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◦Initiative to restrict Zoning changes

to any land in 5,000 acres until 2036 and prevent CEQA review of this Measure.

Why is this project good for you and your community?Reduction of unemployment1647 Permanent Jobs

◦ $52-74,000,000 annual wages & benefits500 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

Why is this project good for you and your community?Traffic Ramp Improvements constructed

upfrontSustainable Building Designs

◦ Photovoltaic Systems◦ Electric Car Charging Systems◦ Exceed California Green Building Standards

EIR Complies with CEQA and General PlanMore discretionary income to spend at

other businesses in the communityCreates Indirect Jobs and Businesses to

support Project Businesses

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

Redding, CATrade Area With Unique Destination RetailerMap III

Measure A

YES

Measure B – Why is “B” Bad for Redding and Shasta County?Disregards Private Property RightsContrary to General Plan No EIR under CEQA for 5,000 acres frozenRemoves utilization of key interchange for

other than residentialStops improvements to Knighton

interchange sufficient to support City projects by Airport

Stops new jobs (County & City)Establishes poor planning practices

Measure B – Why is “B” Bad for Redding and Shasta County?Exempts Churn Creek Bottom from having

to comply with State LawStops additional funding for Pacheco

ElementaryDirect 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 RevenueNobody actually knows the residual impact

to County and City because it was not studied!

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?

Measure B

NO

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

Endorsement

Measure A – YES

Measure B - NO

Benefits of the ProjectPrivate 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

Benefits of the ProjectJobs & Wages/BenefitsIncrease Tax RevenuesImplementing Long Term Planning DecisionsProper Size to meet Regional Retail DemandsProper Location

◦ Central to trade area and I-5 corridorComplementary Location to Existing Retail

CoreGreen Building ElementsEconomic Development – Direct & IndirectMeets CEQA Requirements

Proposed Construction ValueSite Work and On-site

Infrastructure $30,000,000

Infrastructure $7,000,000

Structures $88,000,000