Planning commission recommends approval of vesting tentative map for two El Camino Real parcels, 29 condo units

The Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission voted 6-0 on Wednesday to recommend that the City Council approve a vesting tentative map allowing two condominium subdivisions at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real that together would create 29 units.

Project planner Emily Callas presented the staff report and said the proposal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline 15332, the “infill” exemption for small urban projects. "This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with guideline 15332, otherwise known as a class 32 exemption for infill development," Callas said. The commission also heard a presentation from the applicant, Summerhill Homes.

The map would split an existing 1.35-acre site into two single-lot condominium subdivisions: one parcel for eight units (approximately 17,400 square feet) and a second parcel for 21 units (about 41,370 square feet). The proposal includes private streets, with minimum pavement widths to meet Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 21 minimums, and private access easements. Summerhill told the commission the project will be all-electric, with solar on buildings and garages wired for level 2 EV chargers.

Why it matters: The map changes the method of ownership (from single-owner lots to condominiums) and is a necessary step for a project that staff said otherwise meets the city’s streamlined housing development review process. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions.

Details and debate: Staff said the parcels are in the Commercial Service (CS) zone, which does not impose a minimum lot size for this use. Summerhill’s development manager, Austin Lin, described the firm’s Bay Area experience and noted the project’s affordability commitment. John Hickey, Summerhill’s vice president of development, said higher-density “stacked” condominium products would be required to reach a substantially larger unit count and are more expensive and harder to finance, which is why the firm proposed 29 townhome-style units.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions on several technical points. Commissioner Heckman (Planning and Transportation Commission) asked about the scope of the hearing, and staff emphasized the commission’s role was limited to findings for the vesting tentative map rather than architectural approvals handled through the city’s streamlined review. Commissioner Heckman also asked about the project’s trip generation; staff said the CEQA analysis estimated a net increase of about 76 daily vehicle trips and a peak-hour change ranging from minus 1 to plus 5 trips, depending on the hour.

Commissioner Peterson asked about the adjacent parcel 1B shown in the packet; staff clarified the GIS parcel boundaries and noted Parcel 1B is not part of the applicant’s site and therefore cannot be included in this tentative map decision. Commissioner Suma asked about tree removal; staff and the applicant said tree and landscape issues were addressed during the streamlined review and that existing site constraints (utilities, grading, emergency-access requirements) limit the possibility of saving large on-site trees.

Affordable units and conditions: The applicant and staff said the project complies with the city’s affordable‑housing ordinance by proposing four on-site units described as deed‑restricted to moderate‑income households and a fractional in‑lieu fee. During discussion, the applicant characterized the on-site affordable units as “moderate income” and indicated they would be within the ranges associated with the city’s density bonus and streamlined housing rules. The tentative map’s conditions include a two‑year map expiration provision with extensions per the Subdivision Map Act; staff noted an inconsistency in packet numbering that will be corrected before Council review.

Vote and next steps: Commissioner Heckman moved the staff recommendation; Commissioner Peterson seconded. The commission voted 6-0 in favor (Commissioners Suma, Peterson, Vice Chair Aiken, Chair Chang, Commissioner G and Commissioner Heckman voting yes), and the commission’s recommendation will now be transmitted to the City Council for final action.

The project planner said standard conditions and technical edits in the record of land use approval will be corrected in the version that goes to council.