HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-06 City Council (28)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:APRIL 6, 1998 CMR:173:98
SUBJECT:STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION ON
KEY PLANNING ISSUES OF THE PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED
AREA PLAN PROCESS
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report provides to Council a mid-point check in the process. There are a number of
areas where the Working Group has reached tentative agreement. This report requests
Council review and confirmation of these areas of tentative agreement, as well as policy
guidance from the Council on the following prior to formulation of a preferred alternative
or plan concept.
1.Housing density: What density or level ofhousingproduction is desired?
2.Affordable housing: How much and what type of affordable housing are desired?
3.Open space/parks: What level of open space and/or park will the City support?
Parking: To what degree are reductions in parking requirements appropriate in
the SOFA area? To what extent is the City willing to participate in the development
of structured parking ?
Building heights/bulk/mass in SOFA: How much floor area ratio, building height
and bulk is appropriate?
CMR:173:98 Page 1 of 13
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review, comment and provide general direction
regarding the key planning issues identified in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of
Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Coordinated Area Planning process to date.
BACKGROUND
As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
and the Planning Commission recommended the use of the "Coordinated Area Plan" (CAP)
as an important planning and governance implementation mechanism for the new
Comprehensive Plan. Council approved specific procedures for the preparation of CAP’s
with the following purpose:
To create enhanced opportunities for building a sense of community through public
involvement in the planning process.
To emphasize and enhance architectura! qualities, public improvements, and site
design by providing a graphic, visual linkage between policies and programs
established in the Comprehensive Plan.
3.To facilitate physical change by each of the following:
ao Accelerate and coordinate the planning process within selected areas so that
private development and reuse can proceed under streamlined development
review processes.
Encourage rational private investment by providing specific, dependable
information about the design requirements, development standards, and uses
allowed on a particular site.
Co Analyze and consider the economic envirohment so that the planning process
works in conjunction with the market place, rather than independent of it.
The City Council, in January 1996, recommended the CAP process be utilized in conjunction
with the development of a plan for reuse of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation site. The CAP
study area includes the SOFA commercial area and is bounded by Alma Street, Addison
Avenue, Kipling Street and Forest Avenue (see Attachment A).
On September 22, 1997, the Council approved a Policy Framework outlining 13 specific
goals and objectives for the PAMF/SOFA planning process that would lead to the
preparation of the final CAP (see Attachment B). The Council appointed a 14-member
working group (WG) and 5 altemates to advise staff, the consultants, boards and
commissions, and Council on preparation of the Plan. Since September, the WG, the
CMR: 173:98 Page 2 of 13
consultants and staff have been working towards preparation of the Plan, including the
following
¯
Completion of seven WG meetings;
Completion of three meetings with the Technical Advisory Group (composed of City
staff):
Publication of an existing conditions report in November 1997 (see Attachment F);
Preparation of three concept plans, exploring various options for development of the
area; and
Completion of a Community Update Forum, attended by more than 90 individuals on
March 10, 1998. (See Attachments C and D for a summary of the meeting.)
Because of the great interest in the development of the plan, staff has encouraged active
participation by the WG alternates and publicin all meetings. Approximately 35 to 40
individuals have attended each WG meeting.
The WG was divided into three subgroups to encourage greater interaction and discussion.
These groups have each developed concepts with varying ideas as possibilities for inclusion
in the final plan. It is from these concepts and discussions that the areas requiring policy
direction in this staff report are derived. The three concepts will be presented to the Council
at the April 6 meeting, and a graphic representation is attached as Attachment E. This mid-
point check in the process is intended to secure policy guidance from the Council prior to the
formulation of a preferred alternative or plan concept.
DISCUSSION
The first section below, "WG Areas of General Agreement," outlines the various areas in
which the WG has reached general agreement. This is not a consensus, but a general
acceptance by a majority of the WG. Staffis seeking review from Council to determine if
it has any significant policy concerns with these areas.
The section following "WG Areas of General Agreement" is titled "Areas RequiringPolicy
Direction," and identifies those areas where general agreement either has not been reached
or policy issues exist relative to the Policy Framework approved by Council. Specific
questions are provided in order to facilitate the Council’s discussion and direction.
WG AREAS OF GENERAL AGREEMENT:
1. Retail: New and existing retail uses in the area should be neighborhood oriented and
not regional serving. The amount of retail should be driven by market forces and
concentrated near the existing center of SOFA retail on Emerson Street and Homer
Avenue.
t ÷ Railroad crossing: The WG agreed a crossing from the study area to the west side
of the Joint Powers Board right-of-way and the new PAMF medical facility should
CMR:173:98 Page 3 of 13
be developed when adequate funding is secured. Implementation of the crossing is
not seen as imperative to implementation of the PAMF/SOFA plan and would not be
the priority for use of funds in the PAMF/SOFA area. (Note: A consultant to do the
design and feasibility was selected during the initial consultant process. A Budget
Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $33,000 to complete the railroad crossing
study is a separate item on this Council agenda.)
o Street character: Pedestrian amenities and character should be emphasized in all
proposed projects and design proposals. Buildings and structures should respect the
existing heights and setbacks in the residential areas, (i.e. average street setbacks and
one- to two-story buildings). Developers of proposed commercial and mixed use
projects should not be allowed to construct large monolithic buildings. Varying street
frontages, setbacks, courtyards and entryways should be required to continue and
enhance the highly textured form of the existing physical environment. Height in
commercial areas would typically be two to three stories.
Mixed use: Mixed use development should be encouraged in the southwest part of
the study area, in the existing CD-S zoned areas (generally between Alma and
Emerson Streets and between Forest and Addison). Mixed use could be either be
vertical or horizontal in form and should emphasize housing instead of office uses.
The WG also discussed potential reductions in parking requirements for sharing of
spaces based upon mix of uses and peak times of usage. See the discussions below
on density, massing and parking for issues on number of housing units, bulk of
buildings and parking.
