The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0493.000, , - • \ ' .... ~ . .'.'t.'. ;> ., ~,~ ;.S o o THE SU8JECT0:l THIS REPORT !SA COUNCIL PRIORITY , ----' HONORABlE CI1Y COUNCil Pila Alto" (aliforn;. Attention: finance and Public Works Committee ~mbers of the Cou~cil: ~tatemellt (If Pu_-,-,,~os_~_ On february ]3, 1990, the fi"anc~ and Public ~o~ks Committee {f&PW). after reviewing ".ayor Cobb's outline on eCQ(lQrnic trends and issues. reql1ested tl'lat staff provide information on the relationship between planning decis;ons and potential revenue impacts 00 t~e City. This staff report responds to that request ~ ~flENIJf: HIPACT ANAL YSI S Jhe contents Qf t~is report ..-jll include.: l} oil brief des.<:riptfon of the 'istory of revenue impact analysis im Pal~ Altors planning re~iew process; 2J an i~entificatfon of the principal revenues affected by planning decisions, partic~larl, 11 t~e prgject review process; 3J a d€scriptinn of the size of suc~ revenues 11 t~e (it1's general fund, ~;tk exampTes of amounts of revenues generated from specffic districts and ~ses; 4) a d;scwssicn of resources necessary to determfne potent1a1 revenue impacts; and 5) a discussion of options a~i11ab1e to the City in considering f~ture revenue impacts. A separate report address;ng re~evelopment issues and opportunities will be sellt tit the finance and Publ lC Works Committee h Ue flear future for re ... few at a subsequent meeting4 Hi s tor:I~ons i derit i on 0..f_!j_~_~~J ___ Jmpacts Consideratfon of potential locaT government revenue impacts ~as not been i s;gniffcant element of the land ~se planning and decision 4 making ~rocess in Pila Alt~ since the ]9605, ~hen (;tl revenues reached sufficient magnitude to cover betA operating and capital expenditures of tne (;tJ4 During the 1970s and 198Cs. d€velepment projects and changes i~ PiTo Alta land use po1icles and regulations were evaluated ;1 tne approval proc~ss according to Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies. zoning regulitions and, especiilly after appro,.l of the C.lifor," En,ironment.l Qu.lity Act (CEQA) j, the 19705, env; r{)nment a1 criteria ~ CMR:49J:O '1 _ \. , L '. '-.-- "::" . ~. , .,.: • ' .. \ I 1 ~~:~~i~;" ;" . -t " . , . ".'; Rev~n.ues Af[ected by Planni.':!3 Oeci~Lons-.1prQlliJ __ ~n_rov __ ~J~.l Sources of (it¥ revenU~5 that could be ~ost affected by new development or c~anges in ~se are 1) taxable sales revenue; 2J propert, ta~ revenue; and 3) transfent occupanc~ ta( revenue. T~e paragraphs below summarize t~e relative importance of these reveD-ties to tne. (it)'~ tI'leir prfncipal generators and factors .fretting their yariat;on and fluct~atfon. ~_te_~ Tu: R_~_venue~ 11 fiscal ,year ]989-90, saTes tax revenues for Palo Alto totalled SIC mOl iQn~ .. r.icia equates to appro'-:il7late11 24 percent of the Cit,)'~5 general fUnd revenues including utility fund transfers. ThE eits receives one cent on eac~ taxab1e sales dolra~_ Approximatel, two-thirds of this re~enue co~s fro~ ta~able retail sales and Dne-third comes fro~ business sales transactions_ Since PropOSition 11 (Jar~isJGann Ta~ i~;tlative} restrlcte1 increased propert~ taxes ~s I major source of additional revenue far munfcipalities. (aliforlii citffS~ including Palo Alto, ~ave increas;ngl, relied upon the sales tax as a ~ajor revenue generator. As a resolt of t~is increasing importance of sales ti~ revenues, t~e CitS retained ~unfcfpal Resource Consultants to tract and analyze taKable sales treR1$ withl. the entire Cit]. Wit~;~ t~js scope ~f work. t~e consultants are monitoriDg (our districts separately for taxable sales aeti,;t,: the Stanford Shopping (eRter, Downtown Palo Alto 7 the (alifortia Avenue Business Distr;ct and the Stanford Research Pari_ Table] below shows t~e ~ercentage Qf taxable sales for these districts f~ calendar year 1989. Tab!e I Percentage Palo A1to Sales Tax Revenues By DistTlct 1989 Downtown Palo Alto Stanford Shopping Center Califormfa A~enue Stanford R.s.ar'~ Park Other Tot.l Percent __ !