Commission studies expansion and standards for El Camino Real focus area; no vote taken

The Planning and Transportation Commission held a study session Dec. 17, 2024, to review possible geographic expansion and development‑standard changes to the El Camino Real focus area. Staff presented tiered mapping that prioritized larger parcels and opportunity sites nearest transit for inclusion; commissioners generally supported examining tier‑1 and tier‑2 parcels further but asked staff to return with more detailed analyses of daylight‑plane/height transitions, retail nodes and consolidation incentives. No formal vote was taken.

Why it matters: The El Camino Real focus area code (adopted January 2024 as part of housing element implementation) provides increased height and FAR in exchange for on‑site below‑market housing. Any expansion or change to the focus area determines where taller, higher‑density mixed‑use development is encouraged — affecting neighborhoods, retail corridors and traffic patterns along the city’s primary arterial.

Staff presentation and criteria

Jean Eisberg, the planning presenter, summarized the focus area’s purpose as an alternative to the state density‑bonus and builder’s‑remedy paths, intended to encourage on‑site lower‑income housing on larger corridor sites. Staff proposed a four‑tier map for potential expansion; tier‑1 sites were largest and best‑sited for higher limits (near California Avenue and consolidated parcels), tier‑2 included other plausible candidates, while tier‑3 and tier‑4 contained smaller, shallower parcels where redevelopment would be more difficult and inappropriate for full focus‑area standards.

Eisberg said the focus‑area package adopted earlier includes a maximum 85‑foot height and 4.0 FAR on certain sites and a daylight‑plane and height‑transition requirement where the Focus Area abuts lower‑density residential zones. She asked commissioners whether standards should differ for expanded areas (for example lower maximums where sites are smaller or farther from transit), and whether the El Camino fronting step‑back should be modified to allow more massing on the El Camino frontage.

State law note

Staff noted an incoming state change: a bill (referred to in the meeting as "bill 1893," effective Jan. 1, 2025) modifies the Housing Accountability Act and alters compliance options for builder’s‑remedy projects, potentially allowing lower on‑site affordability percentages under some alternatives. Eisberg flagged this as background context affecting how the focus area and alternative compliance pathways compare to state options.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns

Three speakers addressed the study session. Developer‑owner Peter Giovannato spoke in favor of expansion, saying he supports the city's vision and has properties he hopes to align with the focus‑area standards. Amy Ashton of Palo Alto Forward urged front‑loading units on El Camino and loosening daylight‑plane and step‑back constraints to improve feasibility. Barron Park resident Winter Dallenbach urged exclusion of a four‑block stretch from Matadero to Los Robles to preserve a safe route to school and neighborhood retail, and noted a cluster of builder’s‑remedy and preapplications already proposed in the corridor.

Commissioner discussion and technical issues

Commissioners discussed several recurring technical trade‑offs:

- Daylight plane vs. step‑back: Several commissioners said the current combination produced awkward unused vertical volume along some rear property lines where focus‑area parcels abut R‑1 lots. Commissioners suggested staff model alternative angles (30°, 45°, 60°) and stepped daylight‑plane approaches to find options that protect neighbors while avoiding wasted buildable volume.

- Lot consolidation incentives: Commissioners asked staff to explore incentives for parcel assemblage (for example, higher standards only if a project assembles parcels beyond a set size) to make small, shallow lots viable without broadly applying the highest focus‑area standards to every parcel.

- Step‑back on El Camino frontage: Multiple commissioners supported reducing the large 20‑foot front step‑back used in some areas, noting a smaller step‑back can still produce a less imposing street wall while allowing more usable ground‑floor space for retail or lobbies. Commissioners also asked staff to consider pedestrian and bicycle corridor widths in any setback decisions.

- Parking and shared parking: Commissioners asked whether shared parking and consolidation could reduce the need for on‑site parking and improve feasibility on shallow sites, particularly in tier‑2 areas.

Next steps and timeline

Staff said it will take the commission’s input to the Architecture Review Board this week for additional comment, prepare a draft ordinance reflecting the direction given, and return to the commission before referral to Council. The housing element established a goal to adopt this program in the first half of next year; staff indicated additional review steps likely in spring depending on the extent of expansion and technical refinements requested.

Ending

The commission provided direction to staff rather than a formal recommendation: staff will study tier‑1 and tier‑2 expansion candidates, model daylight‑plane alternatives and stepped approaches, develop parcel‑assembly incentives, and return with a draft ordinance and supporting analysis for further review. Commissioners also asked staff to consider neighborhood impacts, safe routes to school, and retail‑preservation trade‑offs when preparing the next draft.