Automobile service uses: The Policy Framework states, "Examine the special
requirements of automobile service, convenience service and retail business requiring
automobile access and parking, to determine measures to preserve the economic
viability of these businesses while reducing impacts on adjacent uses." The WG
suggested the existing uses should be allowed to remain and any new automobile
uses should be limited to Alma, High and Emerson. Limiting development potential
to the current zoning or encouraging shared or remote facilities parking was also
discussed but was generally discarded as an option. Generally, it was felt that these
uses should continue to be controlled by market forces and that special City policy
and regulatory efforts to retain the uses are not required. The overall opinion was
that, since the proposed mixed use development of residential and limited office space
has strong market demand, these uses are likely to displhce existing auto and other
service commercial uses over time.
Historic structures/buildings: Strong support exists for the preservation and reuse
of many of the historic buildings within the study area, with PAMF supporting such
measures for buildings it owns provided there is an economic return to PAMF.
CMR:173:98 Page 4 of 13
Approximately 100 properties are under review for. determination as to the validity
of being a "historic resource. This analysis is dependent upon the City’s ongoing
Historic Inventory update. Therefore, the detailed analysis shall be completed at a
later date. Staff is of the opinion, given the large number of historic resources within
the Study Area, that future development proposals will need to carefully consider
existing neighborhood character in developing compatible infill projects.
Compatibility may be achieved through adopting site planning approaches that are
consistent with historic patterns, and through developing a new architectural character
that respects the massing; size and scale of existing historic structures.
Some of the historic buildings within the study area include: the Roth Building at 300
Homer, AME Zion Church at 819 Ramona, French Laundry at 260 Homer, 737
Bryant offices in a former residential building, four residences in the 800 block of
Bryant Street, and the Williams House and Garden. In addition, nine residential
properties within the Study Area overlap with the Professorville National Register
Historic District.
7.
8.
Since the Historic Inventory is currently being updated, and the new Historic
Preservation Ordinance is intended to provide incentives and regulations to encourage
preservation, the focus of the CAP should be to supplement these citywide efforts for
unique buildings and to clarify objectives for the degree ofbuildingpreservation and
reuse on PAMF lands, since these face immediate reuse or redevelopment. Clarifying
the direct role, if any, the City might play through siting of community facilities and
child care within or in conjunction with reuse of historic buildings is also important.
All of the above items will be further researched in terms of the viability of reuse, and
recommendations will be provided upon finalization of the Plan.
Traffic patterns: " Initially the WG expressed support for converting Homer and
Channing from one-way to two-way streets for their entire length but concerns about
loading, trucks and the pedestrian crosswalk at Whole Foods Market prompted
additional discussions. Several alternatives have been suggested, including retention
of the one-way streets between Alma and the cross streets up to Waverley. High
Street should be maintained as one-way off University Avenue to allow for bus and
truck turning at that intersection. These issues will be addressed further in the
Environmental Impact Report and transportation analysis for the Plan concept.
Child Care and Community Facilities: There is general agreement on the need for
child care facilities. Discussion centered around how big a facility is appropriate to
serve the identified needs. The PAMF Development Agreement, as amended,
commits PAMF to lease the 12,500-square-foot site at Channing and Ramona to the
City for $1 per year for 35 years for child care purposes. This site, based upon the
size of the parcel, is estimated to accommodate a facility for 50 children which is the
minimum size for an efficiently operated center, with 75 children providing greater
CMR:173:98 Page 5 of 13
efficiency. Other possible locations for child care include the Roth Building or Dunn
Building, with suitability based on many criteria, including a required 75 square feet
of fenced open space per child that should not be shared with adjacent general use
parks, open space or other community facilities. This issue will be further addressed
as the study is finalized.
Relocation of other City facilities, such as the Downtown Library and a one-stop
permit counter, has not been sufficiently developed by the City to be realistically
included as a part of the Plan. City staffdoes not see the need for new City building
facilities in the area.
AREAS REQUIRING COUNCIL POLICY DIRECTION
1. Above-referenced WG areas of agreement: Are any of the above-referenced ideas
contrary to City Council policy and direction ?
Staff believes that all of the areas of general agreement are either in conformance with the
Council-adopted Policy Framework or require additional research/information that will
return to Council as the Plan is finalized.
2. Housing density: What density or level of housing production is desired?
The Council approved Policy Framework called for the following:
"Significant quantity of new housing with residential use as the predominant
¯ land use for the former PAMF sites. Allow for the possibility of live/work and
other residential uses within mixed use areas along Emerson, High and Alma
Streets. Considering the unique assets of this area, its proximity to jobs and
services and citywide and regional housing needs, allow a variety of housing
types especially affordable housing."
The discussions at the WG indicate a general agreement on the location of housing as
follows:
Lower density housing (7 - 12 dwelling units per acre) was suggested on the PAMF
main block (surrounded by Homer Avenue, Bryant Street, Channing Avenue and
Waverley Street). PAMF prefers single family housing with approximately 5,000-
to 6,000-square-foot lots (or 7-9 units per net acre) for the main block.
Slightly higher density housing on the block bounded by Bryant, Homer, Ramona and
Channing and the middle of the study area. The slightly higher densities discussed
for the south block and the middle part of the study area include townhouses and
apartments of 12 - 30 units per acre; however, the area contains numerous possible
historic structures that may not allow full development potential in number of units.
CMR: 173:98 Page 6 of 13
Higher densities have been discussed in the SOFA commercial area, but a range of
densities has not been established. Staff-generated prototypes suggest possible
densities of 20-50 units per acre.
Other suggestions by WG members include zoning to encourage rear cottages or other
detached housing patterns at a density of 9-15 units per acre.
Encouraged live/work housing.
The densities being discussed by the WG would result in a relatively low overall density and
low housing production. Under these parameters, housing production over ten years in the
SOFA area (excluding PAMF sites) could be expected to be between 150 and 350 units. The
proposed 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan notes the City still has not satisfied the housing
need of 1,244 units, with 63 percent of that need in affordable housing. If the Council desires
a higher production of housing units, the densities would need to be increased and minimum
densities or required numbers of units imposed. For example, if the PAMF main block were
developed in small lot (2,500 -3,500 square feet) single family housing with some second
units, similar to the project at the Times-Tribune site, or with bungalow courts, the number
of units would increase from 32 to approximately 64. Townhouse or some apartment designs
could increase th~ number of units to about 120. These estimates are very preliminary and
exclude any provision for retention of historic buildings or addition of community facilities,
parks or open space.