~H_l __ IZ.O% 2,. 7~ 5.9\ lO.7X ~'c7,! 100.0% Tradltional retail sales activities (e.g., apparel, department stores, restaurants and auto sales) are responsible for generatlng most of the ta~able sales il Do~tQwn Pala Alto, Stanford Shopping Center and to a lesser degree il Califorlra Avenue. However. most Qf the Stanford Researc~ Park ta~able sales re~€nues orfginate from so-called busfness-to-business transactfons, rather than (rom sales transactions wit~ individuals or ~ousehold consumers. J~xabl! sales withi. tne retail sector also can be examined by business cllss;fication. e.g. apparel. general merchandi~, auto and eating and CMR:493:0 IlIIAna! ys/g,dsk 9/6/90 -Z- ~--'-----.--------------'-----,--' . '-'-'-"--, • \ • '.1 . ; I .... :.:. \ J"'j~ o drin\;ng~ lib'e 1]. pre~ared by Municipal Resource Consdltints. sho~s the total percentlgt of t~xable sales re~!~ues gene~ited by ~ajor retail categories for 'al. Alt. i. 1989. Tabl •• III and If compar. 'a10 Alto's relltf~e share Qf taxable sales O~ i per capita bas;s il ~ost of these citegorles~ -nth per capttl sales in these categories withj~ San ~ateD and Santa (lara CQ~ftt(es~ WhIle campetiti~n is incre~siog te both cQuntie$~ Palo Alto co~tfnues tD bold I significant share of the re9iona1 market 1! apparel, department store and fl restaurant taxable sales4 On the other ha~d. Palo A1tl falls below its nom!nal per capita share wit~i~ the t.a-county region for building ~at~rlil siles~ Tabl. II Percent.ge 'al. ~lt. Taxable S.l •• Rev.nu •• B, S.l •• Catega<, 1989 'able til Apparel De~artment St~res Drug 'Stores food Stores. L 1Quor Stores Restaurants fur.it~r~/Applicance Building ~at.rj.ls Automobile service Stltfons Other Retail Subtotal: Retail B~siness tD Business Tota 1 ,qevenues ,.1. Alto 'er Capita S.le. 'ersus San ~.teo County Per Capita Sales 19a9 -.p1'AAE\. 110ft.S, DE~ lYEWT IIlClA[I DRUIIl'OAI:I 1"000 1T0At' 't.\CIIJOI &la.w .. 1I1'~""'T' F~/,,",UAJIIC£ M/lu..tG 1W1Jt:IW.oIIl' "'-. 0.0% 11.3l1. 0.7:1. Z.3l1. 0.3% 10.2\ 3.0lI. 1.1% 10.6\ 2.2\ 11.7~ 66.0li. 31.~ 100.0li. Tabl. IV 'al0 Alto 'er Capita Sale. '.rsus Santa Clara County 'er CapIta Sales 198!1 N'~Sl:()g£' D!Ei"MTWENT nOR£I R:""ICE .JW1OtQ JILL O'HOI JIOIIIL jll!!!!l!!!I!!!I!l!!!!~ -1flO • fOCI 1001 110G ---;-o!;o-2600 1000 1lilE.lM. ~tI iPOLL~S DA\J11I aTOI'tEI '000 IntmCl UQlJO~ 1't0f'lE' ~E.&P\IJA...".nl FURNnm[/lV"PU~ IIUlLa..I(llIlJElfl."lL1 NollOlloe .. £ R-~~1W10Ha ALL OlHUI AE ..... IL l~~_~_,_. CMR,491:0 lmAnalys/gz<!st ~500 • e;o~ 100(1 1eioo .2000 2eoa ;tOOIt RtilA/'L '~I'..1 IIOLtAAS 9/6/90 -3- • i t t· I-, \ t I I i , ." -. .--- .·· ... 1·.> ...J" - • , , ./ . - ...:.:. ,-,-,,:,~--~ -<~_. 'L--= ___ ~.:._~ __ ~ __ n ..... ;;,._ ... _"-....... _~, __ -'.,:.~:?<~~JiI{ •• f o o lix~ble sales revenues. particwlarlJ retail sales, are frequ€ntlJ e~iluated on the amount of annull sile revenues genented per s.qlJare foot of floor irea. Table Y compares 1989 annual taxabl! sales revenues per square foot of floor irel for the entire Stanford S~opp;ng Center, selected block frontages alang Un'~erslt, Avenue ;g downtown Palo Alto, i selected block frontage on C.alifoTlfi Avenue and PiTo Alto's three neighborhood skopp\ng centers t Edgewood Shoppfng Center, (harlestan Center and Alma Plaza. Table' Sales Tax Revenue Per Square foot By Retail Sites floo< Are. (1989) Al~. PIau Charleston