1 / 18

KNIGHTON & CHURN CREEK COMMONS RETAIL CENTER

KNIGHTON & CHURN CREEK COMMONS RETAIL CENTER. March 2012. Project Overview. Knighton & Churn Creek Perspective. Why are we here today?. Measure A – YES Referendum to uphold BOS Resolution 2011-091 allowing development of proposed Knighton and I-5 project. Measure B – NO

petra
Download Presentation

KNIGHTON & CHURN CREEK COMMONS RETAIL CENTER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KNIGHTON & CHURN CREEK COMMONS RETAIL CENTER March 2012

  2. Project Overview

  3. Knighton & Churn Creek Perspective

  4. Why are we here today? • Measure A – YES • Referendum to uphold BOS Resolution 2011-091 allowing development of proposed Knighton and I-5 project. • Measure B – NO • Initiative to restrict Zoning changes to any land in 5,000 acres until 2036 and prevent CEQA review of this Measure.

  5. Why is this project good for you and your community? • Reduction of unemployment • 1647 Permanent Jobs • $52-74,000,000 annual wages & benefits • 500 Construction Jobs • $135,000,000 Privately Funded Project Costs • $2,000,000+ Annual General Fund Revenue Increase • $400,000+ Annual School Revenue Increase • $800,000+ Annual Public Safety Revenue (Prop 172) • $4,700,000+ Project Impact Fees • $2,600,000+ Privately Funded Public Improvements to local roads • $4,000,000+ Privately Funded Sewer & Water System

  6. Why is this project good for you and your community? • Traffic Ramp Improvements constructed upfront • Sustainable Building Designs • Photovoltaic Systems • Electric Car Charging Systems • Exceed California Green Building Standards • EIR Complies with CEQA and General Plan • More discretionary income to spend at other businesses in the community • Creates Indirect Jobs and Businesses to support Project Businesses

  7. Measure A – Why is this project good for the City of Redding? • Traffic Ramp Improvements Needed to enhance businesses within City • Not a “Mall” but a regional based Shopping Center • Different tenant mix, different target customer, traveler services • There is minimal shift of sales revenue from City to County with a negligible effect on City tax revenues • Regional Trade Area is undersupplied with Regional Retail by approx. 1,200,000 SF • Development does not create conditions of urban decay • Capturing unspent dollars in the trade area and from I-5 customers • 25% of retail expenditures are occurring outside of the Trade Area • Stronger County services enhance City services • Public Safety, Social Services and Mental Health, Realignment Source: Urban Decay Analysis prepared Oct. 2009

  8. Redding, CA Trade Area With Unique Destination Retailer Map III

  9. Measure A YES

  10. Measure B – Why is “B” Bad for Redding and Shasta County? • Disregards Private Property Rights • Contrary to General Plan • No EIR under CEQA for 5,000 acres frozen • Removes utilization of key interchange for other than residential • Stops improvements to Knighton interchange sufficient to support City projects by Airport • Stops new jobs (County & City) • Establishes poor planning practices

  11. Measure B – Why is “B” Bad for Redding and Shasta County? • Exempts Churn Creek Bottom from having to comply with State Law • Stops additional funding for Pacheco Elementary • Direct Impact to community • Foregone $50,000,000 in General Fund Revenue • Foregone $20,000,000 in Public Safety Revenue (Prop 172) • Foregone $11,000,000 in K-12 School Revenue • Nobody actually knows the residual impact to County and City because it was not studied!

  12. Measure B – Why is “B” Bad for Redding and Shasta County? • Creates further stress on the quality of County services, diminishing quality of life for all citizens • Cost to taxpayer to amend policy by voters of Shasta County • $20,000-$300,000 per election • Cost to taxpayer to defend if challenged in court • $100,000-$500,000 • All this over 86 acres? <0.02% of total agricultural land in Shasta County • What’s next?

  13. Measure B NO

  14. What does Measure B prevent? The Project (period) • It does not provide any more protection of agricultural lands than currently exists • It prevents many Churn Creek Bottom land owners from expanding their agricultural operations (Full Time Agriculture) due to zoning restriction • It prevents the comprehensive regional planning as required by State Statute

  15. Endorsement Measure A – YES Measure B - NO

  16. Benefits of the Project • Private Investment • $4,792,000 Total Impact Fees • $347,000 School Impact Fees • $3,163,000 Traffic Impact Fees • $690,000 Fire Protection Impact Fees • $592,000 Other County Fees • $809,000 Prop. 172 Public Safety Sales Tax • $400,000 annual taxes for public schools • $135,000,000 Project Construction

  17. Benefits of the Project • Jobs & Wages/Benefits • Increase Tax Revenues • Implementing Long Term Planning Decisions • Proper Size to meet Regional Retail Demands • Proper Location • Central to trade area and I-5 corridor • Complementary Location to Existing Retail Core • Green Building Elements • Economic Development – Direct & Indirect • Meets CEQA Requirements

  18. Proposed Construction Value • Site Work and On-site Infrastructure $30,000,000 • Infrastructure $7,000,000 • Structures $88,000,000

More Related