The possibility of live/work, mixed use and other housing types in the SOFA commercial
areas is consistent with the Policy Framework; but the actual number of housing units that
may be produced in the SOFA commercial area is somewhat difficult to estimate due to
numerous factors, including limited information on potential developer interest and financing
opportunities. The strength of both housing and office markets and recent mixed use
proposals in the area suggest there will be some redevelopment, however, if such
development is permitted or encouraged through incentives.
3.Affordable housing: How much and what type of affordable housing is desired ?
The Policy Framework specified that the housing proposed in the study area should allow for
a variety of housing types, "especially affordable housing." The WG had limited discussion
on "affordable housing" and the different varieties and types of housing. An outside group
has strongly advocated for an opportunity for a co-housing project. The issue of affordable
housing is related to the definition of affordable.
A simplified grouping of housing affordability opportunities might include: 1) Housing
aimed at people making less than 60 percent of median income. This requires housing
subsidies, some economies of scale and public sector participation. Projects in this category
are typically developed by non-profits such as Palo Alto Housing Corporation, which has
CMR: 173:98 Page 7 of 13
housing projects throughout the City. 2) The City’s Below Market Rate Housing (BMR)
program is aimed at individuals making between 80 and 100 percent of median income. The
redevelopment of the PAMF properties will be subject to the City’s BMR program at a rate
of 15 percent due to the size of the PAMF properties being in excess of 5 acres for all sites.
This program typically produces comparable units to others within a project and units
scattered throughout a project and the City. 3) The size of the lot and unit can produce
reduced cost in housing based on just the economics of smaller units; however, this may not
be considered affordable housing. Second units on a site or multiple units on a site can also
reduce housing cost per unit but may not be considered as affordable.
The development of more units will result in somewhat smaller units that may cost less and
thus be more "affordable." It will also result in an increase in the BMR units since they are
a percentage of units produced. The WG prefers scattered site affordable housing. However,
developing a housing project that is aimed at low and very low income families will require
additional subsidies and designation of a specific site that could be purchased at market rates
by a non-profit organization. Co-housing, which is the placement of residential units in a
cluster arrangement with kitchens and other uses shared in a community setting, might also
produce some affordability in housing, but would be market rate housing.
4.Open space/parks: What level of open space and/or park will the City support?
Considerable WG discussion has focused on the need for additional parks and open space in
the study area and responding to the needs generated by the increased housing. The
following options were suggested:
Two-acre park: The neighborhood representatives and residents strongly desire a
two-acre or larger park Similar to Johnson Park.
One-half-acre linear park: PAMF prefers a .5 acre linear open space in the midst of
residential housing.
Pocket Parks: Scattered "pocket parks" in addition to a larger park were suggested,
to be developed in conjunction with proposed commercial and housing projects.
Scott Park addition: Another option suggested was a 6 to 7 thousand-square-foot
addition to Scott Park, achieved by relocating the parking lot of the adjacent
convalescent center to the PAMF-owned parking lot on Channing.
Joint use facilities: Park/open space in conjunction with a community facility in the
rehabilitated Roth building or otherfacility.
Sale of Scott Park: The sale of Scott Park to obtain funds for a larger park was also
discussed, but was largely discounted due to the fact this requires voter approval.
CMR:173:98 Page 8 of 13
The provision of a two-acre park/open space area was also strongly supported by community
members at the Community Update Forum. Please refer to the rear portion of the
Community Update Forum notes for specific comments regarding the park issue (see
Attachment C). Limited discussion occurred as to whether the park should be active or
passive in nature. Other issues mentioned included whether the park should primarily serve
nearby residents, downtown employees or all City residents.
The primary issues with park and open space land are the initial cost to purchase the
property, development!improvement costs and the ongoing maintenance costs. The linear
open space and!or the lot exchange for Scott Park would have minimal acquisition costs. The
provision of a two-acre neighborhood park would require significant resources. Very
preliminary estimates of the cost to purchase the land would be between 4.3 and 8.7 million
dollars. Smaller parks or open space would be proportionately less costly. Development and
on-going maintenance of the park would be additional cost factors. Comprehensive Plan
policies on parks are discussed under Policy Implications.
Parking. To what degree are reductions in parking requirements appropriate in
the SOFA area? To what extent is the City willing to participate in the development
of structured parking ?
Parking in the PAMF/SOFA area and downtown area is limited, with an estimated deficit of
1,595 spaces in 1995 for the downtown area. Residents and the City have been discussing
various alternatives for implementing permit issued parking. Studies have shown that
housing within approximately 2,000 feet walking distance of transit and services reduces the
need for auto trips, but not necessarily the possession of an automobile. The location of
offices near transit similarly reduces the number of automobile trips and may translate into
a reduced need for parking. Mixed uses have also been shown to reduce the number of
required parking spaces by allowing for dual use of some spaces. This could have an impact
on the City’s requirements for providing parking spaces. For example, the City currently
requires 1.25 to 2 spaces for each residential unit, depending on the number of bedrooms.
This could be reduced to a flat rate of 1.5 for each unit. Parking for offices is required at 4
spaces for each 1,000 gross square feet of floor area. Since .the City uses a very conservative
method to calculate floor area, this could be reduced to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Further adjustments could be made based upon shared uses or implementation of a plan to
reduce resident, visitor and employee use of automobiles. With a deficit of parking in the
area, any reduction in parking requirements that is not associated with actual demand could
have unintended consequences.
Development of a parking structure would be very difficult, since the amount of assessment
that would have to be placed on each property owner per space provided would be greater
than that in the downtown area due to the limited number of properties available to assess.
In addition, it is not likely that a new assessment district could be combined with the existing
CMR: 173:98 Page 9 of 13
downtown district due to the distance of the benefits from the majority of the existing district.
Finally, finding a suitable site for development of a parking structure would be difficult..