fIazl Edgewood Plaza Downtown (300-400 Blocks UnIY.) Sales Tax Revenue $ t $ $ 52,570 39,048 80,849 197,858 (iI' t fOrlia Avenue A'S 33,311 (310-414 (aliforll. Ave.) Stanford Shopping Ce.ter n,145,117 Annual Sales Tax floor Area Revenue Per _Sg"_O_'O Feet _~_floor Are. 55,SIO SO.95 31,972 SL03 58,031 SL39 100,301 Sl.97 19,664 SLll 1,400,000 S1.2S Nott: 'iCant stores, available for occupancy. were included ;~ the computations for sales data i~ this Table is well as occupied commerclal frontage ~ose ~ses do not generate taxable sales. Taxable sales revenU~$ generated OD a square foot basis vary substantially by ~istrlct as ~el1 is by areas wit"i~ a district. Thus s;tes along ~pr;me areas-~f Universit, Avenue have a \igh taxab1e sales yield per square foot of floof" area. wflereas Hie sales tax revenue yield for total commerci a1 floof' area 1. Downtown Palo ~lto ~ou'd be less t~an S .5D per ~ square foot because ~uc~ of this commercial floor area is not occupied by activities gener~ting taxable sales. Retail sales activities w1thi~ a c't1 SUCA as Palo Alto are affected by seasonal cycles. as well is business cycles. Seasonal retail cycles ~suallJ peak during the Chrjst~as shopping season. Regarding the effects of bus loess <JcTes, ~eQ the ~at;o"al and local econcmies are on upward growth curves. lOCil retail sales can be expected to increi~e on an annual basis. When the econo~jes are ·soft.~ local retlil saTes maj decline. Business sa1es are affected not onl, b1 b~s;ness tycles but also by uniQue needs of Tocal business sales clients. for example~ sales for spec1alized business ~ac~in~ry orders may not respond t~ or reflect any ~easurab1e business cycle. r_ re~Jew;ng a pr~Ject for potentia' sales ti~ revenues, professional land deweloprnent economists could project J range of taxabie sales for projects propos;~g traditional retiil ~ommercial spate. On the other hand. proJecting taxable ula revenues for proposed ofUce "s.es 'IIIou1d be ex.tremely diffi<:wlt, becau>E typicil cfffce functions, partjc~lar]1 l' Pil~ Alto, are service CHR:49l:0 ImAn, 11 s!gzdsl 9/6/90 -4- . ' . - '. . ~ .:: f;'~':) "'-'--"'~-~-" ~ . r , - . , o o oriented and IS ~ result ~re not generators of sales tax revenues. Nonet~eless* Dffices for busfness ~achfne salPi or ot~er b~lk ~aterial sales could and do generate substantial revenues I~r cit1es where the1 are located. Decisions regarding the location of sucb sales offices, under ~ost circumstances, are not affected by local ,lann1ng decisi9ns but rather ~y corporate needs and policies concerning t~e appr~priate location Df sue' sales affiees. Property Tax Re¥en~ Pala Alto·s propertJ tax revenues (or f$scal year 1989-90 tot,lled S7.43 .illfon, or 12.1 percent of t~e C;ty·s general (und revenues. Since t~e passage of PropOSition J3 fn 1918, Palo Alto's property tax ~ontribution to general fund re~enues ~as declined from a1most l4 percent i~ fiscal year 1971-18 to the c~rrent 12.1 percent. Nonetheless, the property ta~ is still a major source of revenue tD the City's general fu~d. Propertl tax revenue t~ a municipality originates from two principal sources: i) secured assessments Df land, bu1ldfngs, and leasehold improvements~ and 2J unsecured assessments ~blc~ are assessments on goods (e.g., eqUipment, ~e~icles, furliture) tnat are not physically attached to a structure. Revenues from secured property tax issessme~ts are partic~1arll iffected by P.