especially given that the project has more than the required vehicular parking, some of which could be used to provide additional bicycle parking.
The project includes one required loading space for developments with more than 50 units in conformance with PAMC Chapter 18.24 objective standards. However, the loading space is not consistently shown across plan sheets. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to ensure that this off-site loading space is provided. Some plan sheets also show an on-street loading area for both Matadero Avenue and Kendall Avenue. The loading space on Kendall Avenue is designed for refuse pickup. Given that: 1) Matadero Avenue is a Safe Routes to 3 June 15, 2020, City Council Resolution 9894 (Palo Alto Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy):
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=61625&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto School Route; 2) a loading space is already provided within the parking garage adjacent to the lobby; 3) additional loading spaces are not required; and 4) the applicant does not have rights to the City’s right-of-way, a condition of approval has been added requiring that the proposed loading zone on Matadero Avenue be removed on the plans submitted for building permit.
Title 8 Consistency (Trees)
A total of 42 existing trees representing 13 species were assessed in the Preliminary Arborist Report dated November 5, 2025, by HortScience, Bartlett Consulting. Of the 42 trees documented on and off-site, a total of 31 trees is recommended to be removed due to low suitability for preservation with construction activities. A total of two on-site trees would be preserved. The project proposes 126 new trees along property lines, as street trees, and within open space areas for a total of 128 trees. Tree replacement mitigation values for the project are further detailed in the Tree Disposition Table (L-5.4) of the plan set, see Attachment G.
Title 21 Consistency (Subdivision Requirements)
Review and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map are governed by PAMC Title 21 and the State Subdivision Map Act (SMA). Except as otherwise provided in Title 21, all provisions, requirements and procedures set forth in the SMA shall be followed. The SMA provides “reverse” findings for map approval (Section 66474 of the Government Code). On February 11, 2026, the PTC recommended that Council deny the Vesting Tentative map based on Finding #6, citing potential public safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians along safe routes to school.
Because the City has very limited discretion to deny the vesting tentative map under the HAA, the findings in Attachment B reflect the PTCs concerns but nonetheless make the findings necessary for approval.
Staff will be submitting a supplemental report for this project to update Attachment B to incorporate updated drainage conditions of approval.
Application Consistency
As detailed in Attachment B, staff finds that this project meets the required findings for a Major Architectural Review and Vesting Tentative Map. However, the project is not consistent with several provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code.
Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, the City is required to approve the project pursuant to State law. Specifically, although the project deviates from local standards, such deviations are permitted under applicable State law, including the State Density Bonus Law, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Builder’s Remedy.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Processing of this application has limited fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The proposed improvements are anticipated to increase the assessed value of the subject property, which will generate additional property tax for the City. Palo Alto receives approximately 9.4% of the additional property tax generated. This project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $16,719,081.12, plus the applicable public art fee. These fees are required to either be paid at building permit issuance or, with the recordation of a lien on the property, may deferred until occupancy.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 3, 2026, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 1, 2026, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, the City has received multiple comments from interested stakeholders which are included in Attachment E. Some of the key comments raised include:
Driveway location and site access design, including potential conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians along Matadero Avenue.
Public safety risks during catastrophic events, including earthquakes and fires. Potential impacts to safe routes to school.
The public benefit of delivering approximately 300 new rental housing units.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. On September 22, 2025, the applicant requested that the project be considered exempt under AB 130 [Public Resources Code section 21080.66]. AB 130 exempts many infill housing projects from CEQA and additionally sets strict timelines for City review and decision. The City evaluated the project for its eligibility under AB 130 and found that the project is eligible. The City sent letters in accordance with AB 130 inviting tribes to participate in consultation on the project in accordance with state laws. The City received two requests for consultation from Tamien Nation and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area in accordance with tribal consultation periods provided under AB 130. The City consulted with each of these tribes and sent proposed conditions of approval in accordance with the recommendations identified by each of these tribes during the consultation process. Although the City did not receive a formal response from either tribe confirming that consultation was complete, AB 130 limits the allowed timelines for consultation and, accordingly, Tribal consultation was considered complete on January 26, 2026. The proposed conditions of approval, as presented to the tribes, are incorporated in Attachment B.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment C: Zoning Consistency
Attachment D: Objective Standards Consistency Analysis
Attachment E: Public Comments
Attachment F: Applicant’s Project Description
Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director