One option suggested at the Community Forum was to provide a parking structure beneath
the proposed park on the PAMF main block. Staffnotes this option reduces land acquisition
costs for parking but would involve costly underground construction and ventilation and
some impacts on the design and landscaping of the open space. In addition, the location
would be on the edge of the commercial areas.
Building heights/bulk/mass in SOFA commercial area: How much floor area ratio,
building height and bulk is appropriate?
In the SOFA commercial area, the WG generally supports predoIninantly buildings 0ftwo
to three stories, to create a transition between 1-2 story low density residential development
and taller buildings up to 4 stories toward downtown and Alma. The WG has agreed that the
height and mass of structures could increase closer to Alma Street and the downtown core;
however, some WG members felt that the two newer, taller buildings on Alma Street are
starting to create a "canyon" that should not be allowed to develop further. Monolithic
buildings of a single design are opposed by most WG members, and the size of offices and
store frontages should be limited to retain the pedestrian character and feel of the area.
In order to increase residential density and allow for sufficient parking and office space to
create change, the mass and bulk of the buildings must be correspondingly increased. The
two buildings recently constructed (the Alma Place single room occupancy residence hotel
at 753 Alma and the mixed-use office and residential at 901-909 Alma) and one building
proposed for 800 High Street necessitate large parking areas and .buildings of increased mass
in order to make an economically viable project. In the SOFA area, if redevelopment into
mixed use is desired, FAR will probably need to be increased to 1.5 to 2.5 and a height of at
least three stories be permitted to offset costs and the requirements for structured parking.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The evolving Coordinated Area Plan as envisioned by the Working Group has a limited
number of items which will create costs for the City. While the plan has not been subjected
to detailed fiscal impact analysis at this early date, the range and mix of land uses being
discussed generally do not create significant cost burdens for the City. However, the
evolving plan concepts do contain several items which would require substantial funding
including a neighborhood park, potential supplements to the plans for child care facilities
in the area, and as a lesser priority, the construction of a-railroad crossing at Homer Avenue.
Interest in the neighborhood park is the priority of the Working Group with respect to
components of the plan that would require funding sources.
The Working Group has devoted considerable discussion to the issue of providing funding
for the neighborhood park. Funding sources discussed to date, separately or combined,
CMR: 173:98 Page 10 of 13
include the commitment of City General Fund money, donation of land by the PAMF, the
donation of money for land by individuals or organizations, the creation of park impact fees,
and/or the creation of assessment districts to charge facility users. All discussions regarding
these options have been preliminary. The policy framework notes that "Any City
participation in project is subject to Council direction and competition from other City
projects fo~’ City resources."
A memorandum was prepared by the project economic consultants to respond to several
specific WG questions. These questions related to potential land value within the area
depending on the allowed land use, potential financing mechanisms or funding sources for
)’wish list" items such as a park or child care facilities, and relative levels of development
fees in Palo Alto compared to neighboring jurisdictions. The memorandum is exploratory
in nature, andwas intended to be a starting point for Working Group discussion of these
issues. It is important to note that the memorandum does not address the feasibility of the
potential funding sources nor does it attempt to address other programs or needs (e.g.,
funding for the Infrastructure Management Program, a new Public Safety Building) that may
compete with the PAMF/SOFA Plan for funding. In many cases, the information provided
allowed the WG to focus on more feasible mechanisms. None of the items discussed in the
memo should be misconstrued as consultant, staff, or Working Group recommendations.
This memo, as well a background economic conditions report has been attached to this CMR.
Staff from the City Technical Advisory Group.intend to meet with the WG in the next two
months to review the larger picture of City infrastructure needs and funding requirements,
in order to provide a context for WG proposals.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Except as noted above, the WG options are generally consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Policy Framework, the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines.
The WG has had significant discussion as to how the Comprehensive Plan policies relate to
the provision of parks and open space in the area. Due to this discussion, staff has developed
a more detail analysis of this area.
On December 2, 1997, The City Council tentatively approved changes to the Draft
Comprehensive Plan, which will return in the next several months for .Council adoption. The
Draft Plan contains the following policies and programs for parks and open .space:
Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet
the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
2. Program C-25: Consider potential park sites when preparing coordinated area plans.
CMR:173:98 Page 11 of 13
o Program C-26: In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of
park, plaza, or other public gathering places that meet neighborhood needs.
Policy C-28: Use National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines
for locating and developing new parks. These standards are hold that neighborhood
parks should be at least two acres in size, although sites as small as one half acre may
be used as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be on-
half mile. Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for every 1,000
people.
Staff notes these guidelines are used to determine if the City has an adequate total quantity
of various types of parkland, to determine ifa neighborhood has adequate park opportunities
within a reasonable distance, and to determine the relative need for park land of a particular
development proposal.
Relative to overall parkland quantity, the City currently has a total of nineteen neighborhood
parks totaling approximately 38 acres. Eleven of these neighborhood parks meet the
guideline of two or more acres. The total acreage of the nineteen parks, plus 26 acres of
playground available on elementary school grounds, is approximately 65 acres. This
represents approximately 56 percent of the 116 acres which would be required to meet the
Comprehensive Plan neighborhood park acreage guideline. The City has ten district parks
which provide approximately 152 acres of parkland, plus approximately 40 acres of turf areas
at high school and middle schools. This quantity of district park exceeds the Comprehensive
Plan guideline for district park by approximately 75 acres or approximately 65 percent.
As with all neighborhoods in the City, the University South Neighborhood does not contain
enough park acreage to meet the guideline of two acres per 1,000 residents. The planning
area currently contains Scott Park, which is .4 acres. This park contains sitting areas, limited
children’s play equipment, a basketball court, and a grass area. Barbecue pits were removed
at the request of neighbors. Johnson Park (2.5 acres) is within the one half mile service
radius guideline of approximately one third of the Planning area. Addison School grounds
are within the one half mile service radius guideline of approximately two thirds of the
planning area. The Bowling Green Park is within the one half mile service radius guideline
of approximately one fourth of the planning area.