·oposHiorl l3, becoit!.lse properties are not reassessed to Ilariet nl[Je unless owners~ip changes or properties ~n~ergo c~ange il USE. Unsecured property is assessed at 100 percent ~f marlet wal[Je during its first year of purc~l$e and t~e~ fs subject to ~ s~ort te~ straight-line deprecfition formula. As previousl, stated~ two factors t~at Cin change sec~red rtll propertJ tax revenues for a gi~eR prQ~ertl are title transfers and new development. As a resttt. the variation 11 propert} tax assessments between new development and .lder development that ~as not c~anged own~rshi~ ;s significant. Table YI c~ares as>essme~ts on a per square foot basis cf two prime office buildings in Palo Alt~, one constructed prior to 1978 that ~as ~~t undergone c~ange ~f ownersh19 and one constructed in 1983. Table WI Assessed ,.lue of Selected Office BuIldings (Average Yalue per Square foot of Floor Area) Site 52, University Ave. 400 Hamilton Ave. Assessed ¥alue S 9,245,943 S2Q,383,924 Average lalue floor Area Per Square foot _~~_~.:r-_~ ___ Fe!_t ___ Gf n~" Ar~ __ 201,279 97,740 S 45.94 S20e.S5 Newer buildings ~an easily generate 400 percent more f~ property ta~ revenue on a square footage basis than older buildings. As I result, if proposed projects are e~aluated il the isolited context of their potent ill property tax revenues. the new praject will usua11y demonstrate substant1ally .f9~er propertl tax revenue potentiil. The exception, of ~ourse, is ~here propertJ CMR:491:0 ImAnalys/gzdsk 9/6/90 ·5· 1 < I > \ , \ \. \ . \ .. "l:" -,. .. \ , J .1 J I - • / ____ .,.n.,~,.,.><1;~ ............ _=__~~P'__ ... -..._:_-_A-.. __._,.._~"':e_~~""':.~::~~::......, o o has rei:E'ntl, dla~ged title and .• presumahly. appreciited up to liMll lIlarket nlues. It shotll(j be noted t~at the noncomplying facilitJ pro'rlision appro lied by the Cou~il i. the 19a9 Citywide Study a'lo~s ~uildio9S exceeding existing site development regulations, e.g.~ t~e floor area ratio, t~ redevelop up to tne building~s present size. ]n situations where such buildings ~ave been completel1 rede~eloped and there ~as been a c~ange of use, reassess~nt will occur. Tr a n s i _~n J _~_t:: __ lJ_p_anc.t_r.~_~ The transient occupancy tiX is applied to all transient occupancies fn tne titJ~5 hotels, motels and bed and brea~fist 1nns for indi~id~a1 O~ familJ occupancies of up to 30 days in duration. The City's ta~ rite \s JO perc~nt of the per diem occupanC1 rate. The Cfty collected over Sl.9 millioo f~ transient occupancy tax re~enues during 89-90. These revenues accounted for )lmo~t ~ percent ~f the C,ty's general fund revenues. Whi1e the transient occupancy tax is not one nf the largEst re¥enue generaters for the City. hotels are major rewenue generators relatfve tG theiT number and size ift Palo Alto; and. unlike tne effects of mani commercial, office and industrial wses, hotel fu~ticns usual1s are not major centribut~rs to peak period traffic congestion. I~ te~s af specific revenue generation. two of Palo Alto~s first class botels i~ F1 1989-90 gener~ted over 52,000 per roorn lA transient occupancy tax rewenues. CollectfveTy, t~ey contributed over $].700 l 000 fa tAls period to the tityTs occupancy tax re~enues. IN additicnl Yirt~all1 all ffrst~class hotel facilities ~ave ancillary eating and drinkin~ establi~hments and~ on occasion, retail outlets. As a res~lt, they can also ~ontrlbute sales tax revenues to t~ls (it,. Since hotels are ~ajor reve~ue generators, special floor area Titio iocent,~es were approved in t~e Citywide Study for two sites, iickei's Hyatt and Dinah~s ~otor todge, in order to enco~rage their retentton and possible upgra1in9~ 'ariable factors affecting transient occupancy tax revenues are the relative <ompetitfon of hotels withiD a ~arket area tr.at extends beyond municfpal boundaries and local ind national business tides. Such blJs.iness <icles tan affect bot~ ~iscretionary tourist occupancies as well as business