Based upon the WG proposed density discussed to date, which would result in the
construction of approximately 250 housing units, and assuming 2.5 persons per household,
the need for parkland attributable to new development would be approximately 1.25 acres.
TIMELINE
Upon Council policy direction, staff and consultants will begin preparation of the draft
Coordinated Area Plan using the ideas and options supported by the WG. The WG will
continue to provide input and a forum for public discussion through approximately June
CMR:173:98 Page 12 of 13
1998, as the Plan is prepared. Staff will retum to the City Council in late summer with
recommendations regarding the plan for the PAMF/SOFA study area and return to Council
for review and approval of the final plan and Environmental Impact Report in the Fall of
1998. The draft Coordinated Area Plan will undergo public review by relevant commissions
over the Summer of 1998 and return to Council for review and approval in Fall of 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared for the Coordinated Area Plan.
The EIR will evaluate a range of alternatives and options.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Area Map
Attachment B - Policy Framework adopted by City Council on 9/22/97
Attachment C - Summary of the Community Update Forum
Attachment D - Graphic representation of the public comments received at the Community
Update Forum
Attachment E - Three maps of ideas for discussion, formulated by the Working Group
Attachment F - Existing Conditions report (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Eric Riel, Jr. Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CC:PAMF/SOFA Working Group Members
Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
CMR: 173:98 Page 13 of 13
Attachment A
Legend
ooo~PAMF/SOFA Plan Boundary
The City of
Palo A1 to
PC-2830
PAMF/SOFA
Coordinated Area
Plan Boundaries
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Attachment B
PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
POLICY FRAMEWORK
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 22, 1997
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PLAN
Design Character, Scale and Compatibility.
Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of development, the high degree of visual
interest, and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern. Facilitate
implementation of the Plan by providing development standards and design guidelines to
help ensure the compatibility of uses, to reduce potential conflicts and to provide for
compatibility in character, scale and massing.
Mixed Use (2haracter and Compatibility_
Preserve and enhance the historically mixed-use character of the area. Identify
appropriate and mutually compatible uses that provide vitality and convenience for
residents, businesses and visitors.
Economic Feasibili .ty
The Plan must be economically feasible and desirable in order to facilitate sale and
redevelopment of Palo Alto Medical Foundation properties. Avoid potential negative
impacts of vacant and underutilized facilities. Any City participation in project is subject
to Council direction and competition from other City projects for City resources.
Walkable Neighborhood
Reinforcement of the neighborhood as a walkable area providing convenient access to
services and facilities.
Reduce. Traffic Impacts
Evaluate re-establishing Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue as two-way streets in
order to reduce the speed and impact of traffic through this residential and mixed use
neighborhood. Consider opportunities for establishment of new alleys and use of existing
alleys consistent with the historic development pattern of the area. The replacement of a
two-way couplet with two way streets may be more appropriate to the predominantly
residential character envisaged for future use and integration of the PAMF sites with the
adjacent neighborhoods.
S :\PLAN~PLADIV\CMR\PSOBJEC
Transit and Bicycle Accessibility
Take advantage of existing transit connections at the University Avenue multi-modal
transit facility and access to local and regional destinations. Identify opportunities for
improving existing service or adding new transit service. Coordinate with other studies
on transit services. Promote increased bicycle use by commuters, residents, visitors and
customers by reinforcing existing bicycle routes and providing safe and convenient
bicycle parking and storage related facilities.
Housing
Provide a significant quantity of new housing, with residential use as the predominant
land use for the former PAMF sites. Allow for the possibility of live-work and other
residential uses within the mixed use areas along Emerson, High and Alma Streets.
Considering the unique assets of this area, its proximity to jobs and services and citywide
and regional housing needs, allow a variety of housing types especially affordable
housing.
Historic Preservation
Identify historically significant and contributing structures in the South of Forest Area
and encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of landmark structures.
Evaluate preservation and continued use of contributing structures that compose the
heritage of the South of Forest Area. Recognize that in order to achieve other plan
objectives, not all historical structures may be able to be preserved, and examine
altematives including preservation, alteration, demolition and relocation.
Relationship to Downtown Commercial District
Clarify the relationship between SOFA commercial and mixed use area and downtown.
Reinforce the potential for complementary uses in the area that support the vitality of
downtown uses serving the city and region. Plan for convenient neighborhood and local
commercial uses and services, including automobile repair, hardware and sundries.
Automobile Service and Other Service Uses
Examine the special requirements of automobile service, convenience service and retail
business requiring automobile access and parking, to determine .measures to preserve the
economic viability of these businesses while reducing impacts on adjacent uses.
Heritage Trees, Street Trees and Landscaping
Reinforce the overall pattern of significant street trees, and preserve heritage oaks and
other large trees wherever possible as an important asset for future development and the
neighborhood. Reinforce and continue other landscaping and planting patterns.
S :\PLAN\PLADIV\CMR\PSOBJEC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access across Caltrain Tracks
Conduct feasibility study to thoroughly explore all possible means (over, under and
across) for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain tracks to
provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the downtown arid South of Forest Areas to
the Urban Lane area.
Community Facilities
Pursue opportunities for public facilities in the area including but not limited to open
space, parks, plazas, child care, art, library and other such facilities.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS:
Working Group Role
The role of the Working Group will be to advise the City Council, Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Public Arts
Commission (PAC), consultants and City staff on the issues, alternatives and substance of
the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The Council retains the ultimate decision
making responsibility for policy direction, plan content and Plan adoption. The Working
Group will meet approximately monthly to provide input, review and recommendations to
the staff and consultants. Neither consensus nor voting is required of the Working Group.
The Working Group will not have subcommittees but small task forces may be
constituted for maximum 1 to 2 month periods to address specific issues in more depth.
Product of Planning Process
The Plan and associated documents will be prepared by City staff and consultants under
the direction of the Chief Planning Official. The Plan shall be prepared in conformance
with the Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance and 15articularly Section 19.10.040, Contents
of Coordinated Area Plans. The Plan process will culminate in the preparation of the
Coordinated Area Plan for the PAMF/SOFA area that shall include:
Land Uses: A map designating all land uses consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning or a recommendation for changes. The Plan shall describe all
permitted and conditionally permitted uses and, for housing, minimum and
maximum densities.
Parcels: A map showing parcel and lot configurations, including but not limited to
size, orientation, easements and rights-of-way.
Infrastructure: Identification of public and private transportation, parks, open
space, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, sidewalks, plazas,
S :\PLAN\PLADIV\CMR\PSOBJEC
street trees, landscaping, art and other public improvements existing and proposed
for the area.
site Design: A plan showing specific site design objectives, primarily for PAMF-
owned parcels, including but not limited to building placement, orientation,
maximum building footprints, setbacks, mass, height, daylight plane, floor area, lot
coverage, open space and parking.
Design Guidelines: Architectural design guidelines that address each land use type,
street, park or public facility. Suggested typical or prototype elevations, facades,
roof types and materials are to be included.
Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with
specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well
as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected
economic benefits to the City and community.
Environmental: An Environmental Impact Report consistent with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act including alternatives to the Plan.
Implementation: A program of implementation measures to be coordinated with
the City’s Capital Improvement Program and including development regulations,
public works projects, application processing, infrastructure improvements and
financing.
Timeline for Plan Preparation
The goal for preparation of the Plan is to be available for public review by the various
City approving bodies by September 1, 1998 with an anticipated approval date no later
that October 31, 1998. Planning Commission and City Council review and policy
recommendations of Plan alternatives shall occur approximately halfway through the
process.
Process for Approvals Upon Plan Adoption
Upon plan adoption, development proposals in conformance to the Plan may be processed
as minor Architectural Review Board applications including staff approvals, thus
eliminating the requirement for further environmental review and HRB, ARB, Planning
Commission or City Council review. Development proposals found not to be consistent
with the Plan, will be processed as amendments to the Plan requiring review the Planning
Commission and City Council.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\CMRkPSOBJEC
Attachment C
PAMF SOFA COORDINA TED AREA PLAN
COMMUNITY UPDATE FORUM, MARCH 10, 1998, 7:00 PM
SYNOPSIS OF THE MEETING
GENERAL
On March 10, 1998, a Community Update Forum was held at the City of Palo Alto Council
Chambers. Members of the public and members of the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
Working Group were present along with City Staff and consultants. Lou Hexter of Moore
Iacofano Goltsman (MIG), Inc. facilitated the meeting. Approximately 70 members of the public
were in attendance.
The meeting opened with presentations on the Plan purpose, process and issues by Eric Riel, Jr.,
Chief Planning Official, and options and prototypes considered by Alison Kendall, Planning
Consultant. Following these presentations, three (3) members of the PAMF SOFA Working
Group gave presentations on the ideas discussed to date as to the progress of the development at
a plan. The meeting was then opened to public comment. The following is a summary of
questions and comments at the meeting by topic.
This synopsis is Outlined as follows:
¯Working Group presentation
¯Summary of public comments
¯Individual public commentsby topic
WORKING GR 0 UP PRESENTATION
Richard Rathbun, Open Space Representative on the Working Group, described concepts for the
following:
¯ Street character, historic preservation, the proposed park. Height and bulk on Alma
(generally 3 stories, about 35 feet). Concepts included variation in scale, setbacks, etc.
¯Character. Level of variation desired similar to Chantilly Courtyard, not Yosh’s blank
wall.
¯Open Space. Range of ideas included linear open space, pocket parks, 1 acre park,
expansion of Scott, 2-acre park. Strong favorite was the creation of a 2-acre park.
Judith Kemper, Homeowner Representative on the Working Group, described concepts for the
following:
°Housing. Integration with surrounding area.
¯Open Space. 20,000 SF donation by PAMF, supplement if possible.
¯RM15 near PAMF Research Building.
¯Mixed Use Prototypes. Increase Office FAR with Residential development.
-1-
Parking. Current City standards.
Child Care. Possibility of 4 options: Ramona Channing, Dunn, Roth or AME Zion.
Larry Hassett- Service Commercial Business Owner Representative on the Working Group
described the following:
¯Traffic. Pattems generally 2 way.
°Railroad Crossing. Not a top priority.
°Bike crossing safety. Easier with 1 way streets
¯Auto Service Uses. Options include limit new to High/Alma corridor, limit building
heights in that area to encourage retention of auto uses, grandfather existing,
SUMMAR Y OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Housing
Community opinion was that all types of housing that should be encouraged for the area varied
greatly. Some advocated higher densities on Ramona Street and towards the RR area. Some
favored single family homes. Affordable and senior housing was mentioned. Other alternatives
were co-housing, and "mother-in-law" units. Most people supported housing and land uses
consistent with the current patterns in the area. Many participants spoke about the legacy and
diversity of the community, and how important it was to maintain that diversify through a mix of
housing types and costs. It was suggested low income housing incentives should be established
to increase housing diversity.
Another point made was that important infrastructure needs had to be addressed if more
residential uses were going to be developed. Some mentioned were schools, parks, parking and
child care.
Park
Everyone strongly agreed that a community park was an important asset to the neighborhood and
its families. There was general support for as large a park as possible, with Johnson Park as a
model. The linear park and pocket park concepts would not cost the City any money, but any
other, larger park facility would require the City purchasing the property. Many suggested
looking for philanthropic community sources to pay for the park. Another suggested using Palo
Alto’s unique "fiber optic ring" as a resource to fund the park. Participants felt that a community
park was enough of a priority that they would be willing to work hard to find the money for it.
Traffic Patterns
Most community members supported changing Channing and Homer Avenues to two-way
streets. Advantages mentioned were:
-2-
o
o
o
Decreased vehicle speeds leading to greater safety
Less traffic, and less noise
A more even distribution of traffic on the neighborhood streets
However, there were some who did not want the change or who wanted the street to be one way
at Emerson:
¯Whole foods feared the two way traffic would endanger their customers or make it
difficult for large trucks to make deliveries in front of the store.