occupancies. ResotJr,-es fQ_r Revenue Impatt _____ ~_~_~_ly~ __ t~_ E~peris who forecast pote~tia.l revenues for new or expanded de~elopment traditionall, are land use ind deve10pment econ~rnists. Currentl~ the City does not ha~e tAls expertise witbin the organfzation. Several options are aYiilab1e (or obtalling such information if the (ouneil believes it would be valaable ;~ the fwture prDject review process. The {ity can h1re staff ~t~ s~h expertise; it can contract wit~ firms wit~ such expe~tise to prepare estimated rewenue forecasts; or it can require applicants to submit suc~ re~enue for~casts when prQj~ct proposals are submitted for re~iew and approval. In the latter situation, the City (ould select the cons~Ttant and have the services paid for b~ tne applicant. [stimated cons~ltant costs per project stirt it $5.000 -and vary roo~e ~ith the complexity of a ~roject t~an wiUl its sc.a1e. CHR;493;O llllAn. 1y s/gzdst 9/6/90 -6- C • ' •• ,,,,,: .. ~ ", .. ", .. t~ -, - . - ' .... -.-, - o () Options for Considering Rey~_~_~acts T~is report ~as identified (it1 revenues that could be aff~eted ~1 Plannfng deefsfons. partfc~lar71 at the project review level~ The f~11ow;n9 paraqraphs discuss several options available t~ the Cit, f. detenli~fn9 where such revenue impacts s~ould be considered i. future Planning decfsions~ At t~e out~t. projects consistent Wit~ current ~olfcies and F€gulations, and thus Dot requiriDg I lone c~ange~ do not appear s~itable for revenue impact analysis. On t~e ot~er hand~ major projects requiring Comprehe~sfve Plan ~ndments and/or zone changes* would ippear to be s~ltabTe tandidates for revenue impact analysis. I~ addition. it s~e~s equitable t~at 5UC~ costs for revenue i~pact analysls bf borne by t~e applicant, 9ive~ t~e usual sCile of .uc~ pr.ject. and the pot.ntiol gal' to be rf.li,ed b1 the applicant. Nonetheless, requiring a comprehensi~e ff~al impact analysis of suc~ projects t whic. would include a forecast Df public costs is well as a forecast of potenth,l revenues. to the (it1, 111 most situations )o;o1Jld not appear necessary. Pale Alto is i de~eloped communit1 t~at ~a$ the necessary i~frastructbre and a fill level of public services. Therefore J most public <Qsts added by Dew development would be incremental and relativelJ small~ Another candidate for re~enue impatt analysiS would be specfal area studies that afe ewalaating ~ajor c~anges i~ land use and development policies. The i.tent Qf suc~ inalYiis would be to obtaf. a prQjettion of possi~le revenues t~ the tit" assum1~9 the market place would respond positYel, t~ the land use c~anges under consideration. A mo~e aggressfve opt'OQ il deter.i.ing re~enue impacts, and one that is mut.all, exclwsive from the options aiscussed above. would be to consider t~e recr~itment of limited prifeisfonal services to IJ identif1 potentfal revenue opportunities. i. the Ctf, withi~ the context Df existing CitJ Jand ~se ,lannfng policies and regulations, and 2J determine what actions ~ould be necessa~y i~ order to ~ax;mile these re~~nue opportunities. Conclusions DO Revenue Impact An.!-.hsis _Qptt9!1~ tcnsl~erition of City revenue impacts is i 1egitimate ?