¯Others feared additional traffic impacts would occur on other surrounding streets and
asked that the alternatives be studied
Parking
Many community members noted a need for more parking in the area. Some suggestions
were:
Build an underground parking facility beneath the proposed park.
Create a voucher or permit parking system
Encourage the use of alternative transportation through shuttles or (ie transit pass,
etc.) incentives.
INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS B Y TOPIC
Housing
Affordability
¯ Mix affordable housing with.single family and mixed use, higher density housing. What
about senior housing?
¯Housing for low income people needed. Must have economies of scale to build it, but it can
be designed to fit in. Need to consider Palo Alto’s Job/Housing imbalance, lack of suitable
housing for young PC zones have been used to make low income housing available by
increasing the number of units.
¯Where is the senior or affordable housing? Affordable housing will be mixed in. The
working group did not discuss senior housing.
¯I’m concerned about increased densities on Ramona- it’s a narrow street, high density should
end closer to Alma (owner of several parcels on Ramona Street).
Housing Types
¯ Look at student rental units, mother in law units, incorporating rental housing with ownership
housing.
¯Include opportunities for Co-housing-can reduce traffic, increase sense of community.
Individuals own their own home, common house and facilities. Ideal site would be 1-2 acres,
15-20 or more units. Shared driveways and parking facilities-possible UG? Can offer
-3-
affordability, more diversity, seniors, single heads of households. Requirements for
Cohousing primarily large sites (1 acre ideal) with flexible zoning.
¯My fear is that we have lost too much middle class housing in the area. How can we ensure
that the area does not become one full of wealthy enclaves and one family 60-room homes?
¯Two or three story homes and businesses are not consistent with my vision of the
neighborhood. I want it to remain one story.
¯One of the most important assets this commtmity has is its elementary school, Addison. The
school is currently at capacity, as we are discussing adding in more residential units, some
advance planning needs to be done to accommodate the children in these families. We need
another elementary school.
¯One of the attractive parts of this community is its diversity of people. Affordable housing
needs to be included in new developments and can be well-integrated into the neighborhood,
especially if it is part of a larger development and has the economies of scale to make it
economically viable.
¯The public facilities in the area (parks, schools, etc.) are deteriorating, there needs to be more
money available through property taxes to pay for much needed maintenance. Single family
housing brings in the most property taxes, therefore we should support a plan with the most
single family housing units as possible.
Mixed Use
¯ I like the mixed use, diversified professorville. There is a legacy of income, architectural,
and age diversity. I would like to see houses allowed to build "mother in law" units to rent
out to college students.
¯It-sounds like everybody wants less traffic and more parking in their neighborhood. The
costs of parking structures and lots are at least $2,000/space/year. We should explore buying
people out of their cars. With $200,000 we could either buy 100 parking spaces or a
Marguerite-style extension for the neighborhood. We should also explore the Packard Eco-
Pass. Menlo Park has done analogous things and it has worked well.
¯I like the urbanity of the area and support more mixed use developments, retail, etc. Like loft/
live/work concept for traffic mitigation.
¯Channing does not need office or retail uses.
Neighborhood Retail
¯ Don’t need more office or retail-this area is so close to downtown.
Office
¯ We should utilize the "Fiber-Optic Ring" as a resource to attract businesses and people who
uniquely need that resource. The "Fiber-Optic Ring" gives Palo Alto a measure of prestige,
we are the first city to have a Web site, we have the highest intemet band width in the
country. We should be proud of this and take advantage of it.
¯Larry Hassett- Working Group interested in using income from ring to fund capital
improvements.
-4-
Auto Use
¯Like automobile uses, convenience of leaving car and taking train, mixture of uses. Resident
on Lincoln
Child Care/Community Facilities
¯ Need for community meeting rooms-no available facility in area. Should include classrooms
and public restrooms near downtown. (Elaine Meyer)
¯Major need for child care in are, especially infant care. Like idea of reusing Historic Roth
building, having it adjacent to park.
Open Space/Park
¯ A community park is a great resource for families. We should not let costs keep us from
pursuing the large park option. If we make it enough of a priority, I’m sure we can find the
money to buy the property.
¯Could Scott Street Park be given up for a bigger park across street (ie 5 acres, entire PAMF
main block? Response-considered by Working Group, but adjacent residents objected.
¯Scott Park and other parks are poorly maintained.
¯Resident Cowper/Homer priority is park with play areas for small children. Scott Park
almost unusable.
¯Park is needed; Comprehensive Plan says 2 acre park should be provided for every 1,000
persons, area has more than 1,000 residents. Need parks for kids to play, now must cross
Middlefield to Rinconada or use Scott. Need to have a plan, then resources can be found.
¯Lucinda Abbot, USNG Subcommittee Chair-PAMF SOFA, resident Lincoln Ave.
¯Support park with parking underneath.
¯Should seek funding from Packard Foundation or other philanthropists. Packard garage is
only a block away.
¯Recently, the Packard Foundation contributed $150 million for open space in California.
¯We should explore that resource, or the numerous other wealthy locals to contribute money
for the neighborhood park.
¯Should maximize open space and park- be unreasonable.
Historic Preservation/Building Reuse
¯ Historic character is highly valued, but need to avoid "Disneyesque Main Street
development". Need to think about what our legacy will be-look at concepts like cohousing
which build on historic patterns for new ways of living. (Carol Malcolm)
¯Should reuse Urgent Care Building for public facility-perhaps historic archive-includes
library, auditorium, meeting rooms, parking.
Traffic Patterns
¯Support Homer/Channing as 2 way streets
¯I do not want a road going through the large block between Channing and Homer [Block #2 ]
¯Whole Foods representative would like 2 way streets to end at Homer & Emerson; concerned
about danger to customers crossing two way traffic mid-block between store and parking lot.
-5-
¯Concerned about rationale for 2 way traffic-fears it will be confusing. Will there be more
traffic on other streets? Chuck Finney-Emerson St. Resident.
¯Small changes in speed affect safety, chance of serious injury - Patrick Siegman, Working
Group.