~rt cf the 'lanning land ~se and project approval process, partfc~'arl, ~~~re prDjects Dr area $tudi~s require or are like1, to result in Cnmprehensive Plan and Zone ~ap cnanges. ~owever, IS! ~f revenue forecasts should be considered ia the context ~f ill City land ~~ planning policies and regulitions r.ther than ~aving decisions focus principall, on p~tent;al revenues. Jf the Council ~shes ta proceed 11 considering reven~e impacts il the aforeme~tioned are.s l considEritfon also ~ll ha~e to be giveQ il determiBiog sources fo~ fi~a~cing sue' .n.l)sls. As stated e~rlier. staff belie~es it is .pprO?rilt~ and equitable te require applf,ants ~f projects requiring major discretionary approvals to assume the costs for s~c~ revenue impact analysis. On the mth~r ~and, if the (;t, wishes t~ consider revenue impacts fl future special area studies, it wl\l bave to commit the ~ecessar~ resources for suc\ analysls~ If in evalaation of potentia' revenue opportunities is p~rsued, one area that c(luld benefit froll Sl.Iclri prgfessiol'iil expertisa would' be an assessment elf the ~ece~tl1 approved botel overlay lone il the Cit)'s zoning regulations. Suc\ an assessment could determine ~~ether the current loniDg pro~isions are indeed apprnpriite incentives, and determine whether other nonreSidential sites would be .,it.ble for it. application. OIR:493:e l.oAn a11s!gzdsk ,',., ~, 9/6/90 -7- • ; 'f :'.'1'=- :~ • . -,' , '." ' rl .·.··~r~c " , ,-.~ :'Ii:~~( , . , . • .- ,/ : '~ _, ___ --.i. __ ~ ______ -:::.. __ ~~...:""__I>" • .,_..:_~>!',,~~~4~1i_~ .. ¢~_!5.._~: -... o o Based Oft the precedi~g dlscwssiQn~ staff recamm~nds t~al the f,~ance and Publfc Works Committee recommend the fo11o~;ng options regarding revenue impact a~a'Jsfs be approved by the (ity Council: 1. That t~e Cit, require revenue impact analys's prepaTation fDr ~ajor development proposals requiring Comprehensive PTan and lone ~ap c~anges and that the applicant assume preparatfoo CQsts. and 2~ T~at the Cit1 allocate ~ecessary resources for revenue impact anaiysis preparation on f~ture spec1al area studies that have potential for sfgnificantlJ affecting Cit,. revenues. further, that the finance and Public Woris Committee reQ~est that stiff return t. the Committee .Itk I drlrt ~equ.st For Proposal (RFP} and estimated budget for obtifn;ng Ji~ited professional services tc: 1. Identtf, potential revenue opportunities iR tne (it, wit~i. t~e context of existing titJ plannlng policies and r~ul1tio"s, and 2. Determine what act inns would be ~e,essary 1m order t~ maximize thnse revenue opportunlties. Respectr.ll, ,u~itt.d. ~c tfORGf ll~~ ~t;lr.al-/: .Jd;//k- KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ----~ Director ~f Planning and Assistant Flann; _~ Official ~, . , I ;;:z cc: anning Commission ~ltecturil Review Board C amber of Commerce Communltl Envtronment Stanforl Oo;Yer,ltl (Su S~'ff.r. And] Dotl. Pbil Williams) Barron Park .Asso<:htio~1 Chestnut-Vl1ton Homeowners AS50ciition (.ClIl1 ege Terrace Nef g'hborbood AHOC; at; all Greenacres Improvement A5s~iati~n Ho~~er Plrk Neighborhood Association r~terdale Way Ho.eowners AS$O<lation Leland Manor AssO(iation ~idto.n lIe,t Old Trace Neighbor~ood Pill ~lto ~;lls Romeowners Assocfation Committee for GreeR foothills Jentora .Nefghf:lorbood Association~ David Jecng renturi R!ignborbood Associitio~~ Penn1 Petrosian Yalnut Gro~e Homeowners Associatio~ W~bster Court Homeown~rs A5soc;itTO~ tr,irrleston Meadows fieighborhood ASSOCiation. Jane Barrett CMR;493;~ 'roAn.lys!gzdsk .. 9/6/90 ·8· , f., '\J>'~ ~ '- ?~<. . . ./ o o CharlestDn ~adows Nefghbor~ood Association$ Jean Almsted Downtown North Kefghborhood Assoclition Eyergree~ Park Neighborhood Association Greea ~adow Commun1t, Assocfation 'rriter ~jranda C~n;t~ A$soclation Southgate Nelshborbood Stin(or~ ~fd-PeAfAsdla Urban Coalition Vest Bayshore Resfdents Association Greena<:res II Jordon/Garland Refghborhood Mont. lorna Neighborhood Assoc1ation Southgate Neighborhood Univers;tl Park Association Universit, and Crescent Par~ ~ssocfition ,,1. Alta Housing Corparition Steve 'hyer David JlJry James Saer keenan land Company CMR:493:0 lmAnalys/gldst )i~fr~·-·----· -_.; '~ 'J£/90 -,- \ •