¯Traffic Noise on Homer is bad-would welcome change to two way. (Resident of 400 Block
Homer)
¯Traffic patterns will change, speeds are restricted by stop signs. Need to look at whole
picture of traffic throughout neighborhood. (Richard)
¯I live on Channing and would appreciate the decreased traffic and noise with a two-way
street. Could we also look into rerouting the noisy buses traveling on the street?
Parking
¯ Traffic and parking problems will most likely decrease once the PAMF clinic is gone, but I
still foresee parking problems. Is there any way to mitigate this, perhaps through a parking
voucher program?
¯I live in the area and have trouble parking. I think there should be an increase in the parking
requirements for any new housing so that the problem does not get worse.
¯The manner in which we deal with the traffic and parking problem in "Professorville" should
be holistic, looking at the entire neighborhood impacts rather than just how it will impact a
few streets.
¯What about parking under park? (Suggested by several participants)
¯Concerns about shortage of Whole Foods employee parking.
¯Parking at 1.25 spaces per unit is inadequate when most households have 2 or 3 cars. (Ira)
¯Use parking lots adjacent to Urgent Care for downtown parking.
¯Frequent events at Women’s Club and Catholic Church impact on street parking in
neighborhood. Clinic lot currently serves as overflow lot in weekend.
¯It sounds like everybody wants less traffic and more parking in their neighborhood. The
costs of parking structures and lots are at least $2,000/space/year. We should explore buying
people out of their cars. With $2-00,000 we could either buy 100 parking spaces or a
Marguerite-style extension for the neighborhood. We should also explore the Packard Eco-
Pass. By offering transit passes to employees, Varian increased transit use from 10% to 30%.
Menlo Park has done analogous things and it has worked well.
¯New Residential building near Menlo Park Caltrain with only 1 space per unit-in example in
Menlo Park, City pays residents transit passes.
Height/Bulk and Street Character ¯
¯ Dislike design and bulk of new building at Channing/Alma; concern if that would be allowed
in future
Other topics
o Process for Approval upon Plan Adoption
¯Need assurance that Plan objectives will be carded out, new development will be consistent
with Plan. (Ian)
-6-
I appreciate the work the group has done, but I’m concerned about the implementation. How
can we trust the architectural design review board if they let the unattractive building on
Channing and Alma be built?
How does the community ensure that the plan is adopted?
The coordinated area plan will include a design and implementation phase to ensure that the
plan is carried out. Additionally, a design review process will still occur for each proposed
development in the area, the community need~s to follow through on the plan and ensurethat
the Council and Planning Commission approve plans in accordance with the coordinated area
plan.
School Impacts
¯ Concern over school capacity. One of neighborhood attractions is kids walking to Addison
Elementary-need to plan ahead so neighborhood kids wont need to go to other schools.
¯Concern over school impacts - Jordan is in very poor condition. Need property tax revenue
to improve.
Economic Feasibility
¯These proposals seem very nice, but are they rooted in reality?
¯According to the economic consultant, single family houses translate to the biggest return for
the developer. Economic issues is going to be considered in the process, but the group
process is a little behind on this part of the project
Public Art
¯ Artist who designed mural on Substation between Ole’s and Hardware Store-designed to last
2 years, has been up for four. Suggest urging PA Utilities to get permanent design.---Marta
¯Mention Public Art in Design Guidelines?
CLOSING
¯In closing, the general public was very complimentary of the Working Group and Staff on the
amount of work completed to date and were pleased at the ability to have an opportunity to
provide input into the development of the plan at such an early stage and prior to the
development at the final plan.
¯Forum adjourned at 9:15 PM.
-7-
Attachment D
Attachment E
TRAFFIC PATI’ERNS:
Keep ~me way ~e~nen~ of Homer and
f~-ilimm lo~li~ ~xl m~ f~
9PEN SPACE / PARK:
Zone:
HOUSING:
DENSITY:
17~=.
f~ISTR~CT:
along Homer from Whole Foods to
CROSSING OPTION:HEIGHT/DESIGN ON ALMA:
Aver~ height of 40’ losest to dowa~w~
~ MU-75% l’Hn~m’ly Reaid~l I~xed Use
IDEAS FOR
DISCUSSION 1
PAMF/SOFA
Coordinated
.,,~’e a Plan
Attachment E
TRAFFIC PATFERNS:
Two way wt~ ~af~c calming, narrowing
Homer ~ nr~u~ t~ A~ ~eeds
OPEN.SPACE/.PARK:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
fo~ oml~l= mixed u~ [l~luding
HOUSING:
DENSITY:
Low to mod=~ d~n~y 9-17 u~ac.
Mixum~ of d~me.hed hot.rig ~ mode~a~
including bun~ow co~r~
wi~h re~ omg~.
/
:ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY /
Cn~ m A~e~m~n~ D/s~ as a tool
Beautification: Sce~n or pmbibk car
storage ~d pexking lot ou RR ~ide,
medi~l.
~ LD-RES, LowDcmiP/P,e~len~IDim~(9-13unka/a~:~)
~ IJ:)-MD Low to M=dium Density l~s~den~al Di~trk~ (9-17 tmlm/s=e)
~ RM-30 Medium Demity MuJtlple Family Resldence Dica~ (16-30
I MU-36% Prim~ilyNoo-~dentiaIMixrdU~
Alison K~ndall, AICP
Planning & Urban Iksign
T~nja Iviai
~c~l SL ~
~&U~
IDEAS FOR
DISCUSSION 2
PAMF/SOFA
Coordinated
Area Plan
Attachment E
why ~ two w~y
PAMF Main Block:
HISTORIC PP~SERVATION:
20,000 SF ~ FAR of.8
CROSSINO OPTION:
LD-RES (9-15
HOUSING:DENSITY:
Low d~ 9-13O~ ~ two m~i~ p~ 5,000 SP lot.
TYPES:
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY /
CAPITAL I~NANCE:
~ NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
~DISTRICT:
HEIGHT/DESIGN ON ALMA:
Alison Kendall, AICP
Planning & U~ba~ I~sign
Oraphtc~ & Deaign & Flaring
IDEAS FOR
DISCUSSION 3
PAMF/SOFA
Coordinated
Area Plar~